Your Cart is Empty
PFS Editorial
Two recent developments show free speech is in serious trouble at Princeton. This week, the “2021 College Free Speech Ranking,” published by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), placed Princeton dead last in the Ivy League on free speech and a dismal 134 out of 159 colleges and universities ranked. The FIRE press release and link to the ranking can be accessed here. This follows the controversial Princeton orientation for the class of 2025, which contained an official presentation that denigrated free speech.
The FIRE ranking was based on surveys of students, plus an analysis of schools’ written policies on speech on which Princeton received a negative “red light” rating. The survey results show that the great majority of the schools rated have serious problems on free speech, and yet Princeton is near the bottom of this barrel of rotting apples. For example, in the survey, only 34 percent of the students from all schools thought it was never acceptable to shout down a speaker on campus. So, 66 percent thought it at least sometimes right to shout down speakers. Over 80 percent of the students said they self-censor in the classroom, on campus, and online. The answers to other questions show most students at almost all schools have a total lack of understanding of what free speech means.
The specific results for Princeton show students often feel reluctant to state their views. One member of the class of 2022 is quoted as saying: “Cancel culture is very strong at Princeton so uploading unpopular opinions to social media is very dangerous.” For a PFS article on the FIRE ranking for Princeton, click here.
Another sign of trouble at Princeton is that the editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Princeton, incredibly do not believe in free speech either. In one editorial a year ago, they referred to Princeton’s rules, which implement the Chicago Principles adopted by over 80 colleges, as Princeton’s “hardline free speech policy” and demanded punishment of a professor for a statement the university had said was protected free speech.
And the trend is not good either; last year Princeton ranked fourth in the Ivy League. As free speech, and its close relative, academic freedom, die on campus, Princeton will soon no longer deserve to use the name “university.” Free speech and thought, scholarship, and innovative research will be no longer tolerated if they do not meet the prescribed orthodoxy.
Furthermore, the student body will change and for the worse. FIRE is a very reputable, non-partisan organization. FIRE’s rankings will increasingly be used by students in choosing where to go to college. Those who value free speech and freedom of thought will self-select against Princeton. How many parents will decide that Princeton, with its cancel culture spot-lighted by its awful ranking, is a dangerous place for their children to go?
What will happen when there is a confrontation on campus, as seems almost inevitable? Unbelievably, in the FIRE survey, 17 percent of the Princeton students said it might be acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker. While most of that 17 percent indicated it would “rarely” be acceptable, this clearly is a large enough number to be scary.
So, what has Princeton done to educate its students about free speech recently? Apparently nothing. In fact, Princeton presented new students with an orientation this year in which free speech was portrayed in a negative light. In the orientation, a current professor was also vilified for something he had written, even though the university had explicitly stated that his statement was protected by its rules on free speech; from this, the new students could only conclude that the Princeton leadership does not take its own rules seriously. And the orientation showcased a professor who told the students that free speech is “masculinized bravado” and went on to advocate for a free speech “that is flexed to one specific aim, and that aim is the promotion of social justice, and anti-racist social justice at that.” This same professor said Princeton professors should provide students “with the tools to tear down this place and make it a better one.” In other words, professors should indoctrinate students. This was all in the official orientation materials. See a PFS op-ed on this orientation.
In the past, President Eisgruber has spoken eloquently on free speech and in 2018 even recommended Princeton Professor Keith Whittington’s excellent book, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech, as reading to the incoming students. This year, when a discussion of free speech was needed more than ever, there was not even a mention in the orientation of Princeton’s free speech rules or the Chicago Principles. The only discussion of free speech was against it.
How could Princeton, the college of James Madison, the architect of the First Amendment, reach this point? Those in charge of Princeton -- its administration and its board of trustees -- need to realize just how serious the lack of understanding of, and support for, free speech is. There needs to be a sense of urgency.
As has happened at other universities, at any time there could be an event that leads to a blow-up of protests and demands at Princeton. Students and faculty need to understand in advance what the rules on free speech are and that they will be enforced. And there needs to be an affirmative program to educate students on why free speech is important -- why, for example, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Jr, and John Lewis all eloquently stated the importance of free speech to the civil rights movement. Some on campus will oppose such a program; but they also oppose Princeton’s own rules on free speech and have demonstrated they will attack them. It is time for the university to say what it stands for and why -- before it is too late.
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
Collin Binkley
Associated Press
Some of the country’s most prestigious colleges are enrolling record numbers of low-income students — a growing admissions priority in the absence of affirmative action.
At Princeton University, this year’s freshman class has more low-income students than ever. One in four are eligible for federal Pell grants, which are scholarships reserved for students with the most significant financial need. That’s a leap from two decades ago, when fewer than 1 in 10 were eligible. “The only way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to be intentional about it,” Princeton President ChristopherEisgruber said in a statement. “Socioeconomic diversity will increase if and only if college presidents make it a priority.”
Angela Smith
Princetonians for Free Speech
In the basement of Robertson Hall on a crisp December evening, I had the privilege of attending a remarkable student-led event at Princeton University—a panel hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and supported by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The December 3 discussion centered on Fizz, an anonymous social media app for Princetonians that serves as a hub for commentary, debates and memes about campus life.
From my vantage point as Executive Director of PFS, the significance of this gathering extended well beyond its specific topic. What unfolded that evening represented one of the largest—and one of the most politically diverse—assemblies of student free-speech advocates in recent memory. Roughly forty Princetonians filled the room, not to hear a Supreme Court Justice or renowned author, but to engage sincerely with one another about speech, anonymity, and responsibility.
