PAW BOARD MUST KEEP ITS EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

July 24, 2021 2 min read

In the July edition of the Princeton Alumni Weekly, known to alumni as PAW, the Chair of PAW’s Board, Marc Fisher, discusses in a letter to readers the efforts of Princeton to bring PAW under greater control of the University. While there may be legitimate reasons for some of the changes proposed by the University, it is very disturbing that the University at this point has not agreed to guarantee the continuing editorial independence of PAW.

As we stated in a letter published in PAW’s “In Box,” we believe all alumni should support Mr. Fisher’s efforts to maintain independent editorial control. We strongly agree with his statement that “PAW maintains and strengthens alumni engagement with Princeton through respectful and open discussion of University events and policies – an especially vital role in this time of national and campus debate about the nature of free speech.”

In recent months, we have seen the beginnings of a movement among alumni of universities to organize to promote free speech and academic freedom on their campuses, as Princetonians for Free Speech is doing for Princeton. As we discuss issues and concerns with these other alumni groups, one troubling trend is that universities are slowly moving to limit the independence of alumni groups and to bring the administration of such groups under the control of the university. Mr. Fisher’s letter to alumni alludes to this trend in discussing what other universities have done recently to limit the independent role of alumni publications.

Alumni should, and now must more than ever, have a strong voice in determining the direction of universities, especially private ones. Universities should not become solely captives of administrators and faculty, but that is the trend. A great university like Princeton should be more than that. An independent PAW is critical to allow other voices to be heard. It should stay “a magazine by alumni for alumni.” If the administration moves to kill PAW’s independent editorial control, it will send a signal to all Princeton alumni that your voices do not really count any more.

Edward L. Yingling, ’70 and Stuart Taylor, Jr. ’70, on behalf of Princetonians for Free Speech

Leave a comment


Also in Princeton Free Speech News & Commentary

Eisgruber and the AAU should advocate for gun reform
Eisgruber and the AAU should advocate for gun reform

December 17, 2025 1 min read

The shooting at Brown is deeply tragic. But it is not the time for mere thoughts and prayers. It hasn’t been for decades. As another Ivy League university, this moment calls for Princeton to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Brown shooting by pushing for significant reform to fight violence. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 is uniquely equipped as the past chair and active board member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) — an organization with a precedent of condemning gun violence — to lobby for gun reform policies on the national and state level.

Read More
Is Fizz Good or Bad for Princeton’s Campus Discourse?
Is Fizz Good or Bad for Princeton’s Campus Discourse?

December 16, 2025 4 min read 1 Comment

A discussion about Fizz and the role of social media in our discourse took place at Princeton University on December 3rd, 2025, hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and funded by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), While the discussion has been lauded as an example of what can come about through open and civil exchange of ideas, several questions remain worth considering. What is the place of anonymous speech in our society? Should someone take responsibility for the things they say? Or has our public discourse been hollowed out by social media to the point where online commentary should be considered performative?

Read More
Hollow Rules: The Ivy League’s Mixed Messaging on Campus Disruption

December 11, 2025 8 min read 1 Comment

Tal Fortgang ‘17

When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”

Read More