Princeton Declines to Punish Students Who Disrupted Event and Shouted Antisemitic Slurs in Violation of Rules

Princetonians for Free Speech editorial

In an April 29 editorial, Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) laid out how the target on Princeton’s back on free speech, academic freedom, and antisemitism issues has been growing ever larger. Yet Princeton’s leadership continues to say publicly that everything is just fine at Princeton. Now something has happened that blows the cover off Princeton for everyone to see inside, and the repercussions will be very serious. It is untenable for Princeton’s leadership to continue to live in its bubble, seemingly divorced from reality, and to continue down the path of refusing both to admit there are problems and to take basic steps to address them.

Today, an article was published in Real Clear Politics, “Princeton Fails to Enforce Its Rules on Free Speech, Antisemitism”, written by Danielle Shapiro, who just graduated from Princeton in May. We will not repeat everything in her piece, but everyone interested in Princeton should read it. It is devastating, and the issues she raises will not end there. Her brave actions as a whistleblower will lead to story after story on this matter and will severely tarnish the reputation of Princeton. (Ms. Shapiro is on the board of PFS.)

In short, on April 7, an event on the Princeton campus, sponsored by three student groups and the School of Public and International Affairs and featuring the former Prime Minister of Israel Naftali Bennett, was disrupted twice and ultimately ended when someone, undoubtedly a protester, pulled a fire alarm. Then, when Jewish students left the event, they were subject to vile antisemitic verbal attacks by a mob. Most of the protesters were wearing masks. None of this is disputable because it is on video (except for the actual pulling of the fire alarm), although the official Princeton investigation report sanitizes how awful it was. Ms. Shapiro witnessed all this.

Eisgruber issued a statement the next day saying that he was “appalled at reports of antisemitic language” and that “the University is investigating and will pursue disciplinary measures as appropriate.”

Then, incredibly, six weeks later, on May 19, Michele Minter, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, sent a letter to Ms. Shapiro, which – cutting through all the posturing and legalisms – tells her there will be no consequences for any of the student protesters. One non-student, Sayel Kayed, who disrupted the event a second time, shouting slurs at the speaker for several minutes in clear violation of Princeton’s rules and New Jersey law, will be declared persona non grata and banned from the campus for a year. (He is not affiliated with Princeton and has no reason to come back.) This is the only penalty imposed on anyone. This absurd persona non grata penalty reads like something that would be published on the satirical site, “The Onion.” Again, what bubble does the leadership of Princeton live in that it would do something like that?

Importantly, this process was not the investigation Eisgruber seemed to promise on April 8 or that would be expected. This was a really bad event for Princeton: A former Israeli prime minister was unable to speak, and vile antisemitic remarks were hurled at Jewish students. This was written about in scathing terms in a Wall Street Journal editorial, and by others who pointed out that it was a real test of whether Princeton would enforce its rules. The Journal editorial, entitled “Princeton’s Anti-Israel Disruption Test” stated: “The best move for Princeton would be to do a swift investigation, impose real consequences under its disciplinary authority, and make the outcome public.”

So, Princeton’s President announced an investigation of these terrible events and then Princeton issued a public report, with a press release, on it? NO actually it did not. The “report” on the investigation was the May 19 letter to Ms. Shapiro, who had co-authored a letter to Eisgruber on April 8 describing the terrible events and asking for changes. 

We searched carefully and could find no public announcement, no press release, nor anything on the University’s website about the investigation’s results. The only mention of it we can find anywhere is a short story in the Princeton Alumni Weekly on May 21. It appears that on that date, Princeton sent an email summary of the report to PAW, and possibly to a few others. But this was, as Ms. Shapiro notes in her article, after she had indicated to Princeton officials that she might make the letter to her public. Is Princeton  trying to hide this report and, with the end of the school year, duck the entire issue?

The May 21 statement is quite specific that the Princeton investigation that Eisgruber announced is “concluded.”  (It does note that “Public Safety” continues to investigate the pulling of the fire alarm, but there is no reason to believe that investigation will lead anywhere since seven weeks have passed.)

Notably, the report to Ms. Shapiro, as she stated in her article, was couched solely as a response to Ms. Shapiro’s “complaint.” The Minter letter, which we have seen, states that Shapiro “alleged” that she was “unable to receive the full educational benefits associated with Prime Minister Bennett’s talk due to disruptions….” There was no such “complaint,” and there was no such allegation in the Shapiro letter. Apparently, the University thought it must treat it as a complaint under its policies. However, the issues the Shapiro letter raised were not about one student. They were about allowing an event to be shut down and the antisemitic atmosphere created on campus by the mob shouting antisemitic slurs. By twisting the investigation into a formal response to a complaint, are Princeton’s leaders reaching for a way to bury the report because they know it cannot be defended? If so, did officials really think they could get away with this, given the massive wave of publicity about protest events on campuses over the last two years? Again, they are living in a bubble. 

Now to the report itself. There are a number of things in it that deserve comment, but we will just highlight four:

1. The report says none of the protesters will be punished, apparently because they cannot be identified since it was dark and they were wearing masks. Frankly, we doubt that a thorough, rigorous investigation would not have identified some of the guilty parties. But very importantly, Princeton, despite being asked by Ms. Shapiro and by PFS to have a policy against using masks to hide identities in such situations, as do other universities, still has no mask policy. The report says Princeton cannot punish people because they were wearing masks that hid their identity, and yet Princeton makes no rules on the wearing of masks. As Ms. Shapiro pointed out, this sends a clear signal to rule breakers on how to easily avoid punishment. Princeton might as well put up a neon sign in front of Nassau Hall saying, “Come break our rules, but remember to wear masks so there will be no punishment!” And there should be a postscript on the sign saying, “And you can also shout antisemitic slogans at our Jewish students while you are at it.”

Some still try to argue that mask rules are unconstitutional, but that is not true. Many states have them, and universities, including the entire California university system, (hardly a right-wing bastion) have increasingly been adopting them. Such rules have to be tailored, but Princeton can, and should, have a rule that prevents people breaking rules to use masks to hide their identity.

2. Second, the non-student, whom Princeton said specifically has been identified, should not have been in the event. It was for students only, and an ID was supposed to be required. Nevertheless, he stood up and disrupted the event, shouting awful things at the speaker. He was shown out, but only after several minutes. It is all on video. He broke the rules, and it appears he broke New Jersey law. Why is Princeton not having this person prosecuted? 

Unbelievably, as Ms. Shapiro noted, at all Reunions speaking events, including one hosted by PFS, Princeton required that a statement be read at the beginning about protests that says, in part: “…any individuals who disrupt this event are in violation of University policy, subject to disciplinary action, and will be asked to leave the premises immediately. If they do not leave immediately, they will be considered a Defiant Trespasser under New Jersey criminal law and subject to arrest.”

So, Princeton requires that this statement be read, but when someone does precisely what the statement says is a violation of law, Princeton does not have the person arrested.

3. Third, notably missing from the report is anything about the role of the Princeton chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine even though there is clear evidence that group organized the protest and Ms. Shapiro asked that its role be investigated. If her letter to Eisgruber is being treated as a formal complaint, then Princeton is obligated to address this important part of her complaint. Did the University investigate the role of this group and not report on it, or did it not investigate it at all?

4. Fourth, the May 21 statement underplays what happened, as is shown on videos. For example, the statement adds gratuitously: “Several witnesses expressed their view that the individuals who made the antiemetic remarks outside the venue were likely unaffiliated with the University.” Really? First, they were not “remarks;” they were screaming insults of the vilest kind. Second, this is total speculation, not fact, and probably from people who had a self-interest in leaving that impression. We do not know because the report does not say who they were. The University says it cannot identify anyone because it was dark and protesters were wearing masks, and yet cites this speculation. How could the “witnesses” know? And again, we note that the protest was organized by a student group, Students for Justice in Palestine. Certainly, there were students in the protest, and in fact a number of students were specifically identified in the protest inside the room because they were not wearing masks at that time. Adding this sentence to the official statement is an outrage.

The May 21 statement from Princeton does list actions that Princeton has undertaken or will undertake as a result of the April 7 events. As readers can see for themselves, these actions are largely performative and do not in any way address the core problems of the shutdown of a speaker and the antisemitic slurs. There are minor changes to the warnings given to protesters, but those changes should have been made long before.

Eisgruber has been a leader among university presidents – in response to the Trump Administration’s actions against universities and the proposed tax on endowment income that has now passed the House – in making the case that universities have a very important role and that the federal actions against universities go way too far. What he has failed to do is to acknowledge that there are real problems at universities, that the public strongly believes there are problems, and that these problems need to be addressed.

In a speech to alumni at Princeton’s Reunions on May 24, Eisgruber continued to say everything is fine and that Princeton has strong policies on free speech. There was no mention of the April 7 events or of the report on the investigation. 

Other university presidents have acknowledged there are problems and the need to address them. Examples are the leaders of Vanderbilt and Washington University in St Louis, and Stanford.

PFS argued in its April 29 editorial that if universities are to successfully address the public’s low opinion of higher education, and particularly of “elite” universities, they must acknowledge and start to address their problems. As Professors Robert George, of Princeton, and Cornel West stated in a recent article:  “Rather than ignore or deny well-founded criticisms of their institutions, academic leaders should view the current moment as an opportunity for an authentic institutional examination of conscience. Universities — let’s be honest — have lost the trust of the American people. And that is the universities’ fault, not the fault of the people.”

It will be interesting to see how Princeton responds to what will be a very-high profile embarrassment about the April 7 events and about its investigation that led to nothing. It is certain that there will be a significant media response that will keep the story going. Princeton may just try to ignore it. But if Princeton’s leaders continue to go around saying how everything is just fine at Princeton, there will be most serious repercussions. At a minimum, we think it almost certain there will now be very aggressive legal action by the Trump Administration for violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act relating to the failure to address antisemitism on campus. But it could be much worse than that. Princeton’s leaders are clearly living in a bubble, but that bubble is about to be burst. 

We urge Princeton to recognize that its approach must change.