From in the present day’s letter by FIRE and the Anti-Defamation League, ship to Princeton College:
Princeton is stifling … discussions [about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] and newsgathering by its scholar press, by allowing college students who dislike sure speech to be granted no-communication or no-contact orders in opposition to different college students. Whereas no-contact protocols are essential instruments to maintain college students secure from correctly outlined discriminatory harassment, and threatening, intimidating, or assaultive conduct, Princeton seems to be granting these orders for any scholar who requests one, as long as minimal procedural stipulations are glad.
These orders are being issued by directors with disciplinary authority, underneath risk of punishment, with out a modicum of due course of, and—most unconscionably—the place the student-speaker shouldn’t be even alleged to have violated any college coverage. This observe is deeply chilling, in blatant violation of Princeton’s laudable free expression insurance policies, and should finish instantly….
Princeton … [has issued a] no-contact order in opposition to a [Princeton] Tory journalist who reported on a scholar demonstration in opposition to Israel. A Tory journalist coated a November 9 protest held by College students for Justice in Palestine. Whereas she was recording footage of the protestors’ chants and indicators, a graduate scholar tried to dam her digital camera. The graduate scholar adopted the journalist, and remained in shut bodily proximity to her, regardless of the journalist voicing her discomfort.
When the journalist reported this to an on-duty Public Security officer, the officer knowledgeable the journalist that she was “inciting something.” Following the officer’s inaction, the graduate scholar continued to aim to bodily impede the journalist from filming, finally pushing her and stepping on her foot. {The recitation right here displays our understanding of the pertinent information. We recognize that you might have extra data to supply and invite you to share it with us.}
After the protest, the graduate scholar who pushed the journalist obtained a no-contact order in opposition to her. The journalist met along with her Assistant Dean for Scholar Life to debate the order and requested the dean whether or not she may publish articles written earlier than the issuance of the no- contact order that point out the graduate scholar’s title. The dean later knowledgeable the journalist by way of electronic mail {on file with creator} that the college “cannot determine if they would be a violation of the NCO—it is possible that some statements may be interpreted by the other student as an indirect or direct attempt to communicate. The safest course of action in terms of a possible violation of the NCO would be to refrain from writing or to be interviewed for articles that mention the name of the student with whom you have an NCO (or to retract them if that’s possible).” …
This censorship is completely inconsistent with Princeton’s unequivocal guarantees that college students have the best to have interaction in even probably the most difficult conversations. Your Assertion on Freedom of Expression, for instance, declares “the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.” The Assertion additional notes “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” Nor can a want for “civility and mutual respect … be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.” Likewise, Princeton’s protest coverage explicitly forbids college students from abusing college methods to “obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”
Simply final week, you noticed that regardless of “[c]ontroversy over the war in the Middle East,” Princeton would “never” censor or self-discipline college students except their speech “falls under one of the enumerated expressions to [Princeton’s] free expression policy, such as those permitting the University to restrict threats of harassment.” But your administration continues to show a blind eye to using no-contact orders to silence college students who search to specific their pro-Israel concepts, just because their friends discover these concepts “heterodox, shocking, or offensive.”
Princeton’s commitments to free speech are admirable—however solely to the extent to which they’re adopted. As written, they correctly align with First Modification jurisprudence and prevailing conceptions of free speech and free press ideas. Any affordable scholar or scholar journalist studying these insurance policies could be assured they’ve the best to have interaction in troublesome discussions with out worrying they are going to be slapped with a no-contact order, underneath risk of self-discipline. Scholar journalists are additionally promised their proper to have interaction in dogged newsgathering, together with contacting scholar leaders within the extraordinary course of their reporting. However Princeton has betrayed its guarantees by permitting college students to censor their friends on the premise of subjective offense. These outcomes can’t be squared with the college’s mission or purported commitments….
To be clear, when correctly utilized, no-contact orders are an essential instrument to make sure the security of victims of bodily violence, sexual misconduct, true threats, or discriminatory harassment. However Princeton is permitting college students with ideological disagreements to rework no-contact orders into cudgels to silence the “lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation” that Princeton guarantees all college students. That is at the very least the second time within the final two years [for details on the first time, see the full letter -EV] {that a} Tory scholar journalist has been silenced by a no-contact order on the behest of group members offended by his or her pro-Israel journalism. This systematic weaponization of no-contact orders to silence pro-Israel journalism—or any journalism—can’t stand….
