Search

A couple of months ago, we spoke with the Chronicle of Higher Education about what they are calling “the conservative hiring boom.” At the time, it seemed clear to us that there was a “vibe shift” of sorts in terms of academic norms. Standalone DEI statements were on the decline, and there were anecdotal reports of heterodox scholars being recruited for faculty positions with a goal of increasing viewpoint diversity.

In light of this, we ran a poll asking folks about their perceptions of academic job market vibes, using an informal member email survey. We collected responses from 244 people working in higher education (77% of whom are HxA members). Here’s what we found.

In the golden decades that stretched from the end of World War II to the 2010s, there was almost no better business to be in than higher education.

What’s that you say? A university is not a business? Well, I take the point, but just the same, universities were certainly operating more and more like businesses, with glossy marketing campaigns, sophisticated plans to ensure more admitted students actually enrolled and elaborate price discrimination schemes designed to squeeze every last dollar out of students. Increasingly, they also adopted that classic business maxim: “The customer is always right.”

On Tuesday, Hampshire College became the latest academic institution to announce its closure. There was a time when such failures were rare occurrences. That trickle is turning into a torrent, but the media and academics are missing a critical part of the lesson. There is no greater example of how academics are killing higher education than the death of Hampshire College.

The rapid expansion of funding for “civics institutes,” along with the spreading of state mandates that civics be taught as a core subject in colleges, has ignited much controversy. Debates focus on whether civics should be prioritized above other vital subjects, whether civics education should be concentrated in autonomous centers on campus, and whether states should dictate how it should be taught.

Ironically, the impetus to make civics a discipline came from progressive scholars nearly 20 years ago, not the conservatives now founding civics institutes across the country.

Jan-Werner Müller, renowned scholar of democratic theory and the history of political thought, was named Class of 1943 University Professor of Politics. Professor Müller is the founding director for the Academic Freedom Initiative and Forum for the History of Political Thought, which bring scholars together to examine academic freedom and the development of political ideas, respectively. Princeton endows 25 University professorships, which are the highest honor for faculty at the University.

After vague signage policies led to backlash at Boston University last month for the removal of a pride flag hanging visibly on a faculty office window, the president announced on Monday that the university will be “pausing” their “long standing, routine university policy” of removing outward-facing signs. As well-intentioned as this might be, such vague policies, inconsistent implementation, and pausing that appears viewpoint-contingent only contribute to chilled expression.

But expression policies aren’t the only thing chilling speech on campuses right now. Across the U.S. there are a variety of state-mandated and other institutional policies that are threatening academic freedom protections for faculty and their comfort in speaking freely.

Observers across the political spectrum have identified a real problem in American higher education: too many campuses have drifted from genuine inquiry toward ideological performance and political engagement. That diagnosis is not partisan. It reflects a widely shared concern that universities are prioritizing critique over inquiry, activism over scholarship, and signaling over substance.

But even that diagnosis is incomplete - and the missing piece matters enormously for how we respond. A quieter, more structural crisis is unfolding beneath the ideological one: the erosion of faculty pay, stability, and dignity. Until we take that seriously, we will keep treating symptoms while the underlying condition worsens.

A proposal for proctoring on all examinations will be considered by two faculty committees before potentially reaching a faculty vote in May, according to Dean of the College Michael Gordin. This unprecedented proposal comes amid administrative concerns about cheating, especially given the prevalence of generative AI tools.

The change would constitute the most significant alteration to date to Princeton’s honor system since its establishment in 1893. Under the Honor Code, students pledge both to refrain from infractions of academic dishonesty and to report any academic integrity breaches they witness.

Princeton faces many domestic threats. In 2024, a Forbes College dryer burst into flames, setting off fire alarms and forcing students to evacuate the residential college. Last year, residents of Yeh College and New College West were plagued by droves of mice in dorm rooms when they returned from winter break. Still, despite the formidable challenges these campus snafus represent, the threat these mishaps pose to the University pales in comparison to recent polemics against Princeton’s humanities education.

In an October podcast episode with The Free Press, Shilo Brooks, a former Princeton lecturer and executive director of the James Madison Program, painted a grim picture of the state of humanities education at Princeton. But Brooks’ issues with the humanities at Princeton are completely unfounded — a simple rebuttal lies in students’ level of passionate and sincere engagement with the humanities.

A Florida International University law student and former Miami Republican Party official has sued to stop the university from investigating his involvement in a group chat with fellow conservative students that was rife with racist and offensive language.

Abel Carvajal said in a lawsuit filed on Monday in Miami federal court that his speech in the group chat is protected under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Carvajal alleged that any disciplinary actions FIU pursues against him would be viewpoint-based discrimination.

What the series has not yet addressed, however, are the genuinely difficult legal and cultural questions that Terms of Respect has evaded. By seemingly resolving tensions between speech and equality, and reframing what appears to be a free-speech debate as an ongoing push-and-pull about civility norms, Eisgruber avoids discussing ways in which our laws, norms, and culture already treat, and sometimes curtail, expressive freedom, and how universities can apply their obligations and stated commitments faithfully. Relatedly, he relies upon an underexplored approach to chilling effects, the phenomenon recognized in First Amendment doctrine that certain policies or social realities are suspect because they place an informal prior restraint on expression. Eisgruber’s unequal concern with chilling effects — sometimes equating it with censorship, sometimes overlooking it entirely – demonstrates an incomplete theory of how universities get free speech right. 

The Princeton chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) met Monday afternoon for a discussion surrounding academic freedom and the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education. 

Fewer than 30 faculty members attended the meeting, compared to the over 50 members present at the chapter’s inaugural meeting. Faculty members reformed the Princeton chapter of the AAUP last March amid attacks on higher education from the Trump administration. Since then, they have convened monthly to discuss updates and to identify threats to higher education.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from requiring colleges and universities to collect and report admissions data disaggregated by race and gender, Reuters reported.

The temporary restraining order, issued by U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor IV in Boston, comes in response to a lawsuit filed last week by 17 Democratic states over the administration’s demand that colleges and universities complete the new Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement survey by March 18. Saylor’s order extends the deadline through March 25 “to permit a hearing and orderly resolution of the issues.”

“I’ve had the tremendous privilege of knowing so many fantastic students at Princeton, who I know will become extraordinary military leaders. And I think that it would be a massive shame if that potential was eliminated,” the student said in response to an announcement that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ’03 made on Feb. 27. In a video posted on social media, Hegseth announced that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) will end sponsorship for graduate students at Princeton and other Ivy League institutions beginning in the 2026–27 academic year.

University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that there are “a dozen active-duty military graduate students currently enrolled at Princeton, representing all four branches of the U.S. Armed services with all but two of those students enrolled at SPIA.” As the policy currently stands, active-duty service members may be unable to attend Princeton for graduate school while remaining in service.

On February 19, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom hosted Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss his forthcoming book Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times, co-authored with Howard Gillman. Chemerinsky described universities as operating in a moment of political pressure, as debates over Israel–Palestine, race, gender identity, and other charged issues intensify scrutiny of campus speech.

Throughout the talk, Chemerinsky argued that free speech is truly tested when we defend free expression we detest.

The pro-Palestinian demonstrations and encampments that sprang up on many campuses in spring 2024 created unprecedented conditions for an aggressive crackdown on student speech. Unlike during previous protest movements, such as the Vietnam War, when most students took one side of an issue against the adult establishment, the pro-Palestinian movement pitted pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian students—and faculty—against one another, fueling tensions that spilled into classrooms, dorms and quads.

That unrest collided squarely with President Donald Trump’s re-election and his second-term agenda, which included targeted attacks on both immigrants and “woke” higher ed institutions.

An immigration judge has rejected the Trump administration's efforts to deport Tufts University PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested last year as part of its targeting of pro-Palestinian campus activists, her lawyers said on Monday.

Lawyers for the Turkish student detailed the immigration judge's decision in a filing
with the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had been reviewing a ruling that led to her release from immigration custody in May.

Ten years ago, Princeton University’s Board of Trustees published a strategic framework to guide the institution into the future. As I prepared this annual letter to the community—the tenth in a series that began in 2017—I reread the framework and the mission statement included in it.

The strategic framework and the values expressed in it have shaped a period of remarkable, mission-driven growth. As I describe in the paragraphs that follow, those values will be equally crucial in the months and years to come, when changed political and economic circumstances require that we transition from a period of exceptional growth to one defined by steadfast focus on core priorities.

Princeton is an undemocratic place. Its premier open deliberative body, the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), is fraught with attempts to filter legitimate dialogue and debate between various campus interests. Indeed, as my colleague Siyeon Lee argued last fall, CPUC meetings “mostly functioned as a Q&A, the decision already made, and the damage already done.”

However, in just under two weeks, at the upcoming Feb. 9 CPUC meeting in the basement of Frist Campus Center, the University community — students, faculty, and staff — will have a rare opportunity for unfettered access to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83.

A new national coalition, the Alliance for Higher Education, announced its launch Tuesday, promising to defend higher education from government interference.

The nonprofit’s mission is to protect higher ed’s role in fostering democracy by ensuring that colleges and universities have academic freedom, autonomy and opportunity for all students to learn and succeed, said Mike Gavin, the organization’s inaugural president and CEO. “Our goal—the joke I’ve been making—is to make things less bad,” Gavin told Inside Higher Ed. “But in the long run, what we want to see is” higher ed making good on its “democratic promises.”

A UNC System Board of Governors committee on Wednesday advanced a proposal to define “academic freedom” across the state’s public universities, despite pushback from a faculty group and their lawyers. The policy, which heads to the full board for consideration next month, includes the definition that the system’s Faculty Assembly approved in October. 

In part, the explanation reads that “academic freedom is the foundational principle that protects the rights of all faculty to engage in teaching, research/creative activities, service, and scholarly inquiry without undue influence.” But the system added sections that would set the “parameters” of academic freedom for faculty and its “protections” for students, such as the freedom to “take reasoned exception” to ideas presented in their classes.

The last two years have seen a dramatic increase in the scrutiny of free speech and academic freedom on university campuses, largely in response to the protests that followed the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. There has been important progress during this period that bolsters awareness of the importance of free speech and academic freedom principles.

However, progress on these core values will mean little if there is not a major effort to address a pressing long-term and deeply embedded problem – the almost total lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty at many universities.

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.

Former University President Lee Bollinger, Law ’71, called on universities to take “collective action” against President Donald Trump’s administration amid its “authoritarian assault” on higher education in his first interview with Spectator since stepping down from the presidency in May 2023.

Since leaving his post after more than two decades as Columbia’s 19th president, the University has cycled through three presidents—Minouche Shafik, Katrina Armstrong, and Claire Shipman, CC ’86, SIPA ’94—as it experienced intense national scrutiny for its response to campus protests over the war in Gaza.

“When it comes to getting free speech right,” writes Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber in the introduction to Terms of Respect, “America’s young people deserve higher marks than they get.” This is a central contention of Eisgruber’s new book, and it is, as those young people say, big – if true.

It also begs the question twice over, in the way that is all but inevitable when we talk about higher education and speech, two goods contemporarily treated as goods of themselves, if not the highest goods. Whether Eisgruber’s contention is correct depends on what is meant by free speech, then again on what is meant by getting it right.

Multiple Penn-affiliated groups filed a motion on Tuesday to intervene as defendants in an ongoing lawsuit filed against the University by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

The lawsuit followed a July 2025 subpoena from the EEOC that required Penn to submit detailed information on workplace antisemitism complaints and membership lists for various Jewish-related campus groups. In November, the agency sued the University for allegedly failing to comply.

When the College announced its policy of institutional restraint in December 2024, it entered uncharted territory. There was no precedent for such a policy in Dartmouth’s history, which left room for much debate over its implications. Now, however, the policy has found its analogue in a surprising place — not at another university, but at the CBS headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. 

And yet, rather than reassuring us about Dartmouth’s policy, the case at CBS News is quickly becoming an omen about what exactly could go wrong with institutional neutrality at Dartmouth, and how a policy designed to promote free speech could be co-opted just as quickly to restrict it.

One of the central justifications for universities is that they are needed to form citizens. Citizens need not just a fluency with the ideas that are contending for dominance in our democracy, but also an ability to assess them critically. This is especially true for the next generation of elites who will go on to exercise an outsized influence over national and international affairs.

This crucial role for academia raises some fundamental questions: How well are colleges and universities preparing the young to assume such powers? Are students being exposed to a broad range of intellectual perspectives that give shape to these controversies and illuminate the complexity of the issues at stake? To shine a light on these questions, we draw on a unique database of college syllabi collected by the "Open Syllabus" (OS) database.

On paper, freshly hired University of Virginia president Scott C. Beardsley appears to have all the bona fides of a qualified higher ed leader: multiple advanced degrees and more than a decade of experience leading a top business school. But that has not stymied outrage about his selection.

Last month the Virginia Board of Visitors voted to elevate him from business school dean to the top job, filling a vacancy left by former president James Ryan, who resigned under pressure as board leadership negotiated an agreement with the Department of Justice to close investigations into alleged civil rights infractions. Ryan has since accused the board of being complicit in his ouster.

Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 said the University “went wrong” by allowing professors to inject their personal views into the classroom, arguing that faculty activism had chilled free speech and debate on campus.

In rare and unusually candid remarks on a podcast released on Tuesday, Garber appeared to tie many of higher education’s oft-cited ills — namely, a dearth of tolerance and free debate — to a culture that permits, and at times encourages, professors to foreground their identity and perspectives in teaching.

“How many students would actually be willing to go toe-to-toe against a professor who's expressed a firm view about a controversial issue?” he said.

For the first time since the 2024 “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Princeton, Yuval Donio Gideon, head of the Public Diplomacy Department of the Consulate General of Israel in New York, met with University administrators and campus rabbis to discuss the experience of Israeli and Jewish students on campus.

Gideon met with Vice President for Communications and Government Affairs Gadi Dechter and Vice Provost for International Affairs and Operations Aly Kassam-Remtulla, two top Nassau Hall officials. He also met with Rabbi Eitan Webb, the co-director of Princeton University Chabad House, and Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life.

In February of this year, a few colleagues and I co-founded a group called Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff (CJFS), which now has more than 200 members on more than two dozen campuses. Our group, which is predominantly made up of academics at Massachusetts colleges and universities but includes members from across New England, is one of several such efforts nationwide that have coalesced into a new National Campus Jewish Alliance. 

We recognize that Jewish safety is inseparable from the safety of all people, and we work to foster academic environments that reduce antisemitism by treating educators as partners, not as suspects.

The months since Charlie Kirk’s murder on Utah Valley University’s campus in September have seen a deluge of firings and suspensions of teachers, faculty, and staff across the country for celebrating the assassination, or just for being insufficiently mournful. As the dust settles and court cases proceed, more details are emerging about the political pressures universities faced to punish protected political expression.

In Iowa, lawmakers were so incensed by one Iowa State University staff member’s speech about the shooting that they outright dismissed the possibility of a lawsuit.

Princetonians for Free Speech participated for the fifth time at the 5th Annual Campus Free Speech Roundtable, hosted by North Carolina Congressman Greg Murphy, MD, held in Washington, D.C. on December 12th.

This year, Executive Director Angela Smith represented PFS at this event. The purpose of the 90-minute roundtable was to hear from free speech experts, engaged alumni, representatives from the Trump Administration, and lawmakers about the importance of protecting free speech in higher education.

A discussion about Fizz and the role of social media in our discourse took place at Princeton University on December 3rd, 2025, hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and funded by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), While the discussion has been lauded as an example of what can come about through open and civil exchange of ideas, several questions remain worth considering. What is the place of anonymous speech in our society? Should someone take responsibility for the things they say? Or has our public discourse been hollowed out by social media to the point where online commentary should be considered performative?

At a time when the average tenure of a college president has dipped below six years, Ronald J. Daniels is beginning his 18th year at the helm of the Johns Hopkins University. He’s weathered numerous crises, though perhaps none as severe as the second Trump administration.

As part of the leadership of the Association of American Universities, Daniels had several discussions with members of the Trump administration about its recent open letter, “A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards.” I spoke to Daniels over Zoom about his decision to advise on that open letter, how conservative scholars have been “systematically excluded” from the academy, and whether his emphasis on political diversity has come at the expense of racial diversity.

I studied in the academic department at Cambridge that later employed Jason Arday. My degree was in ‘Politics, Psychology and Sociology’, and one of my papers was on the Sociology of Education. Arday became a professor of Sociology of Education a few years after I left.

I want to give a few examples of the scale of progressive ideological capture even then, pre-Peak Woke, in 2012 (when I graduated). As well as to try to illustrate the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of so much of what gets passed off as chin-rubbingly profound academic scholarship at some of the most elite educational institutions in the world.

This report presents findings from a national survey of 1,959 law school faculty at 192 American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools in the United States, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). As one of the largest surveys of law faculty on free expression and professional norms, the data reveal a profession that strongly endorses free speech principles while struggling to live them out in practice. 

An arbitrator ruled that Sang Hea Kil, a tenured San José State University professor who was fired in 2025 after participating in pro-Palestinian student protests, should be reinstated, the California Faculty Association announced Monday. 

The arbitrator deemed Kil’s termination to be an “excessive” punishment and said it should be reduced to a one-month unpaid suspension, according to the news release. Kil was the first tenured full professor to be fired for pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Last fall, the University of California announced that it would sunset a key diversity-hiring initiative tied to its President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (PPFP). Less than two weeks later, the UC system reversed course, cowed by a backlash led by the very “scholar-activists” whom the program had spent four decades and more than $162 million cultivating. The episode offers a sobering lesson for reformers: when a university sustains an agenda long enough, that agenda becomes self-sustaining.

The PPFP functions as a social-justice career accelerator—and a kind of side-door to the faculty lounge. Through the program, UC hires postdoctoral fellows with a heavy emphasis on DEI, and the postdocs then get special favor for tenure-track faculty jobs.

It’s now widely (though not universally) conceded that improving viewpoint diversity on campus would improve university teaching and research. Faculty on American campuses are overwhelmingly cut from the same ideological cloth, and this homogeneity has harmful effects on all aspects of the professoriate, including teaching, research, and service.

But suppose you had the opportunity to fix this. You could wave a magic wand and improve viewpoint diversity in any part of campus. Where should you work your magic? Where does viewpoint diversity matter the most? 

Colleges and universities face a moment of crisis, with their missions, funding, and operations under threat. At the same time, US public opinion surveys show that support for higher education is at historic lows. The Trust Agenda outlines a response to these challenges that can build public trust, make campuses more trustworthy, and enable colleges and universities to defend their missions successfully.

The report’s recommendations include a combination of internal reforms, external communications, and collaborative defense strategies. The unifying theme of The Trust Agenda is a need for increased and meaningful connection in higher education—between campuses and their communities; among faculty, staff, students, and administrators; across institutions; and with society as a whole.

There is widespread agreement that higher education is politicized, but there is disagreement over who is to blame. The left argues President Trump and various red states enacting policies are injecting conservative dogma into teaching and research. The right argues that the left politicized academia over the past several decades, and that the new policies are merely trying to reverse the current politicization. There is some truth to both stories.

Fortunately, there is a solution to depoliticize universities – establish heterodox centers, or colleges within the existing university, that would add missing perspectives and compete with the traditional departments.