Leonard Milberg
The Daily Princetonian
The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
Editor’s Note: In the process of publishing this piece, The Daily Princetonian took several steps to corroborate the facts the author alleges, including reviewing emails referenced in the piece. The ‘Prince’ was unable to independently verify the conversation between Milberg and Eisgruber or the specifics of the document Milberg alleges Eisgruber asked him to sign. The University declined to comment on the specifics of the conversation.
University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss stated the following in relation to Milberg’s account, “Princeton is grateful for Leonard Milberg’s generous support of the University over many years. The University takes steps to ensure that no donor interferes inappropriately in the conduct of University courses, exhibition, or research. As the University’s gift policies state: ‘Gifts to the University must respect the University’s fundamental commitment to academic freedom and the rigorous and independent pursuit of truth.’”
By Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr
Originally published in Real Clear Politics
In July 2020, a Princeton University professor, Joshua Katz, wrote an article containing provocative language that generated controversy on campus.
by George F. Will
Squalls of indignation gust across campuses so frequently that they seem merely performative — synthetic, perfunctory, uninteresting. Princeton’s current contretemps, however, fascinatingly illustrates how wokeness, which lacks limiting principles, limits opposition to itself.
by Eleanor Clemans-Cope, The Daily Princetonian
George F. Will GS ’68 recently took to the pages of the Washington Post, where he is a regular columnist, to announce to the world that wokeness at Princeton is destroying free speech.
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
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?
The Trump administration is expanding its efforts to dismantle the Education Department by moving its oversight of school safety grants and foreign funding for universities to other agencies, the administration announced Monday.
The Department of Health and Human Services is slated to take over work related to school shootings and student mental health programs. The State Department will be tasked to help the Education Department manage how the federal government monitors the flow of billions of dollars in foreign gifts and contracts to higher education institutions.
The Department of Justice filed a new lawsuit against Harvard University, accusing it of failing to hand over documents and comply with a federal investigation into alleged racial discrimination in its admissions process, in the latest escalation of Donald Trump’s long-running legal pursuit of the nation’s oldest university.
Harvard stressed in a statement that it was responding to inquiries “in good faith” and prepared to engage “according to the process required by law”.
If you combined two of Princeton’s three most popular A.B. majors — SPIA and Politics — you could nearly fill McCosh 50. With so many students taking courses about politics and policy, one might expect the American Whig-Cliosophic Society senate — the Society’s home of parliamentary-style debate — to be a vibrant center of debate on campus. Yet the benches of the senate chamber frequently lie empty.
The National Endowment for the Humanities has announced more than $75 million in awards, including $10 million grants to two public universities with “civics” schools and to an education network headquartered at a conservative think tank.
The $10 million going to the Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education is for a project dubbed Recovering the Humanities in Service of the University. Kelly Hanlon, FEHE’s operations director, said the foundation “does not have any political, ideological or religious affiliation, nor does it fund policy work.” But FEHE is based at—and shares its president with—the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank next to Princeton University’s campus.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon told a conservative news outlet she wants to focus less on higher ed this year. The comment comes after the Trump administration’s yearlong use of multiple federal departments to pressure universities and their employees and students to conform to the White House’s desires.
McMahon discussed her 2026 priorities in an interview with Breitbart before Christmas. As the outlet put it, “McMahon said the new year is a chance to shift a little bit away from higher education and focus on elementary and secondary.”
Click here for link to full article
On Jan. 2, the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding a new University policy regulating audio and visual recording. The policy classifies any recording made at events deemed private — where not all participants have consented — as “secret or covert,” placing such recordings in violation of University rules.
However, recording at public events, such as advertised public speaker events, is permitted unless the speaker, performer, or party hosting the event explicitly states otherwise. “The policy does not cover meetings open to all current members of the resident University community or to the public,” according to the FAQ website.
Last month’s issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) fawns over Michael Park ’98, a right-wing lawyer and, since 2018, a U.S. circuit judge. Park’s portrait commands the cover, while the accompanying long-form profile, titled “The Contender,” speculates that he could become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court. The author is P.G. Sittenfeld ’07.
But Sittenfeld is not just any old journalist. Last May, President Donald Trump pardoned Sittenfeld, a one-time rising star in Cincinnati politics, following his conviction on federal bribery and extortion charges in 2022. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, owes his freedom to Trump — the man who nominated his subject Park to his judgeship, and the man with the power to elevate Park further to the nation’s highest court. Nowhere does PAW disclose this striking conflict of interest.
Researchers at Princeton and across the nation who receive federal funding have had a tumultuous year. Come Wednesday, they have one more thing to balance: a new federal public access policy that could cost researchers thousands of dollars more to publish in academic journals.
The new public access policy, known as the Nelson Memo, was released under the Biden administration in 2022 and mandates that any research that is funded by federal agencies be made publicly available at the time of publication.
Enzo Baldanza
Princeton Tory
Excerpt: We hear it all the time: we live in the age of disinformation. Social media users all contain biases and omit/distort truths that make it difficult to know who and what to trust. Our commitment to the right of free expression exacerbates this problem by hindering potential attempts at regulation.
However, free speech boasts an interesting duality as both a solute and a solvent. If free speech can be used to spread disinformation, then it can be used to spread truth as well: counteracting disinformation by using your platform to clarify and promote the whole truth is an ability in all of our wheelhouses.
Teresa Chen and Oliver Wu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Thai pro-democracy figures Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut and Kunthida Rungruengkiat GS spoke on Wednesday at the U.S. premiere of “Breaking the Cycle,” a documentary on the rise and suppression of Thailand’s modern reform movement.
The event was hosted by Thaigers, the Thai Students’ Association on campus and sponsored by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination. Directed by Aekaphong Saransate and Thankrit Duangmaneeporn, “Breaking the Cycle” traces the ascent of the pro-democracy Future Forward Party (FFP) and its founder Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit from the 2019 Thailand election through subsequent court-ordered dissolutions of both FFP and its successor, Move Forward.
Rodrigo Menezes
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Recently, Princeton University announced a policy that would require members of eating clubs and co-ops living in University housing to buy a second meal plan, costing about $900 a year. I, along with all the other members of the Graduate Interclub Council (GICC), believe that this policy would be disastrous for Princeton’s undergraduate experience.
Oliver Wu and Vitus Larrieu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In September, Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering rebranded its diversity, equity and inclusion committee as the “Office of Culture and Belonging,” while their School of Medicine abruptly shuttered its DEI program. Harvard has pared down its diversity offerings under direct pressure from the Trump administration, most recently canceling an over 50-year-old program that encouraged minority students to apply to the university.
Megan McArdle
Washington Post
Excerpt: As the Trump administration’s war on universities settles into its entrenched phase, it’s given new urgency to a long-simmering debate about whether, and how, academia should pursue viewpoint diversity. This conversation has been happening for decades, mostly between conservatives who want more of it and an academic establishment that wants to leave well enough alone. Now, that conversation has become existential.
Bill Hewitt
National Review
Excerpt: September 30 marks the publication of a new book by Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. For those who plan to read the book that ostensibly defends the culture of free speech on campuses, it is worth reviewing the author’s abysmal record on protecting free expression.
Christofer Robles
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The Trump administration and its lackeys have used the recent assassination of far-right activist Charlie Kirk to hide its own suppression of free speech. But conservatives, nationally and at Princeton, are crying wolf.
The death of Kirk is not symptomatic of some leftist guerrilla psyop. American political violence has long been a tool of the right, and the attempt to pin Kirk’s assassination on the left is symptomatic of the real free speech problem at Princeton: dishonesty. Members of the campus right have misrepresented the status of free speech on campus, drawing on a few isolated incidents to paint themselves as the real victims in the debate.
