Alice Dreger
Free the Inquiry, Heterodox Academy
Excerpt: Add Northwestern and Cornell to the growing list of universities whose federal funding is being threatened because of alleged failure to appropriately manage antisemitism on those campuses.
To help our readers understand what’s going on — and why it is legally questionable and a problem for open inquiry — I asked Heterodox Academy (HxA) Director of Policy Joe Cohn to answer some questions about this scene.
Christopher Bao and Cynthia Torres
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: The Trump administration has suspended several dozen research grants to Princeton, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 wrote in a campus-wide email on Tuesday. The grants were issued from several federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Defense Department.
The exact amount in question and the reasoning for the pause itself are unclear, and Eisgruber acknowledged only the latter in his statement. But the Daily Caller, a right-wing news organization, reported last night that the government would halt $210 million in federal funding to Princeton due to an ongoing investigation of antisemitism on campus, citing an anonymous Trump official.
By Marisa Warman Hirschfield ‘27
On April 22nd, Yechiel M. Leiter, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., delivered a lecture entitled “The Demonization of Israel and the Rise of Anti-semitism” to approximately seventy-five attendees in McCosh 10. The event was co-sponsored by Chabad, the Center for Jewish Life, B’Artzeinu, and Princetonians for Free Speech. Around twenty P-safe officers and Free Expression Facilitators populated McCosh courtyard in advance of the talk. Every entrance was monitored by security, and fences were set up outside the lecture hall as boundaries for protestors. I attended in my capacity as a Writing Fellow for PFS.
The talk began with an announcement about free expression rules. An administrator shared that disruptions to the lecture might constitute a violation of university policy, subject to disciplinary action and New Jersey trespass law. After a brief statement by Danielle Shapiro, the president of Princeton’s pro-Israel group B’Artzeinu, Leiter took the stage, fresh off a trip to the State Department. As he spoke, protesters could be heard from outside, chanting “shame” and “free Palestine” for the duration of the event.
By Ed Yingling '70
PFS Co-Founder
The Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) second annual survey of Princeton students is now available. This survey provides information on student attitudes on key free speech issues. Because the survey is being done annually, comparisons can be made to see if Princeton is making progress. Unfortunately, with three important exceptions, on most issues the survey shows little or no progress from the troublesome results in the first survey. In a few cases, the results are worse than last year. Clearly Princeton still has work to do.
Nicole Goodkind
CNN
Excerpt: Harvard University, like many campuses across America, continues to struggle in its contention with hate speech, protests and unrest over the Israel-Hamas war. One of its most prominent donors said Harvard needs to take urgent action to fix the problem, or it could risk a massive donor exodus.
Billionaire hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman called on Harvard to take steps to tackle a rise in “blatant antisemitism” and “anti-Israel attacks” on campus. Ackman, who received his undergraduate degree and MBA from Harvard, added that the failure to take action would put “important sources of Harvard’s revenues” at risk.
On Friday, January 23, 2026, several students from Princeton University marched to the top of Capitol Hill, joining tens of thousands of Americans in the National March for Life. Originating just months after the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973), the National March for Life inaugurated the first major public conversation on the sanctity of life and a constitutional protection of the unborn. Today, four years after the overturn of Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the march still serves as a platform for individuals to express their hopes and visions for the future of the Pro-Life movement.
Having experienced the tangible and transformative power of free speech evident in the march, four Princeton students have graciously agreed to share thoughts both about their participation in the march and also about the overall experience with pro-life dialogue on campus.
Michael Hurley
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression
Excerpt: A federal court has once again vindicated FIRE’s longstanding concerns with the Trump administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional approach to enforcing Title VI — including combatting antisemitism — in higher education. This time, the smackdown came in a ruling for plaintiffs at the University of California.
On February 10, 2026, PEN America, joined by a broad group of 36 organizational partners, wrote to the Board of Regents of Texas A&M University to request that they rescind two policies, passed in fall 2025, that have resulted in the censorship of academic courses across the institution, and the announced closure of the University’s Women’s & Gender Studies Program.
The letter explains that these policies are not only a threat to academic freedom, but, put simply, that “Censorship undermines the quality of education that faculty can offer students.” As recent news reports are making clear, these policies are limiting students’ access to education, particularly when it comes to course content related to race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
Frances Brogan
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In a recent op-ed for Time Magazine, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 ostensibly affirms the value of student protest. But reading between the lines, his piece is at best an ambivalent defense of campus activism, vacillating between qualified praise and condescension.
The piece suggests that student protests are just manifestations of misguided youthful zeal, and that, as a vehicle for social change, they’re always inferior to his ideal of rational discussion. Eisgruber describes student movements and protesters, by turns, as “naive,” “ill-considered,” “oversimplified,” and “irritating” — never as courageous, virtuous, or necessary.
Abigail S. Gerstein
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: Harvard Medical School canceled a pro-Palestine vigil organized by two recognized student groups on Thursday, alleging the groups violated the school’s campus use rules by distributing and posting event flyers without authorization.
Johanna Alonso
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: College students—particularly those who identify as conservative—are less likely to tolerate controversial speech than they were last year, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s annual survey.
For the 2026 edition of its free speech rankings, FIRE surveyed over 68,000 students from 257 colleges and universities in the U.S. In a question about six hypothetical speakers—three with what are widely considered conservative views and three with traditionally liberal beliefs—the share of students who said the speakers should be allowed to speak on campus dropped by at least five percentage points in all six cases.
by Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor
RealClear Politics
Excerpt: The lists of “top colleges” have varied little in many years. They always include the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. But that could change. Colleges of all types can differentiate themselves on the core values of free speech and academic freedom, and those that do will increasingly attract more and better students, faculty, and employment opportunities for their graduates.
By Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr
In July 2020, a Princeton University professor, Joshua Katz, wrote an article containing provocative language that generated controversy on campus. While voicing strong disagreement with that language, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber clearly and publicly stated a few days later that it was protected by Princeton’s university-wide rule on free speech. But since then, through other Princeton officials, the university has for over a year viciously attacked Professor Katz as a racist on its website and elsewhere for the exact same language. These attacks have clearly violated the Princeton free speech rule, as well as other Princeton rules.
Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor, Jr.
RealClearPolitics
Excerpt: Like alumni of universities across the country, many Princeton graduates have become deeply concerned about the attacks on free speech and academic freedom at our alma mater. It is not just the public attacks that are of concern. Multiple national and college-specific polls have shown that faculty and students are afraid to say what they think. Princeton is no different. One student told us he was afraid to speak up not just because he would be attacked, but because others with whom he was working on a project might also be attacked for associating with him.
Edward Yingling & Stuart Taylor, Jr.
RealClearPolitics
Excerpt: Free speech is very much in today’s headlines, especially with the outraged demands for technology companies to banish -- or not -- from their platforms speech they consider incitements to violence or hateful. But the greater danger may be the hostility within our colleges and universities to the free speech and academic freedom of faculty and students, and even alumni, who dissent from the views dominant on campuses today. Surveys show that a high, and growing, number of college students are opposed to free speech and to what the Supreme Court has called the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” As Princeton alumni and lawyers who have a strong belief in the vital importance of free speech, we have recently co-founded Princetonians for Free Speech. We have started by appealing mainly to alumni because they are the only university stakeholders who have the numbers and the capability to defend these basic freedoms effectively in campus environments where students and faculty who openly support free speech are outnumbered and outgunned by those who oppose it. But we hope to find allies among faculty and students as well.
David Zimmerman
National Review
Excerpt: The student government at the University of Michigan has removed its top two leaders, who vowed to block funding for campus groups unless the university agreed to divest from companies accused of profiting from the Israel–Hamas war.
The student assembly’s president and vice president, Alifa Chowdhury and Elias Atkinson, were officially ousted late on Monday after they were impeached last month, the New York Times reported. Each received a guilty count of dereliction of duty for either missing council meetings or failing to organize them.
U.S. colleges are increasingly eliminating or narrowing restrictive speech codes, continuing an encouraging trend that reflects a greater commitment to free expression on American campuses, a new study finds.
by Zeke Douglas Rosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt Browne
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: On Wednesday, in response to a wave of national campus encampments in response to the war in Gaza, Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun wrote in an email to the student body that “any individual involved in an encampment, occupation, or other unlawful disruptive conduct who refuses to stop after a warning will be arrested and immediately barred from campus.”
Pity Chris Summerlin, the dean of students at the University of Florida. He’s being sued by an anti-Semite, and that’s not the worst of his predicament. So far, judges who have ruled on the case have given mixed verdicts on whether he is likely to win or lose at trial.
College deans and administrators keep confronting the same dilemma: They face intense pressure to punish speech that elicits fear or moral disgust on campus. They also have legal obligations—and face countervailing pressure—to refrain from violating the free-speech rights of students. They cannot always do both. The result is cases such as Damsky v. Summerlin—cases that might be avoided under a better approach to fighting anti-Semitism and other hateful ideas.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon last week summoned college and university leaders to publicly declare their commitment to rebuild trust in higher education. But the path forward is murky, as leaders wrestle over whether to respond and how to walk the fine line between compliance and standing their ground.
Vitus Larrieu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: An executive order signed by President Donald Trump and released on Wednesday, Jan. 29 calls for Princeton and other universities to “monitor” and “report activities by alien students and staff” for actions that constitute antisemitism.
The executive order gives various federal agencies — including the Department of Education — 60 days to create a list of all cases involving a university alleging civil rights violations related to antisemitism that occurred following the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. A Title VI case related to antisemitism at Princeton was opened by the Department of Education in January 2024, referencing chants at pro-Palestine protests in October 2023.
A leading House Democrat on Tuesday called for an investigation into new whistleblower allegations that the Trump administration forced universities it deemed politically incorrect into settling antisemitism cases despite flimsy or nonexistent evidence.
The academic year is at an end, but two major studies are keeping higher education in the spotlight:
New FIRE study finds narrowing range of political views among faculty donors
The study finds that donations to political candidates from faculty at top universities have become increasingly one-sided, with the range of opinion becoming concentrated on the left.
PFS’s response, How does Princeton Compare? explains Princeton’s ranking of 13 out of the 55 university faculties studied.
The second study, drily entitled “Report on the State of Scholarship in the Humanities and the Humanistic Social Sciences” has set off a firestorm of reaction among humanities faculty and professional organizations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
Princetonians for Free Speech
Since the terrorist attack on Israel and the invasion of Gaza, several universities have been prominently featured in the national news for protests, sometimes violent, on their campuses and for antisemitic acts. Princeton had protests and instances of antisemitism, but these were nowhere near the level of what occurred at some schools, such as Columbia and Harvard. At PFS, we believe this was in part because Princeton set forth clear standards in advance for protests on campus. It should have come as no surprise that two of the first schools the Trump Administration went after to freeze grants were Columbia and Harvard.
Faith in higher education continues to plummet, and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)—the nation’s leading organization representing faculty interests and a longstanding voice on academic freedom and university governance—has decided to train its guns on the growing movement to establish civic education centers at public universities. The AAUP’s objections amount to a single, unlovely demand: we get to decide what students learn, and nobody else gets a vote.
