Princeton University is opposing two New Jersey Senate bills introduced in 2024 that would significantly affect its admissions policies and campus speech guidelines. The two bills, Senate Bill 3370 and Senate Bill 2937, have sparked a debate on how higher education institutions should navigate legacy admissions and definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia. The university’s registered lobbyist has actively advocated against both measures, as reported by The Daily Princetonian.
Senate Bill 3370 seeks to ban preferential treatment for legacy students—those with familial connections to the university or its donors—during the admissions process. Meanwhile, Senate Bill 2937 would mandate that the state’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) policies include definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia. The bills, if passed, could drastically impact Princeton’s admissions practices, as well as the university’s stance on free speech and funding policies.
Princeton’s opposition to legacy admissions ban
Senate Bill 3370, introduced in June 2024, aims to end the practice of legacy admissions, which have long been a controversial aspect of college admissions. The bill was proposed by Senators Shirley Turner and Britnee Timberlake in response to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that dismantled affirmative action programs. As quoted by The Daily Princetonian, Senator Turner argued that eliminating legacy preferences would help “level the playing field” for students of color and first-generation college students. She highlighted that the current legacy system provides preferential treatment to those with familial ties to institutions, creating an uneven advantage for certain applicants.
Princeton University, however, is firmly opposed to the bill. A report from a committee convened by the Board of Trustees in March 2024 stated that while legacy preference may have limited impact, it serves as a “tie-breaker” between equally qualified candidates. The committee noted that legacy preferences affect fewer than 30 students annually, less than two percent of those admitted. University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill emphasized that Princeton’s holistic admissions process remains centered on individual talent and potential, despite the challenges posed by the Supreme Court ruling.
Concerns over definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia
Senate Bill 2937, introduced in March 2024, calls for the inclusion of specific definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia in DEIB policies and requires institutions receiving state funds to adopt these definitions. The bill adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has sparked concerns over freedom of expression. As reported by The Daily Princetonian, critics worry that codifying such definitions could restrict speech, particularly when it comes to political discourse regarding Israel. Princeton has long resisted incorporating the IHRA definition into its own policies, citing concerns about chilling free speech.
The university’s current policies on discrimination do not include specific definitions of antisemitism or Islamophobia. As quoted by The Daily Princetonian, Morrill explained that Princeton prefers a more general anti-discrimination policy that avoids “unnecessary complexity and disputes over contested definitions.”
Princeton’s opposition to these legislative measures reflects the broader debate over the role of government in regulating higher education practices and freedom of speech.
