Princeton’s “double down on DEI” faces a direct challenge from President Trump’s Jan. 21 Executive Order 14171. It mandates an end to race- and sex-based preferences in institutions that receive federal funding, prioritizing merit-based opportunity. As a recipient of substantial federal support, Princeton is now at a crossroads: Will it comply with the law faithfully, or will it risk vital funding and the University’s hard-won standing — all to continue its DEI policies and programs?
What decisions will President Eisgruber and his administration make to bring Princeton within this new federal mandate? Section 3(b)(i) of the Executive Order indicates that Princeton may have only until April 21 to fully comply, so the University must act promptly. In his Jan. 29 State of the University Letter, President Eisgruber reported briefly that the University is exploring measures to achieve “compliance with applicable laws.” He promised updates “when we have more information to share.” Key decisions and actions lie ahead over the next 11 weeks.
President Eisgruber’s rhetoric, as seen in last year’s State of the University Letter, asserts that “inclusivity” enhances excellence. Yet University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne showed persuasively that Eisgruber made “bogus arguments” and that instead, “[T]here is a tradeoff between excellence and [racial] diversity, and we know that for several reasons …” The pursuit of diversity through measures that diminish meritocratic standards undermines academic rigor. Eisgruber owes the Princeton community specific responses to Coyne’s challenges.
Moreover, race-based measures work against Martin Luther King Jr.’s goal that individuals be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Last, this approach directly contradicts the principles enshrined in federal civil rights law, which the Executive Order seeks to uphold.
Princeton’s reliance on federal funding for student loans, educational programs, and pathbreaking research, such as that at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, dramatically heightens the stakes. The question looms: Is Eisgruber prepared to place these vital resources and the University’s mission in jeopardy to sustain policies under increasing legal and ethical scrutiny?
Princeton’s trustees also have a crucial role to play. They, too, must weigh the implications of the University’s current trajectory. Will they endorse Princeton’s double down on DEI or instead demand that the University’s leadership change course?
President Eisgruber needs to explain to the Princeton community his course for the University on these crucial issues. He should set forth how Princeton will comply with federal law, abandon identity-based preferences, and pursue merit-based excellence. Rhetorical legerdemain is no longer an option.
President Eisgruber and the trustees now inescapably confront a time for choosing. This demands fidelity to fiduciary duties of the first order. Princeton can either reaffirm its dedication to academic rigor, fairness, and compliance with the law, or it can cling to an ideological agenda that imperils its future. The stakes are monumental, the choice is clear, and the time to act is now.
Princeton’s “double down on DEI” faces a direct challenge from President Trump’s Jan. 21 Executive Order 14171. It mandates an end to race- and sex-based preferences in institutions that receive federal funding, prioritizing merit-based opportunity. As a recipient of substantial federal support, Princeton is now at a crossroads: Will it comply with the law faithfully, or will it risk vital funding and the University’s hard-won standing — all to continue its DEI policies and programs?
What decisions will President Eisgruber and his administration make to bring Princeton within this new federal mandate? Section 3(b)(i) of the Executive Order indicates that Princeton may have only until April 21 to fully comply, so the University must act promptly. In his Jan. 29 State of the University Letter, President Eisgruber reported briefly that the University is exploring measures to achieve “compliance with applicable laws.” He promised updates “when we have more information to share.” Key decisions and actions lie ahead over the next 11 weeks.
President Eisgruber’s rhetoric, as seen in last year’s State of the University Letter, asserts that “inclusivity” enhances excellence. Yet University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne showed persuasively that Eisgruber made “bogus arguments” and that instead, “[T]here is a tradeoff between excellence and [racial] diversity, and we know that for several reasons …” The pursuit of diversity through measures that diminish meritocratic standards undermines academic rigor. Eisgruber owes the Princeton community specific responses to Coyne’s challenges.
Moreover, race-based measures work against Martin Luther King Jr.’s goal that individuals be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Last, this approach directly contradicts the principles enshrined in federal civil rights law, which the Executive Order seeks to uphold.
Princeton’s reliance on federal funding for student loans, educational programs, and pathbreaking research, such as that at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, dramatically heightens the stakes. The question looms: Is Eisgruber prepared to place these vital resources and the University’s mission in jeopardy to sustain policies under increasing legal and ethical scrutiny?
Princeton’s trustees also have a crucial role to play. They, too, must weigh the implications of the University’s current trajectory. Will they endorse Princeton’s double down on DEI or instead demand that the University’s leadership change course?
President Eisgruber needs to explain to the Princeton community his course for the University on these crucial issues. He should set forth how Princeton will comply with federal law, abandon identity-based preferences, and pursue merit-based excellence. Rhetorical legerdemain is no longer an option.
President Eisgruber and the trustees now inescapably confront a time for choosing. This demands fidelity to fiduciary duties of the first order. Princeton can either reaffirm its dedication to academic rigor, fairness, and compliance with the law, or it can cling to an ideological agenda that imperils its future. The stakes are monumental, the choice is clear, and the time to act is now.