Your Cart is Empty
Angela Smith
Princetonians for Free Speech
In the basement of Robertson Hall on a crisp December evening, I had the privilege of attending a remarkable student-led event at Princeton University—a panel hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and supported by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The December 3 discussion centered on Fizz, an anonymous social media app for Princetonians that serves as a hub for commentary, debates and memes about campus life.
From my vantage point as Executive Director of PFS, the significance of this gathering extended well beyond its specific topic. What unfolded that evening represented one of the largest—and one of the most politically diverse—assemblies of student free-speech advocates in recent memory. Roughly forty Princetonians filled the room, not to hear a Supreme Court Justice or renowned author, but to engage sincerely with one another about speech, anonymity, and responsibility.
That in itself is something to celebrate.
A Diverse and Courageous Panel
The panel featured four Princeton students, each invited specifically because of their recent public writings following Charlie Kirk’s murder (all four students weighed in with individual Op Eds, published in The Daily Princetonian and The Princeton Tory) and moderated by the POCC President. Two of the student panelists self-identified as progressive, and the other two as conservative.
What bound them was not ideological or political alignment; rather, their willingness to think and debate publicly, and to confront difficult questions. Attendees, panelists and the event hosts themselves remarked that this was a unique and much needed opportunity for viewpoint diversity to share a table—and that fact alone underscored why organizations like POCC, and the spaces they create, are indispensable.
It is worth pausing on that point. Institutions of higher learning often proclaim their commitment to diversity, yet it is rare to see diversity of viewpoint so deliberately and respectfully embodied. That these four students—who might never otherwise share a conversation—sat together to engage on a subject as charged as anonymous speech speaks volumes about the need for these courageous conversations.
Wrestling with Discernment and Responsibility
Among the many valuable exchanges of the evening, one question in particular lingered with me: Where is the discernment in free speech today? One of the student panelists asked this not as a rhetorical question but as a genuine inquiry. In a society where instant commentary is rewarded and anonymity can erase accountability, discernment—the ability to think carefully before speaking, to weigh words and consequences—has indeed grown rare.
Yet what struck me most powerfully was that, in that very moment, these young panelists were practicing discernment. They were weighing ideas, qualifying claims, and actively listening to those who disagreed with them. It was, in every sense, a live demonstration of responsible free speech—the kind of disciplined exchange that our culture sorely needs, both on campuses and beyond.
No meaningful conversation about free speech can be entirely comfortable, and this one wasn’t. There were moments of tension between panelists. But none of it descended into hostility. This was healthy, robust debate at its best: passionate, prepared, and anchored in respect and good faith.
During the Q&A, the same spirit of discernment emerged from the audience. Students asked thoughtful, sometimes difficult, questions that revealed both curiosity and care. That these students sought to grapple with those realities openly was heartening.
Why Conversations Like This Matter
As someone deeply invested in the cause of free speech in higher education, I found the evening both inspiring and instructive. It reaffirmed that cultivating forums for genuine engagement is essential and helps build an intellectual community.
What POCC accomplished on December 3 was not just an event. It was a living model of discourse done well.
Princetonians for Free Speech is proud to have supported this effort. But more than that, we are grateful … to the students who organized it, to those who took the risk of speaking, and to those who came simply to listen and learn. In a time when raucous anonymous voices often dominate conversations, this panel reminded me that true progress in speech culture depends on visible, reasoned, and reciprocal engagement.
If the evening proved anything, it’s that the next generation of leaders understands something many adults seem to have forgotten: disagreement need not divide us, and honest, courageous conversation remains essential to a healthy democracy.
Angela Smith is the Executive Director of Princetonians for Free Speech.
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.
