Your Cart is Empty
By Stuart Taylor, Jr., President of PFS
Since the University of Chicago paved the way in 1967 with its Kalven Committee Report, some 30 other American universities and colleges have followed suit by insisting on “institutional neutrality” on political and social issues, while also affirming their commitment to the academic freedom of faculty and students in the face of suppression from internal and/or external entities.
The case for institutional neutrality is a broadly shared perception that a university, college, president, dean, provost, or academic department should not take a public position on a political or social issue unless it threatens the very mission of the University and its value of free inquiry. The reason is that the effect could be to deter students and faculty members from expressing their own opinions lest they appear at odds with their institutions.
Campuses that have adopted the institutional neutrality principle include Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, the University of Texas System, Purdue, and Northwestern.
Princeton has not done so. And President Eisgruber has repeatedly rejected calls from groups, including Princetonians for Free Speech, that it adopt institutional neutrality.
In his May 27, 2025 Commencement address, Eisgruber detailed reasons, including this: “Some current-day proponents of the neutrality standard . . . appear to become uneasy when, for example, scholars expose and analyze the role of race, sexuality, or prejudice in society and politics.”
To the contrary, the institutional neutrality standard suggests no limit at all on what individual scholars or students can say or do. It calls for the institutions where they work to avoid taking collective positions lest they chill the freedoms of speech and thought of the scholars and students.
The chill is evidenced by, among other things, responses to our annual PFS surveys of Princeton students, the last of which shows that “52% of Princeton students would be somewhat or very uncomfortable expressing disagreement with a position that Princeton or their academic major’s department has publicly taken, with only 9% being very comfortable doing so.”
In addition, Eisgruber cites no standard to explain why or why not Princeton is taking a position.
As the Kalven Committee report said: “The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. [It] cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
In his Commencement address, Eisgruber also saidthat “though I agree with much that is said in the Kalven Report, I have never liked the language of ‘neutrality,’ partly because ‘neutral’ has multiple meanings,” with synonyms including“innocuous,” “unobjectionable,” “harmless,” “bland,” and “colorless.” He added: “‘Neutral’ can mean ‘impartial,’ which is a more precise way to capture what the Kalven Committee had in mind.”
So call it “institutional impartiality,” if you prefer. But please be clear that the principle would impose no limitation on what any individual scholar or student can say.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
In a few minutes, all of you will walk out of this stadium as newly minted graduates of this University. Before you do, however, long-standing tradition permits the University president to offer a few remarks about the path that lies ahead.
In having a truly diverse group of students share their perspectives, Princeton makes known that there exists a home for every viewpoint. However, as much as I believe this claim to be true, there are unfortunately those who do not. It is easy to dismiss the Princeton administration and culture as entirely polarizing and ideologically biased. In fact, it is true that many here hold the same dominant perspective . But to focus on this fact alone, to rest our entire judgement on one such observation, runs the dangerous risk of neglecting the clear and persistent efforts of this University to encourage every student—even the conservative ones—to share the beliefs that he or she so earnestly pursues.
On April 15, I had the pleasure of hosting, on behalf of the Cliosophic Society, Ambassador John Bolton at Princeton’s Nassau Inn for a discussion entitled “The Room Where It Happened: National Security Decisions Under Pressure.” Bolton’s legacy as a leading professional in American foreign policy offered more than a glimpse behind the diplomatic curtain; it invited a critical examination of the processes and personalities that have shaped recent American engagement with the world.
