Princeton rebuffs attempts to censor course materials on Israeli crimes
JVL Introduction
A US Congressman tried to pressurise Princeton University into censoring course materials about Israeli criminal activity. The University President, Professor Eisgruber firmly rebuffed this attack on academic freedom.
Professor Eisgruber, who has previously published a defence of Zionism, was clear that if Professor Larson believed that Dr Jasbir Puar’s book, The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability was necessary for her course ‘The Healing Humanities: Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South’ it was not for any University Dean or administrator to contradict her.
Professor ‘s letter spells out the importance of academic freedom, a lesson that Congressman Gottheimer clearly needed. We wish we had confidence that all British University Leaders would respond to censorship demands so robustly.
This article was originally published by Princeton President's Office on Wed 13 Sep 2023. Read the original here.
Response to Rep. Gottheimer about Academic Freedom and Course Materials
Loading article text…
Wow….what a response.
Universities here should heed this, a great example of championing academic freedom.
Beyond the conclusion regarding academic freedom, the important point here is the rejection of the “safety of Jewish students” argument. The parallel argument inside the Labour Party is David Evans’ insistence of an atmosphere that does not make Jewish members feel uncomfortable. These arguments, if upheld, give Jewish students/Jewish Party members the right to veto any content they find challenging, even when it is presented within the rules and with appropriate courtesy. Of course, this approach is not extended to Palestinian or pro-Palestinian speakers.
Professor Eisgruber correctly states in his response:
” ….. controversies must be addressed through deliberation and debate, not administrative fiat …. ”
It would be reassuring to believe that the Labour Party could heed this important message.
Sadly, under the diktats that emanate from Starmer and Evans, it is clear that “deliberation and debate” are not welcome in today’s Labour Party.