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.
On November 12, former ACLU Legal Director David Cole delivered the annual Tanner Lecture on Human Values. His talk, entitled “A Defense of Free Speech from Its Progressive Critics,” drew a crowd to the Friend Center. Cole has litigated several major First Amendment cases and currently serves as a law professor at Georgetown. A self-identified progressive, Cole explicated an argument in favor of the First Amendment.
Cole outlined the main progressive critiques of the First Amendment. “What unites these critiques is the sense that the First Amendment is too protective at the cost of another very important value in our society: equality.” He also acknowledged the progressive skepticism of free speech’s “core demand” of neutrality – the idea that the government “must be neutral as to the content and viewpoint of speech when it is regulating private speakers.”
On Jan. 2, the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding a new University policy regulating audio and visual recording. The policy classifies any recording made at events deemed private — where not all participants have consented — as “secret or covert,” placing such recordings in violation of University rules.
However, recording at public events, such as advertised public speaker events, is permitted unless the speaker, performer, or party hosting the event explicitly states otherwise. “The policy does not cover meetings open to all current members of the resident University community or to the public,” according to the FAQ website.
Last month’s issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) fawns over Michael Park ’98, a right-wing lawyer and, since 2018, a U.S. circuit judge. Park’s portrait commands the cover, while the accompanying long-form profile, titled “The Contender,” speculates that he could become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court. The author is P.G. Sittenfeld ’07.
But Sittenfeld is not just any old journalist. Last May, President Donald Trump pardoned Sittenfeld, a one-time rising star in Cincinnati politics, following his conviction on federal bribery and extortion charges in 2022. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, owes his freedom to Trump — the man who nominated his subject Park to his judgeship, and the man with the power to elevate Park further to the nation’s highest court. Nowhere does PAW disclose this striking conflict of interest.
