Eisgruber: Princeton ‘Would Respond Forcefully’ to Calls for Genocide
His comments come after presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT were criticized for their responses in a congressional hearing
Princeton University “would respond forcefully under its rules” in response to calls for genocide or murder on campus, according to comments made by President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 at the most recent meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) and on the Office of the President’s website.
“Let me just state for the record, if there’s any doubt about it, that calls for genocide of any people are utterly wrong, appalling, and inconsistent with the values of this institution and any leading research university,” Eisgruber said at the start of the Dec. 11 CPUC meeting. “And let me add to that — you don’t have to go as far as calls for genocide. Calls for the murder of any persons or group are utterly wrong and inconsistent with the values of Princeton University and any leading research university.”
Despite chants of “intifada” — which is viewed by some as a call for civil uprising but seen by many others as advocating the mass murder of Jewish people — at several pro-Palestinian events on campus since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Israel and Gaza, Eisgruber also said he has “never heard calls for genocide or calls for murder on this campus, and I don’t expect ever to hear those calls.”
Echoing previous statements, Eisgruber then raised the importance of freedom of speech on college campuses.
“I also want to be clear about this: Calls for genocide are always wrong. Punishing people for their speech is almost always wrong. And we, for good reason at Princeton University and for good reason in this country, with the First Amendment, have very strong protections for free speech, and we will continue to honor those protections as well,” he said.
Eisgruber alluded to the Dec. 6 congressional hearing in which the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT faced harsh criticism — including from the White House — for failing to state that calls for genocide would violate student codes of conduct. Liz Magill resigned from her post as president of the University of Pennsylvania in the days following the hearing.
“Some of these things, I think in ordinary circumstances, go without saying. They don’t go without saying in today’s circumstances,” Eisgruber said before moving on to the regularly scheduled meeting agenda.
The following day, on the President’s website, Eisgruber expounded upon his remarks and included a link to Princeton’s University-Wide Conduct Regulations.
“Princeton’s commitment to free speech means I do have to sometimes protect the right of people to say things that I find repugnant, hateful, and awful,” Eisgruber wrote. “So let me again be crystal clear: even when Princeton cannot censor speech, we can and will respond vigorously to speech that violates our values.”
In cases where Princeton cannot “suppress or discipline” protected immoral speech, the University can still “sponsor better speech, we can state our values, [and] we can support our students” in a way that is fair for all, according to Eisgruber.
He concluded: “I am profoundly grateful for the thoughtfulness and civility that have largely characterized the Princeton community’s response to the Israel-Hamas war. The coming days and weeks will continue to test our commitment to mutual respect. I have every confidence that the Princeton community will continue to distinguish itself as a model for serious and respectful engagement with the world’s hardest challenges.”
Eisgruber also responded on Dec. 13 to Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) who had inquired about efforts by Princeton and other higher-education institutions in New Jersey to combat antisemitism. Eisgruber outlined the three elements the University uses to address bullying and harassment while promoting free speech. He also made a plea for Sherrill.
“You close your letter with an offer to work with us in any way to ensure that New Jersey’s universities reflect New Jersey’s values. I appreciate that offer, and I do have one request,” Eisgruber wrote. “Please continue to be a leader for New Jersey and the country in promoting the same kind of civility and respect in the Congress that you rightly ask universities to promote on our campuses. The issues confronting us demand serious and thoughtful discussion, and I believe that we can and should do better than the hearing that took place last week.”
The Latest
See all
Related News
Preseason Favorite Princeton Women’s Basketball Is Feeling ‘Confident’
Broadcast Journalist Adriana Diaz ’06 Is Hosting a ‘CBS Mornings’ Show
‘… In the stories we do, I always try to find a heart and put my own heart into it,’ Diaz says
SPIA Event Featuring UN’s Francesca Albanese Draws Heated Debate
The human rights expert sparred with protesters about the conflict and the future of Israel and Palestine
3 Responses
Ken McCarthy ’81
5 Months AgoWhat Intifada Means
Quoting Bill Hewitt ’74: “PAW rightly explains that cries for ‘intifada’ are understood by many as ‘advocating the mass murder of Jewish people.’” Really?
PAW “rightly explains” based on what qualifications? Understood by many? Who are these many? The ill-informed who get their news from PAW? People who are unclear on the concept of an Arabic-English dictionary?
The literal meaning of intifada is not in dispute. It means “uprising.” Given that the multi-decade occupation of the West Bank has been designated illegal since 1967, periodic uprisings should not be a surprise.
The only support I see for mass murder of people comes from the editorial staff at PAW and Bill Hewitt.
You assign your own meaning to language so that you can paint the victims of an illegal occupation and now a full-fledged genocide as people advocating the mass murder of Jewish people. The tally as of now is 13,000 Palestinian children killed by IDF military operations, according to UNICEF. Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are calling for more killings. Some are honest enough to say they want everyone in Gaza eliminated.
Can you imagine John Knox Witherspoon jockeying rhetorically for the silencing of American citizens who object to their tax dollars being spent to support a foreign power in its efforts to slaughter an entire people living on land that legally belongs to them?
Norman Ravitch *62
10 Months AgoHas Eisgruber Done Enough?
President Eisgruber has done better than some of his Ivy colleagues, but he has been plagued by the same problems as the other presidents. It is not enough to give both sides a hearing positively when genocide is mentioned. Genocide must be countered as un-American, un-Christian, unsupportable, and clearly fascistic, even when it is still verbal only. Verbal genocide is prelude to certain action in genocidal efforts. I don’t doubt academic presidents and other leaders are dumbfounded about how to act. We need to urge them to act courageously and not politically. Be a man, Mr. President, be a man!
Bill Hewitt ’74
10 Months AgoGenocide by Any Other Name Is Genocide
Given President Eisgruber’s statement about his recent remarks at the CPUC, readers might conclude that Dr. Pangloss is alive and well at Princeton, and then give the matter no further thought. But President Eisgruber’s statements warrant careful evaluation.
I, too, am a supporter of freedom of speech at Princeton. The University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression explicitly recognizes, however, the existence and need for important limits as to what, when, where, and how speech can be conducted. President Eisgruber should provide the University community explication of how his administration identifies and enforces these limits. The problem of harassment would be a good place to start.
President Eisgruber assured the University community, “I have never heard calls for genocide, or calls for murder, on this campus …” He elides the rampant calls at Princeton cloaked in euphemism for these very ends. PAW rightly explains that cries for “intifada” are understood by many as “advocating the mass murder of Jewish people.” So, too, the open advocacy at Princeton for “From Princeton to Gaza, globalize the intifada,” “We don’t want a two state, we want ’48,” “From the river to the sea,” and more. But President Eisgruber would have the readers of his remarks believe that he is simply unaware of calls at Princeton for genocide of Jews.
Equally troubling are President Eisgruber’s words to U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill about what his administration does to “ensure that students are free from bullying and harassment on our campus.” He cites, among other measures, “procedures by which students may file a harassment complaint” — to which he adds, “[W]e take every complaint seriously.” PAW readers should compare this with the experience reported by Princeton graduate student Zachary Dulberg in his opinion column for The New York Post, “Princeton punished me for fighting to fix DEI and antisemitism on campus.”
Tellingly, President Eisgruber, in his comments about his CPUC presentation and his letter to Rep. Sherrill, omits any reference to important speech standards and enforcement mechanisms regarding permissible use of the University’s websites, email, and other IT resources. The University’s Acceptable Use Policy and related Guidelines for Compliance prohibit use of these University-provided resources for “malicious, harassing, or defamatory content” (and even for “electronic misconduct … regardless of the location from which the misconduct originated or the network or devices used”).
These have relevance to the present barrages on Princeton’s IT infrastructure. For example, a few days after the October 7 pogrom, the Princeton Students for Justice in Palestine emailed to every Princeton student a statement that found — among other provocative claims — “the Israeli apartheid state ultimately responsible for the tremendous loss of life in Occupied Palestine, Gaza, and the West Bank.” First, a mass mailing without prior University permission violates the Guidelines. Moreover, some of the recipients likely experienced the method and substance of this SJP proselytizing as harassment.
Another example comes from Dulberg’s opinion column. At least one of the online statements he listed (“you know you’re the one … committing terrorism, killing innocent people on a daily basis” regarding an alum who had served in the Israel Defense Forces) potentially violates another prohibition (against defamation). Dulberg described the online verbal assaults as “heinous” and “numerous.”
Is President Eisgruber’s administration willing to apply and enforce Princeton’s rules for the use of University-provided communications resources? “[W]e take every complaint seriously,” President Eisgruber assures us. Perhaps they will give their prompt attention to – and provide public explanation about — this CPUC complaint on issues relating to SJP and Dulberg.
Some chant for “justice in Palestine.” I call for justice at Princeton.