Your Cart is Empty
By Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley's Blog
Excerpt: A new survey by Princetonians for Free Speech shows that roughly three-fourths of students believe that it is acceptable to shout down a speaker. The distressing results are consistent with other studies and surveys that have been discussed on this blog. Of course, some faculty maintain that it is better to “shoot down rather than shout down” conservatives.
While the university has emphasized the need to support free speech, Princeton’s President, Christopher Eisgruber, sent a mixed message this year in his speech at the freshman orientation session focused on free expression. He warned that “opponents of diversity and inclusion are sometimes using outrageous speech to provoke a backlash.” Blaming conservatives for tensions is a curious way to call for speech tolerance.
Click here for link to full article
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.
