The Next Campus Battle after Free Speech: Viewpoint Diversity at America’s Elite Universities

Edward Yingling ‘70 and Leslie Spencer ‘79

 

The last two years have seen a dramatic increase in the scrutiny of free speech and academic freedom on university campuses, largely in response to the protests that followed the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. There has been important progress during this period that bolsters awareness of the importance of free speech and academic freedom principles. There has been important progress during this period that bolsters awareness of the importance of free speech and academic freedom principles. For example, in the last year, many university leaders, including the Presidents of Princeton, Stanford and Cornell, have given speeches and undertaken initiatives to promote open inquiry and academic freedom on their campuses. However, progress on these core values will mean little if there is not a major effort to address a pressing long-term and deeply embedded problem – the almost total lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty at many universities.

Our Princeton alumni group, Princetonians for Free Speech, has as its mission the promotion of three core values – free speech, open discourse, and viewpoint diversity. This is a typical mission statement for the more than thirty alumni free speech groups. With all such groups, most of the focus has been on the first two values. Until recently, this has also been true for leading national groups active in this area, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), which have played critical roles in trying to reform our universities. An exception is Heterodox Academy (HxA), which is now putting important focus on faculty viewpoint diversity.

If universities are truly to live up to their purpose in society, the lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty must be addressed. (There is also a real problem with viewpoint diversity among university administrators, but this article will focus on faculty.) In a recent article, HxA President John Tomasi stated the situation succinctly: “In today’s changing campus climate, supporting free expression and respectful discussion have (thankfully) become fashionable, but viewpoint diversity remains a third rail of university life.”

Indeed, without viewpoint diversity, the values of free speech and open discourse are of limited importance. If everybody on a campus believes pretty much the same thing, there is not much learning or advancement of knowledge through open inquiry and debate.

A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

It has long been recognized that many universities, including the leading universities, have extremely low levels of diversity in political and intellectual outlook among their faculty. This 2023 Independent Review analysis of faculty surveys over time clearly shows that faculty political leanings since 1969 has turned sharply leftward. Recent polls confirm that often 95% or more of the faculty identify as Democrats and a very low percentage identify as Republicans or independents.

In A Report on Faculty Political Diversity the Buckley Institute at Yale lays this out. Released in December 2025, this study was not done by polling, but rather by a painstaking review of public records of Yale’s faculty party affiliation together with other data sources. It found that, among Yale undergraduate and law and management school faculty:

• 82.3 percent were registered Democrats or primarily supported Democrats.
• 15.4 percent were independents.
• Only 2.3 percent were Republicans.
• Twenty-seven out of 43 undergraduate departments had not a single Republican on the faculty.

And there is evidence that a significant percentage of faculty at many universities, especially in some departments, are not simply Democrats in terms of party affiliation, they also see themselves as “very liberal.”  For instance, The Harvard Crimson reported on a 2022 faculty survey showing that over 45% of Harvard faculty identified as “liberal” and an additional 37.5% identified as “very liberal.” In this same study only sixteen percent identified as "moderate" and 1.7% as "conservative."

In January 2026, the student newspaper, the Yale Daily News, announced the results of a similar study it conducted in 2025, this one using Federal Election Commission filings that listed Yale as an employer and “professor” under occupation. Of the 1,099 filings that met those two criteria, not one contribution was made to a Republican. 97.6 percent of the donations went to Democrats and 2.5 percent went to independent candidates or groups. 

While these studies are Harvard and Yale-specific, there can be little doubt that similar studies at many other universities would have similar results. For example, as law professor Johnathan Turley, who has written extensively on the problem of lack of faculty viewpoint diversity, pointed out in a recent column, a Georgetown study found that only nine percent of professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative.

And the problem is not just at so-called “elite” universities. Turley uses the example of a study that found that in six humanities departments at North Carolina State University, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 20 to 1.

There is valid critique of using political party registration data to measure faculty beliefs and biases, particularly with recent polarization and the dramatic changes in the nature of the two main parties. But looking at long-term aggregate studies of how tens of thousands of professors self-identify, Sam Abram’s HxA study of data compiled by the Higher Education Research Institute, shows that since 1995 university faculty “went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left. Moderates declined by nearly a quarter and conservatives decreased by nearly a third.” Meanwhile the general electorate did not change materially. We do not argue here that faculty affiliations or political leanings should mirror the public's, but decades of data clearly show the virtual disappearance of viewpoint diversity among faculty compared to the general population, with the latter self-identifying roughly equally between moderates, conservatives and liberals.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR UNIVERSITIES’ ROLE IN SOCIETY?

Viewpoint diversity among faculty may be further narrowing as conservatives and moderates tend to be older and are aging out, replaced by left-leaning faculty. In most cases, the faculty of a department has the primary role in picking new faculty, and those faculty often have a clear bias against prospective new faculty who do not think like them.

Furthermore, the pipeline for new faculty – graduate students – often has severe roadblocks for conservatives and moderates. A highly qualified student we personally know, who recently applied to a half dozen top schools in her field, found that every school required some type of diversity statement as part of the application. It was quite clear that no conservative, or even a moderate, who told the truth about his or her beliefs could submit a statement that would pass muster. The policy of requiring diversity statements was a de facto litmus test to even be considered for acceptance and has produced an active niche industry for faculty applicants on how to write such statements. 

Faculty have a very special role in our society: They are the ones teaching our young people and advancing knowledge. But these key roles are almost totally filled by faculty with a one-sided view of politics and society. Unfortunately, much of the debate on this topic is currently colored by controversy surrounding the overly aggressive actions by the Trump Administration. There are a significant number of university leaders who say the problems on campuses are being grossly exaggerated and that the status quo must be defended. But regardless of one’s views about overreach by the Trump Administration, the numbers cited above and reinforced by numerous polls and studies confirm that there is a big problem with the lack of viewpoint diversity among faculty. This problem existed before Trump and will still exist long after Trump’s presidency.

It cannot be overstated how deeply embedded the problem of faculty homogeneity has become, compounded by the power that faculty exert on campuses. University presidents and boards of trustees are often reluctant, even afraid, to take faculty on. And any move to address the imbalance of faculty political views will almost certainly be attacked by faculty groups as a violation of academic freedom. But the ideological monolith that results breeds complacency at universities and thus fails the broader society in important ways.

A GREEN SHOOT – THE GROWTH OF CIVICS CENTERS

Some green shoots have appeared in the last few years that will have a positive impact on faculty diversity, even though viewpoint diversity may not be the principal goal of these initiatives. First, there is the significant increase in the number of universities that have, or are creating, centers for the study of civics. These centers will not only expand undergraduate and graduate level opportunities to study civics and related subjects; they will also create more positions for conservative and moderate faculty. Eventually these centers should have faculty of all political persuasions, and they should be encouraged to make sure that over time all viewpoints are presented and protected.

A recent article by Leslie Spencer outlines the growth of such civics programs. There are currently forty-five such programs as of December 2025. Thirteen are not yet fully operational, and we are aware of several others in the pipeline. HxA recently released “The New Landscape of Civics Centers in Higher Education”, a seminal study of the growth of civics centers broken down by type. It is by far the most comprehensive source of information about these centers, the issues they raise, and the opportunities they present. The study points out that the mission of these programs varies, but they often have several goals in common, one of which is: “Broadening the range of viewpoints included in teaching, research, and campus programs (typically by including more broadly conservative perspectives).”

The James Madison Program (JMP) at Princeton, created by Professor Robert P. George in 2000, is often cited as an example of how such programs could work. Indeed, Professor George has been consulted in the creation of other programs throughout the county over the past few years. As Princeton graduates who follow the James Madison Program, we know that it is a valuable addition to Princeton for many reasons, including increasing the diversity of faculty, broadening debate and championing viewpoint diversity. Notably, in recent years student interest in the JMP program has increased considerably.

While all types of such civics programs can have value, those that, like the James Madison Program at Princeton, are directly integrated into the university’s curriculum provide a particularly valuable model because the civics program faculty are members of established departments, rather than members of a department or program unto itself. Such a model can prevent a “silo” effect and can help integrate course offerings with diverse perspectives throughout the curriculum. Another important role of these programs can be to increase the pipeline of PhD candidates with diverse viewpoints, the numbers of which do not currently fulfill the need. We suggest that at some point a formal organization be created to act as a central resource for the advancement and creation of these centers. The Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education could be a model for such an organization.

A SECOND GREEN SHOOT: REFORM FROM WITHIN THE FACULTY

There is anecdotal evidence that some faculty are moving to universities where they see a more sincere commitment to viewpoint diversity – for instance, the high profile move by Professor James Hankins of Harvard to the new Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.

But across academic departments at elite universities, faculty groups are now being created to promote open discourse, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity. Perhaps the best known of these is the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard which has more than two hundred faculty members. Other examples include the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom, Faculty for Yale, and the Columbia Academic Freedom Council.

In addition, HxA launched a major program in 2022, the HxA Campus Community Network, which has shown remarkable growth. The network extends across eighty-two university campuses and includes about 8,200 faculty, staff and students. The import of this development cannot be overstated – few such organized efforts by faculty existed only a few years ago. Individual faculty who support free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity often felt isolated, not knowing which of their colleagues agreed with them. The result was a reluctance to speak out. Now, under HxA’s leadership and along with independent faculty groups, things are changing from within the faculty community.

Another significant development at the national level is the Academic Freedom Alliance. Formed in 2021, it is an alliance of hundreds of faculty members from all political persuasions “dedicated to upholding the principles of academic freedom” for faculty. It serves primarily to defend faculty who are attacked for exercising freedom of thought in their academic work and in their lives as citizens, including raising funds to support litigation when faculty members’ rights are threatened. Like the faculty groups at individual universities, AFA is strictly non-partisan. While faculty viewpoint diversity is not a primary goal of AFA, its growing national network of distinguished members can provide support in the future.

THIRD GREEN SHOOT – BANNING DIVERSITY STATEMENTS

Another green shoot is the movement to end the use of political “diversity statements” in the hiring and promotion of faculty. Mandatory diversity statements are increasingly viewed as “compelled speech” (which would be unconstitutional at public universities) and as a tool to enforce ideological conformity. Several schools have moved to drop their use, including the entire California university system (generally considered the pioneer of mandatory DEI statements), the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, MIT, and the University of Michigan. In his recent book Terms of Respect, Princeton’s President Eisgruber came out against the use of such statements in hiring and promotion. However, they are still widely used, particularly at the department level, in one form or another, including at Princeton. Furthermore, even if the requirement for such statements has been dropped, there are other ways, for example through interview questions and social media background checks, to accomplish the objective of screening prospective faculty for political views.

WHAT TO DO? FIRST, RECOGNIZE THERE IS A PROBLEM

It is axiomatic that before a problem can be addressed, it must be recognized. There exists no study that credibly refutes the findings of the Yale and Harvard studies mentioned above, as well as the findings of numerous polls over recent decades. However, there are many who dismiss the significance of the lack of viewpoint diversity or even attack the concept. See, for example, a recent article by Johns Hopkins professor Lisa Siraganian in Academe Magazine, the magazine of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), wherein she argues that “[v]iewpoint diversity functions in direct opposition to the pursuit of truth, the principal aim of academia.” In an article that appeared last October in Inside Higher Ed,  “Universities Can’t Pursue Truth Without Viewpoint Diversity,” authors John Tomasi and Jonathan Haidt (President and co-founder of HxA), counters Siraganian’s attack on the importance of viewpoint diversity:

By a circular logic, whatever (and whomever) a discipline rejects as ‘intellectually unsuitable’ must be so because the members of the discipline are the ones who set the disciplinary standards. By this reasoning, even when a discipline rapidly changes its scientific views, or politicizes its standards for admissions, hiring and publications, it could not be because they have lost a healthy amount of internal contestation, or have turned self-selection and self-governance into ideological capture. The professors are the experts, after all. Whatever they decide must ipso facto be correct.

The response of Yale and of Yale professors is instructive as to how administrators and faculty will duck and obfuscate on the diversity issue. In response to the Buckley study, Yale put out a statement that said: “Yale hires and retains faculty based on academic excellence, scholarly distinction, and teaching achievement, independent of political views.” To believe this, you would have to believe that only 2.3 percent of the pool of potential professors who would meet Yale’s qualifications are Republicans. (Of course, some Republicans may self-select not to apply for a Yale faculty position because they know their political views will disqualify them.)

And faculty response to the Yale Daily study shows a similar lack of perspective. One professor attributed the faculty far-left tilt to the fact that the Trump Administration “just cut Yale’s budget by $300 million annually,” referring to the endowment tax. But in the next paragraph of the story, the Yale Daily pointed out that in a previous study announced in January 2024, 98.4 percent of Yale faculty donations went to Democrats. That study was done based on contributions over a year before Trump took office for the second time. Again, lack of viewpoint diversity existed well before Trump’s focus on universities.

Another professor made this argument: “It’s true, generally across the culture, not just in universities, on the whole, in the country, educated people vote Democratic.” The implication is that Republicans are generally too uneducated to be professors. It is true that more college and graduate school graduates vote Democratic, but the numbers certainly do not justify this professor’s arrogant comment. According to the Pew Research Center, in the 2024 election, those with a college degree voted Democratic by a narrow margin – 51% to 46%; those with a post graduate degree voted Democratic by 65% to 33%.

These responses from Yale and Yale professors show the extent of the refusal of many administrators and faculty to recognize how lack of viewpoint diversity leads to an insular mono-culture that students, parents and the general public increasingly see.

UNIVERSITY LEADERS MUST LEAD

A very important schism has developed between university leaders over the need to make reforms that include addressing the lack of viewpoint diversity. Major articles in The Atlantic and elsewhere draw a distinction between those university leaders who resist acknowledging the problem, in part from the belief that conceding to a need for internal reform plays into the hands of those (incluing in the Trump Administration) who want to attack universities, and those who acknowledge the need for reform. The most visible spokesperson for the former group is Christopher Eisgruber, the President of Princeton. Daniel Diermeier and Andrew Martin, the Chancellors of Vanderbilt and Washington University in St. Louis respectively, are the acknowledged leaders of the latter group. These two have created Universities for America’s Future to engage other university leaders in reforming higher education. It would be a major step forward if the two side of this schism could find common ground.

Importantly, Harvard President Alan M. Garber recently took aim at faculty activism as a cause of stifling freedom of speech and open debate. And Dartmouth’s President Sian Leah Beilock recently made a forceful argument in The Wall Street Journal for university leaders to take action now to restore the public’s trust.

But to make change, more university leaders, presidents and chancellors, need to take this issue head on. It is understandable why many leaders will be reluctant to do so. It could be a very dangerous, even a career ending, endeavor. The debate will be controversial, and the odds are high that there will be a public fight with the most powerful group on campus – the faculty. Efforts to increase viewpoint diversity will be seen as attacks on academic freedom and as caving to political forces. There has been overreach from the Trump Administration and the right, and university leaders will need to lay out clearly that they recognize this overreach and that their efforts are in response to recognized internal problems, not simply to external pressure. 

To minimize the risk, and most importantly to achieve success, the groundwork must be laid carefully. The process must proceed step-by-step, with allies and supporters being brought together. An important and necessary development is the creation of a network, formal or informal, of leaders of universities who are working for bottom-up change. Such a network can provide ideas, but most importantly it can demonstrate to a university’s constituents that the university’s leader is not acting in isolation or doing something radical. The change a given leader is advocating will then be part of a broad, well-grounded movement that has strong intellectual and historical support. In addition, such a network can be tasked with developing voluntary best practices on key issues, such as measurement of progress on viewpoint diversity and the role of faculty in choosing new faculty. It will be very difficult for individual university leaders to address such issues if they try to do it in isolation without a broader base for their actions.

It appears that such a network may be developing under Daniel Dermeier’s and Andrew Martin’s Universities for America’s Future, with the strong support of their boards of trustees.

TRUSTEES NEED TO SUPPORT CHANGE

Too many boards of trustees have abdicated their roles. Too often they are timid followers of the administration, rubber stamping whatever the leadership wants. A big problem is the way trustees are elected at many universities, which leads to passive boards. Princeton’s Board of Trustees election process provides a vivid example. While it appears on the surface that alumni elect much of the board, and alumni do vote for candidates, in reality the process is set up so that the choices are limited and picked by insiders. Candidates for board seats are not permitted to take public positions on any issues during the election – for example, on free speech. The result: current and past members of the board have told us that there is little internal debate about the need for change.

Yale provides a similar example. Like Princeton, Yale has a policy that prevents prospective board members from providing much information other than their biography. Yale used to have a policy that an alumnus with enough alumni signers on a petition could run for election to the board. However, after an alumnus achieved the required number of signers and was put on the ballot, Yale repealed the petition option. It would be a good idea for a group of leaders to produce a best practices document on the election of trustees.

A recent analysis from the Manhattan Institute, Ending Conformity on the Quad: How Trustees Can Bring Viewpoint Diversity Back to Their Universities, includes ways to empower boards of trustees that can apply to both public and private institutions. It is increasingly clear that trustees should recognize their fiduciary duty to address tough issues pro-actively. As a matter of course they should be asking if their university is fulfilling its mission. These problems will not evaporate after Trump’s term. The public’s low regard for public education should not be ignored by those charged with overseeing our universities.
 
ORGANIZE DEBATE AND MOBILIZE PUBLIC OPINION
 
What is the role of public trust in university reform? Gallup polls over time show a cratering of public trust in higher education from 60 percent to 32 percent in the last two decades. Two main reasons are cited for the decline: affordability and lack of viewpoint diversity. 

Ongoing public debate between those who deny or downplay the problem of viewpoint diversity amongst faculty and those who see it as a serious problem in higher education would help to educate and mobilize the public. Coverage of the campus protests over the war in Gaza increased public awareness, but the focus of that coverage has been largely on free speech and antisemitism. Much of the public is generally aware of the lack of diversity among faculty, but its extent and its implications for society need more emphasis.

HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS

While it will be difficult, progress on faculty diversity should be measured. This could be done by polling, but faculty may strongly object to, or may purposely sabotage, a poll. The Buckly Institute and the Yale Daily studies could be replicated. Creating a system of measurement would be a good project for the network of university leaders described above. Having a common system of measurement used by many universities would remove much of the possible controversy over its use at individual universities. The goal would not be to achieve some targeted numbers; it would be to see if progress is being made.

FACULTY SHOULD NOT BE SOLE GATE KEEPERS OF FACULTY HIRING

The most difficult obstacle to overcome in achieving more diversity in faculty will be the existing faculty. As we have laid out, the faculty at most universities is overwhelmingly on one side of the political spectrum. Consequently, they often live in a bubble where their views and their prejudices are seldom questioned. In many cases they are outright hostile to conservative and even moderate faculty. Most important to this discussion, while the situation varies by university, faculty act as gate keepers, to a large degree controlling what new faculty are hired and who is promoted. 

To make material progress on faculty diversity, this gate keeping function of faculty hiring and promotion must be addressed. It will be a difficult and time-consuming battle against a powerful and entrenched opposition. Much of the battle will be over academic freedom, with faculty defending their gate keeping function and attacking attempts to weaken it as attacks on academic freedom.

The AAUP definition of “academic freedom” is instructive. According to AAUP, the main elements of academic freedom are freedom to teach; freedom on research; freedom on intramural speech; and freedom on extramural speech. It is the third item, intramural speech, that is relevant to the role of faculty in choosing other faculty. AAUP’s key sentence on this is: “In order to participate effectively in governance, faculty members must be free to speak truthfully and factually, and in order to protect academic freedom and academic quality at the institution, faculty must participate in governance.”

We have no problem with this definition. Faculty members should be able to speak truthfully and factually about university matters, and they should be able to participate in governance. But the key word is “participate.” They should not control governance and that includes practices for choosing faculty. Since it is clear that in many cases existing faculty have created practices that make it extremely difficult, and in some departments impossible, to have even a modicum of faculty viewpoint diversity, then those practices need to be changed, in consultation with faculty members, and faculty members have no right to claim such changes violate their academic freedom. Academic freedom does not give them carte blanche to decide how new faculty are chosen.

The difficulty of overcoming faculty opposition to change is further demonstrated by the very strong position AAUP has taken in support of diversity statements in hiring faculty and the right of faculty to develop and control such statements.

Here again, a best practices model for the role of faculty could be developed by the network of leaders, perhaps working with an advisory committee of faculty.

ALUMNI NEED TO ENGAGE

Alumni can have a critical role in this debate by advocating for more faculty diversity. As noted, there are over thirty alumni free speech groups for individual universities of all types around the country. While their primary focus has been on free speech, they should now also focus on faculty viewpoint diversity. FIRE’s alumni network and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) are resources for the creation of new alumni free speech groups. Up until now, these groups have been set up by alumni independently from their universities, and they sometimes have an adversarial relationship with their university administrations as they push for changes. However, university leaders who are now trying to effect change should consider encouraging the creation of alumni groups that, while independent, could be a source of building support for necessary change. These alumni groups can also be effective in communicating the need for change to fellow alumni. For example, our group, Princetonians for Free Speech, has over 16,000 subscribers. A very large portion of those are Princeton alumni, out of roughly 72,000 living undergraduate alumni.

Alumni obviously have another tool to promote change – alumni giving. There is clear evidence that at many universities alumni giving is down, if not in total dollars, then in participation rates. At Princeton, for example, 2024 saw the lowest annual giving participation rate in 80 years. From our discussions with alumni, it is clear the major reason for this decline is unhappiness with Princeton on issues of free speech and viewpoint diversity. Columbia also had a big drop – 28.8% – in its annual “Giving Day” contributions.

Many alumni would like to support their universities but do not want to give to a general fund that may be supporting programs with which they disagree or which seems to provide support for the status quo, to which they strongly object. The way to do this is through targeted giving to specific programs. For example, at Princeton, alumni can earmark their contributions so that they go to the James Madison Program. Supporting programs that will help change the monoculture on their alma mater’s campus can make a difference. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has information on targeted giving. 

Some universities have such large endowments that lower giving rates may not look like a big problem, but the clear unhappiness of many alumni should be of concern to all university leaders and trustees. Alumni provide support in other ways besides money. And for many universities the downturn in contributions can create real financial problems.

CHANGE IN HOW PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND PARENTS EVALUATE UNIVERSITIES

For many years there has been a hierarchy among universities that has greatly influenced where students want to go. The top ten, the top twenty, “ranked” schools have changed very little over the years. The U.S. News and World Report rankings, while widely criticized, have had a significant influence, although its rankings may not be all that different from where schools would be otherwise ranked through other means. Parents and student applicants devote incredible amounts of time, and in some cases money, to get into the “right” schools, often referred to as “Ivy Plus”, an elite club. There are still reasons to want to attend those schools – prestige, a top academic education, better job and graduate school prospects, etc. 

But that can change, and indeed there are indications that parents and prospective applicants are now looking at issues around free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity in deciding where to apply, with the aid of FIRE’s free speech rankings. And job recruitment can have an influence on public perception. One example is the several federal judges who have announced they will not take law clerks from Yale Law School. 

CONCLUSION

“The joke went that in a university, ‘diversity’ means people who look different and think alike; viewpoint diversity, in contrast, is the form of diversity that really matters in scientific and intellectual life.” So says Steven Pinker, author, cognitive psychologist at Harvard University and perhaps the most eloquent spokesperson on faculty-driven reform of higher education. 

Our focus on the problem of faculty viewpoint diversity in this essay is to demonstrate that intellectual diversity is the necessary precondition of true academic freedom. Without a wide-open contest of ideas, questions don’t get asked, approaches to complex problems don’t get tested, whole disciplines drift and stagnate, and whole schools of thought are simply not considered. If the monoculture that now dominates the faculty of our major universities cannot be opened up, public confidence will continue to deteriorate, and ham-fisted regulators may well step in to try to create a balance that universities have failed to create for themselves. The autonomy that America’s universities rightly prize may disappear because of those universities’ leaders, trustees and faculty who refuse to act. This cannot be a partisan battle. It is a call for tangible, structural reforms to challenge an ideological monopoly and create conditions for renewal, rather than to accept decline.

Edward Yingling and Leslie Spencer are, respectively, Secretary and Vice-Chair of Princetonians for Free Speech.