Your Cart is Empty
By Ethan Hicks ‘26
On Tuesday, March 21, Professor Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, and Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, sat down to discuss the history and modern state of free speech in America in their joint talk “Civil Liberties: On Campus and Beyond.” An engaged audience of students, faculty, and community members filled Lewis Auditorium to join George and Strossen for their fireside style chat hosted by Princetonians for Free Speech and Princeton Open Campus Coalition.
George offered a detailed and colorful history of Free Speech in America. He discussed why the Framers did not initially find a Bill of Rights necessary to the Constitution, because they believed the Constitution's limited enumerated powers protected citizens from encroachments upon their rights, and he suggested that the large size and extensive powers of the modern national government deviate from the Framers’ intentions. George further examined how the national government’s robust system of checks and balances protects freedom of speech, and the philosophical importance of diverse opinions in free democratic societies and institutions such as the United States and the Princeton academic community.
Strossen built upon many of George’s philosophical and historical arguments by drawing on her experience at the ACLU. Strossen focused on how the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the protections of the First Amendment to protect citizens from violations of their First Amendment rights by state and local governments. She further examined how legal action enforcing the First Amendment was not fully embraced until the 20th century despite its origin over 150 years earlier.
Strossen expanded the conversation about the modern state of free speech by claiming that meaningful free speech will not exist until private organizations such as social media platforms are no longer permitted to restrict speech. She claimed that at present, “you have no constitutional recourse against powerful social media platforms that are discriminating against or de-platforming certain ideas… you have no First Amendment recourse against so-called cancel culture.” Many audience members found her passionate rhetoric to be a call to action.
In the spirit of Strossen’s message, several of the questions posed by the audience asked George and Strossen about how freedom of expression can be improved in private and public institutions. The speakers suggested a variety of changes including the expansion of groups such as the Academic Freedom Alliance and stronger adherence to free speech ideals such as the Chicago Principles.
Ethan Hicks is a freshman at Princeton from Perry, Ohio
City Journal
Excerpt:
Princeton University, like all Ivy League schools, has sunk more deeply into administrative activism over recent years. The school maintains a robust Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracy, with more than six DEI employees per 1,000 students. The school also displays several other activist commitments that distract it from its educational mission—most notably, Princeton’s decision to intervene in the Students for Fair Admissions case at the Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action.
Elizabeth Hu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 addressed conflicts between free speech and censorship on college campuses during a discussion at the Princeton Public Library on Monday. He was joined in conversation by Deborah Pearlstein, Director of Princeton’s Program in Law and Public Policy.
He also addressed the difference between censorship and controversy through a reference to Judge Kyle Duncan, who was invited to speak at Stanford Law School in 2023. Duncan’s talk was interrupted by student protesters throughout and was eventually cut short. “That’s real censorship,” Eisgruber said. “It made it impossible for a speaker that some people on campus wanted to hear to be heard, and that should be recognized.”
Rodrigo Menezes
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Recently, Princeton University announced a policy that would require members of eating clubs and co-ops living in University housing to buy a second meal plan, costing about $900 a year. I, along with all the other members of the Graduate Interclub Council (GICC), believe that this policy would be disastrous for Princeton’s undergraduate experience.
