Princeton Implements Restrictions on Recording Campus Events

Princeton University recently adopted censorial regulations in an apparent attempt to stifle bad press and restore its sparkling reputation. A governing body voted in November to approve broad restrictions on recording without the express consent of all participants: “Princeton prohibits the installation or use of any device for listening, observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, transmitting or broadcasting sounds or events occurring in any place where the individual or group involved has a reasonable expectation of being free from unwanted surveillance, eavesdropping, recording or observation without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings.” Although the “reasonable expectation” of privacy suggests it is permissible to record events with a decently sized audience, the university will also ban recording if “it has been explicitly stated that recording is not permitted,” no matter the size of the event. (The phrasing is vague; it seems that any person who is present, not only an event’s organizers, can veto recording.) Rather tellingly, the new regulations further prohibit the “transmission and/or distribution” of any such materials, an obvious effort to stifle communication between university members and journalists. Put succinctly, Princeton hung a giant “NO TATTLETALES” sign on its front gates.

On a practical level, the ambiguous policies leave many questions about enforcement and punishment. Will an off-the-record event require participants to relinquish their phones and computers at the start? If a journalist unaffiliated with the university obtains recordings from a Princeton student and reports on their contents, will there be an investigation that inspects the devices of every individual who attended the event in question? Does an infraction amount to a nasty line on your transcript, a failed grade, an expulsion, or something else entirely? Perhaps answers to these inquiries will be revealed through a series of disciplinary rulings.

About the Author

Abigail Anthony

Abigail Anthony is a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Princeton University recently adopted censorial regulations in an apparent attempt to stifle bad press and restore its sparkling reputation. A governing body voted in November to approve broad restrictions on recording without the express consent of all participants: “Princeton prohibits the installation or use of any device for listening, observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, transmitting or broadcasting sounds or events occurring in any place where the individual or group involved has a reasonable expectation of being free from unwanted surveillance, eavesdropping, recording or observation without the knowledge and consent of all participants subject to such recordings.” Although the “reasonable expectation” of privacy suggests it is permissible to record events with a decently sized audience, the university will also ban recording if “it has been explicitly stated that recording is not permitted,” no matter the size of the event. (The phrasing is vague; it seems that any person who is present, not only an event’s organizers, can veto recording.) Rather tellingly, the new regulations further prohibit the “transmission and/or distribution” of any such materials, an obvious effort to stifle communication between university members and journalists. Put succinctly, Princeton hung a giant “NO TATTLETALES” sign on its front gates.

On a practical level, the ambiguous policies leave many questions about enforcement and punishment. Will an off-the-record event require participants to relinquish their phones and computers at the start? If a journalist unaffiliated with the university obtains recordings from a Princeton student and reports on their contents, will there be an investigation that inspects the devices of every individual who attended the event in question? Does an infraction amount to a nasty line on your transcript, a failed grade, an expulsion, or something else entirely? Perhaps answers to these inquiries will be revealed through a series of disciplinary rulings.