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.
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal
New York Post
Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.
