Your Cart is Empty
Annabel Green '26
Before declaring my major in the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), I had considered many majors such as classics, history, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. I settled on SPIA because it offers a disciplinary breadth through which I can narrow down my tentative interests.
Early into the major, I was sympathetic to the political orthodoxy through which many Princetonians operate which I would summarize as characterized by critical theory (i.e. neo-Marxist concepts of group identity and power struggle). However, I soon found myself increasingly in misalignment with the prevailing narrative and the deep grievance and resentment my fellow classmates seemed to feel toward the current state of the country.
A change of heart, catalyzed by an internal wrestling with progressive ideology, began to take shape during my Sophomore year. I increasingly sought out the views of economists and intellectuals who aligned with conservative and classical liberal values. While I consider myself as naturally hesitant and unsure of myself, I found conviction through these endeavors. Although I was raised an atheist, I became convinced by arguments which described the destructiveness of New Atheism and of postmodernism; characterized by nihilism, moral relativism, and the repudiation of any claims of objectivity and of non-negotiable ultimacy (i.e. God).
My ideological transformation was made available to me through the freedom of discourse both online and amongst friends and family. Particularly, I deeply value the authentic conversations in which I engage with my twin sister, a student at Cornell.
The freedom of speech has been mistakenly reduced to the prerogative to speak without fear of censorship or retaliation, and while it very much is this, the freedom of speech is something more essential. The freedom of speech precedes and succeeds the freedom of conscience. Both of these freedoms are integral to the integrity and development of the individual. We must be allowed to question not only the arguments with which we are presented but also the premises and assumptions which underlie those very arguments.
Wrestling with ideas is a toilsome endeavor that is messy and not without flaws. Yet there is a great and important wound that forms when you humbly accept your former ignorance and hubris. The freedom of speech is vital for the improvement of ideas, because ideas need to withstand criticism, opposition, and the unrelenting test of time. In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill wisely remarked:
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion."
Annabel Green ’26 is a Public and International Affairs major, and a member of the Global Health Program at Princeton. She hails from Boulder, Colorado. She is a PFS Writing Fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
In April 1995, University maintenance crews spent two days cleaning “walkways, benches, plazas and walls on campus,” working to remove not dirt or debris, but simple sidewalk chalk. The chalk drawings, according to a report from The Daily Princetonian, consisted of “pro-gay messages” written by hand during Pride Week. After the removal, advocates were rightly in uproar. Following the incident, the University, claiming that the discrepancy had transpired because of “cross-office confusion,” clarified its chalking policy — it was henceforth banned, in all cases.
Three decades on, chalk at Princeton has found itself relegated to dusty trays in classrooms and lecture halls. Hardly anyone — students, activists, artists, campus organizations, candidates, schoolchildren — chalks University grounds anymore. Simply put, the University’s ban has worked. But the question remains: Why is Princeton so afraid of chalk?
There is exactly one kind of institution in the world whose product is “thinking” — the university. This is an existential challenge for every university, Princeton most definitely included, now that nearly all artificial intelligence is purpose-built to offload the hard work of thinking.
Universities need to return to the foundations of learning with trust — and verification — at the heart of their relationship with students. They also need to be far more prescriptive about what learning looks like so that students who arrive with limited capacity for deep reading have the time and space to develop their critical thinking skills.
The University has implemented a new limit on the number of Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Graduate Student Government, and Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) student representatives allowed to attend faculty meetings.
In an email to student leaders obtained by The Daily Princetonian, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Ian Deas wrote that the new changes will go into effect at the Sept. 14 faculty meeting and each constituency will be able to send a maximum of two observers to a meeting. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty do not specify the number of observers permitted from the student governments or CPUC.
