Suppose that I’m a university president at an institution that’s endorsed institutional neutrality. I’m now invited by the chair of an oversight committee in Congress or the state legislature to testify before the committee on matters that fall within the committee’s higher education oversight functions. Stipulate that the discussion of these matters can’t avoid touching on matters of public controversy, and that I won’t be permitted during the oversight hearing to pick and choose what questions I’ll answer or in what form. Those issues are exclusively within the purview of the committee chair. What should I do? Continue reading
Tag Archives: news
Target Practice
If you’ve been following the news about the Iranian girls’ school that was hit by an American missile, you may have noticed that the very news stories that indict the US quietly provide a bit of exoneration for the US as well. The school, we’re told, was right next to a military installation. Clearly (the story goes), the installation was the intended target of the strike. If so, perhaps there is a story to be told about how the US was trying to hit the military installation but accidentally hit the school (twice). Which doesn’t make it so bad. It was an accident! Not our fault! Why would the Revolutionary Guards put a military installation next to a school? How can we be blamed for killing a bunch of schoolgirls if they do? You can see the position of the school relative to the base in this screen shot below from The New York Times. Continue reading
Malley and Wertheim on Iranian “Responsibility”
When people commit crimes, they often invent elaborate rationalizations to conceal or dilute the moral turpitude of the offense. Rapists notoriously claim that their victims asked to be raped, or enjoyed it during the act. Murderers cite the imperatives of retributive justice. Etc. When it comes to ordinary crimes, most people can see the gaslighting involved for the deception it is. Unfortunately, this tends not to be true of crimes by nation-states. A nation-state can commit an obvious, egregious crime in the plain light of day, lie about it in an obvious way, and be believed by millions of people. Continue reading
This Be the Hearse
David French on the “legal and moral justifications for war” against Iran:
There is little question that we have many legal and moral justifications for war. When Trump spoke about Americans killed by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, that struck home for me. We lost men in my own unit to Iranian-backed militias using Iranian-supplied munitions. I knew those men, and I will never forget the terrible days when they fell.
In other words, twenty years ago, the United States initiated a war of aggression against Iraq premised on florid, systematic lies. The victims fought back, killing some of the aggressors. In answer to those acts of self-defense, we’re now obliged to initiate yet another war of aggression, this time against Iran, eliciting yet another round of defensive attacks by the successors of yesteryear’s victims. Continue reading
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
Light in Dark Times
A Conversation about Homelessness
Hi Kayleigh,
For years now, I’ve been writing you these complaining emails about NJ Transit’s closing the shelters at both Princeton and Princeton Junction train stations, mostly to lock out the homeless. I happened to be in the Princeton shelter the other day, chatting with a homeless person who was taking shelter in it from the cold. We got to talking about the train shelters themselves, and it became evident through what she said that during operating hours at least, she relies on the shelters for shelter. I mentioned to her my passing impression that the shelters were more consistently open nowadays than they had been in the past, not just on a daily basis, but on an hourly one–meaning that they’re not just open every day, but open early and close late. She agreed, and pointed out with some satisfaction that the one at Princeton Junction is now heated. 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?
Localize the Intifada
The Use of Lethal Force in Self-Defense Against Federal Law Enforcement
I’m gratified to see that there’s been some explicit discussion in the last few weeks of a neglected topic that I mentioned in my post on Renee Good: do residents of the United States (citizens or otherwise) have a moral or legal right (however narrow, contextual, or limited) to use lethal force against federal law enforcement officers when those officers initiate force that endangers the life or limb of an innocent party? The answer is yes on both counts. Just to be explicit: residents unquestionably have a right to kill federal law enforcement officers under certain conditions. The relevant question is not whether there is such a right, but the exact conditions under which it can legitimately be exercised.
Statement of Sadaf Jaffer to Montgomery Township Committee
This is a statement by Sadaf Jaffer, former Mayor of Montgomery Township, New Jersey, to the Montgomery Township Committee. I fully agree with her that “the public deserves clear answers and ethical leadership,” and urge others who agree to contact the Committee and make your views known. I’m pleased to say that Sadaf has agreed to be featured in a future edition of my Activist Interviews series, where I’m sure we’ll hear more about the backstory here. More soon.
Good evening. I am a former mayor of Montgomery Township, a former Assemblywoman, and a former chair of Montgomery’s Democratic Organization.
On multiple occasions over the past year, Mayor Neena Singh and Deputy Mayor Vince Barragan told me, and told others, that Montgomery Township was being denied county and state public funds because of my opposition to Israeli and U.S. policy in Gaza. Continue reading
An Open Question for Middlesex County
Third Statement to Middlesex County Board of County Commissioners
75 Bayard St
New Brunswick, New Jersey
January 15, 2026
My name is Irfan Khawaja. I live in Princeton but work in Iselin. This is my third statement here on the matter of what was previously called the Immigrant Trust Act. As everyone knows, we’re in the home stretch toward passage of a version of the Act, but not there yet. To that end, I want to address some issues raised by the last meeting on that topic back on December 18. Continue reading
Policy of Truth 