Reassert Values for Princeton, Not All Higher Ed

Having previously felt that Princeton, under the leadership of President Eisgruber, has been steering a remarkably wise and careful course through the unfortunate quagmire of disrespectful dissension, disorderly behavior, intimidation, and threats of violence on university campuses over the last year and a half, I was disappointed in reading three related articles in the May 2025 issue (“As Eisgruber Speaks Out for Higher Ed, Princeton Community Digs In,” “Princeton Opens Investigation After Protests Disrupt Former Israeli PM,” and “Outspoken Advocate for Palestinians Takes Unusual Path to Professorship”). The severe disrespect shown to the former Israeli prime minister was particularly regrettable.

Columbia and Harvard have led with bad examples of failed management of campus chaos, drawing repeated adverse national attention since 2023. Their inability (and/or unwillingness) to control violent antisemitism, trashing of campus property, and obstruction of normal university life have encouraged similar inappropriate protest activity throughout our nation. There are important consequences from such protracted deterioration in university conduct, including loss of public esteem for academia in general and for the Ivy League in particular. Moreover, prolongation of the disorder is likely to produce more serious consequences for universities that fail to achieve effective control. Withholding of federal government funding should come as no surprise.

Princeton has a unique opportunity to stem the disorderly tide, due to its location in a peaceful university town, its relatively small size, its traditional commitment to serve the nation (since 1896), and its loyal and supportive alumni base. There is no need for Princeton to rush to the defense of all higher education, particularly in universities that continue to mismanage issues of disorder, intimidation, and borderline violence. Princeton can and should seize the opportunity to reassert its timeless commitments to academic superiority, freedom of speech, and service to the nation, while preventing interference with normal university life, trashing on campus, disrespectful conduct, and threats of violence. If an expanded force of security agents is needed, this should be promptly arranged.

Princeton can and should stand out as a positive example compared with other prominent universities, to include adherence to current federal guidelines and requirements, whether we entirely agree with them or not. As a recent interviewer of student applicants, I can confirm that the relatively secure environment that Princeton provides is well known and much appreciated.

A final related point is that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is not current U.S. government policy. It can be tactfully espoused but would best not be openly advocated in the setting of desire to preserve federal funding and to maintain strict compliance with the Supreme Court ruling of July 2023 concerning student admissions.