Your Cart is Empty
Editor's note: Below is an excerpt of and link to an important statement issued by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, the student free speech group at Princeton University.
POCC Statement in Academic Freedom in Light of Campus News
Princeton Open Campus Coalition
Princeton University contributes to society through truth seeking, a pursuit necessitating academic freedom and institutional neutrality. Yet recent discussion of an upcoming Princeton course has prompted us, as leaders of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC), to reiterate the truth-seeking mission and how it functions on Princeton’s campus.
This fall, the Department of Near Eastern Studies (NES) is offering a course from Assistant Professor Satyel Larson titled “The Healing Humanities: Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South.” Dr. Larson’s inclusion of one book—Jasbir Puar’s The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability—has stirred controversy for its claims about the Israeli Defense Forces. Earlier this month, Dr. Larson’s course began receiving critical attention from various news sites concerned about material in Puar’s book they deemed harmful and antisemitic.
Last week, Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister wrote to Princeton’s President, Chistropher Eisgruber, requesting that the book be removed from the syllabus and that “discriminatory” materials be excluded from all future Princeton courses. On Monday, the Princeton Center for Jewish Life released a statement urging Dr. Larson and the NES Department to “reconsider the impact of [the] text and to explore alternative ways to teach” because The Right to Maim “could do real harm to Jewish students on our campus.” It is these objections that have raised critical questions concerning academic freedom and its place on Princeton’s campus.
Princeton University expects every professor to abide by the highest standards of scholarship in their discipline when conducting research and teaching students. Facts should be presented as facts, opinions as opinions, and all should be fair game for reasoned debate without viewpoint retaliation. We hope and assume this bar was met when Dr. Larson’s course was approved by the NES Department. Beyond this requirement, professors have complete freedom to construct their syllabi as they see fit.
Consequently, Dr. Larson is entitled to teach whatever books and topics she wants in her course, so long as students can form their own educated assessments of the material. This is true even if her choices are unpopular amongst students, governments, or other organizations. Academic freedom gives both students and professors the opportunity to contribute to the University’s mission of truth seeking, and that opportunity is extended to Dr. Larson. Princeton cannot justly compel changes in her syllabus based on objections to one book’s perspectives. Rather, the University exists to facilitate learning and discussion of controversial topics, which necessitates allowance of such texts in the context of honest academic exploration.
But this does not leave opponents of the course without alternatives. Organizations that see themselves as advocating for Jewish students and voices—or any other organization or individual, for that matter—are welcome to critique the content of Puar’s book, suggest alternative or additional readings that they believe would improve the course, and “counterprogram” by hosting speakers and reading groups. To be sure, Dr. Larson’s course and its opponents can function symbiotically to promote open debate in pursuit of truth on Princeton’s campus.
Signed,
Danielle Shapiro Rebecca Roth Marie Riddle Benjamin Woodard
President, POCC Vice-President, POCC Secretary, POCC Treasurer, POCC
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.
