Your Cart is Empty
Below is a link to our first podcast, a 52-minute interview of Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings scholar and journalist who is one of America’s sharpest and most original thinkers, by Stuart Taylor Jr., president of Princetonians for Free Speech. The subject is Jonathan’s highly acclaimed new book, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. It is a deep dive into how Western thinkers have used evidence and logic since the enlightenment to determine what is true and what is false, making possible enormous progress in science, medicine, philosophy, politics, law, and other human affairs.
Most important for today’s world, Rauch explains the threats to all this progress, to the health of what he calls the reality-based community, and even to our way of life, from the Trumpist “firehose of falsehoods” on the far right and the totalitarian cancel culture that is coming to dominate academia, the news media, and other educated elites on the left. The book includes a muscular defense of free speech, which is vital to the constitution of knowledge.
The many glowing reviews include those of columnist George Will, who calls Rauch “a James Madison for this era,” and former American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen, who says: “Starting from first principles and applying them to headlines as recent as the storming of the U.S. Capitol in 2021, The Constitution of Knowledge provides the map we've been waiting for.”
April 2, 2025 Roundtable
Should Universities Engage in Politics? A Roundtable Discussion on Academic Freedom and Institutional Neutrality
Anton Ford, Randall Kennedy, and Keith Whittington
Princeton Council on Academic Freedom
Excerpt: Please join us for a wide-ranging conversation about the philosophical and political stakes of academic neutrality, academic activism, and academic freedom - and the ways in which they intersect. Numerous peer institutions have recently adopted neutrality policies, which prohibit universities from adopting positions on political and social matters not directly tied to the mission of the university. Yet the merits of neutrality, as well as its feasibility, remain highly contested.
This event brings together three leading scholars who hold a range of differing positions on these questions in order to discuss whether, when, and how universities should take institutional stances on social and political issues, and the implications of such stances for academic freedom.
Elisabeth Stewart and Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) announced on Wednesday that a proposal for the University to cut financial ties with entities implicated in “Israel’s illegal occupations, apartheid practices, and plausible acts of genocide” will not move forward, citing a lack of campus consensus.
Student advocates across campus reacted to the decision with frustration, disappointment, and support. But one sentiment they did not express was consensus — about the issue, about the Committee’s decision, or even about the process behind it.
John T. Groves
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Nine months ago in The Daily Princetonian, I described how the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community, which I chair, would take up a divestment and dissociation request related to the State of Israel.
I outlined our approach, promising it would include careful consideration of input from the broad University community, and cautioning that it might be a lengthy process. That process has concluded, and the Committee has decided against forwarding a dissociation recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
