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.
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.
