New Policy Bans Most Recording on Princeton’s Campus
The policy requires permission from everyone present to record in settings where people expect privacy, but it could also be applied to open meetings and other events
A new University policy will ban recording on campus with few exceptions starting Jan. 1, raising serious concerns for journalists, among others. It was passed by a wide margin at the Nov. 10 meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), with no opposing votes.
The policy, which is slightly longer than a page, “prohibits the installation or use of any device for listening, observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, transmitting, or broadcasting sounds or events occurring in any place where the individual or group involved has a reasonable expectation of being free from unwanted surveillance, eavesdropping, recording, or observation without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings.” Public or open meetings also may be covered by the no-recording policy “when it has been explicitly stated that recording is not permitted.”
The policy as written raises questions such as what qualifies as a place where the community “has a reasonable expectation” of privacy, as well as how those who are found in violation will be disciplined.
Prior to the vote, several council members and members of the University community raised clarifying questions. Rochelle Calhoun, vice president for campus life, said forthcoming FAQs would address common questions, but as of Nov. 14, the FAQs are not yet available.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill told PAW via email that “the University is preparing guidance … which will be made available well ahead of the Jan. 1, 2026 implementation of the policy.”
Isaac Barsoum ’28 wrote an opinion piece arguing against the policy for The Daily Princetonian. In an email, he told PAW that “the policy was not communicated effectively during the meeting.”
“I find it very concerning that CPUC was willing to pass such a sweeping policy when the substantive details … have not yet been clarified,” Barsoum told PAW.
One goal of the policy is to “establish a mutually respectful environment in which free inquiry and free expression can flourish,” Calhoun said at the meeting.
President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 added, “I also think there are reasonable concerns that people feel at times, particularly about video recordings, which can get spliced or used in various ways now.”
The policy extends to virtual conversations and those that occur off campus during University sponsored activities.
Exceptions include devices issued or authorized by the University for safety and security, such as security cameras at dormitory entrances and body cameras worn by Public Safety officers; documented accommodations for those with disabilities; and devices used for a University investigation, hearing, interview, or review “after consultation with the Office of the General Counsel.” In addition, meeting conveners may explicitly give permission to record.
CPUC councilor Aishwarya Swamidurai ’26 was not present at the meeting but told PAW afterward that “this policy can, and should aim to, bolster our community’s sense of security.” However, Swamidurai said, the broad scope “introduces ambiguity and the potential for uneven enforcement across the campus community and places undue burdens on specific populations, like student journalists, for whom recording is a core part of factual accuracy.”
Charlie Yale ’28, an assistant opinion editor for The Daily Princetonian, also was concerned about the potential impact on student journalism. He told PAW that even before the new policy, “the University’s decision-making processes [were] opaque, and it [was] incredibly difficult for students to participate in any meaningful fashion.” Under the new policy, Yale said, “transparency is in danger, and the right of students to participate is further marginalized.”
Morrill told PAW that “… it’s important to note that Princeton has a longstanding practice of accommodating the news gathering needs of journalists when covering certain meetings and events on campus that are generally open to the University community. Rules applying to media vary according to location and circumstance,” she wrote, citing guidance for media detailed on the School of Public and International Affairs’ website.
“The University’s new recording policy will be implemented with an eye to maintaining existing media access and to supporting media accuracy, which may be helped by audio recordings that supplement note taking,” Morrill continued.
At the April 2024 CPUC meeting, the council participated in a lively debate when considering a proposal to ban video recordings of future CPUC meetings, but the proposal was ultimately tabled and referred to the CPUC Committee on Rights and Rules. In presenting the most recent recording policy proposal at the November 2025 meeting, Calhoun said that related discussions started in 2019.
Former CPUC councilor Daniel Shaw ’25 is now a student at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and though he was not involved in this semester’s discussions, he was vocal in the 2024 conversation. He told PAW the new policy “raises some serious questions.”
“At the very least, recording policies merit careful consideration in how they balance interests in transparency and the need to avoid creating conditions that might chill academic freedom and other protected speech,” Shaw said.
Under New Jersey law, consent of one party of a conversation is required to record, though in October of this year, a bill was introduced to the state senate that would require the consent of all parties. The fate of the bill is unclear. Only a dozen states require all parties of a conversation to consent to recording.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Sharon Gamson Danks ’93 Is Building Safer, Greener Playgrounds
Danks’ Green Schoolyards America aims to teach children environmental policy through age-appropriate play
These Princetonians Are Teaching Music to Immigrant Children
The Connecticut-based nonprofit INTEMPO is full of Princeton connections
Refugee Solomon Tesfaye *20 Finds New Footing, and a Novel, in the U.S.
Tesfaye was named a PEN America Emerging Voices Fellow for a novel he’s writing about the refugee experience
2 Responses
Bill Hewitt ’74
3 Days AgoProcedural Fouls in Passing Recording Ban
Shame on President Eisgruber! He called for the vote on this highly consequential recording ban amidst unnecessary haste and procedural irregularities attendant to this surprise measure and passage of a needlessly flawed rule.
It is disgraceful that no public notice — much less text of the proposal — was given on the CPUC agenda published in advance. A key purpose of such notice is to give Princetonians the ability to submit questions and comments. Furthermore, as reported by The Daily Princetonian, Vice President for Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun readily acknowledged that the FAQs to explain the ban’s operation were not ready for presentation at the meeting. Notwithstanding this admitted lack of preparation, President Eisgruber drove the matter to a vote.
In doing so, Eisgruber’s rulemaking-by-ambush deprived the community of meaningful opportunity for input. Kudos to CPUC member Jim Bosch and others, who, reports the Prince, rightly identified the ban’s potential to “exacerbate power imbalances between meeting organizers and attendees.” As Isaac Barsoum ’28 ably explained, this rule will “reduce the access of students, faculty, and staff to University policymaking” — not to mention that of Princeton alums.
Alex Norbrook ’26 presciently warned us of this danger in April 2024, writing: “The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
Moreover, Norbrook pointed out that Chapter 8 of the CPUC Charter forbids any rule “abridging … freedom of publication.” The right to record similarly finds support in the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression’s prohibition against restrictions “inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.”
The new University Recording Policy undercuts these rights and values. At minimum, the CPUC should commence forthwith live webcasts of its meetings and post copies on its website. In 2024, I proposed this to no avail, even though the CPUC successfully used Zoom during COVID.
Scandalously, the CPUC has fallen into an insidious and deplorable pattern of limiting Princetonians’ ability to know what happens at its meetings. For seven years, the CPUC has not met the mandates of its Charter (Sections 3.2, 3.8, and 4.12) to publish minutes of all CPUC meetings and committee meetings, as well. This means the Princeton community has been denied these charter rights to review proceedings for CPUC for seven years and even longer for the committees. Similarly, for seven years or more President Eisgruber has not been listed on the CPUC Executive Committee roster and has not chaired its meetings, in open dereliction of his duties under Sections 4.2 and 4.11.
I have written the Board of Trustees about these and other major violations. The board must fulfill its fiduciary duties regarding President Eisgruber’s wrongdoing and do so promptly and openly.
Meanwhile, at its next meeting the CPUC itself must demand that President Eisgruber obey the Charter. Better still, it should demonstrate this to all Princetonians via webcast.
Meaghan Byrne ’10
2 Weeks AgoClarity Needed on Accommodations for Disabilities
While there are many concerns the University needs to address, one that stands out immediately is this line: “When authorized as a University-approved accommodation for a documented disability.”
One must prove one has a disability to use a recording device? When I started at Princeton, I had ADHD. Because ADHD is so often overlooked in women, I did not receive formal documentation until I was 24, almost two years after I had already graduated from Princeton. National Geographic recently published an article about how many women go undiagnosed until adulthood. Getting diagnosed cost me at least $5,000 and a significant amount of time. Documentation for ADHD in particular is not a fair ask if it’s not easy to be diagnosed. Frankly, it would have been extremely helpful if I had been able to record certain meetings, and I now use tools like this regularly. I always ask for consent, but I imagine this becomes an additional burden if the meeting is a precept or a class.
The policy does not mention classes or precepts. It only references situations “when privacy would be reasonably expected.” What counts as reasonable? Would a student have to prove both that they have a disability and that a precept is not considered a private environment?
There are many journalistic concerns here, but at a practical level, this policy harms students. I worry that it harms students who, like me, have yet to figure out why they are less organized and have poorer working memories than some of their peers, despite being able to achieve at a high level inconsistently.
While I understand where the administration may be coming from with this rule, it feels half-baked and theoretical rather than grounded in practice and experience. I hope that there is more clarity to come.