Tribal Dogma at Princeton

Eisgruber Dodges the Issues

The New York Times has a marvelous self-image: “We seek the truth and help people understand the world.” It further pledges “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.”

So lovely. So high-minded. Let’s see how it works out in practice.

In the NY Times podcast “The Daily” on April 9th, Rachel Abrams interviewed Christopher Eisgruber, president of Princeton University. He was billed as the university president willing to fight Trump. He had previously sounded the alarm in an Op-Ed for The Atlantic (March 19th): “This is the greatest threat to America since the 1950s: every American should be concerned.” Eisgruber has a solid academic background: a bachelor’s in physics followed by a master’s in politics and a law degree. No slouch, he is known as a constitutional scholar. Let’s review a few of the things the earnest Eisgruber had to say to Rachel Abrams — and the things they both studiously avoided. The goodies-baddies setup is clear from the start. Trump’s funding freezes target “woke” ideology in universities, and the stalwart Princeton president is standing firm. So, we can surely expect to hear either that the President applauds “woke” ideology – reframing it as admirable “inclusiveness” -- or that he doesn’t accept that his university is promoting it. Instead, we get lofty aspirations.

Eisgruber talks at length about all the excellent research his university does and how the withdrawal of funding could affect it. But as for accepting any of the criticism of his institution might be valid — not at all. I have cherry-picked my favorite – and most disingenuous — quotes from Eisgruber’s interview:

“It is important for universities to have vigorous contestation about the truth and make it possible for people of diverse viewpoints to express their opinions and to flourish on the campus.”
“When we’re talking about free speech we have to talk about the importance of having multiple viewpoints heard - and we should care about that.”
“We’re supposed to be having arguments that get at truth and knowledge.”
“Our job is to have an honest, fair, truth-seeking process.”
“Universities should never be indoctrinating and I don’t think we are.”
“We’ve got to be places where robust arguments take place.”

Given the NY Times’s commitment to impartiality and truth-seeking, and Eisgruber’s commitment to academic freedom, robust argument, and, er, truth-seeking, we naturally expect Rachel Abrams to challenge Eisgruber regarding the most controversial subjects on campus — unless we’ve heard Rachel Abrams interview people before.

I think it’s fair to say the most controversial topics at today’s universities are free speech versus “inclusivity,” Israel-Palestine, and gender identity issues (known variously, according to your point of view, as “trans rights” or as “women’s and LGB rights and child safeguarding”). So, what do we hear about all that? Zilch. The only specific criticism discussed relates to the alarming resurgence of antisemitism and the need to take action. Important, but hardly controversial.

I will focus here on gender identity — on which we heard not a syllable.

We do not hear that Princeton has replaced “sex” with self-declared “gender identity” in its survey of students. Or that it has introduced gender-neutral dorms and bathrooms. Or that it encourages faculty and students to share “preferred pronouns.” Or about initiatives such as “Trans Awareness Week” or training on “allyship.” Or the conspicuous presence on campus of the “Trans Justice Collective” with its protests and open letters. Or its courses in “Non-binary identities, queer theory, and transgender history.”

We do not hear about the talk by Abigail Shrier -- whose book Irreversible Damage discusses the social epidemic of trans-identification among teenage girls and young women -- which was forced off-campus in response to protests. We do not hear about the student-led initiative in 2024 to organize a panel-led discussion titled “Gender Identity and Biological Sex: A Critical Examination,” which was cancelled following backlash from student groups and faculty.

The assertion that it is impossible for a human being to change sex is taboo – because “transphobic” — at institutions like Princeton. How do “free speech,” “diverse viewpoints,” and “robust debate” hold up when we take a more honest look at everyday life on the campus of Princeton University?

We do not hear from Eisgruber any acknowledgment of the harsh criticism levelled at universities by people unrelated to Trump — and long before the latest threat to funding. Jonathan Haidt (The Coddling of the American Mind) has warned that the ideological conformity encouraged by universities – and Princeton is a prime example – threatens academic freedom, that the emphasis on emotional safety and “inclusiveness” stifles free speech and critical thinking: that universities have become overly protective environments where students are shielded from ideas that might challenge their beliefs or cause them discomfort.

Wouldn’t it have been great to hear an interviewer challenge Eisgruber to meet such criticisms head-on? Instead of letting him get away with blaming his predicament entirely on the Trump administration and avoiding the whole issue of “woke” indoctrination – allowing him to waffle on about academic freedom and the pursuit of truth. The interview was shallow and irrelevant, exposing both the grand mission of the NY Times and the stated aspirations of Christopher Eisgruber as lazy platitudes.