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.
The shooting at Brown is deeply tragic. But it is not the time for mere thoughts and prayers. It hasn’t been for decades. As another Ivy League university, this moment calls for Princeton to stand in solidarity with the victims of the Brown shooting by pushing for significant reform to fight violence. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 is uniquely equipped as the past chair and active board member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) — an organization with a precedent of condemning gun violence — to lobby for gun reform policies on the national and state level.
A discussion about Fizz and the role of social media in our discourse took place at Princeton University on December 3rd, 2025, hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and funded by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), While the discussion has been lauded as an example of what can come about through open and civil exchange of ideas, several questions remain worth considering. What is the place of anonymous speech in our society? Should someone take responsibility for the things they say? Or has our public discourse been hollowed out by social media to the point where online commentary should be considered performative?
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
