Your Cart is Empty
Khoa Sands
Princetonians for Free Speech Original Content
National attention on campus free-speech issues tends to focus on only the most sensational threats. Incidents like speaker shout-downs, disruptive protests, physical attacks, major petitions, or unjust firings garner the most attention from alumni and the general public. And rightly so – there is no shortage of incidents that ought to cause outrage from those who believe in academic freedom and free expression. However, there are subtler threats to free speech in the university that fly under the radar, ignored by the press, alumni, and students, but are no less insidious. They can be as subtle as a state of mind.
One such threat is an attitude common at many elite universities, Princeton included, that I will call the “policy mindset.” The policy mindset does not attempt to shout down speakers or engage in garish protest but rather limits free speech by restricting legitimate debate towards the best means to reach a predetermined good. Thus, any normative debate on the policy goal is considered illegitimate. Many Princeton undergraduates (not just SPIA majors!) hold this prejudice, and it shows up frequently in the pages of the Daily Princetonian. Take, for example, two op-eds published last semester.
The first, published at the beginning of the semester by Eleanor Clemans-Cope, responds to an Atlantic article by Princeton lecturer Lauren Wright. Arguing against Wright's assertion that conservative students can better hone their minds in liberal spaces, Clemans-Cope claims that “liberals do interact with opinions that challenge their own, but they do so on issues that are typically grounded in productive, forward-looking dialogue, like criminal legal system reform, geo-engineered climate solutions, diplomatic engagement between the United States and China, and the morality of consulting jobs.” Debate that is worthwhile, according to Clemans-Cope, is “forward-looking” and “productive” for the sake of specific political goals. Therefore, conservative opinions are illegitimate and unworthy of intellectual engagement since “engaging with these debates is insisting on an ideological project that launders harmful, fringe opinions back into mainstream society.” Conservative policy goals are “regressive, generally discredited, and often dehumanizing,” while progressive policy goals are productive and forward-looking.
A recent op-ed by Lily Halbert-Alexander reflects the same policy mindset. Criticizing discussion and debate on abortion at Princeton, she argues that “we too often risk falling into conversations about abortion that are theoretical, instead of real”, noting that “many of our conversations about abortion take place in such forums as PHI 202: Introduction to Moral Philosophy and the Human Values Forum.” It may seem obvious that at a university, a class on moral philosophy and a club dedicated to philosophy (full disclosure: I currently serve as that club’s vice president) would discuss the moral implications of an issue so serious as abortion. But for Halbert-Alexander, “allowing discussion of abortion to drift into moral questions or theoretical political debate distances us from reality and makes our conversations less productive.”
In both articles, the value of debate is evaluated not by whether it seeks the truth but by whether or not it is “productive” towards a certain policy goal. Any discussion that attempts to engage with the underlying normative issues is illegitimate because it is unproductive or worse– actively dangerous by legitimizing “reactionary” opinions. Free speech is great, but only within specific predetermined bounds. It is always free speech in service of an agreed-upon end, never free speech to evaluate the value of said end. Both authors target conservative opinions, but the threat extends beyond just conservative students or right-wing ideas; it stands against the entire vocation of the university.
I have written before that the mission of the university is a choice between truth-seeking and social change. To choose social change and constant activism, will always threaten the mission of scholarship and jeopardize academic freedom, something anyone who values liberalism should be concerned about. The policy mindset attempts to delegitimize any and all scholarship that is not in service of certain political ends. Nothing could be more threatening to academic freedom and inimical to the foundational ideals of the university.
Khoa Sands ‘26, a PFS Writing Fellow, is a General Officer of the American Whig-Cliosophic Society and a Vice President of the Princeton Human Values Forum.
Meghana Veldhuis
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In light of recent scrutiny on higher education by the U.S. federal government, on April 2, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom (PCAF) held a roundtable discussion in McCosh Hall titled, “Should Universities Engage in Politics?”
The discussion was moderated by Princeton politics professor Frances Lee. University of Chicago philosophy professor Anton Ford, Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy ’77, and Yale politics professor Keith Whittington all shared their opinions on the role that Princeton and other universities should generally play during a time of turmoil in higher education.
Luke Grippo
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Following funding cuts, a hiring freeze, and increased scrutiny from the federal government, the Board of Trustees did not announce the total operating budget for the University in its budget plan press release for the 2025–26 academic year. However, the University did commit to “projected” increases in undergraduate financial aid and graduate student stipends.
This annual announcement typically updates the campus community on important information regarding the operating budget, financial support for students, and how costs have changed. The missing operating budget marks a departure from the past three years, as the University has shared it in these announcements since the 2022–2023 academic year, and may reflect continued uncertainty about future funding.
Preston Ferraiuolo and Jerry Zhu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Higher education is in trouble. Princeton is in trouble. After Tuesday’s announcement that the federal government suspended some of Princeton’s research grants, it’s clear that we’re already in the crosshairs. At Columbia, after the university appointed an administrative official to oversee an academic department in acquiescence to Trump administration demands, it appears that the integrity of academic freedom is also under attack.
Many university presidents have chosen to remain silent in the face of this attack on academia. Others, such as Michael Roth ’84 GS of Wesleyan University, have explicitly vilified the Trump administration. Rather than taking an overtly political stance against the administration, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has chosen to take a principled stand against the most troubling facet of the recent grant suspensions: their impact on academic freedom.
