By Donald Gilpin

Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber last week responded to the Trump administration’s withdrawal of $400 million in funding to Columbia University and other threats to universities with an article in The Atlantic speaking out in defense of higher education and the crucial importance of academic freedom.

Titled “The Cost of the Government’s Attack on Columbia,” the article does not mention Princeton University directly, but it is clearly relevant to many of the issues that Princeton is currently facing.

Emphasizing the importance of research universities to “America’s prosperity, health, and security,” Eisgruber wrote, “The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.”

The Trump administration has not taken action against Princeton directly, but federal budget cuts for research and other funding, the possible increase of taxes on university endowments, and other funding uncertainties prompted the University to announce a hiring freeze last week.

The University has not reduced the numbers of graduate school admissions offers, as other universities have had to do, but The Daily Princetonian student newspaper reported earlier in the month that “Princeton graduate students are becoming increasingly worried about internships, jobs, and funding as uncertainty grows among government and federally supported organizations.”

In an editorial by its editorial board last week titled “Universities are Scared of Trump. Princeton Spoke Out — and Others Should Join Us,” the Princetonian applauded Eisgruber’s Atlantic article, declaring that “Some institutions have been cowed by threats from the federal government. This acquiescence is dangerous … Princeton has rightly stood behind its values by refusing to comply in advance.”

The editorial went on to urge Eisgruber to follow through with plans to defend academic research, pursue litigation against policies that jeopardize its vital functioning, and protect its other core values, like free inquiry, the well-being of all community members, and supporting individuals from diverse backgrounds.”

On March 21, in response to the Trump administration’s $400 million funding freeze on government grants and contracts, Columbia University, in what other college administrators have said may set a dangerous precedent, agreed to revise its policies on protests, security practices, and its Middle Eastern Studies department.

In his Atlantic article Eisgruber reviewed the history of the rise of the American research university in the 20th century, citing “two crucial turning points”: the development of academic freedom and the creation of a strong, successful partnership between the federal government and the country’s research universities. The government and the nation benefited greatly from the universities, and the universities benefited from the government support, “but their budgets became heavily dependent on that single source.”

“If the United States government ever repudiated the principle of academic freedom, it could bully universities by threatening to withdraw funding unless they changed their curricula, research programs, and personnel decisions,” Eisgruber wrote.

He continued, “That’s what the Trump administration did this month when it canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia without the legally required due process.”

Eisgruber acknowledged “legitimate concerns about antisemitism at Columbia,” but he condemned the government’s disregard for academic freedom and due process in the aggressive actions it took.

He went on to suggest that giving in to the government’s demands would not end the threat. “Nobody should suppose that this will stop at Columbia or with the specific academic programs targeted by the government’s letter,” he wrote,

Describing the attack on Columbia as “a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research,” Eisgruber, a scholar of constitutional law, wrote, “Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

He concluded the article, “Every citizen and officeholder who cares about the strength of our country must also care about free speech, self-governing thought, and the untrammeled quest for knowledge. They, too, should demand a stop to the government’s unwarranted intrusion on academic freedom at Columbia.”