Your Cart is Empty
Annabel Green
'26
On February 19, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom hosted Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss his forthcoming book Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times, co-authored with Howard Gillman. Chemerinsky described universities as operating in a moment of political pressure, as debates over Israel–Palestine, race, gender identity, and other charged issues intensify scrutiny of campus speech.
Throughout the talk, Chemerinsky argued that free speech is truly tested when we defend free expression we detest. Resisting the impulse to legislate egregious ideas is essential to preserving free expression. In his book, Chemerinsky and Gillman seek to clarify how established legal principles apply in this environment, particularly at public universities, and he warns of conflating colloquial understandings of, for example, hate speech, with the rigorous standards which apply to the legal expression of terms.
He outlined four central points. First, all ideas and viewpoints may be expressed on a college campus. At public institutions, the First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing speech because of its content or viewpoint, even if that speech is offensive. While public universities are directly bound by the First Amendment, most private universities, including Princeton, adopt free speech rules and policies which align with First Amendment principles.
Second, the First Amendment is not absolute. Certain categories of speech are unprotected, including incitement to imminent illegal activity, true threats, and harassment. Notably, “hate speech” as such remains protected, unlike in many European countries, and attempts to define it too broadly risk granting the government authority to censor.
Third, universities may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Institutions can regulate when and where protests occur, so long as policies do not discriminate based on viewpoint and leave open adequate alternative channels for expression. This principle is especially relevant to contemporary issues, such as campus encampments. Questions arise when invited speakers generate extraordinary security costs and courts have not provided definitive answers.
Fourth, Chemerinsky argued that government efforts to dictate what may be taught at public universities, such as anti-critical race theory (CRT) or “Stop W.O.K.E.” laws, violate the First Amendment and threaten academic freedom. Chemerinsky described the relationship between academic freedom and the First Amendment as a venn diagram; while academic freedom overlaps with the First Amendment, it is not coextensive with it. Academic freedom is governed by professional academic standards, and courts typically defer to schools to establish these standards.
Chemerinsky warned that giving the government the ability to legislate ideas poses a far greater danger than tolerating even deeply unpopular speech.
Annabel Green '26, is a senior from Boulder, CO majoring in Public and International Affairs and minoring in Global Health & Health Policy. She is a PFS student writing fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, top colleges and universities have faced an onslaught of federal attacks: slashing grant money for research, pressuring schools to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, cracking down on visas for international students, and ending graduate program sponsorship for active duty military at top schools. However, some Ivy League universities — the center of many of Trump’s ongoing attacks — have decreased messaging on the potential consequences of these federal directives.
“One thing that’s been clear is that a lot of universities have felt that publicity would bring no advantage or do them no good,” history professor David Bell GS ’91, who has been outspoken about federal actions against universities, said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.
As a professor who is known to dissent from progressive ideologies that are dominant at universities such as Princeton, where I’ve taught for nearly 40 years, I’m frequently asked by students for advice about how to navigate a campus they worry will be hostile to them. Some are pro-Israel, or politically and socially conservative, or religiously observant.
They fear being treated unfairly by faculty members who are hostile to their beliefs. Many are afraid of being regarded as outcasts by their more liberal or progressive peers. They worry about being excluded from academic opportunities or not treated equitably in social or other extracurricular activities. To these students I say, with regret: You’re right to worry. I’ve seen these things happen.
Universities may be tempted to treat these capabilities as inevitable improvements in education. Students will be able to consume vast amounts of information, more than ever before. But like AI writing itself, such consumption would be vast but shallow. The more interesting possibility, then, is that AI will force universities to rediscover the value of intellectual work that cannot be outsourced.
