In spring 2002, President Tilghman faced a problem. In her first year as president, world affairs had taken on a new level of importance in the nation. But the University's international studies programs were ailing. The Sept. 11 attacks and war in Afghanistan had brought attention to scholars at Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago, but Princeton was left largely behind.
In the pivotal decision of who would lead the Wilson School, Tilghman decided to tackle the problem and chose Anne-Marie Slaughter '80, a Harvard international law professor, to lead the effort of rebuilding international studies.
The other main choice for dean was Kenneth Prewitt, a former U.S. Census director who had just stepped down as dean of the graduate faculty of political science at New School University in New York City. Prewitt, whose identity had not publicly been disclosed, was backed by many economists and domestic policy specialists in the School, said two Wilson School professors and a third person familiar with the dean search.
The University, now into Slaughter's deanship just more than a year, has already taken major steps to bolster the international studies program. But Tilghman and Slaughter may face resistance in their campaign, in part because of the contingent that backed Prewitt.
-- Slaughter thinks the University lacks "bench strength" in international security and political economy and hopes to hire six international relations professors. In recent years, the University has failed to make major new appointments.
-- Announced in June, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (PIIRS) aims to ensure that no student leaves the University without thinking about world affairs, largely by adding dozens of courses to the curriculum.
-- Slaughter is working with the Ford Foundation to set up the Princeton Project, "a multi-year research program on elements of a new longterm national security strategy for the United States in the post-post Cold War era."
-- The main challenge will be not alienating the sizeable number of professors who support the study of mathematical and economic models as the basis for a public policy school, and who get to vote on faculty appointments.
"There is a very deep split between the economist school and the more traditional types of people who would be in domestic politics and international politics," said a distinguished Wilson School professor on condition of anonymity. "It's one of the reasons why it will be very difficult to build up a program of international relations in the School."
'A shadow'
When classes started a few years ago, famous international lawyers (Richard Falk), political economists (Robert Gilpin), democratic theorists (Michael Doyle), U.S. foreign policy experts (Richard Ullman) and security theorists (Aaron Friedberg) were teaching.
But when classes started Thursday, none was. All have left, retired or are on leave. And so far the University hasn't been able to replace them.
It is a fact not lost on Slaughter.

"When I came in [as dean, the international relations program] was really a shadow of where it was when I was an undergraduate," Slaughter said. "The international side is absolutely my priority until we have an absolutely first class department of international relations, especially in politics."
In mid-May, the Wilson School faculty met on the third floor of Wallace Hall and recommended that Georgetown professor John Ikenberry, one of the country's most prestigious international relations theorists, should be considered for employment. Helen Milner, a prominent Columbia professor, is also under consideration.
Last spring, the Wilson School hired Thomas Christensen, a prominent East Asia specialist at MIT.
The University is also searching for specialists in biological and nuclear weapons and international law.
But in recent years, faculty recruitment efforts have not gone well. A few years ago, the University considered hiring Slaughter's husband, Andrew Moravcisk, but ultimately declined, two Wilson School professors said.
Peter and Mary Katzenstein, two renowned international politics professors at Cornell, also visited several years ago and were offered slots, but they turned the options down, Peter Katzenstein said.
'If there was one thing'
While trying to recruit faculty from outside, the University has also been building up international studies inside.
"If there was one thing that was debated thoroughly over the last 18 months," Tilghman said, "it was the future of international studies at Princeton."
What emerged out of these debates — a series of internal and external deliberations — was PIIRS, a merger of the Center for International Studies and Center on Regional Studies, two powerful research offices that attract visiting scholars each year.
PIIRS plans to be the clearinghouse for international studies information at the University, hosting speakers, introducing new courses into the curriculum and facilitating discussion about international studies across fields.
"What we're hoping to do is to make so many courses and so many experiences available, that even the most isolationist — I just want to know America and English — kid, at the end of four years, is going to know that this can play differently in Canada and that this can play differently in Mexico," said Miguel Centeno, a sociologist who is the first director of PIIRS.
In the near term, PIIRS wants to introduce sophomore seminars on specific regions and plans a "state of the world" conference in February to discuss international and domestic developments around the world.
'Enormous strengths'
PIIRS is the main element of the internal international studies campaign, but Slaughter is supporting other programs as well.
One program she has not discussed publicly is the Princeton Project, financially backed by the Ford Foundation and also partnered with the Council on Foreign Relations and American Society of International Law, of which she is president.
In a report she filed with the foundation governing the endowment behind the Wilson School graduate program on Feb. 27, she wrote that " Ford and other foundations seek to support work that would lay conceptual foundations for a new national security strategy akin to the kind of serious academic research that underpinned the design of the post-World War II" institutions.
Slaughter wrote that Ford chose the University because of its "enormous strengths," but declined to comment further about the project when asked.
Late last spring, Slaughter also held a well-attended colloquium on the role of morality in international affairs. She plans to run another this year, but with more input by graduate and undergraduate students.
'Amorphous'
Slaughter and Tilghman appear to have a clear view that international studies at the University should be second to none. Though they have revealed many of their plans, recent years have been rocky.
And those plans don't seem to have completely taken form yet.
"We have a clear mission, but the exact shape of that mission is amorphous," PIIRS director Centeno said, adding that "student, faculty, staff needs are going to change."
A suit for control of the $600 million behind the School's graduate program was filed in July 2002 by family of the original donors who share in governance of the endowment, in part claiming that the School wasn't doing a good enough job of sending graduates into international relations government service.
Slaughter's February report, however, said that an undergraduate alumnus of the School had contributed a "handsome" gift to encourage undergraduates to pursue internships and jobs in the public sector after college. A similar program for graduate students is also planned, though Slaughter declined to discuss either.
The lawsuit is directed against the School, largely focusing on the the tenure of Slaughter's predecessor, Michael Rothschild. He resigned shortly after Tilghman became president.
Rothschild is a renowned economist, still a professor in the School, but some School professors privately complained about his lack of commitment to international relations when he was dean.
Indeed, Tilghman has acknowledged that part of the reason for his abrupt departure in January 2002, several months before he was slated to leave, was a disagreement they had over the fellowship program at the Center for International Studies.
Asked about his record, Rothschild said, "I think international relations are very important, and we hired some junior faculty who were quite good. We made a lot of senior offers. When I was still dean, we began the process that ended with [MIT's] Christensen."
Rothschild had a constituency among economists and social scientists in the School, however. Slaughter, if she wants to appoint senior international relations faculty, may have to work with them too. It is a kind of divide — between economists and international relations faculty — that affects many public policy schools.
Hiring faculty "would have to be a quid pro quo for some time," said a Wilson School professor.
"The dean would have to say something nice for the economists. This has been a battle going for a long time . . . The split usually comes to a head in the case of major appointments and in the case of hiring deans."
"It's a very difficult problem," the professor added. "It can only be usually resolved by intervention by the president."
In picking Slaughter, with her international relations focus, over Prewitt, the other candidate for Wilson School dean, Tilghman made clear on whose side she would intervene.