PFS Original Content

By Khoa Sands ‘26
Princetonians for Free Speech

Excerpt: The rights of free expression enshrined in the First Amendment are often considered the most foundational freedoms in American society. However, while free expression in the public sphere is constitutionally guaranteed, free expression within private universities is not similarly protected. Academic freedom cannot be properly understood as a mere extension of the First Amendment. Rather, academic freedom is justified by the unique mission of the university: the pursuit of truth.

Ethan Hicks, ‘26
Princetonians for Free Speech Original Content

Excerpt: George F. Will, the legendary Washington Post columnist, delivered a lecture on September 13 that nearly filled Friend 101 to its 250-person capacity with a diverse audience of students, faculty, and community members. His most trenchant message was that “the magnificent legacy” of the great research universities can “be squandered in a generation, destroyed from within, not by outside forces.”

Ethan Hicks, ‘26
Princetonians for Free Speech

Excerpt: While Princeton remains ranked significantly below average in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression 2024 ranking (placing 187th of 248 ranked schools), its commitment to academic freedom of expression in line with the Chicago Principles was renewed during freshman orientation for the Class of 2027. This year’s orientation activities featured a variety of mandatory and optional free speech events educating incoming students on their free speech rights.

Matthew Wilson and Alba Bajri
Daily Princetonian

Excerpt: To the Editor:

On Sept. 17, The Daily Princetonian published an article by Aidan Gouley ’27 entitled “Princetonians must invest in the marketplace of ideas.” The author calls on students to “situat[e] free expression in a liberal context,” claiming that “the debate on free expression at Princeton has been co-opted by campus conservatives” while slandering principled and nonpartisan free speech advocacy as “toxic and polarizing.”

Gouley’s allegation that conservative students have “co-opted” the free speech debate is an oft-regurgitated and thoroughly debunked trope. Articles leveling the same meritless argument have a lengthy history of appearing in the pages of this publication — and have been amply refuted. Gouley calls on students “to create an environment of learning for all in the natural exchange of individual ideas and experiences that both includes and simultaneously transcends the political.” But absentminded complaining about the co-option of the free speech issue by conservative students — the so-called “ideologues” making “overbroad claims about the ideological slant of the University” — does not help “bridge the political divide,” nor does it promote the free exchange of ideas.

Gouley’s assertion that “Princeton hardly feels like an institution where free speech is directly under attack” betrays a painful lack of awareness of the real problems facing our University.

On August 29, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke alongside Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber at a mandatory freshman-orientation event ostensibly meant to highlight the university’s commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom. More than 1,000 Princeton freshmen were required to attend this event as a part of their regular sequence of orientation activities; I was there as an undergraduate academic adviser for freshmen and out of my own personal curiosity.

Myles McKnight ‘23

Editor’s Note: Though the author of the following commentary is a part-time employee of Princetonians for Free Speech, the perspective below is his alone and does not reflect the views of PFS.

Many Princetonians have been paying attention to a recent controversy concerning Near Eastern Studies Professor Satyel Larson’s Fall 2023 course entitled The Healing Humanities — Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South. The controversy centers on Professor Larson’s inclusion of the book “The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability” on her syllabus. Authored by Jasbir Puar, the book is controversial for its claim that the Israeli government intends the mass debilitation of Palestinians.