Free Speech at Princeton University

Siyeon Lee
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: There is a specter haunting Princeton’s campus — the specter of free speech. It’s a perennial topic that inserts itself into most social, cultural, and political events on campus, and one that’s been exhaustively reiterated as a core value of this University. Its loudest proponents often present it as a fully apolitical idea: a set of sacred rules all parties should uphold in all circumstances, regardless of ideological differences.

While conservatives often present “absolute free speech” as an apolitical neutral, its defense is often ideologically charged. The posing of free speech as a champion against “leftist dogmatism” not only detracts from the importance of truly effective free speech, but also rests on a fundamental contradiction: It relies on the perpetual existence of the leftist dogmatism it so despises.

John Londregan
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: At their upcoming Nov. 4 meeting, the faculty will take up a proposal requiring that any contested proposals made by colleagues be subject to a remote University-wide faculty vote.

Although this proposal —  requiring that all faculty have the chance to weigh in on controversial policy changes — may seem like common sense, the status quo requires only the approval of a majority of those attending a meeting in person, typically a minuscule fraction of the more than 1,000 faculty employed by Princeton. I encourage my colleagues to come to the Nov. 4 faculty meeting to support the proposal.

Hope Perry ’24
Princeton Alumni Weekly

Excerpt: Princeton faculty present at a closed meeting Oct. 21 voted 166-156-7 to postpone votes on three controversial proposals related to faculty advocacy until the last scheduled faculty meeting of the academic year, on April 28, 2025, according to meeting minutes obtained by PAW.

Faculty meetings are typically held in Nassau Hall and are open to the campus press and other observers specified by the faculty’s rules. Two weeks before the meeting, the Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy (FACP), composed of six tenure track faculty members, unanimously voted to close the meeting to observers.

The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: Political speakers on campus often face protests from activists who say their presence makes students feel “unsafe.” No such worry for United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is going on something of an American campus grand tour with her anti-Israel message.

Hope Perry ’24
Princeton Alumni Weekly

Excerpt: Princeton students and community members engaged in heated arguments with Francesca Albanese, an Italian human rights expert, during an event hosted by the School of Public and International Affairs on Tuesday.

Albanese was appointed to her position, United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in 2022. She has been criticized for attending a conference hosted by Hamas’ Council on International Relations in 2022 and was condemned by the United States, France, and Germany for a 2014 comment that resurfaced in 2022 in which she characterized the U.S. as “subjugated by the Jewish lobby,” playing into an antisemitic trope.

Kenneth Chan
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: In late September, Princeton Politics Professor Robert George published a column in the New York Times, in which he urged young conservatives to “exercise and … defend your right to think for yourself” in the face of a “hostile” campus community. Days before, my colleague, Head Opinion Editor Eleanor Clemans-Cope, published a column arguing that “to insist on the importance of liberals engaging with these debates is insisting on an ideological project that launders harmful, fringe opinions back into mainstream society.”

Yet both of these columns’ bellicose calls to opposite sides of the political spectrum neglect fundamental truths. Our pluralistic society only works if we are willing to engage with all sorts of opinions, no matter how repulsive. But we must also debate with intellectual responsibility: We need to scrutinize our own opinions as rigorously as possible in light of new information.