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.
It’s not often that an “F” on an essay draws national headlines. But I guess that’s this week’s fixation.
When students assume that grading is ideologically motivated and in bad faith — and when they choose to take these concerns straight to reactionary publications that have it out for higher education instead of engaging in productive dialogue with the members of the University community — our ability to have academically fulfilling conversations begins to slip away.
In a recent Opinion piece, Contributing Opinion Writer Vitalia Spatola takes on one of the more important questions Princeton students face: Whom should I date? I wholeheartedly agree your potential boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s values are of the utmost importance in making that decision. However, Spatola endorses a type of thinking harmful both to our romantic and non-romantic relationships, with deep consequences for civil discourse more broadly.
Two-thirds of grades awarded in Princeton undergraduate coursework in the 2024–25 academic year were A-plus, A, or A-, according to a Monday report distributed to faculty, a dramatic increase over the past decade.
Dean of the College Michael Gordin briefly discussed the report at Monday’s faculty meeting, expressing concerns about grade inflation and the allocation of A-plus grades. However, Gordin noted that grading is under the jurisdiction of departments.
