Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein Delivers Free Speech Lecture on Constitution Day

By Marisa Warman Hirschfield ‘27 October 03, 2024 2 min read

By Marisa Warman Hirschfield ‘27

“Universities should follow the First Amendment, period. That’s it. That’s the framework.”

Legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein shared this message with over a hundred people in McCosh 50 during his “Free Speech On Campus” lecture. The James Madison Program hosted Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, on September 17th in celebration of Constitution Day. Attendees received a free copy of Sunstein’s 2023 book How to Interpret the Constitution upon entering. Adults comprised most of the audience with some undergraduate students scattered throughout the lecture hall. I attended in my capacity as a ’24-’25 Writing Fellow for Princetonians for Free Speech, an alumni group that offers many opportunities for student involvement.

Sunstein emphasized that the First Amendment is a solid foundation to underpin universities’ free speech policies. “Building a building from the ground up is really hard and people are going to disagree about how many doors and how many windows. To say, ‘we are following the first Amendment’ makes life far more manageable.”  

He maintained that his proposition is not as simple as free speech absolutism. Universities occasionally must enforce content-neutral restrictions if speech impedes upon their educational mission. Some of these restrictions, he explained, are simple and unobjectionable. Universities need not tolerate speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Speech must pass the “clear-and-present-danger test”–that is, if speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action, it should not be allowed on college campuses.

There are also gray areas. Whether speech poses a threat to a university's educational mission can be equivocal. According to Sunstein, this is where First Amendment law is least developed.

“There are going to be hard cases where the educational mission will be arguably, but only arguably, incompatible with certain forms of humiliating, degrading, or frightening speech. Reasonable people can differ there.”

He shared an example: “If a math professor believes that men are better than women at math and that women can’t handle the subject, there’s a good argument that he can be directed not to say that in class, on the grounds that if he does so, he will not be able to do his job.”

Despite restrictions being necessary on occasion, Sunstein underscored that “free speech should get the benefit of the reasonable doubt.” As arsenals of democracy, Sunstein argued, “America’s universities should permit members of their communities to say things that are jarring, disruptive, disturbing or, to some, enraging. The best response to errors and offensive and horrifying speech is more speech, not punishment.”

Sunstein’s speech lasted an hour and was followed by a Q&A segment, facilitated by Robert George, Director of the James Madison Program.

Sunstein left his audience with a final wish: “Freedom ought to ring on public streets, in public parts, and on campus. What universities don’t need is the unanimity of the graveyard. They need noisy and teeming pluralism, the teeming pluralism of living communities that are trying to figure out what’s true.”

Marisa Warman Hirschfeld ’27 studies History and Creative Writing and is a Princetonians for Free Speech Writing Fellow

Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.


Also in Princeton Free Speech News & Commentary

Harvard’s Viewpoint Diversity Initiative: A Good Idea That Could Still Go Wrong
Harvard’s Viewpoint Diversity Initiative: A Good Idea That Could Still Go Wrong

Tal Fortgang June 10, 2026 6 min read

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.

Read More
FIRE survey of faculty donations: How does Princeton Compare?
FIRE survey of faculty donations: How does Princeton Compare?

Leslie Spencer June 10, 2026 3 min read

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.

Read More
‘A major morale booster’: NEH grant terminations ruled unconstitutional, humanities faculty express hope
‘A major morale booster’: NEH grant terminations ruled unconstitutional, humanities faculty express hope

Haeon Lee June 05, 2026 1 min read 1 Comment

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.

Read More