Institutional Governance & Accountability

Howard Sereda ‘78
Princeton Alumni Weekly

Excerpt: President Eisgruber calls on Princetonians to “Speak Up for Princeton and for Higher Education” and to be “an ambassador for Princeton and for higher education” (“President’s Page,” March issue). I would reply “Yes (mostly)” to the first, but absolutely “No” to the other.

I’m grateful to Princeton for the opportunities it afforded me. But what the president misses is how deeply he and his colleagues have entered the American partisan fray and joined the combat he laments. It’s not surprising; viewed from “across the pond,” virtually every American and every American institution seems to have become engulfed in the civil war convulsing American culture and society, whilst protesting their neutrality.

Luqmaan Bamba
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: Despite ample opportunities on campus to connect across class and culture, Princeton students often cluster in groups of similar kinds of people. As a result, we often inadvertently form bubbles closed to those who do not share our identities. Less formally and in everyday campus life, a clique-centered social life can be the norm. As students, we must work harder to reach out to those who are different from us and to form a more interconnected campus community.

Abigail Rabieh
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: When the Indian government banned TikTok almost 4 years ago, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised the measure as something that would “boost India’s sovereignty.” Now, the U.S. government is contemplating a bill that could do the same. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would, if it became a bill, force TikTok Inc., a U.S. company, to find a new parent company that “satisfies the U.S. government” or risk a ban in the United States.

Much of the current outrage on this bill might appeal to college students — of which 82 percent use the app — because it could block their ability to access content they find enjoyable. But they should be far more concerned by the readiness of our government to curb our First Amendment rights and impede the expression of our core democratic values.

Keith E. Whittington
The Dispatch

Excerpt: Ever since the Trump administration issued an executive order barring federal agencies from holding diversity, equity, and inclusion workshops, Republican state legislatures have explored ways to rein in “divisive concepts” within their jurisdictions. Some legislatures have sought to ban state university professors from requiring that students “believe” such divisive concepts.

Indiana is the latest state to take a similar approach, hoping to incorporate “intellectual diversity” requirements to its colleges’ hiring protocols. But much like previous legislative attempts that try to tell universities what they should teach, Indiana’s proposed law is misguided.

Robert P. George
Public Discourse, Witherspoon Institute

Excerpt: My friend and former student Yoram Hazony has argued in Public Discourse that it’s time for universities to abandon any commitment to “absolute free speech.” In light of rampant expressions of anti-Semitism on university campuses since the horrific Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, Yoram thinks universities should forbid and punish the expression or advocacy of certain ideas or positions by students and faculty, and “suspend” or “terminate” those who, for example, advocate genocide.

Yoram suggests that I and others—especially my friend Jonathan Haidt—have been “reduced” to defending a “fundamentally wrongheaded” pro–free speech view. Here I will explain why I persist in believing that the research and teaching missions of nonsectarian colleges and universities, such as the one at which Yoram was a student and at which I teach, are best served by the most robust commitment to freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression.