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.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
