I want to commend President Eisgruber ’83 for having the courage to speak out against the Trump administration’s dangerous attacks on academic freedom on college campuses across the nation, including at Princeton.
Eisgruber has been speaking out in high profile media outlets, such as The New York Times’ Daily podcast, decrying Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding for research as a means of coercing changes in curricula and admissions policies at schools he deems too liberal.
These attacks are often described by the administration as a necessary response to a lack of action by university administrators to protect Jewish students from rising expressions of antisemitism on campus.
Antisemitism is a problem on many college campuses today, and some universities have been too slow to take action to adequately protect Jewish students. But the “remedies” typically demanded by the Trump administration reveal that the real motive behind this initiative is to promote a political agenda by requiring universities to end policies that promote diversity or to curtail curricula aimed at African, Near Eastern, and South Asian studies.
Sadly, some universities have capitulated to Trump’s coercion, including Columbia. But Eisgruber’s principled stand against the administration’s attack on academic freedom makes me proud to be a Princetonian. Moreover, I have confidence that Princeton’s intrepid legal team, led by General Counsel Ramona Romero, will succeed in defeating Trump’s lawless attempt to intrude on Princeton’s freedom to conduct research, promote learning and understanding, and seek truth as it has since its founding nearly three centuries ago.
I want to commend President Eisgruber ’83 for having the courage to speak out against the Trump administration’s dangerous attacks on academic freedom on college campuses across the nation, including at Princeton.
Eisgruber has been speaking out in high profile media outlets, such as The New York Times’ Daily podcast, decrying Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding for research as a means of coercing changes in curricula and admissions policies at schools he deems too liberal.
These attacks are often described by the administration as a necessary response to a lack of action by university administrators to protect Jewish students from rising expressions of antisemitism on campus.
Antisemitism is a problem on many college campuses today, and some universities have been too slow to take action to adequately protect Jewish students. But the “remedies” typically demanded by the Trump administration reveal that the real motive behind this initiative is to promote a political agenda by requiring universities to end policies that promote diversity or to curtail curricula aimed at African, Near Eastern, and South Asian studies.
Sadly, some universities have capitulated to Trump’s coercion, including Columbia. But Eisgruber’s principled stand against the administration’s attack on academic freedom makes me proud to be a Princetonian. Moreover, I have confidence that Princeton’s intrepid legal team, led by General Counsel Ramona Romero, will succeed in defeating Trump’s lawless attempt to intrude on Princeton’s freedom to conduct research, promote learning and understanding, and seek truth as it has since its founding nearly three centuries ago.