Your Cart is Empty
There is a particular kind of bad idea that thrives under the protection of academic freedom. Such a toxic philosophy does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Rather, it gains prominence within the academy precisely because it systematically poisons that marketplace from within. When it comes under attack from outside university gates, campus administrators invoke free inquiry and end up defending it as precisely the kind of controversial matter academics must be free to explore; professors assign it as cutting-edge gospel; students come to think of it as precisely what they’re attending college to absorb.
Third Worldism is such an idea. Though it is not campus-grown like critical theory, it has found the American university to be an almost perfect habitat.
By Stuart Taylor, Jr., President of PFS
Since the University of Chicago paved the way in 1967 with its Kalven Committee Report, some 30 other American universities and colleges have followed suit by insisting on “institutional neutrality” on political and social issues, while alsoaffirming their commitment to the academic freedom of faculty and students in the face of suppression from internal and/or external entities.
Nikki Han
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Princeton University faculty can only vote on proposals that are “actionable within the context of university operations,” not those simply expressing political positions or beliefs, after a vote at the faculty meeting on April 28.
Hundreds of faculty members filled the entire lower section of Alexander Hall in Richardson Auditorium for the vote. Ultimately, an overwhelming majority of faculty members supported the passing of the following amendment to Section II.C.2 of the Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, introduced by the Ad-hoc Committee on Faculty-Wide Statements:
Meghana Veldhuis
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In light of recent scrutiny on higher education by the U.S. federal government, on April 2, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom (PCAF) held a roundtable discussion in McCosh Hall titled, “Should Universities Engage in Politics?”
The discussion was moderated by Princeton politics professor Frances Lee. University of Chicago philosophy professor Anton Ford, Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy ’77, and Yale politics professor Keith Whittington all shared their opinions on the role that Princeton and other universities should generally play during a time of turmoil in higher education.
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.
By Leslie Spencer ‘79
The Daily Princetonian recently reported that President Eisgruber has rejected the idea of adopting the principle of institutional neutrality.
At a time when universities throughout the country, including Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, USC, and Cornell, have flocked to adopt the principle to protect them from the myriad pressures to take stands on controversial issues such as the war in Gaza, President Eisgruber remains resolute against it.
