Your Cart is Empty
Khoa Sands ‘26
Elite academia has been dominated by the question of free speech and free expression over the past year. 2024 has seen the explosion of pro-Palestine campus protests, throwing institutions into disarray. At Harvard, UCLA, Columbia, and other universities, administrators struggled to respond as activists occupied campus and harassed other students. Scenes of chaotic fighting at UCLA were played on televisions across the country.
While Princeton had our own small encampment, we avoided the chaos that beset many of our peer institutions. While the encampment was still deeply wrong – both in its political goals and the means by which they conducted their protest – it was relatively tame. This was not due to a lack of enthusiasm on the issue of Palestine – quite the contrary. Rather, it is a phenomenon that afflicts all aspects of political life on campus. Princetonians seem to be an apathetic bunch if you measure passion by protest. A Daily Princetonian project on activism from last Spring purports to tackle “the timeless question of apathy at Princeton.” Put simply, it’s a known fact that "nothing ever happens at Princeton.”
Why? It is not that the student body at Princeton is more overwhelmingly conservative than peer institutions (despite the outsized presence of conservative institutions on campus) nor that Nassau Hall is uniquely hostile to activism. I believe the answers are far more mundane. Rather than any institutional suppression of ideological homogeneity, Princeton’s compressed schedule and isolated locale are the primary reasons why Princeton remains a relatively uneventful campus.
Princeton has a reputation as one of the more rigorous Ivies. A large part of this is due to our compressed schedule. We have very short 12-week semesters, while the average college semester is around 15 weeks. At Princeton, you simply cannot fall behind. The fast pace of academic life often forces students to choose between academics and activism. This culture of academic rigor is the subject of frequent criticism in the pages ofThe Daily Princetonian often because of its effect on campus activism.
However, what I believe is the largest and most overlooked factor in the lack of activism and protest is the township itself. A college’s culture is deeply influenced by the surrounding locale. Part of the allure of Columbia University is the city of New York, UC Berkeley bleeds into Berkeley and vice versa, and so on. In contrast, Princeton is a small, quiet town with few distractions or opportunities for large-scale engagement beyond campus life. Its secluded nature creates the (in)famous “Orange Bubble”, fostering a campus culture more inwardly focused than that of urban universities. Unlike schools situated in bustling cities, Princeton lacks the external stimuli that might spur student activism—such as protests spilling over from nearby communities, partnerships with local organizations, or the sheer visibility that comes with being in a metropolitan hub.
The subdued environment of Princeton township creates a subdued environment for activism, especially combined with the academic rigor of Princeton. This does not mean Princeton students are less thoughtful or engaged with the world’s pressing issues, it does mean that the campus is less likely to erupt into the kinds of dramatic scenes witnessed at peer institutions. Our unique mix of intensity and isolation ensures that its political life here will continue to diverge from the tumultuous landscapes of other campuses.
This is not a weakness, but a strength of Princeton’s culture. While small college-town life may feel stifling at times, it forces us to focus for these four years before we enter the world with more mature and astute perspectives. We should celebrate our Orange Bubble, where activism can take quieter, more intellectual forms, such as debates, lectures, or written commentary, rather than loud protests or physical occupations. Princeton may seem quiet without the loud ostentatiousness that so often characterizes college life but our campusis lively enough; that dynamism is expressed in the halls of Firestone, the pages of the Prince, and at Eating Club dining halls instead of Cannon Green. It’s not that nothing ever happens in Princeton – you just have to look closely to notice.
Khoa Sands ‘26 is the Editor-in-Chief of the Princeton Tory, the Vice President of the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, and the Vice President of the Princeton Human Forum.
By Marisa Hirschfield ‘27
On September 17th, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen delivered the annual Constitution Day Lecture in McCosh 50. The lecture, co-hosted by the James Madison Program and the Program in Law and Normative Thinking, was entitled “Our Civil Rights Revolution.” Professor Gersen discussed the history of affirmative action and the evolving meaning of civil rights.
Angela Smith and Leslie Spencer
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: In a recent Opinion piece, Siyeon Lee and Charlie Yale critiqued a letter from Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) to entering first-year students that appeared recently in The Princeton Tory, the University’s leading conservative political magazine. In their piece, Lee and Yale questioned why we chose to publish in “a journal that only appeals to a select few on this campus,” and accused us of holding “selective views of free speech.”
To be clear: there is no such thing as free speech for some but not for others. Other than speech that is unprotected by First Amendment law, PFS is committed to defending the widest possible freedom of speech and open discourse for everyone, no matter how unpopular or offensive the point of view.
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
With students returning to campus for the start of the new academic year, and demonstrations from radical groups sure to crop up on quads once again, one question universities face is how to balance robust academic freedom with universities’ competing interests. Schools cannot live on academic freedom alone; the functioning of a university requires standards, rules, and regulations to allow students and faculty to flourish. Yet university leadership, especially at elite schools where abstract thinking is prized and questions are regularly left unanswered as matters of mere intellectual exercise, has not even begun to articulate a principled way of weighing these matters. They can begin to do so by considering an unlikely – and unwitting – source of wisdom: Princeton professor Lorgia García Peña’s recent address to the Socialism 2025 conference, on using one’s academic perch to dismantle the academy.
