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.
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.
