Your Cart is Empty
Joseph Anthony Gonzalez '28
The specter that the “chilling” of free speech has replaced official administrative suppression is real. I have experienced it, and if empirical evidence is not enough, then the data will corroborate it. It has been recorded in college polls, surveyed, and yet still appears to be a mystery to the people in charge, as they change their tune and beat the drum of “Free Speech.” Maybe it is time that they give up the ghost.
Case in point. It was Wednesday, November 6th, 2024, and the classroom in which I sat was a somber setting. Internally I was pleased, but I found myself surrounded by melancholy. The professor presiding over these events was Dr. Eddie Glaude, better known outside the University for his MSNBC (MS NOW) punditry. Dr. Glaude would go on to give an interview, called “The threat the second Trump term poses to Democracy”on that network on November 10th. The class (Black Intellectual Thought and The Philosophy of Race) ended early after he shared his personal feelings about the election (reflected in the interview above) that had just taken place. I welcomed it, exhausted as I was, after staying up through the night to watch my preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump, became the 47th president of the United States, sweeping all 7 swing states en route to victory.
I did not discuss this with my classmates; many were crying, some seemed legitimately scared that Trump had won. The professor did not tell me not to speak my mind; in fact, I have taken two more classes with Professor Glaude since then (Black Rage and Black Power and Malcolm, Martin, and Ella) classes where I have also kept my conservative views in check for obvious reasons. I enjoy his classes. I love history and I want to look at it from every lens. But I did not feel comfortable testing to see if my fellow classmates shared the same point of view. It was not due to lack of courage. I had served as an infantryman in Iraq. It was the fact that I knew there would be little to no civil discourse about the election. I felt that there would be no productive conversation that could possibly come out of it. My conservative values were clearly in contention with the beliefs of my professor. I just did not share the same worldview as my fellow classmates.
That was enough to find myself outside of the groupthink. I wanted to avoid being castigated as a supporter of some “White … (fill in the blanks and consider some invectives while you do so, you have heard it all before). Even though I am a minority and I have had many disadvantages in this life: I was a high school dropout, my mother died from a drug overdose, and I went to community college before I transferred to Princeton University. I did not fear the incoming administration; I welcomed it, and that would have been considered beyond the pale.
This trend has been consistent since I was part of the Freshman Scholar Institute (FSI) during the summer of 2024. A program designed to help incoming first-generation/low-income students (FLI) prepare for the rigors of Princeton, since FLI students lack many of the advantages, educational backgrounds, and cultural capital that most Princeton students possess. It’s there, at our introduction to Princeton. We read Dr. Ruha Benjamin's “Race after Technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code” in a class titled “Ways of Knowing”. This is a Princeton professor who recently received the MacArthur “Genius” Grant , while on probation for protesting Israel, turned around and then called into question integration in the United States on Trevor Noah’s podcast . Honest discourse cannot take place if minds are not willing to be changed. I simply ask, how do you engage in exchange in the currency of ideas and begin to reason with someone who holds that view? These are the ideological leaders on campus, professors with devoted acolytes instead of basic note-taking students, and media personalities in their own right. When it comes to opposing the dogma, I, as a simple student, just say to myself… Don’t.
Joseph Gonzalez ‘28 is a History major. He is a veteran and transfer student, having served as both a Marine and Army infantryman. After he retired from the military, he attended community college and was then fortunate enough to be accepted to Princeton. He is a PFS Writing Fellow.
Matters of viewpoint diversity have recently received considerable attention in the academy and the media. A recent essay by Lisa Siraganian, “Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity,” makes the case against efforts to increase viewpoint diversity.
I believe that the lack of viewpoint and intellectual diversity within the university has hindered the pursuit of knowledge and the well-being of society. I would thus like to take up Siraganian’s invitation and charge.
“I’ve had the tremendous privilege of knowing so many fantastic students at Princeton, who I know will become extraordinary military leaders. And I think that it would be a massive shame if that potential was eliminated,” the student said in response to an announcement that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ’03 made on Feb. 27. In a video posted on social media, Hegseth announced that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) will end sponsorship for graduate students at Princeton and other Ivy League institutions beginning in the 2026–27 academic year.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that there are “a dozen active-duty military graduate students currently enrolled at Princeton, representing all four branches of the U.S. Armed services with all but two of those students enrolled at SPIA.” As the policy currently stands, active-duty service members may be unable to attend Princeton for graduate school while remaining in service.
In Part I of this series, I wrote that President Eisgruber’s Terms of Respect deserves credit for clearly distinguishing between free speech as a moral principle and the First Amendment as a legal doctrine, and for rejecting the simplistic claim that universities violate free speech whenever they regulate expression.
In Part II, I analyzed one of the sources of that reluctance and its surprising influence in bringing Eisgruber to this point.
Now we can get to the heart of the book. Eisgruber’s novel approach to campus free speech issues builds on this foundation, to argue that campus free speech issues aren’t really campus issues, and aren’t really about free speech. Rather, campuses reflect national divisions in microcosm, and the division is not about speech and its discontents, but about “the meaning of respect and, ultimately, what it means to treat people as equals.” He ultimately concludes that while speech has to foster constructive dialogue and truth-seeking, the controversies making waves are about the terms on which that constructive dialogue occurs—which is a good thing, as Eisgruber and his critics alike agree—and that universities are closer to being models (albeit imperfect ones) than sources of the problem. It’s this surprising take that gives Terms of Respect its punch and has made Eisgruber a minor folk hero among academia’s defenders.
