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.
Trajan Hammonds
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: A couple of weeks ago, at 1 a.m., I found out the National Science Foundation (NSF) Postdoctoral Fellowship I applied for was being canceled because it did not comply with Trump’s new executive order on federal funding for DEI initiatives. I did what anyone from my generation would do in a moment like this: I took to X to share my experience. It’s clear that the Trump administration’s assault against academia has begun — and ultimately students, researchers, and our country are on the losing end.
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.
Admiral Andrew Cunningham once said of the British Royal Navy, “It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take 300 years to build a new tradition.” Gaining trust is harder than breaking it, and public trust, in particular, should not be trifled with. Over the last decade, trust in science, and academia more generally, has eroded substantially, partly if not largely due to internal problems.
Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, top colleges and universities have faced an onslaught of federal attacks: slashing grant money for research, pressuring schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, cracking down on visas for international students, and ending graduate program sponsorship for active duty military at top schools. However, some Ivy League universities — the center of many of Trump’s ongoing attacks — have decreased messaging on the potential consequences of these federal directives.
“One thing that’s been clear is that a lot of universities have felt that publicity would bring no advantage or do them no good,” history professor David Bell GS ’91, who has been outspoken about federal actions against universities, said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.
A curious feature of the recently released “Report of the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education,” which is rightly being hailed as a major statement of the academic-reform movement, is a certain gingerness when it comes to describing the shape and substance of professorial political radicalism — a significant driver of declining public faith in the sector.
True, the report names the concern that “liberal professors indoctrinate their students,” and it endorses processes to encourage “open interchange” rather than ideological conformity. But, perhaps out of a reluctance to lend aid and comfort to right-wing opponents of academic freedom, the report refrains from getting too specific about the contours of left-wing academic politicization.
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.
The declaration is a statement of purpose for the research university—a reaffirmation of pathbreaking research, transformative education, and the covenant between universities and the society they serve, grounded in academic freedom, merit and excellence.
Excerpt: Imagine walking into your first day of class and finding out that your beliefs have been officially condemned by the academic department offering the course. Pick the hot-button topic: abortion, affirmative action, marriage and sexual morality, transgender identity, Israel—university authorities have publicly decreed that your particular viewpoint is incompatible with the department's values.
There is nothing wrong with admitting that Charlie Kirk was controversial. I disagreed with some of his beliefs, just as I disagree with plenty of other political figures. People should be able to criticize his arguments, rhetoric, and politics as strongly as they want. The reaction to his death, however, involved more than mere criticism.
Taken together, these examples show how quickly political violence can become political entertainment. A man who was killed while expressing his political beliefs became a costume, sound effect, and dance trend. Once someone becomes a political symbol, it becomes remarkably easy to dismiss their personhood.
This past April, the Yale Committee on Trust in Higher Education delivered a final report to university president Maurie McInnis on the problem of declining trust in higher education. The work of the 10-person faculty committee, established by President McInnis in spring 2025 and co-chaired by me and Professor Beverly Gage, focused in part on how Yale could right its own ship, ultimately recommending 20 steps that the university should take to help restore trust.
Fortunately, President McInnis took the report and its recommendations seriously, starting by taking responsibility (the report’s first recommendation) on behalf of the university for its role in the trust crisis.
Questioning colleges is normal. There are outstanding concerns about the experience, the education, and the enterprise of higher education: How much does it cost, and is that more than families can pay? Who gets in, and why? Are faculty members treated with dignity? What is college even for? So, although college leaders argue that a few of the concerns voiced in the document are legitimate, they also see within it the bane of Ilium.
On this week’s Radio Atlantic, I’m joined by Jack Stripling, the host of the College Matters podcast at The Chronicle of Higher Education, to consider higher education in the Trump era, and the purpose of college itself.
I recently listened to Ross Douthat’s interview with the philosopher Jennifer Frey. She is a serious thinker and an unusually courageous academic entrepreneur. What she built at the University of Tulsa before it was dismantled is exactly the sort of thing more universities should be attempting. Yet almost every argument she offered for the humanities is, I think, completely unpersuasive to anyone not already on our side of the table.
This report is addressed to university chancellors and presidents who are concerned about the state of academic scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences and who may wish, within their purview, to promote excellent scholarship in these vital fields. The charge to the committee, submitted in August 2025 and formulated by Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, and Andrew D. Martin, Chancellor of Washington University.
That students today find the second part of the Honor Committee’s dual mandate repugnant will surprise no one. The mandate stipulates that students not only maintain their own academic integrity, but also report fellow students for infractions. Reluctance to adhere to the latter clause is no new phenomenon.
As far back as 1996, when matriculating students were still required to submit an essay affirming they understood both parts of the mandate, Chair Emeritus David Cushman ’96 noted that nearly 30 percent of freshmen failed to acknowledge the latter. While the essay was phased out in 2023, that number has been even higher in recent years, according to senior members of the Committee.
Princeton’s honor system, as-is, emphasizes the responsibility of students to uphold Princeton’s commitment to academic freedom, rigor, and integrity. As the chair emerita of the Honor Committee, which handles suspected academic violations on in-class exams, I have intimate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the system’s fidelity to the pursuit of knowledge.
Recently, however, the Honor Committee has experienced new strains, including an uptick in cases in the last year and challenges such as generative AI, and student sentiment has recognized that its procedures need to better reflect the current challenges to academic integrity. For years, the Committee has had conversations about introducing proctors into exam rooms, to serve as another potential witness and reporter — and the time has finally come to take this step.
Last week, FIRE released results from April’s National Speech Index, a quarterly poll designed to track Americans’ changing attitudes and beliefs about free speech. The latest iteration sampled 1,000 Americans from April 9 through April 17, 2026, asking how acceptable they find various protest tactics in response to a speech in their community.
Notably, the average American opposes censorship far more than college students in this country. Most Americans reject overtly violent censorship tactics. In fact, only 18% say it’s at least rarely acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker, compared to 33% of college undergraduates — and 27% last fall despite the murder of Charlie Kirk weeks before.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
