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
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.
It’s not often that an “F” on an essay draws national headlines. But I guess that’s this week’s fixation.
When students assume that grading is ideologically motivated and in bad faith — and when they choose to take these concerns straight to reactionary publications that have it out for higher education instead of engaging in productive dialogue with the members of the University community — our ability to have academically fulfilling conversations begins to slip away.
In a recent Opinion piece, Contributing Opinion Writer Vitalia Spatola takes on one of the more important questions Princeton students face: Whom should I date? I wholeheartedly agree your potential boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s values are of the utmost importance in making that decision. However, Spatola endorses a type of thinking harmful both to our romantic and non-romantic relationships, with deep consequences for civil discourse more broadly.
