Princetonians for Free Speech retracts and revises study after omitting some faculty political donations

On Sept. 15, Princetonians for Free Speech, an independent organization run by University alumni, published a study claiming that 98 percent of faculty political donations in the 2023–2024 election cycle went towards Democratic causes and that no faculty members donated to Republican causes. 

A review by The Daily Princetonian, however, found that incomplete search parameters led to inaccuracies in the figures behind PFS’ main claims. After the ‘Prince’ raised the discrepancies to PFS, the group retracted the study and revised the numbers before republishing the study on Oct. 4. 

The study had been cited by several outlets prior to being revised, including Fox News and the New York Post, with a focus on the purported zero percent of Republican faculty donations.

Publicly-available data from the Federal Election Commission showed that at least three professors and lecturers donated to candidates or groups affiliated with the Republican Party during the last election, totaling over $3,787. 

From its initial findings, PFS claimed that “an alarming lack of viewpoint diversity” exists at the University. The organization urged Princeton leadership to address its findings, pointing to leaders at other top universities such as Yale and Harvard which have made public statements regarding their own lack of faculty political diversity. 

Kerry Healey, who served as Massachusetts lieutenant governor alongside Mitt Romney and is now a lecturer in the School of Public and International Affairs, contributed a total of $3,000 to political action committees associated with Republicans Lisa Murkowski and John Curtis, as well as two Republicans running for president against Donald Trump. Chemistry professor Haw Yang contributed $500 to John Teichert’s Maryland senatorial campaign, and politics lecturer Thomas Howes contributed to Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign and the Republican-affiliated Reagan Caucus.

Some of these professors told the ‘Prince’ that the University is a space that welcomes political dialogue.

“One of the many reasons I enjoy teaching at Princeton is the University’s commitment to free speech and diversity of viewpoint,” Healey, who is now a registered independent, wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “I am frequently invited to engage in discussions with students concerning my time as a Republican elected official, and to bring diverse perspectives into the classroom.”

In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ Howes wrote, “I do tell people that Princeton is a pretty chill campus when it comes to political disagreements, and most students don’t care what you think as long as you don’t have a political agenda in class.”

Yang did not respond to a request for comment.

PFS contracted Iron Light, a data-mining, marketing, and advocacy group not affiliated with the University, to carry out the study. According to the published report, Iron Light “examined Federal Election Commission records of individual contributions for the 2023–2024 cycle and matched them to a roster of Princeton faculty assembled department by department.”

“The bottom line is that Iron Light has found discrepancies in the list of faculty it used,” PFS Chairman and co-founder Edward Yingling wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “The list they used was incomplete. It did not include all the relevant faculty. It also included some who did not qualify as teaching faculty.”

Despite the inaccuracies in the initial numbers, Yingling says the updated totals continue to support PFS’s initial position that there is still a “disturbing lack of viewpoint diversity in the Princeton faculty.”

Following changes to the website, which included data from over 200 more faculty — and 38 more donors among the faculty — than the original study, the contribution percentages are listed as 96.4 percent Democratic, 1.44 percent independent, and 2.16 percent Republican. The updated amounts total $374,820 towards Democrats, $69,770 towards independents, and $3,782 towards Republicans.

Less than 13 percent of current faculty made political donations in the 2023–2024 cycle, according to PFS. 

In both the original and updated studies, PFS used data only from the FEC’s bulk data file, which excludes individual pass-through donations under $200 that are visible on the FEC website’s main search function. PFS also cross-referenced 2023–2024 donation totals with a current list of people who hold the title “professor, lecturer, or instructor” and listed Princeton as their employer on the FEC database.

These search parameters excluded members of the University teaching staff who donated smaller amounts, staff who may work at several institutions and do not list Princeton as their employer, made a donation while at Princeton and have since left, or joined after making a donation. 

Chris Christie, who served as New Jersey’s governor from 2010 to 2018, is currently listed as a visiting lecturer with the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. Christie donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican causes from 2023–2024, and was not included in the study because, according to Yingling, PFS considers him a “faculty fellow,” not a faculty member. He was not included in the revised study. 

Christie did not respond to requests for comment sent to him and an administrative assistant.

Sanjeev Kulkarni, former dean of the faculty and dean of the Graduate School and an electrical and computer engineering and operations research and financial engineering professor, contributed $301 across four separate contributions via WinRed, the Republican National Committee’s fundraising platform. Sergiu Klainerman, a mathematics professor, donated $100 to WinRed. Neither Kulkarni nor Klainerman’s donations were included in the revised study due to the aforementioned limitation which excludes single, individual donations under $200.

“I support causes that oppose identity politics, the present surge of antisemitism (masquerading as anti-Zionism), and anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist ideologies,” Klainerman wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ He also said that Princeton’s faculty is not politically diverse, and that “viewpoint diversity is crucial to a well-functioning university.” 

Kulkarni did not respond to a request for comment.

Sam Wang, neuroscience professor, director of both the Princeton Gerrymandering Project and the Electoral Innovation Lab, and a former Democratic House candidate, told the ‘Prince’ he had concerns about the methodology of the initial PFS study. 

“Most people do not donate to political campaigns, and so just counting political donations is not a good way of indicating overall political affiliation,” he said. He suggested that instead, PFS might have looked at voter files, which he believes would offer a more accurate depiction of faculty political beliefs.

Wang also noted that many Princeton faculty who have entered public service have done so on both the Republican and the Democratic sides. He cited Robert George, politics professor and director of the James Madison Program, as a prominent conservative faculty member.

George did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Wang also told the ‘Prince’ that the personal political opinions of his colleagues “never come up” in most professional contexts.

University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, in his recent book “Terms of Respect,” wrote that “universities’ commitments to inclusivity should extend to a broad range of political viewpoints as well as to demographic backgrounds. Institutions should accordingly look for ways to … visibly signal that they are welcoming to conservative students and faculty.”

However, Eisgruber pushed back against suggestions to overtly prioritize viewpoint diversity in faculty hiring. “It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that universities should strive for some form of ideological balance or that they should endeavor to be something like high-powered debating societies for contested questions of politics or social policy,” he wrote. 

“We should expect and want the state of opinion on university faculties and campuses to differ substantially from what exists in the broader society.”

The University declined to comment further on faculty political donations or viewpoint diversity on campus.

Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, wrote a response to the initial PFS article shortly after it was published, describing his belief that faculty in many institutions of higher education have contributed to “ideological purging” and a “hostile environment for anyone with conservative or libertarian viewpoints.” Turley wrote to the ‘Prince’ that “the lack of balance in departments fuels the ideological intolerance and increasing self-censorship on campuses.”

The original PFS article takes a similar perspective, with a particular focus on SPIA, noting that of the 119 SPIA teaching faculty in the study, 29 made reportable federal contributions to Democratic candidates or groups. The article argued that SPIA “is not fostering a culture of wide-open debate in the pursuit of knowledge.”

“We know that there are conservative faculty, we know that there are moderate faculty, but again, what the study indicates is ‘That may be true, but it’s still going to be very much skewed to the left,’” Yingling told the ‘Prince’

Anastasiya Chernitska ’28, the chair of the left-leaning Whig party within the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, expressed a different view.

“I think the donation data is interesting, but I don’t think it reflects our professors’ classroom culture or their personal political beliefs,” she wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’, citing concerns about the small percentage of overall faculty who reported contributions.

Chernitska also noted that she is unaware of her professors’ political opinions and which parties or candidates they support. She added, “We’re graded on our work, not our views at Princeton.”

Chernitska is a former associate Podcast Editor for the ‘Prince.’

In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ Alexander Bauer ’29, chair of the right-leaning Cliosophic party, wrote, “I feel that the University protects my right to publicly state my viewpoints for conservative student organizations like Clio and the Tory and that administrators strongly prioritizes freedom of expression. However, I believe that Princeton has a substantial political diversity issue.”

Citing the survey of the Class of 2030 conducted by the ‘Prince,’ in which about 10 percent of respondents identified as right-leaning, and the PFS report on lack of faculty political diversity, Bauer added, “This, in my opinion, leads to a major self-censorship problem: I know many conservative students who are afraid to publicize their political views for fear of social ostracization among students and potential pushback from professors in class discussions.” 

“Many of my greatest learning experiences on campus have stemmed from discussing controversial issues with people who hold opposing viewpoints, and I strongly believe that self-censorship and rejection of minority viewpoints undermine the intellectual rigor that makes Princeton special,” he concluded.

Tony Zhang is a reporter-in-training for the ‘Prince’ from Woodbridge, Conn, and can be reached at txz[at]dailyprincetonian.com.

Mira Brock is a reporter-in-training for the ‘Prince’ from Fayetteville, Ark, and can be reached at mfb[at]dailyprincetonian.com

Gray Collins is the assistant News editor for the ‘Prince’ leading University administration coverage. He is from outside of Philadelphia and can be reached at gray[at]dailyprincetonian.com.

Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.