Academic Freedom at Princeton

By Isabel Yip
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: With a looming Supreme Court decision that experts predict will strike down affirmative action, University President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 maintained that the University will find ways to achieve a diverse campus in an annual address to alumni delivered during Reunions.

By Ronen Shoval
Minding the Campus

Excerpt: In 1927, Julien Benda’s The Treason of the Intellectuals denounced those who would forsake truth in service of political aims. Nearly a century later, as a researcher and lecturer at Princeton University, I’m embroiled in a modern-day version of Benda’s tale. Indeed, I have become the target of a campaign to eradicate intellectual diversity on campus.

By Michael Poliakoff
Forbes

Excerpt: Is it education or indoctrination? A credibility gap concerning such basic professional ethics imperils the reputation of colleges and universities and for public institutions could well affect a state legislature’s funding decisions. And data from new surveys, each asking an overlapping range of questions about freedom of expression on campus, are disquieting.

By Bill Hewitt '74
Princeton Alumni Weekly

Excerpt: Thanks to the PAW for providing much needed coverage to the highly important – and timely – April 21 scholarly symposium “John Witherspoon in Historical Context.” This symposium provided important new information about Witherspoon’s relation to slavery. Additionally, I found the symposium an example of Princeton at its best in its earnest and forthright evaluation of certain controversial aspects of Witherspoon’s life and legacy.

By Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor, Jr.
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: In its May 2 article entitled “A decade later: a split legacy for Eisgruber,” the Daily Princetonian erred in saying that “Edward Yingling ’70 and Stuart Taylor ’70, co-founders of Princetonians for Free Speech” (PFS) argued that Eisgruber’s decision to fire then-professor Joshua Katz would “destroy Princeton’s acclaimed free speech rule” — making the free speech rule one that would protect only a small subset of the speech that the rule’s language and intent clearly do protect.