Your Cart is Empty
By Leslie Spencer
The Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) third annual survey of Princeton students is now available. Comparative data over three years provides valuable information and insight into changes in student views and progress in student knowledge of and attitudes toward free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The 2025 report shows some progress on questions such as awareness of campus free speech rules.Other results, for instance the question of shutting down controversial events, are worse this year compared to last year.The number of students who support the use of violence remains high at 12%, although down from 16% in 2024, and 14% in 2023. Overall, Princeton still has much work to do to create a robust culture of free speech, academic freedom and respect for widely divergent viewpoints.
A theme emerges in this PFS survey that unites many of the questions and that deserves special note: First, some questions reveal a greater awareness of free speech, indicating that the university is putting more effort into planting that awareness. However -- and this is notable: awareness among students does not seem to translate into a greater understanding of free speech and academic freedom, nor does a greater awareness impact student views of free speech in practice. For example, an increase in awareness of free speech rules has done little to change willingness to speak up or to find it unacceptable to disrupt or shut down campus speakers and events that are considered controversial or offensive.
If you look behind some responses, it becomes apparent that a significant percentage of Princeton students do not really understand what free speech means -- i.e., how free speech works in practice, how it promotes tolerance across differences, how it deepens understanding; how a consideration of conflicting viewpoints widens understanding and deepens knowledge; how free speech enhances communication between students, professors, and employers. In short, large numbers of students do not understand how and why free speech in practice is vital to Princeton’s core mission.
The survey was carried out by College Pulse, the nationally recognized company specializing in surveying college students. College Pulse conducts the nation-wide free speech survey of colleges and universities for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). It is worth noting that Princeton ranked a dismal 223 out of 251 in the most recent FIRE survey. Harvard has ranked dead last for two years running.
Survey Highlights:
Starting with the first PFS survey three years ago, there remains a disturbing reluctance to express views on controversial topics in various situations. The results this year show that the tendency to self-censor persists. For example, question 4 asks how often students feel they cannot not express their opinion on a subject because of how other students, a professor, or the administration will respond. Those saying that fairly or very often they feel that they could not express their opinion remains high at 18.5%, with the number who occasionally self-censor 31%. This compares with 21% and 35% respectively in 2024. The exception to this persistence in self-censorship is an improvement on student willingness to express disagreement with a professor: they are somewhat or very comfortable 49% this year, up from 35% in 2024.
High numbers of students continue to think that it is acceptable at least some of the time to disrupt a campus event with a controversial speaker, even to the point of using violence. In question 6, which addresses how acceptable it would be to block other students from hearing a controversial speaker, the number who said it would sometimes or always be acceptable remains high at 12%.Shockingly, less than half of students think that it is never acceptable to use violence to stop campus speech, and 12% think that use of violence is sometimes or always acceptable – slightly down from 16% in 2024 and 14% in 2023. Any such actions would violate Princeton’s free speech rules.
Questions 8 and 9 reveal that students are increasingly aware of the administration’s promotion of free speech – a significant improvement -- showing that Princeton’s efforts to promote free speech are having an effect. 76% are somewhat or very clear that Princeton protects free speech, up from 69.5% last year. And familiarity with campus free speech rules shows a steady rise over three years: 74% this year, up from 59.2% in 2024, and 53% in 2023.
However, the answers to questions 10 and 11 reveal that understanding of First Amendment protections has not improved over the last three years. Only 42% believe that all speech protected by the First Amendment should be allowed. And when asked when, if ever, should a professor be allowed to use language that is broadly believed to be pejorative or offensive, less than half think it is acceptable, even when the professor’s speech is part of a literary text being studied, and even with advanced warning.
In sum, student answers to the first 11 questions reveal that although students are more aware of free speech as a topic and are more familiar with Princeton’s rules that protect free speech, their familiarity and awareness has not impacted understanding, so the impact is negligible. This thesis is confirmed throughout the survey in various ways. Clearly, students need more and deeper education.
Which brings us to the important topic of Princeton’s Orientation program. Our survey reveals that Princeton’s free speech and academic freedom program during Orientation week is inadequate. It is important to note the free speech component to Orientation week started three years ago, so current seniors did not experience it. Even so, 86% say that it is either somewhat or very important for Orientation week to contain free speech education programs. However, only 22% strongly agree with the statement: “During my first-year orientation, I received adequate information about free speech and Princeton's policies on free speech.” The conclusion: this topic needs to play a much more prominent role as a required program throughout Orientation.
Question 13 addresses one of the most important principles to creating a culture of free speech and academic freedom on campuses: Institutional Neutrality. This principle forbids the university leadership and any of its units from taking positions on controversial issues of the day that are not directly relevant to university business. The principle is #1 on the PFS Top Ten recommendations for Princeton, which are designed to help shift the culture toward free speech and put principle into practice. At least two dozen colleges and universities have adopted institutional neutrality in recent years in some form, although in some cases the principle may be watered down. But President Eisgruber persists in choosing not to adopt it. Today 52% of Princeton’s students would be somewhat or very uncomfortable expressing disagreement with a position that Princeton or their academic major’s department has publicly taken, with only 9% being very comfortable doing so. Clearly Princeton or its departments taking positions on controversial issues of the day would be a source of significant intimidation for students, although this extremely high number does represent a drop of 9 points from 2024.
Questions 16 and 17 are about Princeton’s DEI programs – a hot button issue right now. Students show significantly higher approval of the DEI efforts on campus this year, with 61% somewhat or very positive, up from 48% somewhat or very positive in 2024. The increase in support for DEI efforts on campus could be in reaction to the Trump administration’s attempts to ban DEI programs at universities.
Question 22 reveals that 92% of students believe in the importance of free speech and academic freedom to the University’s mission -- a reassuring result. But this near-unanimous approval of free speech protections in principle affirms our thesis that while students are more aware of the idea of free speech, they really do not understand what it means in practice.
We asked a few questions for the first time this year because of their increased relevance at this moment.
Questions 20 and 21 address the subject of Princeton’s anonymous bias reporting systems: A large number of students -- 41% -- somewhat or strongly agree that it is acceptable for the administration to investigate a student accused of biased or offensive speech through the university’s anonymous reporting system, without first notifying the accused. And over 70% of students either somewhat or strongly agree that it is acceptable for a university bias-response team to investigate a student accused of biased or offensive speech, even when the reported offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment.
In sum, Princeton students in large numbers are highly intolerant of views that they consider biased or offensive, and many see no problem with investigating accused students for expressing such views, even when the speech is constitutionally protected, and even without the administration providing the accused with due process protections. This confirms our thesis that more education is critical if students are to understand what free speech means in practice, and how an individual’s free speech is protected.
Question 25 addresses the hot-button issue of whether biological males should be permitted to compete in women’s sports. When asked how much they agree or disagree that athletic rules should bar trans women from competing in women’s sports -- 54% somewhat or strongly agree, while 46% somewhat or strongly disagree. Surprisingly, at 62%, significantly more men than women (51%) agree that trans women should be barred from women’s sports. This may correlate with the disparate political leanings between men and women the survey shows. Also of note, on this question, Princeton students’ responses differ significantly from polls of the general public.
What steps should Princeton take to improve the culture of free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity on campus? An answer might be to adopt the PFS Top Ten recommended actions we believe Princeton should take to put the university’s free speech principles into practice.
Here is the third recommendation, which directly addresses student education:
“Develop a comprehensive program to teach all students about Princeton’s policies. These actions should include: A required freshman orientation program that explains Princeton’s commitment to freedom of expression and its policies around respectful disagreement. Such a program should not be limited to new students but should include regular instruction throughout the year on free speech, viewpoint diversity and civil discourse for students at all levels. It should include a letter to all incoming students devoted to describing the intellectual community they will be joining -- one that embraces freedom of thought, enquiry and expression, and one that protects the right of protest while making clear that right of protest does not include the right to harass, bully, threaten or prevent anyone from participating fully in campus life.”
Can Princeton become a national leader in the effort to regain public trust in higher education? The voices of students who participated in PFS’s annual student surveys over the past three years might provide clues on how to start.
Leslie Spencer ‘79 is Vice-Chair of Princetonians for Free Speech
“When it comes to getting free speech right,” writes Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber in the introduction to Terms of Respect, “America’s young people deserve higher marks than they get.” This is a central contention of Eisgruber’s new book, and it is, as those young people say, big – if true.
It also begs the question twice over, in the way that is all but inevitable when we talk about higher education and speech, two goods contemporarily treated as goods of themselves, if not the highest goods. Whether Eisgruber’s contention is correct depends on what is meant by free speech, then again on what is meant by getting it right.
On November 12, former ACLU Legal Director David Cole delivered the annual Tanner Lecture on Human Values. His talk, entitled “A Defense of Free Speech from Its Progressive Critics,” drew a crowd to the Friend Center. Cole has litigated several major First Amendment cases and currently serves as a law professor at Georgetown. A self-identified progressive, Cole explicated an argument in favor of the First Amendment.
Cole outlined the main progressive critiques of the First Amendment. “What unites these critiques is the sense that the First Amendment is too protective at the cost of another very important value in our society: equality.” He also acknowledged the progressive skepticism of free speech’s “core demand” of neutrality – the idea that the government “must be neutral as to the content and viewpoint of speech when it is regulating private speakers.”
On Jan. 2, the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding a new University policy regulating audio and visual recording. The policy classifies any recording made at events deemed private — where not all participants have consented — as “secret or covert,” placing such recordings in violation of University rules.
However, recording at public events, such as advertised public speaker events, is permitted unless the speaker, performer, or party hosting the event explicitly states otherwise. “The policy does not cover meetings open to all current members of the resident University community or to the public,” according to the FAQ website.
Brown
January 14, 2026
At a recent college recruiting event, I brought up the fact to the Princeton rep that a college campus where most students share the same political belief is not an environment conducive to open dialogue. I cited the data from FIRE and not so surprisingly my concern was completely brushed aside. She said the college had no interest in what FIRE was or how it conducted its research and that Princeton was doing a much better job than most Ivies in recruiting students from the whole political spectrum. If Princeton is serious about addressing its free speech problem, it needs to fix its admission problem. I am skeptical that the very people who created the problem in the first place would now take the necessary steps to resolve it.