Princeton Free Speech News & Commentary

Princetonians for Free Speech Summary of College Pulse / FIRE Data

Excerpt: Princeton ranked 187 out of 248 schools in the 2024 College Free Speech Ranking. While the school ranked 32nd for students’ surveyed comfort in expressing their ideas, Princeton suffered in their “Disruptive Conduct” score (ranked 186th), and the measured difference in tolerance for liberal versus conservative speakers (ranked 184th). Princeton also maintains a “Red light” speech code.

One surveyed Princeton student noted: "The time people came to a publicly available spot on campus and were campaigning[sic] for their beliefs which I didn't agree with, but was appalled at the response from students trying to bar their free speech. Everyone is garunteed[sic] rights and it is against the credo of a Princeton Student to be disengenous[sic] to free speech - regardless if you agree with what they say."

Myles McKnight ‘23

Editor’s Note: Though the author of the following commentary is a part-time employee of Princetonians for Free Speech, the perspective below is his alone and does not reflect the views of PFS.

Many Princetonians have been paying attention to a recent controversy concerning Near Eastern Studies Professor Satyel Larson’s Fall 2023 course entitled The Healing Humanities — Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South. The controversy centers on Professor Larson’s inclusion of the book “The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability” on her syllabus. Authored by Jasbir Puar, the book is controversial for its claim that the Israeli government intends the mass debilitation of Palestinians.

Denise Valenti
Princeton Office of Communications

Excerpt: Anthony Romero was once a Princeton undergraduate struggling with how to confront hurtful speech he experienced on campus. Today, as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, he zealously defends Americans’ right to use that same kind of speech.

Romero traced his journey during an Orientation event on Tuesday for first-year students where he joined President Christopher L. Eisgruber to explore the importance of academic freedom and free expression on campus. The event marked the second consecutive year Eisgruber has led an Orientation session on the topic.

Keith E. Whittington
Academe Blog
 
Excerpt: It is not every day that a government minister writes to an American university president demanding that a book be immediately removed “from the curriculum of any of its courses” and that the institution “conduct a thorough review of the academic materials” used in its classes. But such is the demand that Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Amichai Chikli has issued to President Christopher Eisgruber of Princeton University.

The professor might be wise or unwise in making such an assignment, and a professor might reasonably come in for public criticism for how they design or run their classes. But criticism must stop short of interference. If a work is relevant to the subject matter of the class, it does not matter whether others regard it as offensive or wrong.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Jewish Journal

Excerpt: “Wokeness” and cancel culture operate in reverse when it comes to the Jews. For all other minorities, the Woke Police eagerly sniff out barely perceptible (or non-existent) “harm” caused by a teacher’s stray phrase in a classroom, an actor’s comments, an author’s opinion, or a physician’s approval of biological facts.

But then there are statements about Jews. For these, even the most outrageous and wildly unfounded assertions about Jews and/or the Jewish State are not only permitted to be uttered but also tweeted and retweeted, expounded upon and, most significantly, taught as truth in classrooms.

Keith E. Whittington
Volokh Conspiracy, Reason Magazine

Excerpt: I noted last month that a Fourth Circuit panel had handed down a divided decision in Porter v. North Carolina State University. The case involved a tenured statistics professor in the college of education who was removed from the program in higher education after a number of complaints he had made about the program becoming too focused on social justice. The Porter panel denied his claim that the speech for which he was being punished was constitutionally protected.

I have now posted an article-length paper examining the competing arguments in Porter and contending that neither the majority nor the dissent approached the question in the right way. I offer an alternative approach to extending the Supreme Court's doctrine on government employee speech to the particular context of intramural speech by state university professors.