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.
This weekend I had the opportunity to meet the newly confirmed head of Civil Rights enforcement at DOJ. I reminded her that Princeton’s president has admitted the University is racist, and that it has failed to follow recent Supreme Court precedent about college admissions. Princeton’s notorious hubris calls out for judicial retribution.
#11. Reform the Board of Trustees nominations and composition to allow alumni (other than the preselected nominees) an opportunity to campaign and have a meaningful governance role.
Princeton should be in the crosshairs and Eisgruber is a disgrace.
Supporting terror groups, using (the threat of) violence to cow others with contrary views (which is what a terrorist does) etc. is not “free speech”. Princeton did poorly in the face of such behavior and are backpedaling (a little) only because of potential financial consequences. Your moral compass is broken. The faculty has for years been leaning further and further left. Fixing such a deep problem will take a President with an actual moral compass and a serious backbone. Does Eisgruber have it?
Free speech, great. Even for our visitors and visiting students. However, violent takeovers of buildings, harassment of Jewish students and pro Israel students, intimidation, and organized interaction and planning with terrorist groups is not acceptable behavior for anyone, least of all our visitors.
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal
New York Post
Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.
Marta Richards '73 P04
April 11, 2025
I am in more and more despair as the Princeton administration doubles down on its woke and anti-free speech policies. I would not pay to breach the NY Times paywall but there is apparently a congratulatory article about Eisgruber’s handling of the Trump administration and the Bennett speech. I guess most of the buildings I knew at Princeton are still there but the place is unrecognizable to me. As I say, it seems to get worse daily or at least it is getting exposed more daily. Some say it is that the Arab countries are funding the university. I have no idea where all this came from (allthough I know it started with Tilghman) but I think Eisgruber needs to be replaced. But as another commentator said above, the Board of Trustees is handpicked by the administration so that will never happen, or if it does it will be on Eisgruber’s own timetable and the replacement will likely be someone like that Gay woman who was at Harvard. My son graduated in ’04 but I hope his two boys (very young now) never aspire to attend, unless there is a total turnaround. Better to go to Vanderbilt or a southern state university where white males are not looked upon as born racists.