Censorship at Princeton

In the September issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW), there was a remarkable article. Alumni participation in Annual Giving had dropped dramatically over the last decade. This is a four-alarm fire -- not only for financial reasons, but because alumni participation is a key indicator for the national college rankings.

I wrote a brief note to PAW for inclusion in the letters-to-the-editor section:

When President Eisgruber took office in 2013 the Annual Giving participation rate was at its long-term historical average of 60%. Since then the rate has declined, almost linearly, to 43.9%, a loss of 16,000 participants.

During that time President Eisgruber has consistently alienated a significant portion of the alumni body. In these years the university pushed DEI, fired Professor Katz for being a conservative, walled off Prospect Street from the south, allowed on-campus speakers to be shouted down, let anti-semitic protesters off with a slap on the wrist, and my personal irritant, built one hideous building after another. Despite lofty rhetoric from the president in defense of free speech, the university has earned an “F” on free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

These are the reasons I stopped participating in Annual Giving. How much further will the trustees allow the rate to fall before making the necessary change in leadership?

Chris Cleveland ‘84

This letter is short and to the point, in exactly the style they like to publish.

PAW first publishes letters like this on their website, where there are no limitations on the number of letters they can publish or on their length. The letter did not appear. I thought, perhaps, that they were saving it for the print publication. But when the October issue arrived in my mailbox, there was nothing.

I submitted it through their website, and it went through, so I know they got it.

PAW has long prided itself on being independent of the university. It’s the voice of the alumni. It’s filled with a great deal of cheerleading for the university, but occasionally hits more serious topics. For an impending disaster like this one you’d think they would say something about it.

But no. Crickets. And I think we know why.

In 2021, the chair of PAW wrote,

This spring, University administrators informed PAW’s board that Princeton intends to change its relationship with the magazine to secure PAW’s financial health, to assure that PAW operates under the same rules as other University departments, and to protect against the magazine creating legal liability for the University. Princeton proposes to take on the entire cost of producing and distributing PAW, eliminating the burden on classes that until now have helped pay for the magazine. At the same time, Princeton has not guaranteed the continued editorial independence of the magazine.

Over the following months, there was some back-and-forth between Princeton and PAW on the terms of the deal, which resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding which is in force today. Under the deal, PAW is fully funded by and is fully a part of the university. It “maintains editorial independence as to content”, and according to PAW board chair Marc Fisher ‘80, the magazine can include “voices critical of University policies”.

Except that no voices critical of University policies appear in the magazine’s pages, ever. There is no editorial independence. You will not find a criticism of President Eisgruber, anywhere, ever.

The rest of the world has no problem criticizing the man. His recent book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, has received absolutely scathing reviews. Christopher Eisgruber’s Moronic Inferno is a good example. Others include The Disqualifying Hypocrisy of Princeton’s President and A Princeton President’s Evasions.

But no matter; PAW knows when it’s supposed to gush. In Getting Campus Speech Right, PAW portrays Eisgruber as a hero upon a “besieged perch” who deftly navigates between the “fiery young activists to his left” and the “culturally aggrieved cadres to his right” -- as if there’s anyone to his left at all. Wise and modest man that he is, he acknowledges a mistake: he initially failed to see the “full moral gravity of [Woodrow] Wilson’s wrongs”, before purging Wilson’s name and denouncing his memory before the fawning left.

This man is an embarrassment. No wonder he took over PAW. An honest look at him would likely drive participation in Annual Giving even lower, to the point where the trustees would have to ask, what is this buffoon still doing here?