Your Cart is Empty
Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) today announced a landmark achievement: its email subscriber list has officially surpassed 26,000 verified subscribers, approximately 80% of which are alumni, representing one of the most significant milestones in the organization's history since its founding in late 2020. This high number represents a highly engaged network of supporters committed to preserving the fundamental value of free speech at Princeton.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. For years, the core argument of Princetonians for Free Speech was treated by university administrators as a provocation rather than a diagnosis. The claim that American higher education had drifted from its foundational mission, that a culture of ideological conformity and administrative overreach had corroded the open inquiry that justifies the university’s privileged place in democratic life, was dismissed as politically motivated, answered with defensive boilerplate, or simply ignored. That era appears to be ending. No dramatic reversals have taken shape yet, but something significant is happening. The academy itself—the ivory tower that prides itself on being above and beyond the slings and arrows of the outside world—is beginning to acknowledge that the critics had, and have, a point.
Feroce and his co-founders believed that the chapter, while certainly not the only conservative group on campus, would fulfill a unique need. “There’s a lot of conservatives on campus, a lot of groups,” Feroce notes. But, he added, many of them are focused primarily on “academia and intellectual thought.” The mission of TPUSA, however, as evidenced by Wold’s lecture, revolves around common sense and plain speech. This is a mission, Feroce argued, that would “fill a space for students on campus” and appeal to an untapped group of conservatives seeking to express themselves.
On April 15, 2026, Yale President Maurie McInnis announced, in an open letter to the Yale community, the issuance of a blockbuster fifty-page report by a special committee of ten Yale faculty that called for reform across many aspects of Yale’s policies and educational practices. The report dealt extensively with PFS’s core issues of free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity. But it also addressed other issues, such as affordability, admissions policies, political homogeneity, governance, grade inflation, the impact of technology on learning – all those issues that contribute to the decline in trust in higher education.
There is a particular kind of bad idea that thrives under the protection of academic freedom. Such a toxic philosophy does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Rather, it gains prominence within the academy precisely because it systematically poisons that marketplace from within. When it comes under attack from outside university gates, campus administrators invoke free inquiry and end up defending it as precisely the kind of controversial matter academics must be free to explore; professors assign it as cutting-edge gospel; students come to think of it as precisely what they’re attending college to absorb.
Third Worldism is such an idea. Though it is not campus-grown like critical theory, it has found the American university to be an almost perfect habitat.
Last year at an event hosted by the DC Center of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), the host of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday” Ayesha Rascoe asked President Eisgruber if today’s students are “fragile flowers who can’t deal with anything challenging their preconceived notions?” In response, Eisgruber shared that he in fact has observed quite the opposite.
The truth about free speech on college campuses and in civic discourse in American society is more complex than individuals’ inability to handle opposing viewpoints. In reality, it is external complications that influence whether an individual decides to speak openly about a belief or position they hold. Students and leaders are consistently weighing whether openly expressing their opinion is worth the political, social, or financial repercussions that could arise as a result.
