About three-quarters of the way into an interview with The Daily Princetonian, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 made a bold pronouncement: “American universities are the best that they’ve ever been.”
Eisgruber has been in the business of speaking up for universities since the beginning of the Trump administration, which has put unprecedented pressure on Princeton and its peer institutions. His new book, “Terms of Respect,” argues, as the book’s subtitle reads, “how colleges get free speech right.” Despite the perception of intolerance on American college campuses, Eisgruber writes, colleges still host thriving and robust discourse.
“Today’s young people are not so different from those of preceding generations: They value free speech and want exposure to diverse viewpoints, though they sometimes misunderstand what these ideals entail and struggle with how to apply them in difficult circumstances,” Eisgruber writes in the book’s opening pages. “When it comes to getting free speech right, colleges and America’s young people deserve higher marks than they get.”
Keen observers of the University’s 20th president will notice how “Terms of Respect” draws on familiar themes and speeches — a 2023 talk at the Progressive Law Society, his experience with the Black Justice League, discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville — in a defense of free speech he’s maintained for years. In a similarly consistent manner, he remained — in his book and in an extensive conversation with the ‘Prince’ — staunchly optimistic about the challenges facing America’s universities and their students.
Eisgruber poses with “Terms of Respect.”
Calvin Kenjiro Grover / The Daily Princetonian
Released on Sept. 30, the book exists in a very different political context from when it was written. Eisgruber began working on “Terms of Respect” just over three years ago, and the manuscript was submitted in January — before the Trump administration launched its most direct attacks on the University and its peers.
In the ensuing months, Princeton lost $210 million in federal research funding, half of which has been recently restored. As one of the longest-serving Ivy League presidents, the chair of the Association of American Universities, and the leader of one of America’s top-ranked universities, Eisgruber was particularly well-positioned to mount a public defense of universities. And he did, embarking on a series of media hits in The Atlantic, The New York Times, and other national outlets to defend academic freedom alongside the longstanding research relationship between universities and the federal government.
Despite Eisgruber’s public posture, however, many of Princeton’s peer institutions made deals with the Trump administration to restore their research funding. Columbia agreed to pay the government $200 million and made a slew of changes that faculty and other observers criticized as capitulatory. Brown paid $50 million to workforce development programs. The University of Pennsylvania paid no fee, but updated athletic policy to reflect the current administration’s interpretations of Title IX.
In his conversation with the ‘Prince,’ Eisgruber avoided criticizing any of his peers by name. But he argued that if universities felt forced to make compromises, they should be “clear and honest” about the trade-offs.
“Part of standing up for principle is being clear when circumstances require you temporarily to give up on a principle that really matters,” he said. “I don’t think you should say under those circumstances that everything is fine.”
Eisgruber added he felt empathy towards his peers who “have to make almost impossible choices under these circumstances.”
He took the opportunity to praise Harvard, which has become the Trump administration’s test case for how far a university can be pushed.
“I admire the line Harvard has taken vis-à-vis the government,” Eisgruber remarked. “Harvard has taken the positions that it has at great risk to the university. And I think Harvard has done the right thing by insisting on its rights under the law.”
On one occasion, however, Eisgruber’s disagreements with peer institutions have spilled into the open. At a meeting of the Association of American Universities in April, he confronted the presidents of Penn and Vanderbilt, “all but accusing them of carrying water for the Trump administration,” The Atlantic reported.
As universities debate about how to deal with the Trump administration, Eisgruber has found himself in the same shoes as the students he discusses in “Terms of Respect”: grappling with how to navigate disagreements between peers.
As in the book, he emphasized a need for diverse voices and opinions over making clear distinctions about what kinds of speech or actions should be permissible.
“We need lots of voices out there that are making the case for why these institutions are important to America,” Eisgruber said. “And if different universities have different contexts and want to make that fundamental case in different ways, that’s okay with me, and that’s good, right?”
“I think it’s really important to speak up for values. Different presidents may have different tactical views about that. Some may think that speaking up for values is provocative in a way, where they believe that they can pursue exactly the same goals they think I’m pursuing, and do it better through quieter conversations,” he said.
While attempting to offer constructive principles, “Terms of Respect” also positions itself in opposition to what Eisgruber sees as the dominant narrative on free speech. When asked why students should read his book, Eisgruber pointed to what he saw as a trend of “chastising the current generation of students.”
“Part of what I want to do here is to explain why the American tradition of free speech is something that should matter to and be proudly embraced by our students,” he said.
Certainly, part of Eisgruber’s audience is students; the book’s dedication reads, “for my students.”
“Terms of Respect” is also intended for a general public interested in understanding the story of the American university system — a story that Eisgruber sees as a slow march towards greater diversity and benefits to the country.
“Just over 50 years ago, this University still was not admitting women, and so we were ignoring the excellence of half of the human population. By virtue of taking people from all backgrounds and making sure that we are supporting people from all backgrounds, we become much stronger than we’ve been before,” he said. “We continue to push the frontiers of science in important ways. We strengthen what it is we do in the humanities and the social sciences.”
“I think our universities, the universities that exist in the United States today, are as good as the world has ever seen, and we should be proud of that,” he said.
But even America’s most prestigious and powerful research universities have their limitations. Eisgruber admitted that he didn’t know the reason why some of Princeton’s research grants have been restored. And on issues like free speech for international students, who have feared visa revocations and deportations this past semester, universities have limited power.
“I think we would be dishonest if we said, ‘We can protect your status under all circumstances.’ There are real vulnerabilities there,” Eisgruber admitted on the issue.
“Part of what we need to do is give all of our students the tools that they need to be able to participate as fully as possible in conversations on tough subjects with full knowledge of what the risks are,” Eisgruber said. “But I can’t make the problem go away.”
“I can make the case in Washington for the importance of our students. I can make the case for the importance of due process. I can make the case for particular changes around protections of free speech and particular changes in immigration law. But whatever I do, there are going to be risks,” he said.
On that matter, perhaps Eisgruber’s public posture is also risky for Princeton, which, compared to schools like Harvard, has avoided the Trump administration’s most aggressive attacks.
“There’s risk, whatever one does. There’s risk if you speak up, and there’s risk if you don’t speak up,” Eisgruber responded.
“The only guarantee is that if you don’t speak up, you’ve lost the opportunity to tell your story and to get it out there and to let people know what it is that you are thinking.”
Cynthia Torres is an associate News editor, and archives contributor. She is from New Bedford, Massachusetts and typically covers University administration. She can be reached at ct3968[at]princeton.edu.
Miriam Waldvogel contributed reporting.
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Despite loss to No. 5 Fordham, Princeton starts conference play undefeated with wins over Iona, LIU
Jordan Halagao, Doug Schwartz, and Brizel Martinez CruzMen’s water polo fell to top-five Fordham in a close road loss but earned wins over conference opponents to finish the weekend.
Men’s water polo fell to top-five Fordham in a close road loss but earned wins over conference opponents to finish the weekend.
Senior Survey suggests one in five rising seniors must dine differently next year
Vincent EthertonAccording to the Daily Princetonian's yearly Senior Survey, 25 percent of seniors since 2022 have reported being “independent” from University dining plans. With the recent decision to require an upperclass meal plan for all juniors and seniors, these students, as well as those on a partial University meal plan, are the most affected.
The future of humanities teaching in the AI age, according to Princeton professors
Nikki HanSome professors are outright banning AI, turning assessments that used to be papers into in-class exams. Others are trying to work alongside AI, asking students to be transparent when they have used AI in research and writing. Others still are encouraging AI use and embracing its potential. And yet, they all expressed fears that AI could deeply impact critical thinking and writing.
Some professors are outright banning AI, turning assessments that used to be papers into in-class exams. Others are trying to work alongside AI, asking students to be transparent when they have used AI in research and writing. Others still are encouraging AI use and embracing its potential. And yet, they all expressed fears that AI could deeply impact critical thinking and writing.