Your Cart is Empty
Princetonians for Free Speech
Since the terrorist attack on Israel and the invasion of Gaza, several universities have been prominently featured in the national news for protests, sometimes violent, on their campuses and for antisemitic acts. Princeton had protests and instances of antisemitism, but these were nowhere near the level of what occurred at some schools, such as Columbia and Harvard. At PFS, we believe this was in part because Princeton set forth clear standards in advance for protests on campus. It should have come as no surprise that two of the first schools the Trump Administration went after to freeze grants were Columbia and Harvard.
But the situation has changed in recent weeks, and Princeton is now clearly in the cross hairs of the Trump Administration, much more in the national spotlight, and facing its own financial pressures. Consider the following:
Third, in a high-profile article inThe Atlantic, soon after the Trump Administration froze grants to Columbia and made specific demands on that university in order to have the freeze eliminated, President Eisgruber strongly defended the role of universities and criticized the actions of the Trump Administration.
Fourth, Eisgruber is the current chair of the Association of American Universities (AAU), a position that makes him a principal defender of universities across the country. AAU will certainly be drawn into the on-going battle between the Trump Administration and many universities. If fact, the AAU issued a strong statement on March 31 against the Trump Administration policy of freezing grants. The AAU said: “The withdrawal of research funding for reasons unrelated to research sets a dangerous and counterproductive precedent.”
Fifth, while Princeton has in recent months taken some actions to strengthen its stance on free speech, including a robust defense of free speech in the orientation at the beginning of this school year, it has not acted on either of two hot button issues that other leading universities have addressed: institutional neutrality and removing litmus tests for hiring faculty and for faculty reviews. Princeton is becoming an outlier on these important issues, as more and more peer institutions take action.
Sixth, Princeton’s rather dismal FIRE free speech ranking will be noted by the Trump Administration and Congress. Princeton ranked 223 out of 251.
Seventh, Princeton may well be facing a very public civil rights suit over its admissions process. After the recent Supreme Court decision on admissions policies, the demographics of Princeton’s acceptances changed very little, while there were significant changes in the demographics of peer institutions. Legal experts have told us this will draw scrutiny from Trump officials.
It is a most difficult period for many universities. Their reputations are under attack. In some cases, alumni contributions and student applications are down. The Trump Administration is freezing huge amounts of grants and contracts. A large increase in the current very small (1.4 percent) endowment income tax is likely to be enacted. And there is a real threat of civil rights suits that will be expensive to defend. Up until recently, Princeton has avoided the spotlight, but that is no longer the case.
In fact, President Eisgruber has increased his public appearances. He is obviously seeking the spotlight to make his points. Some applaud him for taking principled stances. On the other hand, in the current atmosphere, he definitely risks drawing the close attention of the Trump Administration to Princeton.
The near-term future for Princeton is filled with land mines. At PFS, we have been working since 2020 to help Princeton position itself as a leader on free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity. For example, we have proposed our Top Ten actions Princeton should take and urged Princeton to adopt them. We have also provided the University with information on how to dramatically improve its FIRE ranking.
In recent months the number of alumni subscribers to our website has swelled to over 7,000, and we are confident it will be over 10,000 in a few months. These are alumni who want to be informed about the critical issues that will affect the very future of Princeton and who want to be in a position to have their voices heard when needed. We urge you to join this alumni movement by subscribing to our PFS newsletters and reports and especially to urge your alumni friends to do the same.
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.
