Princetonians for Free Speech

“Terms of Respect,” the 2025 book by University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, claims in its subtitle that “colleges get free speech right.” And, in a required orientation event on Aug. 25, he attempted to convince the Class of 2030 that Princeton does too. 

In a panel discussion with Summer Lopez GS ’08, a co-CEO of PEN America, Eisgruber outlined Princeton’s "time, place, and manner" restrictions, which dictate the context of expression at Princeton, not the content. However, looking around Richardson, where some of the Class of 2030 watched the discussion on a livestream, I noticed that many of my peers were exercising their own freedom to not pay attention.

Princeton University’s Board of Trustees is now advising the Council of the Princeton University Community’s Resources Committee to “quickly dispose of petitions” when the potential for consensus is low, and to “avoid becoming a tool for intensifying division,” according to a public statement released by the board on Wednesday. The Resources Committee is a group of faculty, students, and staff that considers proposals for dissociation. 

“If dissociation submissions clearly fail the consensus criterion, there is no need to thoroughly examine whether other criteria are met, to burden disputants with establishing a lack of consensus, or to otherwise extend consideration of the petition,” the statement read. Dissociation refers to severing financial relationships with an entity, including refraining from soliciting or accepting gifts or grants and purchasing products from the entity.

On Sept. 29, the Yale Political Union hosted Aaron Withe, the CEO of the Freedom Foundation, who debated for the resolution, “Ban Public-Sector Unions.” It’s not a popular argument at Yale. At least, that’s what you’d gather from the YPU Instagram poll posted in the hours before the debate: nearly 80 percent of respondents were opposed.

Would it surprise you to learn that, at the end of that evening, the YPU voted 35-25 in favor of the resolution? The same argument, roughly as popular as herpes, won a comfortable victory. How did an initially marginal view end up sweeping the room? What mattered was that right-wing party members turned out — and left-wing ones didn’t. What mattered, ultimately, was that conservatives showed up to debate — and progressives didn’t.

Higher education today is reeling from multiple crises. From the incursion of artificial intelligence  into the classroom, to the crackdown on research funding by the Trump administration, the skyrocketing cost of college, and the decline in trust from the American public, it is hard to know what university leaders can do to restore their institutions to their former status as pillars of the country’s progress and prosperity.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Tuesday vacated the district court decision that ordered the University of Pennsylvania to turn over the names and contact information of Jewish employees to the Trump administration. 

Though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had already withdrawn its subpoena, the American Association of University Professors, a party to the case, still considers the decision a “significant victory” that will protect other institutions from similar probes.

The Trump administration urged the First Circuit on Monday to let it revoke Harvard’s funding, arguing the district court lacked the authority to require the government to restore nearly $2.7 billion in research grants last fall.

Justice Department lawyer Michael K. Velchik ’12, arguing before a crowded courtroom, asked a skeptical three-judge First Circuit panel to toss out a September 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs requiring the Trump administration to restore Harvard’s funding. Velchik framed the dispute between Harvard and the Trump administration as a contractual issue stemming from the termination letters issued widely to University researchers in May 2025 — a question that he said could only be decided by the Court of Federal Claims.