January 2024 Newsletter

A Special Feature

On January 25th this strongly-worded letter was sent to President Christopher Eisgruber from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Anti-Defamation League “to express our collective concern about Princeton University’s improper use of no-contact orders to censor students.”  Excerpts appear below and you can read the full letter in the link.

“While no-contact protocols are important tools to keep students safe from properly defined discriminatory harassment, and threatening, intimidating, or assaultive conduct, Princeton appears to be granting these orders for any student who requests one, so long as minimal procedural prerequisites are satisfied. These orders are being issued by administrators with disciplinary authority, under threat of punishment, without a modicum of due process, and most unconscionably—where the student-speaker is not even alleged to have violated any university policy. This practice is deeply chilling, in blatant violation of Princeton’s laudable free expression policies, and must end immediately. Perhaps more dismaying that the abuse of Princeton’s no-contact and no-communication order, is that your administration has known for over a year that these rights incursions are occurring, yet has failed to act.”

“Princeton’s commitments to free speech are admirable—but only to the extent to which they are followed. As written, they properly align with First Amendment jurisprudence and prevailing conceptions of free speech and free press principles. Any reasonable student or student journalist reading these policies would be confident they have the right to engage in difficult discussions without worrying they will be slapped with a no-contact order, under threat of discipline. Student journalists are also promised their right to engage in dogged newsgathering, including contacting student leaders in the ordinary course of their reporting. But Princeton has betrayed its promises by allowing students to censor their peers on the basis of subjective offense. These outcomes cannot be squared with the university’s mission or purported commitments.”

What Can be Done?

The growing recognition that America’s universities have lost their way has inspired a number of course-correction ideas. Here are some of the best approaches to help restore public trust in higher education.

Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry 

“The following principles 1) articulate the core mission of the university in relation to its special status as an educational institution dedicated to free inquiry; 2) provide standards that cultivate free and vigorous inquiry in scholarship, teaching, and campus activities beyond the classroom; and 3) offer broad guidelines for the revitalization of the university’s core mission.”

A 5-point plan to save Harvard from itself By Steve Pinker

“For universities to have a leg to stand on when they try to stand on principle, they must embark on a long-term plan to undo the damage they have inflicted on themselves.”

A Vision for a New Future of the  University of Pennsylvania written by Penn faculty and signed by over 2000 faculty, students, alumni and parents of alums. 

“To recommit to [Ben] Franklin’s vision, Penn’s sole aim going forward will be to foster excellence in research and education. This aim is in the best long-term interest of all members of society. Penn’s strong focus on academic excellence, curiosity, and innovation has historically attracted scholars and students from a wide variety of backgrounds. Today, as Penn’s competitors struggle to define their mission and lose their focus on this manner of excellence, Penn has a unique opportunity to emerge as a globally leading academic institution in an ever more competitive international landscape. In this document, we present a summary of a vision for Penn based on a set of common principles that will help it achieve this ambitious goal and stand the test of a turbulent time.

DEI is Worth Saving From its Excesses

By Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Wall Street Journal January 22, 2024

“Some of what happens under the DEI banner is truly objectionable, even illegal—hiring, promotion and admissions standards under which race trumps qualifications, training sessions that create a hostile environment for whites. But as companies, universities and other organizations weed out these practices, they should be careful that the parts of DEI that the majority of us agree on don’t become collateral damage. DEI as talent optimization is good for disadvantaged groups, good for organizations that embrace it, and good for America.”