Your Cart is Empty
Greg Arzoomanian
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Ten years ago, Princeton’s Board of Trustees established a special committee to consider the usage of Woodrow Wilson’s name at Princeton. That work resulted in the ultimate removal of Wilson’s name from the School of Public and International Affairs, and the creation of a “Committee on Naming” of the Council of the Princeton University Community to consider similar future issues.
One naming that especially deserves consideration has to be Princeton’s “Atatürk Professorship in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies,” which is named for Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey and anti-Armenian figure that inspired Nazi ideology. Just as Princeton exempted Wilson’s name from celebration due to his racist ideologies, it must do the same for the Atatürk Professorship: It must be retired.
By Marisa Warman Hirschfield ‘27
“STUPID AND UGLY WINDMILLS ARE KILLING NEW JERSEY,” wrote President Trump in a recent Truth Social post. “STOP THE WINDMILLS.” A likely interpretation is that Trump blames wind power for New Jersey's 28% energy price hike.
David Montgomery ‘83
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: The federal government has recently restored about half of the research grants to Princeton scientists that were disrupted this year, including a large batch suspended in early April, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 told PAW in an interview. The multi-year grants suspended in April totaled approximately $200 million when they were initially awarded, though some of the money had already been disbursed by the time they were suspended.
Most of the several dozen grants that were frozen in April came from the Department of Energy, but they also included funding from other agencies, such as NASA and the Department of Defense. About half of the grants and half the funding have been restored, Eisgruber said. The University has never learned the full rationale for why the grants were suspended.
Abigail Anthony
National Review
Excerpt: At Princeton University, students who want to help manage the dormitories evidently need to be schooled first on the “Four I’s of Oppression.”
National Review obtained recordings and documents from the two mandatory “DEI training” sessions this week. They provide a window into how, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to purge such programming from campus life, DEI is alive and well at some of the most elite universities.
Jamie Saxon
Princeton University News
Excerpt: President Christopher L. Eisgruber welcomed transfer and first-year students to Princeton on Tuesday as new members of a scholarly community where people of every background should feel welcome to engage in vigorous discussion and debate, grounded in the University’s “bold and powerful” free speech protections.
Eisgruber encouraged incoming students to engage across differences of opinion, even when it makes them uncomfortable, noting that “discomfort can sometimes generate understanding and insight.”
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.
