The following is a guest submission and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
Too many of Princeton University’s leaders have sought to run and hide from their duties. In response, I have filed a three-part petition for the Feb. 19 public Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting. The purpose of this petition is to enlist the CPUC’s authority to bring an end to ongoing flights from responsibility by certain decision-makers at Princeton who have failed to sufficiently address my previous formal grievances.
Let me first begin with an issue of great importance and urgency amidst the ongoing protests at Princeton regarding the war between Hamas and Israel: the reminder to Princeton and other universities by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR).
In his recent State of the University letter, President Eisgruber said that disciplinary cases of harassing speech “almost always involve personally targeted speech.” But in its November 2023 “Dear Colleague” letter, the OCR reminds universities that “harassing conduct can be verbal or physical and need not be directed at a particular individual” and that universities that receive federal assistance have an obligation to “address prohibited discrimination.” In this way, the OCR demands an enforcement of “harassment” that may be in tension with the freedoms of expression recognized by multiple landmark Supreme Court decisions.
My CPUC petition calls upon Eisgruber to explain to the University community where he stands between the OCR’s mandate and Princeton’s Statement on Freedom of Expression. His Supreme Court clerkship, time as a law professor, and current presidency at Princeton makes him extraordinarily well-qualified to provide understanding and guidance on how the prohibition of harassment as it intersects freedom of expression demands. Should President Eisgruber not come out promptly and foursquare against the OCR’s harassment enforcement standards, there may be community members who would take up the OCR’s open invitation for complaints of verbal harassment against protected groups at Princeton.
I also call upon the CPUC to ask President Eisgruber to explain whether his administration will enforce its existing rules against misuse of University IT resources in the case of the emails sent on the listservs by Princeton’s Students for Justice in Palestine. I had filed a Dec. 18 complaint alleging that these events violated specific University rules.
On Feb. 14, the CPUC Judicial Committee declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint. My reply of the same day sets forth reasons the Judicial Committee committed manifest error in its failure to find jurisdiction. Separate from the resolution of this jurisdiction issue, President Eisgruber retains the authority — and in my view, the duty — to enforce these University rules on the use of Princeton’s IT resources. He should state forthrightly whether he and his administration will do so.
In addition to that Dec. 18 complaint to the CPUC Judicial Committee, I also have filings submitted on Oct. 31 and May 7. My current CPUC petition does not ask the CPUC to decide any of the substantive issues raised by those complaints now before the Judicial Committee.
Rather, gross procedural concerns drive my petition for action by the CPUC itself as the governing body of its Judicial Committee. Based on my interpretation of the plain text of the procedures governing the handling of complaints by the CPUC Judicial Committee (RRR 1.9.3), a “pre-hearing conference” should have been held within about a week of each complaint’s filing. No such conference has been scheduled, nor even tentative dates offered, nor was my complaint referred elsewhere. These appear to be flagrant violations of the specific rules governing the Judicial Committee.
Even more troubling than delay bordering on “justice delayed is justice denied” is the specter that the Judicial Committee Chair is failing fundamental obligations mandated by the CPUC Charter. Section 5.6.3 obligates Judicial Committee members to recognize that the Committee has a judicial role, and to apply established rules impartially.
The Judicial Committee Chair appears to have accommodated improper involvement by the Office of General Counsel (OGC), in my view. This led to an attempt to reject one of my complaints in which the administration itself (which includes the OGC) was one of the opposing parties. Among other problems, the OGC could not have offered independent and objective advice in these circumstances. I have elaborated many other concerns about procedural and ethical improprieties in my Sept. 1, 2023 letter. Neither the Judicial Committee Chair nor the University’s General Counsel has replied to my letter of Sept. 1.
The sobering reality is that Princeton faces a crisis of transparency and accountability from its leadership. My petition asks the CPUC to hold delinquent leaders accountable to the University’s rules and principles. The University proclaims to all members of the Princeton community the Rights, Rules, Responsibilities that govern the University. The CPUC has a fundamental duty and inescapable responsibility to assure that these protections, rules, and obligations are preserved, followed, and fulfilled.
But rather than begin to address its responsibilities to the Princeton University community, the CPUC Executive Committee has chosen to keep my petition off the agenda for today’s CPUC public meeting. The run and hide strategy of Princeton’s leadership now appears to be supplemented at Nassau Hall by “duck and cover.” Will these strategies continue to succeed? Only time will tell.
Bill Hewitt is a member of the Class of 1974. He can be reached at BillHewitt74[at]gmail.com.
Read More
Setting the record straight: Ruha Benjamin should defend her accusation
Bill HewittGiven Professor Benjamin’s status as a highly honored member of the Princeton faculty, the University should publicize its current investigation and Ruha Benjamin should substantiate and defend her claims.
Given Professor Benjamin’s status as a highly honored member of the Princeton faculty, the University should publicize its current investigation and Ruha Benjamin should substantiate and defend her claims.
Reactions: Red wave crashes over the United States
Alexander Margulis, Christofer Robles, Jorge Reyes, and Frances BroganOpinion staff react to what impact the "red wave" will have on Princeton.
Opinion staff react to what impact the "red wave" will have on Princeton.
Reactions: What does a Trump victory mean for your hometown?
Preston Ferraiuolo, Ryan Moores, Callisto Lim, Raf Basas, Juan Fajardo, Lillian Paterson, and Thomas BuckleyOpinion staff react to what impact Trump's victory will have on their hometowns.
Opinion staff react to what impact Trump's victory will have on their hometowns.
