By Donald Gilpin

Leading universities have been on the firing line in recent weeks as they try to balance demands for freedom of speech with the need to condemn antisemitism and Islamophobia and to ensure students’ safety. In the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, Princeton, along with many universities across the country, has seen demonstrations, protests, forums, vigils, and other reactions, some pro-Israel, some pro-Palestinian.

Hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month led to scathing criticism of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, Harvard President Claudine Gay, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth. Magill resigned soon afterward.

Compared to Harvard and Penn and many other universities, Princeton has been relatively quiet, despite outspoken debate with strong feelings on both sides.

At a December 11 meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), University President Christopher L. Eisgruber commented on the commitment of the University “to act forcefully in response to hypothetical calls for the genocide of Jews.”

On the following day he wrote that he had told the CPUC, “I have great confidence in this community of which we are all a part. I have never heard calls for genocide, or calls for murder, on this campus, and I don’t expect ever to hear those calls. But let me also be clear about this: if ever there were calls for genocide or murder on this campus, this University would respond forcefully under its rules in order to protect [its] values.”

He continued, “I have spoken out against antisemitism before and I do so again now unreservedly, as I do against Islamophobia or any other bigotry.”

Eisgruber went on to describe the challenges involved in seeking to protect freedom of speech. “Calling for the genocide or murder of Jews or any group is always wrong and appalling,” he said. “Punishing people for pure speech is almost always wrong. Princeton’s commitment to free speech means I do have to sometimes protect the right of people to say things that I find repugnant, hateful, and awful.”

Emphasizing the University’s obligation, even when it cannot censor speech, to “respond vigorously to speech that violates our values,” Eisgruber called for the University to promote “better speech,” to promote its values, and to support its students.

He noted the “thoughtfulness and civility” of the University community in response to the war in Gaza and his confidence that Princeton would “continue to distinguish itself as a model for serious and respectful engagement with the world’s hardest challenges.”

On December 13, in his response to a letter from Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, Eisgruber took the opportunity to elaborate on the challenges of combating antisemitism on campus.

Sherrill, who represents New Jersey’s 11th congressional district, had written to the leaders of every higher education institution in New Jersey following the congressional hearings on antisemitism in universities.

“Antisemitism is hatred, without exception; threats of genocide against Jews are violent, no matter the context; and it was disturbing to see these leaders equivocate on their responses,” she wrote in reference to comments by the three university presidents at the congressional hearings.

Sherrill called for college and university leaders to stand up against hatred on their campuses. She asked: “What is your institution doing to ensure your students are free from harassment and bullying on campus? How do you ensure hate speech does not dissuade free speech in your public squares? And how do you ensure a free exchange of ideas without sowing division?”

In his response, Eisgruber noted Princeton University’s policies, procedures, and resources to combat and respond to harassment; the University’s commitment to free speech and to diversity; and his many past statements reaffirming the University’s values and condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia.

He went on to cite examples of the University’s efforts to “learn how people of opposing viewpoints can interact productively across differences” with “civil and substantive conversations, conversations that bridge differences in a way that is rare in our fractious society.”

He added, “We will not stoop to censorship,” but rather “work continuously to promote and model a culture of civil discussion about sensitive and important topics.”

Eisgruber concluded, “If we, and the values for which we stand, are to prevail, we will need to support one another and our defining institutions. America’s leading research universities are sources of enormous strength to this country, envied throughout the world because of the education we provide and the pathbreaking research we do.”