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.
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.
