Search

On July 31, federal judge Zahid N. Quraishi issued an opinion mostly denying a motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit brought by David Piegaro ’25. The motion was jointly filed by Princeton University and Kenneth Strother, the University’s police chief, who are the defendants in the case. The ruling sends 12 of the 13 claims against the defendants to discovery, where the parties will gather evidence before a potential trial.

The lawsuit stems from an altercation between Piegaro and Strother that occurred during the 2024 Gaza Solidarity encampment. Piegaro was charged with simple assault and trespassing after the incident. In April 2025, he was found not guilty of simple assault while the trespassing charge was dropped earlier that year in February. Quraishi’s opinion allowed most of the claims Piegaro made to proceed.

I just returned from the University of Wyoming, where I debated the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Todd Wolfson over the need for colleges and universities to maintain institutional neutrality. The debate was organized by the Steamboat Institute and was live-streamed.

The formal question presented for debate was: “Is institutional neutrality necessary to preserve the university as a forum for open inquiry rather than an actor in political disputes?” I spoke in favor of institutional neutrality while Wolfson argued against it as a necessary component to higher education.

For a report released this week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) surveyed 1,959 law faculty at 192 ABA-approved law schools. The findings reveal a profession caught in a contradiction: law professors overwhelmingly endorse free expression in principle, yet many describe an academic culture that discourages them from practicing it.

A House Democrat who serves on the education committee plans to launch an effort to impeach Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon said Wednesday that McMahon violated her oath of office as well as federal law by transferring dozens of programs at the Education Department to other federal agencies without Congress’s consent. Bonamici’s announcement comes after the Trump administration said Tuesday it was shifting civil rights enforcement to the Justice Department and management of special education programs to the Health and Human Services Department.

PHILADELPHIA, June 9, 2026 — A new survey of law school faculty paints a bleak picture of free speech and inquiry in the legal academy, with respondents reporting self-censorship, political litmus tests, and attacks on speech from the left and right alike.

Over the course of a month and a half, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression surveyed thousands of faculty members at 192 of the 197 ABA-accredited law schools, seeking their perspectives on the state of free speech and discourse within their programs.

Harvard University leaders have been soliciting wealthy donors for $10 million contributions to fund endowed professorships with the stated goal of expanding “viewpoint diversity” on campus.

Pardon me for finding this hypocritical. Over the past year, the University has systematically curtailed, suspended, or restructured every program with a serious focus on studying Palestinian rights and raising up Palestinian voices targeted by the Trump administration’s April 11 demands. It’s abundantly clear that some views are not welcome on this campus.

The National Science Foundation has reversed its recent freeze on new grant funding for Duke, Harvard and Yale Universities, Nature reported. Limitations on new grants for Princeton University, however, remain in effect. 

The reversal took place on May 28, one day after Nature published a story detailing a funding pause for all four institutions. An NSF database showed that on April 9 the accounts of the four universities had been marked with a note that said, “Future Awards to Organization on Hold,” Nature reported. As of Thursday, the note had been removed from every account except Princeton’s.

What would it take to open up a research field that has narrowed without anyone quite noticing? That sociology of knowledge question animated Jesse Smith’s presentation to the HxSociology virtual community. An assistant professor at the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at Ohio State University — one of the new civic-thought centers reshaping the institutional landscape of higher ed — Smith builds his case from four premises: that values irreducibly shape research, that they can distort inquiry when they harden into a closed paradigm, that sociology today operates under just such a progressive paradigm, and that closed paradigms only crack open when a competing paradigm, grounded in opposing values, offers genuine alternatives rather than mere critique.

What happens when an entire profession can’t see what’s hiding in plain sight in its own data? That puzzle animated Stony Brook University sociologist Musa al-Gharbi’s keynote at the Heterodox Academy 2026 West Coast Regional Conference, held recently at UC Berkeley.

The deeper problem, he contends, is not bad-faith activism but a structural one: peer review, editing, and committee deliberation only correct for bias when the people doing the correcting actually differ from one another, and the academy and the press increasingly do not. His full speech is transcribed below.

Yesterday, we discussed how UCLA medical school has been accused of racial discrimination in admissions. Now Yale School of Medicine has also been accused of “intentionally select[ing] applicants based on their race” in knowing circumvention of Supreme Court precedent.

The Justice Department announced that “Yale’s documents reveal that they studied how to use racial proxies to circumvent the Supreme Court’s prohibition on using race to select students…admissions data demonstrate that Black and Hispanic students have a much higher chance of admission to Yale than White or Asian students with the same test scores.”

New York University’s Jonathan Haidt checks a number of boxes for an in-house commencement speaker: best-selling author, public intellectual, and high-profile campus figure. A social psychologist teaching “ethical leadership” at NYU’s school of business, his books like The Coddling of the American Mind and The Anxious Generation show up on airport bookshelves and the Obama end-of-year-list. He has been a fixture on the liberal-nerd podcast circuit and in the TED Talk world, best known for advocating for free speech and limited screen time. Despite that résumé — or because of it — some NYU students donning violet gowns today at Yankee Stadium would prefer it wasn’t Haidt delivering their final undergrad address.

The faculty, administrators, and trustees who establish graduation criteria at America’s most prominent colleges and universities have made a clear set of judgments about what every educated citizen should know. Their choices suggest that familiarity with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is more essential than an understanding of economics, American history, and the Constitution.

Harvey C. Mansfield, who enrolled at Harvard in 1949, joined the faculty in 1962, and retired in 2023, has been called many things: “great dissenter,” “prophet,” “racist, homophobic and misogynist,” “sophist,” “slipshod.” Mansfield prefers “annoying Socratic gadfly.” A dean once advised that he’d be more persuasive if he argued less. Mansfield says he tried, but it didn’t work. “Retirement seems to strengthen my voice.”

Mansfield spoke to us over zoom from his house in Ipswich, Mass., where he now spends the bulk of his time. Dressed in a suit and red tie, he discussed affirmative action for conservative professors, why the academy needs bipartisanship more than nonpartisanship, and whether old professors stick around too long. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law has brought a new meaning to the heckler’s veto. Some of us criticized the law school for its failure to hold students accountable for disrupting a recent Federalist Society event featuring James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. 

While the law school administration does not appear interested in holding the protesters accountable, it has threatened the Federalist Society that it could face discipline if it identifies any of the students who disrupted the event. This perfectly surreal position was stated in a letter from Bayrex Martí, UCLA’s assistant dean for student affairs.

PFS’s featured editorial this month is Yale Issues clarion call for change, joining other leading universities. Where is Princeton?  We put Yale’s report in the context of the growing consensus amongst a widening circle of University Presidents that President Maurie McGinnis is correct. University leaders must take responsibility for their role in reaching this critical point. President Eisgruber is not among this list of reformers.

If you want to know more about why Princeton is not leading this movement to restore trust in higher education,link here to a comprehensive Five-Part Review of President Eisgruber’s book, Terms of Respect, How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, written for PFS by Tal Fortgang ‘17.

From higher ed journalism to concerned professors, AI is often portrayed as an unprecedented frontier to be tamed, a danger to both the future of the humanities and the independent, critical thinking abilities of its scholars. But a strict AI ban is superfluous, not to mention difficult to enforce: If students are plugging essay prompts into ChatGPT en masse, there are larger issues at stake that a band-aid AI ban won’t fix.

The Princeton Council is changing course on proposed modifications to the municipality’s special event regulations after over 40 people assembled at the Council’s Monday meeting to register opposition to what they viewed as potential restrictions on the community’s ability to organize.

The potential ordinance that local activists objected to, which was discussed by municipal attorney Lisa Maddox during a work session at the Council’s March 23 meeting, would impose increased fees, a new permitting process, and space restrictions on large public events.

In Princeton, we have access to opportunities that can enrich our experience of the anniversary. Walking our university’s campus every day makes it easy to take for granted the footsteps of greatness we follow. However, I believe that reflecting on Princeton’s role in the Revolution – the legacy of which surrounds us in the form of buildings, monuments, and documents – will help us gain a deeper appreciation of our history and lead us to recommit to the values we hold dear as Americans.

Stakes are high as the Trump administration looks to rewrite the rules governing accreditation in the first of two week-long rule-making sessions starting today. The overhaul could dramatically change who is in charge of academic oversight and what they evaluate when determining whether an institution should have access to federal aid.

Right-leaning think tanks applaud the changes, released last week in a 151-page draft, calling them an overdue means to ensure campus civil rights compliance, address college costs and ensure institutions are held accountable for their students’ outcomes. But accreditation experts, left-leaning policy analysts and student advocacy groups say the lengthy regulations, while vague and abstruse, pose a major threat to the future of institutional autonomy and America’s status as the crown jewel of global higher education.

A few months ago, I heard from one of the greatest antitrust legal scholars of our time — Lina Khan, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — in an event hosted by the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy.

The event turned out to be a “fireside chat” between Khan and Director of the Program in Law and Public Policy Deborah Pearlstein, an all-too-familiar manifestation of the “conversation” format that plagues Princeton events. Instead of letting visitors speak for themselves, we filter their thoughts and ideas through a moderator, who all too often serves to dilute whatever interesting points the speaker might have to share into a superficial overview of their career and accomplishments.

 On Sept. 18, 1894, the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents issued the greatest declaration in defense of academic freedom ever made by a university—an achievement even more remarkable because it was the first statement espousing academic freedom ever made by an American college, and one that introduced the concept of institutional neutrality.

Vague. Undefined. Overbroad. Burdensome. Legally contested.

That’s how major higher ed groups are describing the Trump administration’s latest effort to crack down on what it considers diversity, equity and inclusion by requiring colleges and universities to sign a pledge that they will comply with “executive orders prohibiting unlawful discrimination on the basis of race or color” to receive federal funds. The proposed pledge warns that race-based scholarships, hiring preferences, diversity statements and more may constitute illegal discrimination, in the government’s opinion.

Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League gave Princeton a C on its annual campus antisemitism report card. It would make sense that the University, like many of its students, wouldn’t be used to receiving grades lower than an A. But this C is one we shouldn’t worry about. The ADL’s assessments of colleges and universities don’t actually measure antisemitism in any meaningful way, nor do they measure the quality of Jewish student life.

The Anti-Defamation League has given Princeton a C in its third annual Campus Antisemitism Report Card earlier this month. In 2024, Princeton got an F on its first report card.

The ADL has historically been considered one of the most prominent Jewish civil rights organizations, though its credibility has been contested in recent years. The league assesses 150 colleges and universities nationally, but many members of the Jewish community on campus consider the C grade to be unreflective of the state of Jewish life at Princeton, believing that Princeton deserves a higher grade.

A topic of recent debate in the media and on college campuses is the Pentagon’s decision to sever ties with several Ivy League and elite universities. This includes Princeton University. This move follows Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s characterization of these institutions as “ Woke Breeding Grounds.”  The goal is not to prevent these men and women from attending college but instead to direct them towards institutions more ideologically aligned with the viewpoints of the current administration. While this is the administration's prerogative, as someone who has served in both the Marine Corps and the Army as an infantryman, and am now a Princeton student myself, I am skeptical about this move. 

Active-duty military members should not be barred from educational choices if given the opportunity, especially at a time when attending college can determine your future, and where you have gone to school matters. It is also a blow aimed at the wrong people.

The Trump administration launched two new investigations into Harvard University “amid allegations that it continues to discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, and national origin,” the Department of Education announced in a news release Monday. 

The department’s Office for Civil Rights said it received new complaints about antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus—an issue the administration has already spent a year investigating and which the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit about last week. OCR will also investigate claims that Harvard is continuing to use race-based preferences in admissions.

Allen is the rare liberal academic who appeals to both Harvard and the American Enterprise Institute. Her willingness to take conservative criticisms of academe seriously has earned her cross-ideological credibility and influence. “I wish we had a lot more scholars like Danielle,” Frederick Hess, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told me. Her ecumenism reflects a core commitment: The university can’t ignore its critics; it must win some of them over.

To do that, she contends, universities will have to change. These changes include encouraging vigorous debate and a greater pluralism on campus, among other institutional transformations aimed at controlling costs, recentering a civic mission, and making admissions less opaque. Such changes will involve giving certain things up. 

Iowa is considering a slate of bills that would limit speech in college classrooms and threaten academic freedom. These measures would mandate reviews of classroom content for DEI or critical race theory, remove topics like “multiculturalism” from teacher training programs, and enshrine a viewpoint-discriminatory definition of “antisemitism” into university policy. 

These proposals test longstanding constitutional limits on government interference with academic freedom and classroom discussion, so let’s take a look at each one in turn.

Higher education needs a “hard reset.” That was the message from Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent last week at the American Council on Education’s (ACE) annual meeting. The remarks by a government official offered a stern warning to get on board or get out of the way. “I hope that you all are ready, having made it through the five stages of grief and, most importantly, reaching the final state of acceptance,” Kent explained (while referencing bunk psychology research).

With the pressure on higher ed holding steady, it’s a question of what’s next after over a year of targeted attacks on elite universities. Jon Fansmith, ACE’s senior vice president for government relations and national engagement, thinks that something like a second “compact” is coming. This time, focused on “systemic change” across all 4,000 institutions of higher education rather than a select handful.

Harvard University will allow active-duty troops to defer their admission for up to four years in response to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s ban on academic involvement with the school — a rebuke of his attempt to sever ties between the Ivy league school and the military.

The university will also work with students accepted into the Harvard Kennedy School’s programs to get expedited consideration at four other graduate schools that have not been banned by the Defense Department, according to a person familiar with the plans and a letter written for prospective students obtained by POLITICO.

Two weeks after introducing a policy that allowed administrators to secretly record faculty members during class, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts told faculty he would nix the rule. 

“The whole idea was to create clarity and reassurance,” Roberts said during a Faculty Senate meeting Friday. “That policy clearly has not achieved that aim.” Faculty members applauded at the news. During a Q&A, Roberts confirmed that no faculty members will be surreptitiously recorded until—and if—a new policy is put in place. Administrators will continue to evaluate whether the university needs such a policy, he said.

The Trump administration is expanding its efforts to dismantle the Education Department by moving its oversight of school safety grants and foreign funding for universities to other agencies, the administration announced Monday.

The Department of Health and Human Services is slated to take over work related to school shootings and student mental health programs. The State Department will be tasked to help the Education Department manage how the federal government monitors the flow of billions of dollars in foreign gifts and contracts to higher education institutions.

The Department of Justice filed a new lawsuit against Harvard University, accusing it of failing to hand over documents and comply with a federal investigation into alleged racial discrimination in its admissions process, in the latest escalation of Donald Trump’s long-running legal pursuit of the nation’s oldest university.

Harvard stressed in a statement that it was responding to inquiries “in good faith” and prepared to engage “according to the process required by law”.

Speaking at the American Whig-Cliosophic Society on Feb. 5, J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami acknowledged that many people who come to his events are already “his people” — they agree with him and are excited to hear their position reaffirmed. J Street is a nonprofit and lobby that self-describes as “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.” Although Ben-Ami took questions from students who, in turn, considered his positions too supportive of Israel or not supportive enough, Ben-Ami is correct that, in general, political speakers preach to their own choirs.

This phenomenon does not stop at FitzRandolph Gate, and it undermines the value of inviting acclaimed speakers to Princeton.

If you combined two of Princeton’s three most popular A.B. majors — SPIA and Politics — you could nearly fill McCosh 50. With so many students taking courses about politics and policy, one might expect the American Whig-Cliosophic Society senate — the Society’s home of parliamentary-style debate — to be a vibrant center of debate on campus. Yet the benches of the senate chamber frequently lie empty.

Harvard University has more than 100 students who are in the Reserve Officer Training Corps. They will get their diploma and then put their life on the line for their country, serving under a secretary of defense, if he is still in his job by spring, who has nothing but contempt for their education and their alma mater.

In a statement issued on Friday, Pete Hegseth charged that Harvard is graduating officers with “heads full of globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks.” He declared that the Pentagon would cut all ties with Harvard and its programs.