Your Cart is Empty
By Leslie Spencer ‘79
The Daily Princetonian recently reported that President Eisgruber has rejected the idea of adopting the principle of institutional neutrality.
At a time when universities throughout the country, including Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, USC, and Cornell, have flocked to adopt the principle to protect them from the myriad pressures to take stands on controversial issues such as the war in Gaza, President Eisgruber remains resolute against it.
He told the Daily Princetonian that he thinks institutional neutrality is a “misleading formulation” because he believes there are “values” that the university should and will speak in support of, specifically, “diversity, inclusivity, free speech, academic freedom, and sustainability.”
The neutrality principle, succinctly articulated in the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, makes the purpose clear: To promote an environment that protects robust and wide-open discussion and debate amongst individual faculty members and students, the university and its units must not issue official statements about public matters that do not directly impact the university’s function. Breaking this principle would have a muzzling effect on individual students and faculty who disagree with official positions.
President Eisgruber has opted instead for a different, more selective principle he calls “institutional restraint” stating that this preference allows him to speak out on the university’s values. (Whether the “restraint” standard applies to officials leading units of the university or just to the President is not clear.)
President Eisgruber’s reluctance to adopt the principle of institutional neutrality points to a blind spot that I discussed with Professor Keith Whittington before his departure from Princeton’s Politics department last summer to become the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School.
Whittington is author of Speak Freely, Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech, which focusses oninternal threats to university free speech, and You Can’t Teach That, The Battle Over University Classrooms, which focusses on theexternal threats. In the lead up to a swansong appearance as the featured speaker at Princetonians for Free Speech’s 2024 Princeton Reunions event last June, Whittington shared his perspective on Eisgruber’s blind spot, and what it means for the future of academic freedom and open discourse at Princeton.
Whittington says that Eisgruber’s opting for “institutional restraint” is a cop-out because it is “not a standard with any real teeth.” … “The problem is, it is not clear what it means,” said Whittington, characterizing it as a “comforting compromise” that President Eisgruber and other university leaders tend to prefer because it doesn’t tie the hands of administrators should they feel overcome with the need to declare official positions on contentious issues.
Whittington gives praise to President Eisgruber for articulating his commitment to free speech and academic freedom for the proper functioning of the academic enterprise, as he did during Princeton’s Orientation last month, and in his 2024 State of the University letter.
However, Whittington points out that by rejecting institutional neutrality, he has opted to duck the principle that would enforce this commitment. If President Eisgruber is a staunch defender of academic freedom and campus free speech, why would he duck this critical principle of enforcement?
Whittington says that President Eisgruber has a blind spot on the “genuine threats” to free speech and academic freedom that exist at Princeton.
While supporting Eisgruber’s focus on the very real external threats to campus free speech, like Florida’s “Stop Woke Act” and similar legislative efforts across the country, Whittington objects to Eisgruber’s insistence on downplaying the internal threats that are “genuine, significant, and pressing. … And by suggesting that there is no problem, and that those who say there is have ulterior motives or concerns – it’s not true.”
Whittington found especially frustrating Eisgruber’s willingness in his 2024 State of the University letter to amplify a growing talking point -- the claim that “free speech” is a stalking horse for an opposition to racial minorities. “Eisgruber plays into this narrative, which sets up a false conflict” says Whittington. “By promoting the idea that there is a conflict between free speech and an open and diverse campus … he unfairly and inaccurately implies that those concerned about free speech have ulterior motives.”
Among students the need for Princeton to commit to neutrality is crystal clear: PFS’s recent annual student survey revealed that 60 percent of students say they would be “very” or “somewhat” uncomfortable expressing disagreement with official positions taken by the university or any of its departments. As to faculty, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom, which recently launched with 54 faculty members, shows that there could be a growing number of faculty who understand its importance to the proper functioning of the academic mission.
Unfortunately, it now seems clear that faculty, students and concerned alumni may have to wait for President Eisgruber’s successor to adopt it.
Leslie Spencer ’79, is vice-chair of Princetonians for Free Speech
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.
