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.
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
Collin Binkley
Associated Press
Some of the country’s most prestigious colleges are enrolling record numbers of low-income students — a growing admissions priority in the absence of affirmative action.
At Princeton University, this year’s freshman class has more low-income students than ever. One in four are eligible for federal Pell grants, which are scholarships reserved for students with the most significant financial need. That’s a leap from two decades ago, when fewer than 1 in 10 were eligible. “The only way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to be intentional about it,” Princeton President ChristopherEisgruber said in a statement. “Socioeconomic diversity will increase if and only if college presidents make it a priority.”
Luqmaan Bamba
Daily Princetonian
This winter, only 2,005 of roughly 5,826 undergraduates cast a ballot in the Undergraduate Student Government election, a mere 34 percent of the undergraduate population. This is the lowest turnout in around a decade.
We often conveniently explain Princeton’s civic life as just “apathy.” Truthfully, undergrads are overwhelmed with classes, internships, social life, and clubs. Voting sinks to the bottom of the to-do list. But this year’s number is less about apathy; students do pay attention to USG, and what it aims to accomplish for the student body and Princeton as a whole. The problem is that they wrongfully characterize USG as an insignificant or useless organization.
