The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned Princeton University on Thursday over alleged free-speech violations.
FIRE and the ADL sent a joint letter to Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber alleging that the school’s no-contact and no-communication orders restrict speech and violate the institution’s free-expression policies.
“These orders are being issued by administrators with disciplinary authority, under threat of punishment, without a modicum of due process, and — most unconscionably — where the student-speaker is not even alleged to have violated any university policy,” reads the letter. “This practice is deeply chilling, in blatant violation of Princeton’s laudable free expression policies, and must end immediately.”
According to a document issued by Princeton University, a no-communication order prevents two members of the university from communicating with one another, while the no-contact order largely prevents individuals from “being in the same location” and therefore “limit[s] potential interactions,” although does not “ensure” that the parties “will not see one another on the campus.”
“[The orders] are intended to forestall future interactions that could be problematic for the individuals, and to protect both of the individuals,” reads the university’s policy.
The letter sent by FIRE and ADL states that an undergraduate journalist was physically pushed while she was reporting on a pro-Palestinian demonstration for the Princeton Tory, a student-run conservative publication.
According to the letter, an undergraduate Tory journalist covered a November 9 protest held by Students for Justice in Palestine, during which a graduate student proceeded to block her camera and remained in close proximity to her. After the undergraduate voiced her discomfort, the graduate student continued to follow her.
“When the journalist reported this to an on-duty Public Safety officer, the officer informed the journalist that she was ‘inciting something,’” the letter states. “Following the officer’s inaction, the graduate student continued to attempt to physically obstruct the journalist from filming, eventually pushing her and stepping on her foot.”
Later, the graduate student obtained a no-contact order against the undergraduate journalist.
The FIRE and ADL letter argues that granting the no-contact order violated Princeton’s own policies, which state that such orders may be granted only “after an individual communicates in writing that they wish to have no communication or contact with that individual.” The graduate student had not provided this written communication.
The undergraduate journalist in question is Alexandra Orbuch, a junior in the history department who had previously shared videos of the encounter on social media. She declined to comment.
“I’ve also communicated with the administration and tried to get them to understand how difficult a time this is for Jewish students,” Orbuch said in a previous interview with National Review.
Today, in my capacity as a reporter for @PrincetonTory, I covered a Pro-Palestinian Walkout on Princeton's campus. I stood at a distance, gathering footage and audio of the protestors, but protesters continued to stalk and harass me. pic.twitter.com/MKpJj54QyT
— Alexandra Orbuch (@OrbuchA) November 10, 2023
The FIRE and ADL letter further argues that granting no-contact and no-communication orders violates the school’s free-expression policies.
Orbuch had asked a dean whether she could publish articles written before the issuance of the no-contact order that mentioned the graduate student’s name.
The dean responded via email that the university “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 utterly inconsistent with Princeton’s unequivocal promises that students have the right to engage in even the most challenging conversations,” reads the letter.
This incident is not the first at Princeton involving no-contact orders issued against Jewish students. According to the letter sent today, FIRE had written a letter to Princeton in January 2023 with “identical concerns” relating to undergraduate Danielle Shapiro.
Danielle Shapiro, now a junior undergraduate, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that she received a no-communication order after she published an article in the Princeton Tory about a pro-Palestinian protest on campus in 2022. Harshini Abbaraju, who attended the demonstration, requested the order.
“[T]wo days after the article’s publication, [a university administrator] sent the [no-communication order] letter, which was also delivered to campus police and the senior associate dean of undergraduate students,” Shapiro wrote. “I felt mortified and trapped.”
In response to Shapiro’s questions about her ability to pursue journalism on campus, the administrator told Shapiro that, “If she [Abbaraju] is a part of a group and she’s making a statement and you talk about a statement, I think that should be OK. But not necessarily to editorialize her directly or her comments.”
Shapiro’s attempts to communicate via email with administrators and deans were ignored until she organized a meeting with senior associate dean of undergraduate students Joyce Chen Shueh. The no-communication order was lifted nearly two months after it had been issued.
“During that time, she was free to organize protests, but the university restrained my ability to report on them,” Shapiro wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
Myles McKnight, now a Princeton alumnus, received a no-communication order after he engaged in what he described as “a slightly heated but generally healthy back-and-forth with the leader of the [student] group” at a public protest, the same pro-Palestinian demonstration that Shapiro had reported on.
“A few days later, I was amazed to learn that my interlocutor, alleging discomfort with our interaction, took out something called a ‘no communication order’ against me, the university’s equivalent of a restraining order,” McKnight wrote in the Public Discourse. “On pain of severe disciplinary action, I was no longer allowed to engage in discourse with my one-time interlocutor.”
McKnight and Shapiro co-wrote in the Daily Princetonian that the orders issued against them were lifted “within weeks” after they objected.
Four months after the two students raised complaints to the university, it changed its policies to require someone pursuing an order to “first employ honest, direct, and civil dialogue as a means of resolving conflict,” and an order could be requested “after an individual has requested in writing to the other individual that they do not wish to be in contact.” This does not apply to orders relating to sexual misconduct.
“Importantly, while Princeton’s no-contact orders to student speakers note they are not being formally charged with a policy violation, the university’s silencing of these students clearly violates their rights,” the FIRE and ADL letter states.
In 2015, Princeton University adopted by faculty vote the University of Chicago’s free-expression policies that provide protections for free speech.
Princeton’s policies state that “the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict” but notes that “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.”
“Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never 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,” reads a portion of Princeton’s free-expression policies.
FIRE and the ADL told Princeton, “This systematic weaponization of no-contact orders to silence pro-Israel journalism — or any journalism — cannot stand.”