Latest news with #Eisgruber
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Can the Ivy League band together to fight Trump's attacks on higher education?
Harvard University has suffered most of President Trump's blows, with the president stripping Advertisement At other schools, university presidents are giving interviews and campus speeches critical of the White House. Professors are unionizing to advocate for their research and students. And many alumni groups are spearheading public awareness campaigns to pressure their alma maters to fight back against Trump. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Because 'The fight is going to be won among the public,' said Jon Fansmith, vice president of the nonprofit American Council on Education. The Trump administration has arguied elite universities force-feed students leftist ideology and allowed antisemitism to run rampant since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023. The administration has announced investigations of colleges and universities allegedly discriminating against white people and cut off or threatened to cut federal funding to many schools. Advertisement At Columbia University, leaders in March said they would comply with the administration's demands after officials froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because the administration said the school failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. But that didn't seem to appease the White House, which announced last week it was targeting the school's accreditation, which could ultimately result in Columbia losing federal financial aid for its students. In April, several Big Ten conference schools formally signed on to a 'The Trump administration has no intention of backing down, and the only thing that will work to oppose him is strong collective action where we have each other's backs,' said Lieberwitz, whose university had Students on the campus at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., on March 7. HANNAH BEIER/NYT University presidents speak out Ivy League university presidents have responded differently to allegations of antisemitism on campus and the Trump administration's attempts to control how they run their schools. A Eisgruber, a constitutional law scholar, has been particularly outspoken, slamming Advertisement 'It's really important for conservative views to be welcome on a campus, but that's different from insisting on ideological balance on a campus,' Eisgruber told the host of The Daily this spring. After Harvard lost billions in science funding in April, Eisgruber posted 'Princeton stands with Harvard,' on his LinkedIn profile. At Brown University, the school's highest governing body recently extended president Christina Paxson's term through June 2028 in a show of confidence. Eisgruber's and Paxson's long tenures put them in better positions to speak out, higher education advocates told the Globe this spring. Other Ivies have recently been plagued by turnover among leaders, including high-profile oustings over responses to pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism. The presidents of Yale, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania were installed this spring. 'The other university presidents are not standing up for Harvard because they don't want to be the next one on Trump's list,' said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Presidents, a union. University presidents are also strategizing with lawmakers in Washington D.C., professors told the Globe. The largest public outcry from university presidents came on April 22, when hundreds signed a public statement with the American Association of Colleges & Universities against 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Dartmouth president Sian Beilock was the only Ivy president to not sign, despite being urged to by professors and alumni, said Derek Jennings, an active member of the Native American Alumni Association of Dartmouth. The school's director of media relations, Jana Barnello, said like other schools, Dartmouth has filed supporting declarations in lawsuits over the funding cuts. Advertisement Professors rally to organize against Trump While university presidents seem to be taking a more careful and calculated approach, many professors rapidly organized this spring, forming union chapters in an attempt to defend their research. 'The level of increased faculty activism at Dartmouth is demonstrating that those of us who value the ideals and values of higher education are not waiting for administrators to lead on this,' said Bethany Moreton, who helped launch Dartmouth's chapter of the American Association of University Presidents in May 2024. Membership has since ballooned to 150, she said. Across the Ivy League, researchers said they're best suited to publicly advocate for their work, describing their life-saving findings and discoveries at rallies and in letters to lawmakers, groups told the Globe. While some observers warn of a potential brain drain among professors to Canada or Europe in response to Trump's cuts to research funding, some said Trump's attacks are creating more unity among colleagues than they've seen in years. 'If the intention was to divide faculty and pit us against each other with all the threats, it's really not working,' said Princeton English professor Meredith Martin. 'We care so much about our students that, if anything, this is bringing us together and making us stronger.' During the recent school year, membership in AAUP surged to 50,000, from 42,000, with almost all of that after Trump's inauguration in January, according to the group, and is the largest spike since its founding a century ago. Alumni stand up for schools Alumni are also pushing administrators at their alma maters to do more to stand up for their schools' autonomy. Harvard's alumni campaign, Crimson Courage, met Friday in a packed auditorium on the Cambridge campus to discuss how it is 'reaching out beyond Harvard to build the campaign,' an event description said. Advertisement The group Stand Up for Princeton and Higher Education amassed more than 9,000 alumni supporters in the past five weeks. Some held signs and wore buttons while walking the P-rade route on May 24. The group's In Connecticut, the group Stand Up for Yale sent a Similar alumni groups are taking shape across the Ivy League, with several urging university presidents to sign on to group statements, alumni told the Globe. Schools must band together formally, experts say Many graduates said their support is for all of higher education, not just their alma maters. At the recent Princeton reunion after the P-rade, a Yale Divinity School student caught up with a University of Chicago Law School graduate over barbecue. Outside nearby Firestone Library, recent graduates of Yale's and Harvard's law schools enveloped in hugs. 'The education my peers and I received was life changing, and our schools know this and are not backing down on ensuring future students get the same opportunities,' said Joshua Faires, who has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a master's degree in sociology from Columbia University. HoSang, from Yale's AAUP chapter, said Trump knows higher education institutions depend on each other and share one 'ecosystem,' and so a threat against one is a threat to all, he said. Advertisement 'There is no saving Yale, Harvard, or Princeton without standing up for all of higher education,' HoSang said. Still, faculty and alumni need more support from administrators, some warned —all the way from the presidents at the top, said Wolfson, the national AAUP president. 'I think they need to be bold,' Wolfson said. 'And this is hard to do but I'll say it anyway: They need to put their institution second, and then need to put higher education — as a critical sector in US society — first.' Claire Thornton can be reached at
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Princeton Fails To Enforce Its Rules on Free Speech, Antisemitism
Princetons President Christopher Eisgruber has positioned himself as perhaps the leading academic defender against the Trump administrations crackdown on universities, citing the importance of universities and academic freedom, as well as his belief that the administration has greatly overreached in its attacks, especially against Harvard. Yet his ability to lead credibly this defense was challenged in April by an event at Princeton featuring former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is considered one of the favorites to succeed Benjamin Netanyahu next year. Demonstrators inside McCosh Hall shouted Bennett down and a fire alarm was pulled, apparently by a protester, ending the event. Outside, Jewish attendees were called "inbred swine," among other slurs, and told to "go back to Europe." President Eisgruber apologized to Bennett and university officials promised a serious investigation. A number of observers noted the importance of Princeton enforcing its rules in this situation. I attended the April 7 event, and I volunteered to speak as a witness to university investigators, with whom I met twice for over two hours. I was therefore shocked when on May 19 I received the results of that investigation in a letter from a university official: No students would be disciplined for their premeditated disruption and blatant antisemitism. As a result, seniors who participated in breaking the rules have now graduated without consequence. Whats more, no meaningful actions would be taken to preclude the same type of disruption and antisemitism from occurring in the future. For all his public statements about how good things are at Princeton, Eisgrubers system failed its first test. In a written report sent to me and signed by Michele Minter, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, the university admitted that the protestors "created a hostile environment that unreasonably interfered with [my] educational experience [as an attendee] relating to the April 7th event in violation of [Princetons] Policy on Discrimination and/or Harassment." Yet my personal experience is not the real point. The real point is that Princeton allowed a visiting speaker, a high-ranking Jewish leader, to be shut down, and allowed masked protesters to shout antisemitic slurs at Jewish students with complete impunity. It is most interesting that the report on the investigation was sent to me, and it seems only to me, on May 19, apparently because the university had chosen to treat my letter, with another student, to Eisgruber about the event as a formal "complaint" by me. The report was only made public, barely, on May 21, after I had indicated to officials that I might make it public. Its results were evidently sent to a very few outlets, via email. As far as I can tell, this important report was never formally announced to the public, was not in a press release, and appears nowhere on the Princeton website. It sure looks as though the university is trying to hide its own report. The university says it cannot punish people who were shouting antisemitic slurs because it cannot identify them since it was dark and they were wearing masks. Yet the university says nothing about implementing a policy banning masks in certain situations, even though I specifically requested it do so and even though many universities are doing so, including the entire University of California system. Princetons report says nothing about implementing meaningful policies that would prevent the same spectacle from occurring in the future. Thus, Princeton is sending a clear signal to those who would violate its rules and the law: Wear a mask and you can abuse Jews on campus. This is absurd. At the event, protesters were given multiple warnings before they were told to leave, thus enabling the disruptions to last longer. After I raised this issue with officials, they did change that policy to limit the number of warnings, but this was too little too late. As if all this is not bad enough, the letter from Dean Minter says nothing about prosecuting an outside agitator - a non-student - who separately disrupted the event by shouting awful slurs at the speaker for several minutes. First, he should not have been allowed into the event; it was limited to students. Second, he not only broke Princeton rules, but he also clearly violated New Jersey law relating to a "defiant trespasser." Instead of prosecution, the university said it was declaring him "persona non grata" and banning him from the school for a year. This looks like a joke, but it isnt. This is someone who has nothing to do with Princeton. It is a penalty without meaning. Amazingly, last week at Princetons reunions, all speaking events were required to have a statement read at the beginning telling the audience that disruptions could be subject to prosecution under a New Jersey law; yet only a few days before, Princeton had indicated that someone who clearly broke that law would not be prosecuted. Eisgruber pledged after the April 7 event to "pursue disciplinary measures, as appropriate, to the extent any members of the Princeton University community are implicated" and spoke against the "reprehensible and intolerable" antisemitism.I suppose that "as appropriate" is meaningful only insofar as the university can maintain plausible deniability. Princetons president constantly talks about Princetons free speech rules, and yet when tested, the university will not enforce them. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires universities that receive federal funding to provide a learning environment free from racial and ethnic harassment. The Trump administration has already suspended a reported $210 million in grants to Princeton over previous concerns about antisemitism. If Princeton wont take basic steps to protect its students and enforce its rules, the Department of Education must. Danielle Shapiro recently graduated from Princeton University with a degree in politics. She is a former president of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, Princeton's sole club committed to the Truth-seeking mission.
Yahoo
13-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Princeton president vows not to cave to Trump, yet acknowledges antisemitism on campus
Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber recently told a New York Times reporter he identified "serious problems" with antisemitism on Columbia University's campus and even his own. But he noted it is "not appropriate" for the government to use its funding power to change the way universities conduct their research, teaching or admissions. Eisgruber sat down Wednesday with "The Daily" podcast host Rachel Abrams to discuss research funding freezes and antisemitism on university campuses. Colleges and universities nationwide have expressed concern about President Donald Trump investigating schools for alleged antisemitic discrimination and harassment, slashing federal funding for those that seemingly allowed on-campus anti-Israel protests since the Hamas-led attack on Israel Oct. 7, 2023. One of those schools was Columbia University, which changed its protest policies, expanded its Jewish studies program, placed the school's Middle Eastern studies program under new supervision and altered student disciplinary procedures to avoid losing $400 million in federal funding. Princeton Event With Former Israeli Pm Naftali Bennett Disrupted By Anti-israel Agitators "We began to see precipitous threats to funding streams early on in the new presidential administration," Eisgruber told Abrams. Read On The Fox News App "Then a couple of weeks ago, something happened at Columbia that introduced a new, and, in my view, very dangerous element to this, which is that the government came in, and without any due process or any apparent investigation, said … 'We're going to take away a bunch of your grants … and we're not going to restore them to you unless you do things like admissions reform.'" Trump Admin Cuts $4M In Princeton Funding Related To Climate Research Eisgruber discussed the importance of "academic freedom" before Abrams asked about the validity of the administration's concerns about antisemitism on college campuses. Eisgruber acknowledged there "were some serious problems with antisemitism on that campus" and said standing against antisemitism is "a fundamental responsibility for any university president and for any university," but he accused the government of neglecting due process. "They should be allowing universities to respond and offer their side of the story," he said. "And then they should be putting in place, if they find that there are violations, appropriate remedies that are tailored to the violations and to the law." They had the discussion as rumors swirled about the Trump administration pursuing a legal arrangement, or consent decree, that would order Columbia University to comply with executive directives on antisemitism from Trump. Under former President Joe Biden, multiple universities, including Brown and Rutgers, signed similar decrees over antisemitism concerns after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israeli, The Wall Street Journal reported. Ivy League Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil Denies Allegations As Judge Awaits Deportation Evidence Yet, when Abrams asked if Eisgruber would cave if Trump said he would cut funding unless a specific department was placed under academic receivership, he said he would not make concessions. "We would not do that," he said. "We believe that would be unlawful, and we would contest that in court. … I really think we all need to be speaking up right now." Video Shows Arrest Of Columbia Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil The episode was released one day after news broke that the Trump administration had cut $4 million in funding related to climate research for Princeton University. Princeton received $455 million in federal funding during fiscal year 2024, which includes funding for the Department of Energy national laboratory, which it operates for the government. "It's important for me to be using my voice, and it's why, in response to a number of your questions, I've said, 'Hey, I can tell you about what's going on at Princeton, but I don't think this is all about Princeton. It's about what's happening in the United States,'" Eisgruber said. "I think this would be so much stronger if many more of my fellow presidents were speaking up. "America's universities [are] under threat." Eisgruber said the policy changes are a "crisis for our country." And he remained adamant throughout the podcast that universities should not reflect the political ideology of the country. Fox News Digital's Audrey Conklin contributed to this article source: Princeton president vows not to cave to Trump, yet acknowledges antisemitism on campus
Fox News
13-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Princeton president vows not to cave to Trump, yet acknowledges antisemitism on campus
Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber recently told a New York Times reporter he identified "serious problems" with antisemitism on Columbia University's campus and even his own. But he noted it is "not appropriate" for the government to use its funding power to change the way universities conduct their research, teaching or admissions. Eisgruber sat down Wednesday with "The Daily" podcast host Rachel Abrams to discuss research funding freezes and antisemitism on university campuses. Colleges and universities nationwide have expressed concern about President Donald Trump investigating schools for alleged antisemitic discrimination and harassment, slashing federal funding for those that seemingly allowed on-campus anti-Israel protests since the Hamas-led attack on Israel Oct. 7, 2023. One of those schools was Columbia University, which changed its protest policies, expanded its Jewish studies program, placed the school's Middle Eastern studies program under new supervision and altered student disciplinary procedures to avoid losing $400 million in federal funding. "We began to see precipitous threats to funding streams early on in the new presidential administration," Eisgruber told Abrams. "Then a couple of weeks ago, something happened at Columbia that introduced a new, and, in my view, very dangerous element to this, which is that the government came in, and without any due process or any apparent investigation, said … 'We're going to take away a bunch of your grants … and we're not going to restore them to you unless you do things like admissions reform.'" Eisgruber discussed the importance of "academic freedom" before Abrams asked about the validity of the administration's concerns about antisemitism on college campuses. Eisgruber acknowledged there "were some serious problems with antisemitism on that campus" and said standing against antisemitism is "a fundamental responsibility for any university president and for any university," but he accused the government of neglecting due process. "They should be allowing universities to respond and offer their side of the story," he said. "And then they should be putting in place, if they find that there are violations, appropriate remedies that are tailored to the violations and to the law." They had the discussion as rumors swirled about the Trump administration pursuing a legal arrangement, or consent decree, that would order Columbia University to comply with executive directives on antisemitism from Trump. Under former President Joe Biden, multiple universities, including Brown and Rutgers, signed similar decrees over antisemitism concerns after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israeli, The Wall Street Journal reported. Yet, when Abrams asked if Eisgruber would cave if Trump said he would cut funding unless a specific department was placed under academic receivership, he said he would not make concessions. "We would not do that," he said. "We believe that would be unlawful, and we would contest that in court. … I really think we all need to be speaking up right now." The episode was released one day after news broke that the Trump administration had cut $4 million in funding related to climate research for Princeton University. Princeton received $455 million in federal funding during fiscal year 2024, which includes funding for the Department of Energy national laboratory, which it operates for the government. "It's important for me to be using my voice, and it's why, in response to a number of your questions, I've said, 'Hey, I can tell you about what's going on at Princeton, but I don't think this is all about Princeton. It's about what's happening in the United States,'" Eisgruber said. "I think this would be so much stronger if many more of my fellow presidents were speaking up. "America's universities [are] under threat." Eisgruber said the policy changes are a "crisis for our country." And he remained adamant throughout the podcast that universities should not reflect the political ideology of the country.
Boston Globe
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
A handful of college presidents emerge as leaders of burgeoning resistance movement against Trump
As a small liberal arts school, Mount Holyoke doesn't have as much federal funding on the line as major research universities. Nonetheless, 'If we don't speak up and fight back about what our core values are, there won't be anything left for us,' she added. Advertisement Holley's comments make her an outlier so far among most university leaders, many of whom have largely adopted a Advertisement The administration has accused some schools of tolerating antisemitism on campus in the wake of the Gaza war, alleged they engage in racial discrimination through their diversity programs, and taken aim at policies allowing transgender women to participate in women's sports. But faculty members, students, and prominent alumni have There are signs some are heeding those calls. The president of Princeton University, Christopher Eisgruber, encouraged his peers to oppose what he views as threats to academic freedom. Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber Christopher Goodney/Photographer: Christopher Goodne 'It is a crisis,' Eisgruber said in an episode of The New York Times podcast 'The Daily' on Wednesday. 'The funding that is essential to the quality of American research and America's universities is under threat. That's a crisis for universities and it is a crisis for our country.' The Trump administration has put more millions in research funding at Princeton on hold, but so far has not issued a series of demands as it had to Harvard and Columbia. Nonetheless, Eisgruber said Princeton will not 'make concessions,' even if it risks losing federal funding. He told the Times the university would contest in court any directives to put an academic department under a form of receivership, as the government directed Columbia to do. 'I believe it is essential for us to protect academic freedom,' Eisgruber said. Brown University president Christina Paxson recently issued a Advertisement Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents about 1,600 colleges and universities, said he is working to circulate an open letter among industry associations and leaders of individual schools that would emphasize the need to preserve academic freedom and US research preeminence. Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, has also spoken out in interviews and authored pointed op-eds. 'Appeasement right now is a disastrous policy,' Roth said in a recent Globe interview. 'What's at stake here is freedom. If you give up your freedoms to someone who wants more power, they're going to take more of your freedom.' The Trump administration has made it hard for university presidents to push back by presenting their funding threats as a crackdown on antisemitism, Mitchell said. 'It's hard to pull those apart because presidents don't want to be perceived as saying, 'We don't think we need to do better to protect our Jewish students,' ' Mitchell said. 'Every college president I know agrees with the point that we need to do a better job protecting our Jewish students, period. Don't hold research hostage to the solution to that problem.' Eisgruber, the Princeton leader, said fighting antisemitism is 'a fundamental responsibility for any university president,' and is something schools should work on in partnership with the government. But, he added, the government 'should be observing the due process that our law provides' for civil rights investigations, including allowing universities to 'respond and offer their side of the story.' Due process, he added, was not observed in the case of Columbia. Even so, Eisgruber, who is Jewish, also pushed back against the government's argument that antisemitism is rampant on elite campuses. He personally received at least two antisemitic messages last year, which he said is 'unacceptable,' but added such incidents at Princeton were 'marginal.' Advertisement Mitchell said Eisgruber, Paxson, and Roth are better positioned than most to speak out because they have been in their roles longer than most college presidents. 'They have created credibility with their peers, they have credibility with the donor community, and with government agencies,' Mitchell said. 'I'm eager to see how many other people join.' Meanwhile, Harvard, Columbia, and UPenn have all had turnover at the top amid the turmoil over the handling of campus protests and allegations of antisemitism. In March, Columbia replaced interim president Katrina Armstrong amid negotiations with the Trump administration. At Harvard, school leaders are being importuned by students, alumni, and faculty members to take a strong stance after the administration demanded numerous changes and began reviewing nearly $9 billion in federal funding the university and its affiliated institutions receive. The government has a similar inquiry at Columbia. There the Trump administration placed Harvard, for its part, has not said how it will respond to the Trump administration's demands, which include ending diversity programs, implementing 'merit-based' admissions and hiring practices, cooperating with federal immigration authorities, and changing student disciplinary procedures. On Monday, the university gave the first public indication it's anticipating losing federal funding by borrowing $750 million, which spokesperson Jason Newton described as preparing 'for a range of financial circumstances.' Advertisement The Trump administration has deployed various strategies to target funding at elite universities. An antisemitism task force from several federal agencies announced reviews of funding at Harvard and Columbia and then sent specific demands, which critics saw as an extraordinary infringement on universities' independence. The task force directed Columbia to place a Middle East studies department under new oversight, and told Harvard to close diversity offices and cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security, which has arrested and attempted to deport international students at several universities. At other schools, including Brown, the White House, not the task force, has led the communications, but so far provided fewer details. Although a White House spokesperson confirmed last week that the government plans to pause $510 million of funding for Brown, the university still has 'not heard from the federal government,' spokesperson Brian Clark said Wednesday. Hilary Burns can be reached at
