Institutional Neutrality and the Problem of the Faculty Administrator

When I taught philosophy at Felician University (2008-2020), I was first Assistant and then Associate Professor of Philosophy, but I was also Chair of the Department of Philosophy, Coordinator of the Pre-Law Program, and Director of the Felician Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs. The first two were specifically academic titles, the last three administrative or quasi-administrative ones.

When George Abaunza, a professor of philosophy, became the Dean of Arts and Sciences, he insisted on retaining a 1:0 teaching load in philosophy, “just to keep his hand in the teaching game.” That request was granted, so he was, during his tenure as Dean, both an administrator and a member of the faculty. He also led the University’s General Education overhaul, which led to the complete overhaul of the Gen Ed curriculum as well as the University’s curriculum as such–just one of several quasi-administrative positions he held.   Continue reading

Iran as a “War of Choice”

Wherever you go, you’ll find imperialist wars described, particularly by their self-styled liberal opponents, as “wars of choice.” Having described a given war as a “war of choice,” the critic will then go on to criticize it as ill-conceived and ill-executed while conceding the underlying reason for going to war. The unspoken implication is that the same war, conceived and executed more competently, would have been perfectly justified. It’s just that this particular iteration is not. Continue reading

Iran and the Perpetuity of Empire

The Intercept reports that Trump is menacing Iran with a massive armada capable of prolonged war. The Times of Israel is talking about a “countdown” to war. The Washington Post reports that satellite imagery shows a rapid increase of US military planes near Iran. Responsible Statecraft’s lead story concerns the inadequacy of airpower to achieve Trump’s stated goals in Iran: ground troops would be required. The Guardian’s top five stories concern the imminence of a US attack on Iran, same with Reuters. The Financial Times has a top story on the imminent Iran war as a crisis of Trump’s own making. Continue reading

When Self-Defense Is “Terror”

A recent article in The New York Times by its so-called “national security correspondent” is an indication of how incompetent mainstream journalists are, and how unreflectively eager they are to do the bidding of the national security establishment they supposedly cover. The article is “Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn,” by Eric Schmitt. Nothing in it is newsworthy or news. All of the work in it is done by its brainless and tendentious reliance on the term “terrorism.” Continue reading

War Is Peace

We’re reportedly about to go to war with Iran. I just checked a minute ago: The lead story at The New York Times is the Supreme Court’s tariff decision; likewise The Washington Post and MS NOW. At CNN, the lead story is Trump’s trade war. At Fox, it’s a toss up between the trade war and a debit card scandal in California. And so on. Literally business as usual. The pattern is clear enough: as we prepare for war, the thing to do is to turn inward and turn away from it in a spirit of make-believe. Tariffs matter more than war. Trump matters more than war. Debit cards matter more than war. At this point, anything matters more than war. War is imminent, hence unreal. 

War, in short, has become normalized in the familiar imperial way, by equating peace with perpetual warfare confined to the periphery of empire, and to the peripheries of consciousness. It’s out there, hence not here, hence nowhere.  Continue reading

From Diversity to Neutrality: Rebutting the “Key Move”

This is the précis of a paper I’ll be giving at the virtual/online component of the 2026 conference of the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics. The conference takes place April 10; the paper is called, “From Diversity to Neutrality: Rebutting the ‘Key Move’ of the Kalven Committee Report.” Last year I gave a different paper at the on-ground version of the conference, discussing institutional neutrality’s failure to deal with complicity in injustice. 

Institutional neutrality is the doctrine that institutions like universities should refrain from taking public positions on matters of public controversy. The locus classicus of the doctrine is the so-called Kalven Committee Report (KCR) issued at the University of Chicago in 1967. According to the KCR, the core mission of the ideal university is the “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge” in the service of teaching and research. This mission, we’re told, requires the maximization of intellectual diversity, which in turn requires or entails institutional neutrality. I call this “the key move” of the KCR’s argument. Continue reading

The West Orange Anti-Semitism Task Force (2)

Second Statement to West Orange Town Council on its Proposed Anti-Semitism Task Force
66 Main St
West Orange, New Jersey
February 10, 2026

Last time I was here, I criticized a proposal for an anti-Semitism task force. In response, some speakers suggested that I was being insensitive to the dangers faced by Jews in West Orange. I don’t agree, so I’m going to respond. Continue reading

You Say You Want a Revolution

The local papers around Princeton are gushing over an event that took place in town this morning:

In 1776, the New Jersey Legislature convened for the first time in Nassau Hall, the ivy-covered building that is now the centerpiece of Princeton University’s campus.

It was wartime, but the new legislators kept busy: within months, they had adopted the state’s first constitution, elected the state’s first governor, and kick-started preparations to help the Continental Army fight British redcoats. The British eventually seized the building, before being kicked out again by George Washington’s army in the Battle of Princeton, but by then the legislators had moved on.

Two-hundred-fifty years later, as the United States prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of its independence, the New Jersey Assembly returned to Nassau Hall to celebrate its role in New Jersey’s revolutionary history.

“Today isn’t simply a change in venue for us,” Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin said. “It’s a return home, a return to our beginnings, to the place where our Legislature first met in 1776 at the dawn of a new and uncertain democracy.”

The Assembly approved a series of ceremonial resolutions honoring New Jersey’s role in the American RevolutionPrinceton University’s 280th anniversary, the New Jersey National Guard, and battleships named for New Jersey, among others.

The celebrants included Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, and British Consul General to New York Oliver Christian.

Continue reading

Free Speech in Montgomery

Statement to Montgomery Township Committee
100 Community Dr
Skillman, New Jersey
February 5, 2026

Revised for presentation (to better fit the 3-minute time limit), February 5, 2026

On January 7th, Sadaf Jaffer, the former mayor of Montgomery and former head of its Democratic Organization, made public something that this Committee has known for a year. About a year ago, she said, Mayor Neena Singh and Deputy Mayor Vince Barragan demanded her resignation from the Democratic Organization because Montgomery Township was being denied state and county funds in retaliation for, her, Jaffer’s, criticisms of US and Israeli policy in Palestine. I have an audio file of Mr Barragan’s making this demand.
Continue reading

Character, Complicity, and the Epstein Files

Monsters rule your world
Are you too scared to understand?
–Motorhead, “The Brotherhood of Man”

The first thing I have to say about the Epstein Files is that at this point, nobody can tell me that character-based voting is a politically-irrelevant fringe idea, and that my banging on about it for the last decade has been a waste of breath. A person’s sheer presence in the Epstein Files is not by itself evidence of guilt, but when the files do furnish evidence of guilt, it’s obvious that the guilt in question is politically relevant whether or not it’s policy relevant. Imagine that we resurrected a version of Jeffrey Epstein whose policy views aligned with yours, and who was running for office. Would you vote for him? Would Jason Brennan?

undefined

Continue reading