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.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
