Your Cart is Empty
By Marisa Hirschfield ‘27
On April 24th, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens spoke about free speech, journalism, and Israel to approximately one hundred attendees gathered in Guyot Hall. The event, entitled “Writing About Israel as a Columnist and as a Jew,” was co-sponsored by a variety of campus organizations, including B’Artzeinu and the Center for Jewish Life. I attended in my capacity as a Writing Fellow for Princetonians for Free Speech, a contributor to the event.
Stephens began by outlining how Western media gets the Israel narrative wrong, framing Israel as the more powerful adversary in a two-sided conflict. “Most of the media treats the Israel story as a Goliath versus David story in which Israel is Goliath because the Palestinians loom smaller. Expand the frame and what you see is a country that is surrounded by current enemies and historic enemies and very hostile populations.”
The pro-Palestine movement on college campuses was a focal point of the event. Stephens called out what he sees as the liberal hypocrisy of the movement. “If your values are progressive, but you are objectively siding with the most fundamentalist, totalitarian, misogynistic and homophobic movement in the world, something is the matter with your thinking.”
Stephens also advised that protestors be wary of the backlash their actions might elicit, drawing a historical comparison to student politics in the Weimar Republic. “When the left in Germany trashed universities in the 1920s, it paved the way for the most extreme right. Be careful that through radicalism, you don’t invite a form of reaction that will be much more terrifying.” He cautioned that the movement for Palestinian freedom could lead to “handing all of our enemies a golden political opportunity.”
Already in response to pro-Palestine protests, the Trump administration has frozen upwards of $11 billion in university federal funding. Stephens took a strong stance against these funding cuts, seeing them as “bald attacks on university life” rather than genuine attempts to curb anti-semitism. “I think that many universities are broken institutions, but the place to fix them is within the university, not with the heavy hammer of withholding federal funds.”
During the Q&A section of the event, an audience member asked Stephens to define the boundaries of appropriate speech about Israel. Stephens responded that, except for pre-established First Amendment restrictions, “all speech about Israel is permissible.” He shared that he has no problem with chants which paint Israel as a genocidal state, as long as he is able to respond. “I have a right to call it anti-semitic,” Stephens said. “It doesn’t mean I’m censoring that speech. I am making an effort to describe that speech as I see it.”
The columnist expressed that it is acceptable to find fault with Israel on the basis of policy, but he voiced his concern about more extreme beliefs. “What I’m worried about is that there is a strain on the left that no longer sees Israel as mistaken on policy [but] sees Israel as fundamentally illegitimate as a state.”
Despite his criticisms of leftist activism, Stephens noted that his speaking engagements have more often been cancelled by far-right groups that reject his support of a two-state solution than far-left ones.
Marisa Hirschfield ’27 studies History and Creative Writing and 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.
