By Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Edward L. Yingling, Co-founders of Princetonians for Free Speech
It is critical to understand that the controversy over Princeton University’s recklessly false, continuing, institutional reviling of Professor Joshua Katz as a racist since early 2021 is about much, much more than the fate of a single professor.
The growing (though not unanimous) acknowledgement that academia has lost public trust may be increasingly uncontroversial. But identifying remedies to repair that broken trust is proving to be much more contested.
As students, professors, and administrators get ready to return to campus for what events both in the United States and abroad suggest will be another tumultuous year, the American Association of University Professors has decided to add fuel to the fire by announcing that it no longer categorically opposes academic boycotts. The decision by the once-august and respected organization is not surprising. After all, the AAUP is now led by a professor of journalism and media studies who a week ago used his official platform to call J. D. Vance “a fascist” and to claim that America’s colleges and universities are not in fact “ideological indoctrination centers.”
Princeton claims to care about free speech — University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has written a book about it, and maintains an official policy of institutional restraint to protect students’ freedom to form and express their own opinions. But in this era of government violence, it is no longer possible to defend free speech with an institutional restraint policy tying the University’s hands behind its back.
It is time for Princeton to deviate from the conciliatory principle of strict institutional restraint. It must stand in vigorous opposition against the cruelty of federal immigration officers, as well as other government overreaches that threaten freedom of speech for members of our community.
Jason J. Cheng, Adrian U. Ramirez, and Alexandria Villasenor
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber said at Harvard talk on Wednesday that universities should enforce clear time, place, and manner rules against student protesters — and refuse to negotiate with activists while they are violating university rules.
The Princeton president’s talk, which was moderated by Harvard College Dean David J. Deming drew dozens of students and faculty to Sanders Theatre. Deming spoke with Eisgruber about the themes of his recent book — Terms of Respect, which was published in September and focuses on free speech on college campuses — and Eisgruber’s own observations from his 12 years leading Princeton.
May 30, 2025
PFS Subscribers, Members and Friends,
Reunions ‘25 is the focus of this month’s PFS Newsletter. While Princeton and other elite institutions of higher education are under intense and unprecedented scrutiny from the federal government, on campus PFS held a highly successful Reunions ‘25 event featuring John Tomasi, President of Heterodox Academy, in conversation with Princeton Professor of Politics John Londregan.
See an excerpt and a link to a YouTube recording of the entire event below.
To PFS subscribers, members and friends,
April saw a major campus protest, one that disrupted and cut short an April 7 event featuring former Israeli Prime-Minister Nefthali Bennett. This disruption was by far the worst we have seen on Princeton’s campus. In response,PFS issued two letters to President Eisgruber and the administration. The first letter was sent on April 9 in the immediate aftermath of the event. It makes specific recommendations for swift action to sanction those responsible for breaking university rules. Anticipating a possible recurrence at an April 22 event with Yechiel Leiter, the new Israeli Ambassador to the US, PFS sent the second letter on April 18, outlining measures not taken at the first event, that are critical to preventing more disruption.
Bill Hewitt ‘74
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: Princeton’s “double down on DEI” faces a direct challenge from President Trump’s Jan. 21 Executive Order 14171. It mandates an end to race- and sex-based preferences in institutions that receive federal funding, prioritizing merit-based opportunity. As a recipient of substantial federal support, Princeton is now at a crossroads: Will it comply with the law faithfully, or will it risk vital funding and the University’s hard-won standing — all to continue its DEI policies and programs?
A federal judge has granted an additional tranche of colleges a delay before they must submit newly required data to the U.S. Department of Education on their applicants, admits and enrollees broken down by race and sex.
Institutional members of two higher education groups — the Association of American Universities and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts — will now have until April 14 to submit the data.
The U.S. Department of Education’s top ranking higher education official sent letters to two accreditors Monday directing them to eliminate their diversity, equity and inclusion standards that he contended were in violation of civil rights law.
In his letters, Kent said the Education Department would continue to recognize the two accreditors but warned that officials could take action against them — including pulling that recognition — if they enforce any of their suspended DEI standards before formally eliminating them. His letters escalate the Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI standards at accrediting agencies.
A newly published paper finds that colleges were significantly more likely to report terminations of international students’ legal status if they had previously experienced campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war, suggesting, the authors say, that these institutions were targeted for legal action against foreign students.
The paper examines a spring of 2025 crackdown on foreign students, finding that the odds of status revocations were four to eight times greater on campuses that had been protest sites the prior year. The presence of demonstrations, rather than institutional type or political control of a college’s home state, was the strongest predictor of terminations.
Six days after the report went online, the AAA fired back with a full-throated defense. “Anthropologists welcome rigorous critique of the discipline,” wrote its president, Carolyn M. Rouse. “What we cannot accept is a sweeping verdict about anthropology’s intellectual culture, scholarly practices, and professional norms built on selective evidence and issued without consultation.
I have been committed to earning that trust from the moment I took this job. That’s why, last spring, I formed the Committee on Trust in Higher Education. I asked ten faculty members to undertake a project of thorough self-examination.
On April 10, they submitted the culmination of this work—a careful assessment of why trust in higher education has declined, followed by twenty thoughtful recommendations for efforts Yale can undertake to begin rebuilding the public’s confidence. I encourage you to read the full report.
Sian L. Beilock seems to be everywhere. You’ll find Dartmouth College’s president in the pages of The Atlantic, sharing her plan for “Saving the Idea of the University.” And in The Wall Street Journal, asking whether a four-year degree is worth it.
And it’s not just that she’s seizing the bully pulpit; it’s what she’s using it to say. Beilock represents a new breed of college president willing to take shots at her own sector. Higher education, in her formulation, has lost its way by becoming too expensive and too political. And it shoulders much of the blame for retribution from the partisan right and flagging confidence in colleges and the value of the credentials they provide.
If you are inclined to be skeptical of the reform movement — some would call it an assault — targeting higher education, much of it driven by political conservatives, a spate of recent scandals in red states will seem to confirm your suspicions.
The fact is that foundations that have successfully influenced academia have learned to use a set of levers that are precisely calibrated to work effectively within the existing structures of higher education. These levers align with academia’s distinctive norms, work with natural intellectual incentives, and are based in a keen understanding of the organizational psychology within colleges and universities.
What follows is a study of that architecture—a picture of ten of the levers that foundations can use to influence scholarship.
CBS News Miami
Excerpt: Florida is working with university leaders from five other Southern states to form a new higher-education accrediting body, Gov. Ron DeSantis and officials from the other states announced Thursday.
The Commission for Public Higher Education, which will need federal approval, would be an alternative to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, a longtime accrediting agency that has clashed with Florida education leaders in recent years.
Dhruv T. Patel and Grace E. Yoon
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 reaffirmed in a Monday letter that the University would not bow to interference from the Trump administration — even as he suggested Harvard and the government “share common ground.”
In a three-page message addressed to United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who announced one week ago that the Trump administration would no longer issue any grants or contracts to Harvard, Garber defended Harvard’s record on antisemitism and doubled down on the University’s refusal to concede to what he called an unlawful attempt to shape its core values.
Stuart Taylor Jr., president of "Princetonians for Free Speech" and an RCP contributor, joined Tom Bevan, Friday on the RealClearPolitics podcast, to talk about the Trump administration’s decision to suspend hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to Princeton.
They discuss this piece by Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe in City Journal: "Princeton’s War on Civil Rights"
The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Excerpt: Columbia University’s decision Friday to bend to the Trump Administration’s governance demands has shocked the academy far and wide, and it is an unprecedented sanction. But perhaps it will also shock our academic elites into recognizing that they have courted this political backlash by too often abandoning their central mission of free inquiry.
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.
Leslie Spencer ‘79
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: On Jan. 18, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 released his “State of the University” letter entitled “Excellence, Inclusivity, and Free Speech.” The core of his remarks defended the course that Princeton has steered in pursuit of excellence and ever-increasing inclusivity through many decades and into these turbulent times.
