Your Cart is Empty
Editor's note: Below is an excerpt of and link to an important statement issued by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, the student free speech group at Princeton University.
POCC Statement in Academic Freedom in Light of Campus News
Princeton Open Campus Coalition
Princeton University contributes to society through truth seeking, a pursuit necessitating academic freedom and institutional neutrality. Yet recent discussion of an upcoming Princeton course has prompted us, as leaders of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC), to reiterate the truth-seeking mission and how it functions on Princeton’s campus.
This fall, the Department of Near Eastern Studies (NES) is offering a course from Assistant Professor Satyel Larson titled “The Healing Humanities: Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South.” Dr. Larson’s inclusion of one book—Jasbir Puar’s The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability—has stirred controversy for its claims about the Israeli Defense Forces. Earlier this month, Dr. Larson’s course began receiving critical attention from various news sites concerned about material in Puar’s book they deemed harmful and antisemitic.
Last week, Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister wrote to Princeton’s President, Chistropher Eisgruber, requesting that the book be removed from the syllabus and that “discriminatory” materials be excluded from all future Princeton courses. On Monday, the Princeton Center for Jewish Life released a statement urging Dr. Larson and the NES Department to “reconsider the impact of [the] text and to explore alternative ways to teach” because The Right to Maim “could do real harm to Jewish students on our campus.” It is these objections that have raised critical questions concerning academic freedom and its place on Princeton’s campus.
Princeton University expects every professor to abide by the highest standards of scholarship in their discipline when conducting research and teaching students. Facts should be presented as facts, opinions as opinions, and all should be fair game for reasoned debate without viewpoint retaliation. We hope and assume this bar was met when Dr. Larson’s course was approved by the NES Department. Beyond this requirement, professors have complete freedom to construct their syllabi as they see fit.
Consequently, Dr. Larson is entitled to teach whatever books and topics she wants in her course, so long as students can form their own educated assessments of the material. This is true even if her choices are unpopular amongst students, governments, or other organizations. Academic freedom gives both students and professors the opportunity to contribute to the University’s mission of truth seeking, and that opportunity is extended to Dr. Larson. Princeton cannot justly compel changes in her syllabus based on objections to one book’s perspectives. Rather, the University exists to facilitate learning and discussion of controversial topics, which necessitates allowance of such texts in the context of honest academic exploration.
But this does not leave opponents of the course without alternatives. Organizations that see themselves as advocating for Jewish students and voices—or any other organization or individual, for that matter—are welcome to critique the content of Puar’s book, suggest alternative or additional readings that they believe would improve the course, and “counterprogram” by hosting speakers and reading groups. To be sure, Dr. Larson’s course and its opponents can function symbiotically to promote open debate in pursuit of truth on Princeton’s campus.
Signed,
Danielle Shapiro Rebecca Roth Marie Riddle Benjamin Woodard
President, POCC Vice-President, POCC Secretary, POCC Treasurer, POCC
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, top colleges and universities have faced an onslaught of federal attacks: slashing grant money for research, pressuring schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, cracking down on visas for international students, and ending graduate program sponsorship for active duty military at top schools. However, some Ivy League universities — the center of many of Trump’s ongoing attacks — have decreased messaging on the potential consequences of these federal directives.
“One thing that’s been clear is that a lot of universities have felt that publicity would bring no advantage or do them no good,” history professor David Bell GS ’91, who has been outspoken about federal actions against universities, said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.
As a professor who is known to dissent from progressive ideologies that are dominant at universities such as Princeton, where I’ve taught for nearly 40 years, I’m frequently asked by students for advice about how to navigate a campus they worry will be hostile to them. Some are pro-Israel, or politically and socially conservative, or religiously observant.
They fear being treated unfairly by faculty members who are hostile to their beliefs. Many are afraid of being regarded as outcasts by their more liberal or progressive peers. They worry about being excluded from academic opportunities or not treated equitably in social or other extracurricular activities. To these students I say, with regret: You’re right to worry. I’ve seen these things happen.
Universities may be tempted to treat these capabilities as inevitable improvements in education. Students will be able to consume vast amounts of information, more than ever before. But like AI writing itself, such consumption would be vast but shallow. The more interesting possibility, then, is that AI will force universities to rediscover the value of intellectual work that cannot be outsourced.
