The Target on Princeton's Back has Grown Bigger

by Princetonians for Free Speech

On April 4, we published a Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) editorial entitled “Princeton in the Crosshairs,” in which we discussed the multiple attacks on universities being launched by the Trump Administration and listed reasons why Princeton was now likely to become a major target, much like Columbia and Harvard have been. In the few weeks since we published that editorial, there have been very important developments, involving universities in general and Princeton specifically. The bottom line is that Princeton is now even more in the crosshairs, with investigations and lawsuits coming from several directions. Yet Princeton still does not admit it has problems and will not take the most basic steps to address them, steps that other universities are increasingly taking.

At the national level, the Trump Administration continues to go after universities, and especially elite universities, on several fronts, including eliminating or threatening to eliminate billions of dollars in grants and contracts, threatening investigations on antisemitism on campuses, threatening civil rights suits, and looking into funding by foreign governments. The President even floated the idea of eliminating Harvard’s tax exemption. And Republicans in Congress are investigating Princeton and other universities for possible collusion in setting tuition and advocating for a large increase in the current tax on endowment income. More recently, President Trump issued an executive order upending the current accreditation system.

Many of the Administration’s most aggressive actions are being challenged in the courts, and based on some early court decisions, it seems likely that at least some will be ruled illegal or unconstitutional. However, most of these court decisions may be based on Administration overreach or the failure to follow required legal processes, which would not stop the Administration from reconstituting its attacks to be more narrowly focused and to follow such processes, although the attacks would be slowed down considerably.

However, the most important development by far, and one that will continue to be a bellwether, is the battle between Harvard and the Administration. What started out as a short list of demands by the Administration over accusations of antisemitism quickly escalated when the Trump Administration sent a letter to Harvard, which Harvard made public, calling for numerous changes and restrictions. 

Many commentators, including those who are strong proponents of free speech and academic freedom at universities, have stated that the letter to Harvard was an overreach, threatening free speech and academic freedom. For example, PFS’s sister alumni organization at Harvard – Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, which PFS helped establish and which is a strong proponent of free speech and academic freedom – said in a statement that it supported “Harvard’s principled response” to the Administration’s demands. 

Two noted professors with widely different political perspectives who have been leading advocates of free speech and academic freedom, Robert P. George, of Princeton, and Cornel West, wrote an opinion piece, “How universities should respond to Trump’s assault on academic Freedom,” that looked at the issue of government overreach more broadly than just the Harvard battle. They stated: “Private universities, despite receiving substantial governmental funding, are right to protect their autonomy against government overreach.”

The letter to Harvard has had the effect of bringing together much of the higher education community in opposition to the Administration’s demands. This culminated in an important statement, organized by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and signed at this time by over 500 leaders of colleges and universities, declaring their opposition to the Administration’s aggressive posture and laying out its implications for academic freedom.

While the statement is important, three points must be recognized: first, the Administration has great leverage in this fight, with multiple ways to go after colleges and universities; second, the political landscape is very much against those who signed the statement since much of the public has a very negative opinion of higher education and particularly elite colleges; and third, other than one vague phrase (“… we are open to constructive reform ….”), there in nothing in the statement showing an understanding of the widely recognized internal problems that degrade the core mission of higher education, and are in critical need of reform, nor is there any commitment to address those problems.

The third point is critical. PFS believes universities, including Princeton, must publicly recognize the significant problems that are causing the backlash against them and must take concrete steps to address them. 

The Harvard alumni group, in its statement supporting Harvard’s response, also said: “We believe that further changes are needed to current Harvard policies and that the implementation of changes made at Harvard in the past year needs to be assessed to confirm that the core principles of academic freedom and free expression are being advanced.” It is noteworthy that Harvard has taken steps that so far Princeton has been unwilling to take – adopting institutional neutrality and banning litmus tests in hiring. In “Standing Up for Higher Education and our Values” Dartmouth President Sian Leah Bielock said: “Higher-education institutions, especially the most elite among us, are not above reproach. Not only is trust in higher education at an all-time low, but that trust is hugely polarized, second in polarization only to the U.S. presidency. If we don’t ask ourselves why, we will squander this opportunity to do better.” 

In their opinion piece, Professors George and West write: “Rather than ignore or deny well-founded criticisms of their institutions, academic leaders should view the current moment as an opportunity for an authentic institutional examination of conscience. Universities — let’s be honest — have lost the trust of the American people. And that is the universities’ fault, not the fault of the people.”

PFS agrees with that statement from Professors George and West.

With respect to recent developments at Princeton specifically, President Eisgruber has come to be identified as perhaps the leading public opponent of the Administration’s actions against universities. Prior to our April 4 editorial, Eisgruber had written an article in The Atlantic defending the role of universities and strongly criticizing the actions of the Trump Administration. Also, the Association of American Universities, which Eisgruber chairs this year, had issued a statement strongly criticizing the Administration for freezing grants. 

On April 11, Eisgruber was interviewed in a New York Times podcast with the provocative title “The University President Willing to Fight Trump.” In that podcast, Eisgruber continued his strong defense of the role of universities and his criticism of the Trump Administration but minimized problems at Princeton. 

On April 28, the lead story in the Wall Street Journal on-line edition was entitled “Elite Universities form Private Collective to Resist Trump Administration.” The article said that the leaders of some elite universities have assembled “a private collective to counter the Trump administration’s attacks….” President Eisgruber was featured in the story and indeed, was the only university official named in the story.

Eisgruber has been applauded for his leadership in opposing the Administration. One cannot argue with his strong advocacy for the important role that universities play in our society and the need for their independence to defend free expression and academic freedom. But it must be recognized that his high profile puts Princeton in the spotlight and subjects it to additional scrutiny by the Administration and others.

Thus, it is even more troubling that on April 7 there was a disruption of an event on campus featuring former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, which ended when some protester pulled a fire alarm, as well as vile verbal attacks on Princeton Jewish students. Eisgruber did issue a statement the next day condemning the actions of the protesters, apologized to Bennett, and instituted an investigation. However, students we talked to are skeptical, based on the lack of meaningful punishment when rules were previously broken, that the investigation will lead to effective punishment, especially because the protesters were allowed to wear masks.

There has been no further statement from the Administration since April 8. There was another event on April 22, featuring the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter, which was protested, but not disrupted. However, other than a minor change in the verbal notice procedure to protestors, nothing appears to have changed; and Jewish students we have interviewed believe that Princeton is not doing enough to combat antisemitism.

PFS wrote a forceful letter to Eisgruber condemning the April 7 events and a second one immediately before the April 22 event when there had been no statement from the University that it was changing its approach in view of what happened on April 7. After that letter was sent, the University, again, did make a minor adjustment and seemed better prepared than on April 7, but against our recommendation, it still allowed protestors to wear masks. Masking has been restricted on many campuses and is often restricted by state laws.

The events of April 7 drew a scathing editorial from the Wall Street Journal and a negative response from the influential commentator Jonathan Turley.

Princeton has come under attack from the Administration and Republicans in Congress, but so far it has not been treated much differently than some other elite universities. For example, it has lost grants, been named along with others in an investigation over antisemitism, and faces a congressional investigation over possible collusion with other universities on tuition rates.

However, in view of Princeton’s new, much higher profile, it is likely that it will face Princeton-specific attacks. Princeton’s leadership increasingly appears to be unwilling to recognize that there are problems and to take meaningful steps to address those problems. With the events of April 7, Princeton may move toward the front of the line on the civil rights suits coming from the Administration relating to antisemitism, and we believe it likely that Princeton will be hit with a suit by the government over its admissions criteria since, unlike most other elite schools, the demographics of its acceptances did not materially change after the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ruled against Harvard and UNC and said affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. 

More recently, Christopher Rufo published a scathing article about Princeton alleging it is violating civil rights laws. Rufo is attacked by some as being stridently right-wing. But he clearly has the ear of the Administration on the state of higher education. He later stated that the Justice Department would be investigating Princeton over its DEI policies for a possible civil rights law violations.

These various legal actions against Princeton will be extremely costly to defend, especially given that there will be extensive demands for documents and emails, and the public disclosures coming out of such actions could be very harmful to Princeton’s reputation.

In our April 4 editorial, PFS noted that since our founding in 2020, we have been working “to help Princeton position itself as a leader on free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity.” Our alumni subscribers now number over 8,000, a number that is growing rapidly. What we hear from alumni, especially after the terrible events surrounding the appearance of former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett, is mounting anger that Princeton’s leadership is not acknowledging that significant change is needed.

PFS has recommended changes, but except for a strong free speech module in the orientation program, not much has been done. For example, we have provided the Administration with easy to implement suggestions for modifying its internal speech codes that would greatly improve its dismal ranking, 223 out of 251 schools surveyed, in the free speech ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). However, Princeton has done nothing to address its ranking in the increasingly cited FIRE survey.

PFS has also proposed its Top Ten actions Princeton should take. Among these are items that other universities are adopting that are important in and of themselves, but which are also increasingly seen as indicators of a university’s commitment to free speech and academic freedom. For example, institutional neutrality has been adopted by at least thirty schools, including Harvard, Yale, Penn, Dartmouth, and Stanford, but not by Princeton. 

And many universities have banned so-called litmus tests for hiring faculty and other purposes, including the entire University of California system, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and MIT, but not Princeton.

President Eisgruber is right to emphasize in public the important role of universities, and many, including PFS, agree with him that the Administration’s demands on Harvard are a significant overreach. But it is possible to do that while also acknowledging the deeply rooted problems at many universities, including Princeton, and moving systematically to correct those problems. That is what the President of Dartmouth is doing with her statement and her actions. That is what the leaders of Washington University in St Louis and Vanderbilt did in their joint statement of principles. And it is what Stanford’s President Jonathan Levin did in his remarks to the faculty senate this month. 

Yet President Eisgruber continues to minimize the problems and to avoid making changes. And where is the Princeton Board of Trustees? It seems to be completely missing in action. We are afraid Princeton is about to pay a big price, not just financially, but also to its long-term reputation, if nothing is done.