Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
In the Opinion piece written by President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 last week, Eisgruber articulated Princeton University’s restrictions on speech and emphasized Princeton’s right to “reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.” As a matter of law and administrative policy, President Eisgruber is correct. But restrictions on “disruption” to “ordinary activities” inherently suppresses the underlying intent of creating disruption of many protests that express progressive political views. This includes the University’s recent action taken against Princeton students’ sit-ins and protests on behalf of Gazans, victims of a military campaign — plausibly deemed genocidal — currently being waged by Israeli military forces. Not only do current regulations on “disruption” effectively prohibit impactful expression about progressive concerns, but — contrary to President Eisgruber’s assertions — these regulations are inherently not “viewpoint-neutral.” In fact, these rules stifle progressive speech, which is often accompanied by “disruptive” action supplementing the relevant propagated verbal and written messages.