Is Christopher Eisgruber Morally Fit to Remain as Princeton's President?
My Petition to the NJ Attorney General and Call to All Princetonians
Over a year ago, on April 1, 2025, I presented the Princeton University Board of Trustees with formal allegations against President Eisgruber of malfeasance in his official duties. Since then, the Board has neither acknowledged receipt of these allegations nor issued any statement or report on whether and how it may have addressed them.
In short, the Board has provided no public evidence that it has met its fiduciary duties on these most consequential issues of Princeton University governance. As I explained in January to incoming trustee Governor-Elect Mikie Sherrill, the New Jersey Attorney General has the statutory and common law authority to investigate and enforce these matters. On April 12, I petitioned the Attorney General to investigate Princeton’s Board of Trustees.
Seminal questions the Board has not answered are (1) whether President Eisgruber obstructed a University adjudication in order to protect his administration from adverse findings and discipline arising from its apparent defamation of a Princeton faculty member and (2) whether President Eisgruber lied to cover up his actions.
In 2021, Princeton’s Fields Center and Office of Wintersession co-authored and published “To Be Known and Heard: Systemic Racism and Princeton University” (the “Presentation”) that defamed Professor Joshua Katz. That October, Professor Sergiu Klainerman and seven other faculty members filed a formal complaint with the University about the Presentation. Although this complaint was dismissed in December on procedural grounds by the Minter Ruling, in April 2022 the faculty appeals committee found the Minter Ruling in error and called for the complaint investigation to proceed.
On July 8, President Eisgruber wrote Professor Klainerman that he had terminated the complaint. He cited as justification an “additional review” that ostensibly determined that the Presentation was fully protected by the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression. Eisgruber asserted this despite the Statement’s explicit exclusion of defamation from its protection. Critically, Eisgruber gave no explanation of the findings or reasoning of this crucial document, only its bare conclusion. Moreover, after Klainerman asked for an “additional review” copy or an explanation, Eisgruber flatly refused. On July 14, Eisgruber wrote that his July 8 email had provided “all of the information the University can share.” That assertion was directly contradicted by the Minter Ruling’s detailed three-page disclosure on the same underlying matter.
Simply put, President Eisgruber lied to complainant Klainerman to justify his refusal to disclose the dubious “additional review” that Eisgruber used to terminate Klainerman’s complaint about wrongdoing by Eisgruber’s administrators. In doing so, Eisgruber violated the University’s mandate for “honest and straightforward” conduct.
Further, President Eisgruber foisted on the University a perverse “Eisgruber Doctrine” that allows his administrators to defame those they disfavor and then escape University discipline. This strikes at the heart of Princeton’s mission. In the words of Professor Klainerman:
Yet if a sitting university professor can have his views distorted and be vilified on an official university website, then both principles [of academic freedom and fair treatment] have been violated. We fear that anyone of us can be treated in the same fashion and face similar abuse by members of the University’s administration. This danger of retribution which affects us all will have a pervasive chilling effect on free speech at Princeton.
For more than a year now, Princeton’s Board of Trustees has neither publicly addressed the grave allegations I have made against President Eisgruber nor answered this paramount question: “Is Christopher Eisgruber morally fit to remain as Princeton’s President?”
I have petitioned the New Jersey Attorney General to investigate whether Princeton’s Board of Trustees has fulfilled its fiduciary duties on these matters of fundamental importance to Princeton’s governance and future. I now call upon all Princetonians and all concerned about the leadership of our great universities to demand that Princeton’s Board of Trustees disclose all its actions in response to these allegations against Eisgruber, make public the “additional review” — and do so forthwith.
Justice Brandeis observed, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” May the sunlight of investigation and disclosure shine brightly on Princeton — and soon!
