Published June 23, 2022
In his annual Reunions conversation with alumni, President Eisgruber ’83 explained why he thinks it is critical to expand the undergraduate student body, sharing a conversation he had with Dean of Admission Karen Richardson ’93. He said he asked Richardson how many applicants Princeton turns away each year who could be substituted in the place of an admitted student without changing the overall quality of the incoming class.
“She said, ‘Chris, around 18,000,’” Eisgruber recalled. “Whoa, right?”
While the University’s impending expansion — about 125 more undergrads per class — is modest relative to Richardson’s eye-popping estimate, Eisgruber added that in his view, “more Princetonians is better than fewer Princetonians.”
Eisgruber, speaking at Alexander Hall May 21, welcomed reuners back to campus and recapped the University’s response to COVID-19, thanking alumni for the financial support that enabled key additions such as the on-campus COVID testing lab. He shared an overview of institutional priorities and growth in programs and physical spaces. He also devoted several minutes to discussing Princeton’s policies on free speech and faculty misconduct in the wake of published reports that the University was considering firing classics professor Joshua Katz. (Katz’s dismissal was announced two days later; see story online here.)
The president fielded questions about further growth of the student body, beyond 2026; how Princeton approaches financial aid; and the urgency of fighting climate change. On the climate question, Eisgruber focused on Princeton’s research commitments and reductions of the campus’s carbon footprint. He explained that the trustees are considering recommendations for fossil-fuel dissociation — and how that differs from divestment. “We have said as a university, it’s not our job to make political statements with our endowment,” he said.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Rally ’Round the Cannon: Mind the Gap
Winning takes talent, to repeat takes character. — John Wooden Halfway through the monumental eight…
Three Books: Gregory Berns ’86 on Relationships Between People and Animals (That Aren’t Dogs)
Gregory Berns ’86 is the distinguished professor of neuroeconomics at Emory University, but he is…
3 Responses
Robert H. Braunohler ’68
1 Year AgoYour October 2022 Inbox published three letters by alumni dismayed by the University’s decision not to divest from fossil fuels. These writers are believers in what I call “Climate Change Catastrophism,” the belief that civilization is doomed unless we ban fossil fuels. What they fail to understand is that fossil fuels have been the overwhelming reason that life on Earth has improved in the developed world over the past 150 years. For the less developed world, the improvement has not been so impressive. More than 80 percent of the world’s population (roughly 6 billion people) would love nothing more than to have greater access to energy, which is today overwhelmingly provided by fossil fuels.
By declaring fossil fuels to be evil, our alumni advocates are saying that these 6 billion people should wait the decades it will take to replace fossil fuels with renewables before they are entitled to consume more energy. This is an unbearably elitist mindset and explains much of the disconnect between the Left and the Right in our country today.
Editor’s note: The October letters calling for Princeton to divest were written prior to the University’s divestment and dissociation announcement in late September.
Ken McCarthy ’81
1 Year AgoThis may be the first time I have ever agreed with anything official Princeton has to say, but President Eisgruber ’83 is correct. The hysteria over fossil fuels as the cause of global warming (scratch that, now “climate change”) is an ideological issue. Anyone who has made even a 15-minute acquaintance with the field of paleoclimatology would know the world has been through much more dramatic and destructive climatic changes in recorded history long before fossil fuels were in play.
I’m not a fan of the free pass energy companies have been given to ravage the environment, nor of the free pass the military and corporations have been given to poison the world with a wide range of known toxins. These are quantifiable evils and despite our regulators’ attempts to obscure their harm, we know much about what these substances do to human health.
Where’s the outrage about this? Where’s the education around these issues? It’s all been sucked into the well-crafted PR black hole of “climate change,” a boogeyman that by weaponizing the scientifically illiterate has made many white-collar grifters rich.
How precisely — please don’t tell me windmills and solar panels — are we going to replace fossil fuels in order to support the lives of human beings who depend on them right now, not in some glorious but vaguely defined future?
We’re just a few months away from seeing what inadequate energy supplies are going to mean for human life thanks to this hysteria’s triumph in Europe.
Linda Bonder ’85
2 Years AgoI was dismayed and distressed to read President Eisgruber ’83’s assertion that Princeton will not divest from fossil fuels because “it’s not our job to make political statements with our endowment” (Reunions coverage, July/August issue). His statement perpetuates the dangerous notion that protecting our planet is and should be a political issue. And yet, the forces of global climate change march on, unperturbed by our political divisions. This is a matter of ethics and values, not politics. If we are to make a dent in global warming, every ethical person and entity must do all they can to protect the planet. While an individual can reduce, reuse, and recycle, Princeton can divest of fossil fuels and invest in renewable technologies.
By saying “not our job,” the Princeton trustees are either denying that climate change is an issue, denying that they have an obligation to invest ethically, and/or denying that Princeton has a role to play in shaping our world. No matter their rationale, our trustees are effectively covering their eyes and ears and abdicating responsibility. Princeton can make a difference. Our trustees can demonstrate leadership. They can do the ethical thing and divest of fossil fuels. If it’s not their responsibility, whose responsibility is it? What happened to “Princeton in the nation’s service and the service of humanity”? This motto was quoted by President Eisgruber himself on Princeton’s website in July. Perhaps he should add the caveat: “unless we can make more money by tossing our values to the wind.”