Your Cart is Empty
Abigail Readlinger ‘27
I’ve worked at the Office of Undergraduate Admission for almost three years now, and for two of those years I have been asked to represent the university as a student panelist for Princeton Preview (a day for 500+ admitted students to be on campus). My experience with this event, especially as the most recent one was just last month, gives me pause to reflect on the joy I receive in sharing my perspective, but even more so on the gratitude I feel for a University which has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to viewpoint diversity on my behalf.
Student panelists are asked by the administration to openly relate their thoughts on the academic, social, and extracurricular scenes at Princeton. They are asked to honestly express their values and how they have pursued them on both campus and beyond. In other words, they are asked to be exactly themselves.
Knowing this to be the role, when I was first requested for the position, I admit I was slightly surprised. I am an outspoken conservative and a devout Catholic. I am an active member of The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, and I am a board member and the former Vice President of Princeton Pro-Life. So yes, you could say my views stray far from the norm.
I had known that Princeton affirmed a verbal dedication to free speech, but I had been convinced that such a dedication was just a mere toleration, if even that. However, in actively pursuing and publicizing the perspective of a student such as myself, I am able to now personally testify that this University has proved a vivacious commitment to viewpoint diversity. I accepted the student panelist position out of a genuine gratitude for such commitment, and I felt a desire to share the reality of Princeton’s support and encouragement.
I will never forget my first panel. In a crowd of over five hundred admitted students and on the very first question of the Q&A portion, I was asked about my beliefs. “What is it like being a conservative, pro-life student on campus? Do you feel you can speak freely? Are there spaces for you?” I answered her question honestly, and I spoke freely. I explained to her Princeton’s commitment to free speech, to learning, and to truth. I shared my own personal stories, those of my friends, and the inspiring conversations I had with those who did not hold my beliefs. When I finished, Victor, the panelist to my left, added a final comment—one I believe to be both beautiful and true. “You’re seeing it in action right now,” he said. Victor went on to explain that his political and social beliefs were primarily left-leaning, that his worldview was entirely different from my own. “And yet here we are, Abby and I, sitting next to each other—as friends—speaking in front of you.” He continued, “That is why you should come to Princeton.” And that right there is one belief of his I will get behind!
In having a truly diverse group of students share their perspectives, Princeton makes known that there exists a home for every viewpoint. However, as much as I believe this claim to be true, there are unfortunately those who do not. It is easy to dismiss the Princeton administration and culture as entirely polarizing and ideologically biased. In fact, it is true that many here hold the same dominant perspective . But to focus on this fact alone, to rest our entire judgement on one such observation, runs the dangerous risk of neglecting the clear and persistent efforts of this University to encourage every student—even the conservative ones—to share the beliefs that he or she so earnestly pursues.
I do not by any means suggest there is an absence of all conflict or disagreement between conservative students and the general administration and culture at Princeton. Nor do I suggest that opportunities for viewpoint diversity are at their highest. But I will give credit where credit is due. Princeton Preview has demonstrated to me that this University has an active commitment to free speech and free expression. But furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it has demonstrated to me that the students themselves have this same commitment. For two years, I have sat on a panel with individuals entirely different from myself. Yet, we are united by one common bond—our joy in being able to honestly express ourselves and our gratitude to Princeton University, which makes such a joy so possible.
Abigail Readlinger ‘27 is a Junior in the Politics department from Princeton, NJ. She is a PFS Writing Fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
