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
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.
