As Eisgruber Speaks Out for Higher Ed, Princeton Community Digs In

Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber ’83’s defense of Columbia University and academic freedom in The Atlantic has received national attention, but the mood on campus has remained tense and uncertain as administrators, faculty, and students await possible next steps from the Trump administration.

In his March 19 essay, Eisgruber called the administration’s cancellation of $400 million in federal aid to Columbia “a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research.” Expressing his belief that President Donald Trump would be emboldened to target other institutions, Eisgruber added, “Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

Three days later, just hours after Columbia announced that it would comply with the administration’s demands, Eisgruber reiterated his message in an appearance on the PBS show News Hour. While declining to second-guess the actions of another Ivy League university, Eisgruber expressed concern about the precedent it set. “I think once you make concessions, it’s hard not to make them again,” Eisgruber said.

The Columbia controversy occurred amid a series of attacks on other universities. The Trump administration has suspended $175 million in funding to the University of Pennsylvania in retaliation for allowing a transgender woman on its women’s swim team three years ago. Also, according to The Washington Post, the Trump administration has instructed attorneys in the Department of Education to obtain the names and nationalities of foreign students who have engaged in demonstrations on campuses nationwide, possibly with an eye toward deporting them.

Although President Trump has not singled out Princeton for attack, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights announced on March 10 that it was considering “enforcement actions” against the University and 59 others for failure to “fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.” Princeton is under investigation because of complaint filed a year ago by Zachary Marschall, editor of the conservative website Campus Reform. Marschall, who is not affiliated with the University, alleged that administrators failed to respond to violent words uttered at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in 2023. The University has denied any wrongdoing.

In response to these actions as well as proposed funding cuts to higher education and government-sponsored scientific research, Penn, Harvard, and MIT have announced hiring freezes, while Johns Hopkins laid off more than 200 employees. Princeton has not gone that far, but administrators have begun to batten down the hatches.

In a March 19 memo, Provost Jennifer Rexford ’91 and Executive Vice President Katie Callow-Wright cited the administration’s attacks, restrictions on research funding, and a proposed increase in the endowment tax to urge faculty and staff to “exercise holistic spending restraint.” It announced that the University will temporarily curtail hiring searches, reduce annual raises for employees, and reconsider some early-stage capital projects while warning that “more serious actions” might become necessary. “Our goal is to avoid unnecessary costs, slow the growth of expenses, and build savings so we can respond with agility and care to budget realities as they emerge over the coming weeks and months,” Rexford and Callow-Wright wrote.

Related coverage

Features

Is the Proposed Endowment Tax Another Cash Grab?

A ‘meteor is about to hit’ higher education as Republicans look to increase the tax on endowments

The University has taken other steps to protect students and to clarify its policies. The Davis International Center advised foreign students and scholars to carry their federally issued Arrival/Departure Record Card, which is given to all visa holders, with them “at all times,” both their own and those of their dependents. It also urged them to exercise caution if traveling abroad and to be aware that their electronic devices could be searched upon returning to the United States.

Many of the Trump administration’s actions have been directed against programs in higher education and elsewhere that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The University insists that its commitment to DEI remains unwavering and has added a new statement appearing on several of its web pages explaining that campus DEI initiatives are “voluntary and open to all” and comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

“To maximize excellence, we seek talent from all segments of American society and the world, and we take steps to ensure everyone at Princeton can thrive while they are here,” the statement reads in part. “That is the sole rationale and purpose of our diversity and inclusion programs.”

Meanwhile, the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students has asked leaders of student organizations to insert language in their websites and social media posts reiterating that programs are “open to all Princeton University students regardless of identity, such as race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, or other protected characteristics.”

At a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community on March 24, Eisgruber walked a fine line between reiterating his support for academic independence and not criticizing the Trump administration directly. After expressing annoyance that several students asked him questions different from the ones they had submitted in advance, he nevertheless answered them. Asked if he could promise that the University would not “capitulate to the anti-democratic demands of the Trump administration,” Eisgruber replied, “I will just say that Princeton University will stand firm for its values and mission.”

The Daily Princetonian’s editorial board applauded Eisgruber for speaking out in The Atlantic, while urging him to take further action to protect academic freedom. “We commend President Eisgruber for finally stepping up in this way — doing so will encourage others to join us.”

Other groups have urged the University to do more. A petition by the graduate student government, signed by several hundred graduate students, undergraduates, faculty, staff, and alumni, called for the creation of a transition fund to support those who lose funding due to government cuts. It also echoed several proposals made by the postdoctoral fellows’ union calling for, among other things, greater support for international workers, increased job security, and protection from harassment.

Faculty and alumni have also voiced their opinions about the latest actions.

Professor Robert P. George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, suggested that retaliation might have been expected, citing incidents of campus antisemitism, viewpoint discrimination in hiring and promotion, and the resulting “indoctrination of students.”

“If faculty and administrators fail to address these problems, then sooner or later other actors, including governments ... will be incentivized to step in,” George wrote in an email to PAW. However, he continued, “I agree with President Eisgruber that everyone exercising authority of any type in or over universities must strictly respect academic freedom. Moreover, when, for example, the federal government investigates or intervenes, it is obligated to honor the principles of due process of law.”

Posting on his class Facebook page, William Ryan III ’83 noted that while many disagree about the extent of racism and antisemitism on campus and what should be done to address them, “It’s a different thing for any government to do this. The type of advocacy all of us have every right to make is not the same thing as that kind of pressure, especially where it potentially or actually collides with freedom of thought or speech.” Lorena Grundy ’17, an assistant professor at Penn, wrote a letter of thanks to Eisgruber, saying, “Your steadfastness in standing up and speaking out for what is right has made me proud to be a Princeton alumna.”

Journalist Stuart Taylor ’70, a co-founder of Princetonians for Free Speech, wrote a long essay calling for “careful change” in DEI programs at Princeton and elsewhere but concluded that “trusting the Trump administration to do it right requires a leap of faith.”

Related coverage

Administration

Princeton Freezes Most Hiring as Eisgruber Warns of Federal Attacks on Higher Ed

University administrators are urging ‘holistic spending restraint’ in a time of uncertain federal funding

In an interview with PAW, Taylor elaborated on his points, explaining, “I think DEI has done a lot of harm in terms of campus freedom of expression, but the Trump administration is wildly overreacting to everything it doesn’t like.” He called the withholding of funds to Columbia and Penn “probably illegal,” adding, “Trump has got a kind of contempt for legality.” While saying that he has disagreed with many of Eisgruber’s actions as president, Taylor praised the Atlantic essay but wondered if it had “put a target on the University’s back.”

Taylor’s target metaphor resonated with professor Sam Wang, a neuroscientist and director of the Princeton Election Consortium who has spoken out frequently against the Trump administration. Writing on his Substack, Wang praised Eisgruber’s essay as a possible watershed moment. “At last we have a university leader who will say that the Trump administration is attacking higher education,” he wrote. “He’s willing to point out that accusations of antisemitism are not made in good faith, but in fact constitute a pretext for pitting people against one another. And he’s willing to stand up for those rights.”

Going further in an interview with PAW, Wang likened Eisgruber to the sheriff played by Gary Cooper in the movie High Noon. “In the old westerns, the good guy is not a big talker, and he’s not going to start trouble,” Wang said. “But when trouble comes, he has to be ready.” Extending the High Noon analogy to Rexford’s memo, Wang continued, “I would characterize what Jennifer is saying as, ‘Don’t go walking out on the street. Keep the kids indoors.’ It’s not complying [with administration directives] in advance; it’s being ready for the thing that may happen to the people you care about.”