Your Cart is Empty
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: On Monday, Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) — an alumni-organized nonprofit supposedly committed to reviving viewpoint diversity at Princeton by empowering a “nonpartisan community of alumni” — published a letter in The Princeton Tory titled “A Letter to the Class of ’29 from Princetonians for Free Speech.”
Why is PFS, which claims to protect students regardless of political identity, publishing a letter to all first years in a journal that only appeals to a select few on this campus? Perhaps it’s because protecting speech that lies beyond the confines of conservatism was never in its interest at all.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Since faculty voted in may to proctor in-person exams, national news outlets and some alumni have decried the end of Princeton’s 133-year-old tradition of unsupervised testing, but students, faculty, and recent graduates say the conversation within the campus community has been mild.
Professor George explained that he does not believe there is “one single uniquely correct model for colleges and universities.” The success of College of the Ozarks demonstrates the strength of its distinctive mission—not the need for every college to adopt the same model.
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.
