Your Cart is Empty
Princetonians for Free Speech
The political violence that has ravaged America for too many years has now led to the horrifying assassination on September 10, on the campus of Utah Valley University, of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, a champion of free speech whose attacks on the left helped win him a big following among young conservatives while infuriating many on the left. He was planning to debate all comers at the campus event, as was his custom.
One might hope that such events could help radicalized Americans on both left and right to come to their senses, at a time when political violence has become epidemic, going back to and beyond the two assassination attempts on President Trump, the politically driven shooting murder in New York City in December of health care executive Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, the shootings of House Republican Whip Steve Scalise and Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the plot to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the killings of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband, and of two Israeli Embassy staffers, and many more acts of political violence.
Trump Administration officials, understandably appalled by Charlie Kirk’s murder, reacted in ways more likely to punish hate speech than to abate the political violence it fuels. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau suggested the administration would take visas from people who celebrated Kirk’s death, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that his department was monitoring any military personnel who celebrated or mocked Mr. Kirk’s death. Overall, the administration’s response was partisan and incendiary, failing at any attempt to unite the country at this grave moment. In contrast, politicians from both parties did say the right thing, notably Republican Governor Spencer Cox, and progressive Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders.
As Kimberley Strassel ‘94 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “many of those who have hailed Kirk’s success in creating a young conservative movement seem to miss that he did so by reaching out—not lashing out.”
Commentators such as Princeton University’s Professor Robert P. George and former Princeton professor Cornel West, *80, have added perspective.
“We are at a pivotal moment,” George said in an interview with Fox News Sunday in conversation with his close friend and political opponent.
“Charlie Kirk inspired an awful lot of young people to put their faith in discourse, in debate, in dialogue, robust but civil dialogue, trying to get at the truth of things, advancing your position but listening to the other guy’s argument. … Kirk made that his trademark. … I think a lot of college students today are wondering: ‘Does that really work? Look what happened to Charlie Kirk. Are words enough?’ ...
“And that’s what really worries me. That’s what concerns me. … I hope that we will allow ourselves, young people and older people, to be inspired by Charlie’s example of trying to resolve our differences with civil discourse, not with guns, not with hatred, but with civil discourse.”
Professor West, who maintains a decades-long close friendship with Professor George despite sharply opposing political views, responded, “I am not optimistic, but I am also not a pessimist, I am a prisoner of hope. I come from a great black people who have been hated, terrorized and randomly murdered and still decide to produce love warriors and freedom fighters for everyone.”
Their public friendship was forged in the 1990s when they co-taught a freshman seminar at Princeton. It is now widely seen as a model of civil disagreement. Their 2025 book, Truth Matters: A Dialogue on Fruitful Disagreement in an Age of Division, could not be more timely.
Their hope will face obstacles. A recent national student survey by FIRE shows a shockingly sharp increase in student acceptance of violence in response to speech among America’s college students in the last five years. Princeton student support of the use of violence is similar, according to our own recent student survey.
Kirk’s assassin should face justice. The rest of us can do little but work to advance the sort of civil discourse advocated by Professors George and West.
Matters of viewpoint diversity have recently received considerable attention in the academy and the media. A recent essay by Lisa Siraganian, “Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity,” makes the case against efforts to increase viewpoint diversity.
I believe that the lack of viewpoint and intellectual diversity within the university has hindered the pursuit of knowledge and the well-being of society. I would thus like to take up Siraganian’s invitation and charge.
“I’ve had the tremendous privilege of knowing so many fantastic students at Princeton, who I know will become extraordinary military leaders. And I think that it would be a massive shame if that potential was eliminated,” the student said in response to an announcement that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ’03 made on Feb. 27. In a video posted on social media, Hegseth announced that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) will end sponsorship for graduate students at Princeton and other Ivy League institutions beginning in the 2026–27 academic year.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that there are “a dozen active-duty military graduate students currently enrolled at Princeton, representing all four branches of the U.S. Armed services with all but two of those students enrolled at SPIA.” As the policy currently stands, active-duty service members may be unable to attend Princeton for graduate school while remaining in service.
In Part I of this series, I wrote that President Eisgruber’s Terms of Respect deserves credit for clearly distinguishing between free speech as a moral principle and the First Amendment as a legal doctrine, and for rejecting the simplistic claim that universities violate free speech whenever they regulate expression.
In Part II, I analyzed one of the sources of that reluctance and its surprising influence in bringing Eisgruber to this point.
Now we can get to the heart of the book. Eisgruber’s novel approach to campus free speech issues builds on this foundation, to argue that campus free speech issues aren’t really campus issues, and aren’t really about free speech. Rather, campuses reflect national divisions in microcosm, and the division is not about speech and its discontents, but about “the meaning of respect and, ultimately, what it means to treat people as equals.” He ultimately concludes that while speech has to foster constructive dialogue and truth-seeking, the controversies making waves are about the terms on which that constructive dialogue occurs—which is a good thing, as Eisgruber and his critics alike agree—and that universities are closer to being models (albeit imperfect ones) than sources of the problem. It’s this surprising take that gives Terms of Respect its punch and has made Eisgruber a minor folk hero among academia’s defenders.
