Your Cart is Empty
Teresa Chen and Oliver Wu
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Thai pro-democracy figures Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut and Kunthida Rungruengkiat GS spoke on Wednesday at the U.S. premiere of “Breaking the Cycle,” a documentary on the rise and suppression of Thailand’s modern reform movement.
The event was hosted by Thaigers, the Thai Students’ Association on campus and sponsored by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination. Directed by Aekaphong Saransate and Thankrit Duangmaneeporn, “Breaking the Cycle” traces the ascent of the pro-democracy Future Forward Party (FFP) and its founder Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit from the 2019 Thailand election through subsequent court-ordered dissolutions of both FFP and its successor, Move Forward.
A few months ago, I heard from one of the greatest antitrust legal scholars of our time — Lina Khan, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — in an event hosted by the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy.
The event turned out to be a “fireside chat” between Khan and Director of the Program in Law and Public Policy Deborah Pearlstein, an all-too-familiar manifestation of the “conversation” format that plagues Princeton events. Instead of letting visitors speak for themselves, we filter their thoughts and ideas through a moderator, who all too often serves to dilute whatever interesting points the speaker might have to share into a superficial overview of their career and accomplishments.
We now assess Eisgruber’s peculiar take on the relation of the university to the nation that has treated it with increasing hostility in recent decades. Critics may wail that the universities have to be brought to heel for producing fanatics, snowflakes, and crybullies, but Eisgruber turns their argument on its head: it’s actually the nation that could afford to learn from the campus, he argues; to the extent universities are struggling with civility norms, they are simply a dirty mirror for broken civil discourse. Otherwise they are a model for balancing speech and other values with a “more vigorous” culture of speech than “most sectors of society.”
This thesis has two component parts, which can be asked as distinct questions. Are critics wrong to identify a free-speech crisis on campus? And, to the extent such issues arise, are universities merely replicating national problems of polarization in microcosm?
Wokeness, campus protests, and the instruction of leftist ideas within universities do not erode civil discourse or violate free speech norms. Or so President Christopher Eisgruber argues in his new book, Terms of Respect. Overall, I agree with Eisgruber’s assessment, but there are some conceptual nuances that I will offer in order to refine his argument. This review will not provide a comprehensive summary of the book nor will it recount every minor personal agreement and disagreement I have. Rather, it will present Eisgruber’s most important arguments and my opinions on his larger takeaways.
