Your Cart is Empty
New Reunions policy information regarding free expression
Excerpt: As we enter this celebratory time, please be reminded of the University’s principles and policies related to free expression. Our Statement on Freedom of Expression guarantees our community “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn,” while also noting that members of our community “may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”
Accordingly, the University does not permit anyone to disrupt another’s free expression rights, even in the name of dissent. The University also prohibits abusive or harassing behavior through its policies, including in its overall conduct requirement of respect for others. Attendees at Reunions events will receive one more warning beyond this note not to disrupt an event or prevent an invited guest from speaking. Disruptive behavior may result in immediate removal from the event and disciplinary action or other consequences, including being barred from campus and/or arrest. Princeton’s guidelines and rules relating to protest activity are compiled at protests.princeton.edu.
“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.
