Your Cart is Empty
Today the following letter was sent to President Eisgruber from the Princetonians for Free Speech Executive Committee regarding the protests and event disruption that occurred on April 7th in McCosh Hall:
April 9, 2025
Dear President Eisgruber:
We, the officers of Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), are writing to express our organization’s very deep concerns about the disruption of the program featuring former Israel Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on April 7 and actions of severe antisemitism during and after that program.
As you know, PFS is a Princeton alumni organization created to promote the values of free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity at Princeton. Over 7,500 Princeton alumni subscribe to our email updates and regular reports. This large number, a number that is growing rapidly, is a testament to the concern of alumni about these values.
We appreciate the statement you put out on April 8 condemning the disruption and antisemitism. But more needs to be done.
First, given the recent history of protests at Princeton after the terrorist attack on Israel and incidents of antisemitism on campus, it seems remarkable that Princeton was not better prepared to stop what occurred on April 7. The appearance of a former Israeli Prime Minister might be expected to generate disruptive and potentially violent actions. The preparations and the tepid response that night were both clearly inadequate. As just one example, why were students allowed to wear masks to hide their identity in the room where the event took place?
It is critical now that the University’s actions taken against those who broke university rules and First Amendment protections be swift and appropriate to the severity of what was done. PFS applauded you for the strong message you delivered at the commencement of this year’s entering class about the importance of free speech and Princeton’s rules thereon. However, rules are meaningless unless enforced. Clearly, some members of the Princeton community, including students and faculty, do not respect the rules and do not believe they will be enforced. It is vital that appropriate punishment be given in this case, including suspension and possibly expulsion. It has been clearly demonstrated that a lack of real enforcement of the rules on various campuses, including Princeton, has encouraged more rule-breaking disruption.
Even before the events of April 7, Princeton was among those universities receiving extra scrutiny by the public and policy makers. With this new development, we fear that the reputation of Princeton has been badly tarnished in ways that will have severe long-term repercussions. Strong action is required.
Sincerely,
Stuart Taylor, Jr., PFS President
Edward Yingling, PFS Secretary
Todd Rulon-Miller, PFS Treasurer
Leslie Spencer, PFS Vice-Chair
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Free speech is usually described as a right one either has or does not have, relative to the laws of one’s residence. But a right, like a muscle, is only as strong as its use. When my family flew to the United States in 2018, I naively thought that I had escaped the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) systematic suppression of free speech. I believed that I would access Google, YouTube, and Winnie the Pooh without any need for a VPN to circumvent the “Great Firewall of China,” a term used to describe the CCP’s firm control on online content. But I was clueless: I unknowingly carried a part of the repression within me.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
