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.
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.
Allen is the rare liberal academic who appeals to both Harvard and the American Enterprise Institute. Her willingness to take conservative criticisms of academe seriously has earned her cross-ideological credibility and influence. “I wish we had a lot more scholars like Danielle,” Frederick Hess, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told me. Her ecumenism reflects a core commitment: The university can’t ignore its critics; it must win some of them over.
To do that, she contends, universities will have to change. These changes include encouraging vigorous debate and a greater pluralism on campus, among other institutional transformations aimed at controlling costs, recentering a civic mission, and making admissions less opaque. Such changes will involve giving certain things up.
The public increasingly sees through the righteous image that American higher education wishes to project. Professors and administrators say that they curtail only injurious and hateful speech despite their tendency to equate injurious and hateful speech with conservative opinions. They maintain that they promote diversity, equity, and inclusion to rectify injustice and enhance education and not, as evidence suggests, to reward minorities and women whose thinking conforms to progressive orthodoxy. And they offer an undergraduate curriculum that allows students to fashion a slate of classes that suits their individual needs, tastes, and skills but which – typically lacking a mandatory and coherent core – leaves graduates destitute of that basic knowledge of America, the West, and other civilizations that informs the judgment of responsible citizens.
The early nineteenth century was a formative era for American higher education, a time when colleges were fragile, small-scale institutions, often caught between their colonial legacies and populist hostility to privileged elites studying the liberal arts.
These tensions came to a head in the case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which helped to establish the independence of American higher education from governmental control. At issue was the very nature of a college. Is it a public utility, subject to the demands of the state? Or is it a self-governing institution whose autonomy deserves constitutional protection?
Now the administration is back with Compact 2.0, formally titled "A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards." It includes some rhetorical flourishes intended to make it seem less threatening to teaching, learning and research. But make no mistake: It once again asks colleges and universities to align themselves with a far-right agenda at the expense of students’ education and the public’s well-being.
In PFS Supports Two Student and Faculty Events that Advance Free Expression, Executive Director Angela Smith highlights PFS support for two important on-campus events that happened in February, one organized by students, the other by faculty.
“Free speech and open inquiry are not abstract ideals – they are the lifeblood of a healthy university community. At Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), we strive to advance those principles through practical, tangible support for students and faculty who put them into action. As such, we are pleased to tell you about two recent events at Princeton, supported by PFS, that reflect this mission in powerful ways.”
Read more about these events, why PFS supports them, and why you should support PFS.
And read coverage of these two events in the Student Corner below, written by our writing fellows Annabel Green ‘26 and Joseph Gonzalez ‘28.
On Friday, approximately 200 students and community members gathered at the Fountain of Freedom to protest against the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents. The protest was the first campus rally of the spring semester and was part of a “national shutdown” initially organized by protesters in Minneapolis.
Collin Binkley
Associated Press
Some of the country’s most prestigious colleges are enrolling record numbers of low-income students — a growing admissions priority in the absence of affirmative action.
At Princeton University, this year’s freshman class has more low-income students than ever. One in four are eligible for federal Pell grants, which are scholarships reserved for students with the most significant financial need. That’s a leap from two decades ago, when fewer than 1 in 10 were eligible. “The only way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to be intentional about it,” Princeton President ChristopherEisgruber said in a statement. “Socioeconomic diversity will increase if and only if college presidents make it a priority.”
Jennifer Jennings
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Universities are the enemy. Or so we’ve been told.
So let me take you behind enemy lines to my undergraduate lecture course of about 100 students, called “Schooled: Education, Opportunity, and Inequality.” It’s cross-listed in Sociology and the School of Public and International Affairs, which is already a red flag to those who use “woke” as both adjective and diagnosis.
To PFS Subscribers, Members and Friends,
On March 10 the Department of Education’s office of Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, including Princeton. Theseletters warned of potential “enforcement actions” if institutions do not protect Jewish students.
On March 20, in reaction to the Trump administration’s threat to cut $400 million in Federal funding from Columbia University, 18 law professors with a range of views from liberal to conservative, signed a public letter in The New York Review arguing: “the government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment-protected speech.” The next day, Columbia conceded to government demands. Other thanBrown University’s President Christina Paxson, who detailed what Brown would do under similar threats, Princeton’s President Eisgruber was a lone voice amongst the leadership of these universities – in The Cost of Government Attacks on Columbia, published by the Atlantic on March 19.
This week in The Chronicle of Higher Education, three of the 18 public letter signatories, all first amendment scholars, discuss what Columbia and other universities threatened with funding cuts should do. It is worth reading “It is Remarkable How Quickly the Chill Has Descended.” with Michael C. Dorf, of Cornell University; Genevieve Lakier, of the University of Chicago; and Nadine Strossen, of New York Law School.
Cynthia Torres
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: At the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting on Monday, Eisgruber was confronted with queries on the Trump administration and University governance from several students who had skirted the committee’s rules on submitting questions on advance.
The first question came from Vasanth Visweswaran ’28, who asked Eisgruber how he could use his position as chair of the Association of American Universities (AAU) to “defend all members of the University community from the recent Trump administration attacks on free speech, funding cuts and threats for deportations.”
Elisabeth Stewart
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Princeton released its fourth annual diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) report on Thursday, Jan. 30. The report, which covers the 2023–24 academic year, includes new data on the University’s DEI programming, partnerships with Native American and Indigenous initiatives, outreach to transfer and veteran students, and the fostering of belonging across faith-based identities.
The report’s release comes amid the latest onslaught of anti-DEI policies from the new presidential administration.
To Princetonians for Free Speech Subscribers, Members and Friends,
Whoa. January certainly was a month of explosive change for higher education! Three executive orders that could impact funding of universities prompted President Eisgruber’s January 28 letter, which rightly admits “there is much we do not know.” See the Daily Princetonians coverage of Eisgruber’s letter: Eisgruber says U. is “exploring measures” in wake of Trump orders, stops short of specific guidance.
Most importantly, take a close look at our special feature, written by PFS cofounder Ed Yingling, 2025: A Breakthrough Year for Free Speech on Campus. It is a grand synthesis of the many ways 2025 could be a year of dramatic change at US Universities, change that could critically impact free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity at Princeton and elsewhere. Yingling’s article helps to make sense of the radical changes that lie in store.
Bill Hewitt
Princeton Tory
Editor’s note: As the Naming Committee and the University approach the end of their deliberations on the vitally important decision whether to replace or remove the 10-foot bronze statue of the indispensable early Princeton president John Witherspoon (1768 to 1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence, over his ownership of two slaves, we are featuring the latest of several articles (this one in the Princeton Tory) by Bill Hewitt ’74. The November 3 symposium, “Monuments, Memory, and the John Witherspoon Statue,” is the last scheduled public exploration of the issues. Hewitt has acquired encyclopedic knowledge of the historical facts, which he says show Withespoon to have been a heroic figure and enlightened for his time about slavery and its eventual abolition. The statue has stood in Firestone Plaza outside East Pyne Hall since being installed in 2001 under the leadership of Princeton President Harold T. Shapiro.
President Eisgruber has flagrantly failed his own stated standards of conduct – and abandoned his duties to the Princeton community. He refuses to prevent publication of multiple statements on University websites that falsely defame the reputation of John Witherspoon, Princeton’s indispensable early president and a founder of the United States. Moreover, these defamations’ profound misdirection about Witherspoon’s true relation to slavery have sown anguish and dissension across the University community.
New York University’s Jonathan Haidt checks a number of boxes for an in-house commencement speaker: best-selling author, public intellectual, and high-profile campus figure. A social psychologist teaching “ethical leadership” at NYU’s school of business, his books like The Coddling of the American Mind and The Anxious Generation show up on airport bookshelves and the Obama end-of-year-list. He has been a fixture on the liberal-nerd podcast circuit and in the TED Talk world, best known for advocating for free speech and limited screen time. Despite that résumé — or because of it — some NYU students donning violet gowns today at Yankee Stadium would prefer it wasn’t Haidt delivering their final undergrad address.
Evan Goldstein and Len Gutkin
Chronicle of Higher Education
Robert P. George, the conservative legal scholar and moral philosopher, has spent the past four decades at Princeton University assiduously cultivating an ever-widening network of influence. For parts of the religious right, he’s an intellectual lodestar on issues including gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. The Catholic journal Crisis once quipped that “if there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy, its leaders probably meet in George’s kitchen.”
Over the course of two interviews — the first conducted from his home and the second from his office on the Princeton campus — George discussed the risk of indoctrination from the left and the right, the need for a more ideologically diverse professoriate, and how academe made itself vulnerable to attack by the Trump administration. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Nikoloz Inashvili
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Princeton’s sweeping new policy passed Nov. 10 that would ban recordings in most settings without the consent of all participants will not take effect until Jan. 1, University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss said in a statement.
However, there is still limited information about how the policy will be implemented, particularly regarding its enforcement and the scope of recording permissions. Hotchkiss wrote that “The University is preparing guidance on the implementation of this policy, which will be made available well ahead of the Jan. 1, 2026 implementation.”
Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Nearly two years after tumbling down the steps of Whig Hall and being charged for simple assault and trespassing, seven months after he was found not guilty of the final remaining charge, and two-and-a-half months after he sued the University and Assistant Vice President for Public Safety Kenneth Strother over the incident, David Piegaro ’25 finally has Princeton’s response to his lawsuit: They want to dismiss it.
The response, submitted on Nov. 12 by University lawyer Lawrence S. Lustberg, asks the court for a pre-motion conference in advance of filing a motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, immediate leave to file a motion to dismiss.
Ryne Weiss
FIRE
Excerpt: The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. In his new book Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber reports on FIRE’s data on free speech and First Amendment norms on campus while making no effort to understand it and misusing the data of others. In other words, he’s skipped that first step — and now Princeton is tumbling down the staircase.
Shilo Brooks
The Free Press
Excerpt: Last year, our reporter Frannie Block told me about a lecturer at Princeton who was teaching a class on “greatness,” firmly rooted in the classic books of the Western canon. He would open his course by telling students that if “the greatest thing, the best thing, the noblest thing about you on your deathbed is that you got into Princeton, you didn’t do it right.”
His name is Shilo Brooks, and when I got to meet him myself, we spoke for hours about the problem of America’s lost boys, the dramatic decline in book-reading, and how those two things are connected. So I am thrilled to announce today that we are launching his brand-new podcast Old School, which is about books and how reading them can make us better.
On with Kara Swisher
Excerpt: Universities and free speech are at the center of America’s culture wars. And since President Trump took office, higher education has been in the crosshairs — and Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber is one of the few college leaders speaking out.
In this episode, Kara talks with Eisgruber about his new book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, and the growing attacks on universities, free speech, and academic freedom.
Robby George and Cornel West
FOX News
Excerpt: Union Theological Seminary professor Cornel West and 'Truth Matters' co-author Robert George join 'Fox News Sunday' to discuss the rise in political violence and the importance of civil political debate.
The Crimson Editorial Board
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: This summer, Harvard College swapped the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion for the language of “culture and community,” closing the Harvard College Women’s Center and BGLTQ spaces, only vaguely promising to keep services unchanged. DEI might have failed at Harvard, but without increased transparency, the cautiously-worded rebrand will suffer a similar fate.
Now, the rage at the College is “viewpoint diversity,” exemplified in its Intellectual Vitality initiative and DEI rebrand. We agree with the premise: the academic mission requires engaging with diverse perspectives. But as Harvard’s institutional emphasis on diversity shifts to the intellectual, students from backgrounds affected by the DEI purge may find themselves unsupported.
Jessica Blake
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: In the nearly seven months since President Trump took office again, academic associations, faculty unions, researchers and other groups have used the legal system to push back on the administration’s efforts to reshape higher education and the federal government.
So far, district and appeals courts have largely suggested that the executive branch’s actions are unconstitutional and ruled in favor of university advocates, handing down preliminary injunctions, restraining orders and a few final judgments that have blocked the Trump administration’s goals. But based on the few cases that have reached the Supreme Court, some higher education experts worry the tide may be turning, and the high court’s conservative majority will ultimately side with the president.
Jeffrey M. Jones
Gallup
Excerpt: Americans’ confidence in higher education has increased, with 42% saying they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it, up from 36% in each of the past two years. At the same time, the share with little or no confidence has declined from 32% a year ago to 23% today.
This represents the first time Gallup has measured an increase in confidence in its decadelong trend. Confidence in higher education remains well below where it was in the initial Gallup measure in 2015, when a majority of 57% were confident.
Lily Halbert-Alexander
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In an otherwise insightful, hopeful, and at times even beautiful, piece in the New Yorker in April, Princeton Professor of History D. Graham Burnett makes one critical error: Compared to the rise of AI, he remarks, the Trump administration’s frightening invasions into university affairs seems like a “sideshow.”
Jia Cheng Shen
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In his editorial “What is a Princeton degree really for?” written this past spring, Joel Ibabao ’27 treated a Princeton education as a private asset meant to be optimized for one’s own gain. This approach correctly recognizes that “finding oneself” at college can only take precedence over positioning oneself on the job market if financial security is a given.
But these personal considerations — finding yourself or achieving economic security — should not be the only ones. What Ibabao misses is that a Princeton education is aided immensely by the generosity of the University endowment and broader social compact between the federal government and society at large. Those few of us privileged to come out with those elite degrees, thus, are deeply indebted to the public.
In many ways, Marisa Hirschfield ’27 represents the typical high-achieving Princeton student. A history major, Hirschfield writes for the Triangle Club and is interested in filmmaking and public interest law. Like many Princetonians, she identifies as politically progressive.
But where Hirschfield’s resume diverges from many of her classmates is that she serves as a writing fellow for Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), a nonprofit founded by Stuart Taylor Jr. ’70 and Ed Yingling ’70 that seeks to promote free speech and academic freedom on campus. At Princeton, the free speech issue has been contested for the past several years but mostly involved conservative students who felt that they were being silenced or bullied for their views.
Dhruv T. Patel
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: Harvard will immediately rename its Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging to “Community and Campus Life,” the University announced Monday.
The move comes as the Trump administration continues its campaign to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming at universities. In two April letters outlining demands to Harvard, federal agencies urged the University to dismantle its DEI programming — or lose billions of dollars in federal funding.
Amid the ongoing showdown between the Trump administration and the Ivy League, one university president has positioned himself as a leader of the academic resistance: Princeton’s Christopher L. Eisgruber.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants to Princeton as part of its investigation into racial discrimination and anti-Semitism at the New Jersey campus. Eisgruber, though, was defiant, telling the New York Times that he’s “not considering any concessions” and calling for other university presidents to follow his lead.
American Association of University Professors Press Release
Excerpt: The national AAUP and our Harvard chapter filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the Trump administration from demanding that Harvard University restrict speech and restructure its core operations or else face the cancellation of $8.7 billion in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospitals.
“The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like,” says Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law at Harvard University and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter. “Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach, and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants.”
Preston Ferraiuolo and Jerry Zhu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Higher education is in trouble. Princeton is in trouble. After Tuesday’s announcement that the federal government suspended some of Princeton’s research grants, it’s clear that we’re already in the crosshairs. At Columbia, after the university appointed an administrative official to oversee an academic department in acquiescence to Trump administration demands, it appears that the integrity of academic freedom is also under attack.
Many university presidents have chosen to remain silent in the face of this attack on academia. Others, such as Michael Roth ’84 GS of Wesleyan University, have explicitly vilified the Trump administration. Rather than taking an overtly political stance against the administration, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has chosen to take a principled stand against the most troubling facet of the recent grant suspensions: their impact on academic freedom.
Isaac Barsoum
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: At a time when autocracy is rising nationwide, Princeton should respond with democracy here. For too long, the disciplinary and policy-making procedures at Princeton have been opaque and anti-democratic. We ought to move toward the democratization of internal processes, thereby affirming the importance of disciplinary due process and true community input in policy formation.
Guest Contributors
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Columbia University appears to have given in to the government’s anti-constitutional and autocratic attack on free speech and the rule of law. In the face of Project 2025-inspired demands from the Trump administration, Columbia expelled students and revoked degrees. On Friday, they announced further concessions, including, most concerningly to us, the removal of academic self-governance from the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies.
Princeton, along with 59 others, is on a list of universities targeted by the administration. President Eisgruber has started the pushback, standing up on behalf of academic freedom and saying that the Trump administration is attacking higher education. Professors, students, other universities, and the public should join him.
Daily Princetonian Editorial Board
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Some institutions have been cowed by threats from the federal government. This acquiescence is dangerous. Complying with constitutionally contested directives before judges rule on their legality normalizes them. As Columbia’s example has taught us, even repeated concessions to the Trump administration won’t protect you. As an institution relatively insulated from financial shocks from the federal government, we have a unique responsibility to speak out. Even among the Ivy League, Princeton’s wealth, prestige, and historical reputation as the most conservative Ivy give the University unique influence.
Bill Hewitt ‘74
Tiger Roars, Substack
Excerpt: Why did Eisgruber’s administration thrust “Known and Heard” into the Memory Hole? Eisgruber’s slippery defense of the “Known and Heard” presentation remains posted on the Office of the President's website. Recently, a University spokesperson explained, “The Office of Campus Engagement decided to remove the site, given that it had not been used in programming or for educational purposes in several years.” The presentation’s unceremonious extinguishment signals a tacit admission by Eisgruber and company that the “Known and Heard” presentation had deep flaws and is no longer worth defending.
Still standing, but without a word of defense by its sponsor or President Eisgruber, is the profoundly flawed and damaging “John Witherspoon” essay by the Princeton & Slavery Project. This essay subverts Princeton’s mission for “the pursuit of truth . . . and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at large.”
Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff
Washington Post
Excerpt: The University of Virginia’s governing board voted Friday to dissolve its office of diversity, equity and inclusion, joining other efforts by President Donald Trump and Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) to remove DEI initiatives in the state and beyond.
The Board of Visitors, overwhelmingly controlled by Youngkin appointees, voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that dismantled the office. It said state law does not call for such stand-alone offices, but the resolution allows the university to transfer programs “permissible” by law to other homes. It was not immediately clear what would qualify as permissible.
Isaac Barsoum
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: On Jan. 27, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo halting all federal grants and loans indefinitely. Justified as a measure to halt funding for “foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal,” the Trump administration’s order threatened wide-ranging consequences, including for universities like Princeton.
Abigail Anthony
National Review
Excerpt: Kevin Kruse, a history professor at Princeton University, shared the following post on Bluesky this week:
“I’m at the Princeton Columbia MBB game, sitting next to one Columbia fan with a National Review hat and in front of another wearing a gold and white Trump 47 hat. I may need bail money later.”
A subpar lawyer might attempt to construe these comments as threats or incitement. Even though I've previously described Kruse's (now defunct) Twitter as "so far left that it makes Vox look conservative," I don’t think he seriously contemplated committing politically motivated violence.
Frank Strasburger
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: As a former Princeton chaplain, I’m eager to respond to Sasha Malena Johnson’s thoughtful Opinion piece urging that Opening Exercises be made secular. While I’m sympathetic to much that she says, my own understanding of Princeton’s religious pluralism leads me to a different conclusion.
Raf Basas
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: For centuries, Princeton has been the political and economic elite that America hates. Princetonians dominate Wall Street, with alumni earning some of Wall Street’s highest salaries. Princeton is far overrepresented in the top 1 percent, where 23 percent of Princeton students end up at the age of 34. Princeton is overrepresented in Congress, too. It’s difficult to name a set of “elites,” and not find a Princeton graduate among them.
This is concerning, because exit polls from the November election demonstrate that Princeton students prioritize neither the working class nor economic issues — we are not just elites, but elitists.
