Search

Professor George explained that he does not believe there is “one single uniquely correct model for colleges and universities.” The success of College of the Ozarks demonstrates the strength of its distinctive mission—not the need for every college to adopt the same model.

In our National Speech Index, FIRE asks the general public a variety of questions related to free speech, including: How acceptable is it to use physical violence to stop someone giving a speech in their community? Gen Z are 9.6 times more accepting of violence against speakers than Baby Boomers, and over 25 times more accepting of violence against speakers than the Silent Generation. 

Each successive generation is more supportive of violence against speakers than the last, in most cases more than twice as supportive. About 43% of Gen Z say violence against speakers is at least rarely acceptable, and over a quarter say it’s sometimes or always acceptable.

About two-thirds of grades at Harvard College last school year were A’s. That doesn’t count A-minuses, which were another 18 percent, meaning fewer than one in six grades were a B-plus or lower. You might have guessed grading at Ivy League schools was lenient, though not this lenient.

Grade inflation — like the inflation of a currency — is a collective action problem. Professors increase the share of A’s they hand out because they know other professors are doing so and breaking from the herd would have costs. Just 35 percent of grades at Harvard were A’s in the 2012-2013 academic year, but the number climbed at a rapid clip and then surged during the covid pandemic.

As the University undergoes budget reduction measures, the Board of Trustees has officially approved the operating budget for the 2026–2027 fiscal year. In a report recommending key budget parameters, the University signaled the beginning of a “gradual reduction” in graduate student enrollment, asked academic and administrative units to trim budgets, and revealed curtailed funding available for faculty raises and graduate students. 

While subject to change, the total operating budget for fiscal year 2027, which runs from July 2026 to June 2027, is currently set at $3.407 billion — a small increase from this year’s projected spending of $3.336 billion.

Four years ago, a user on a subreddit for Princeton asked, “What are some easy but interesting distribution requirement fillers for LA, SA, EM, EC? I’m basically asking for the humanities side of ‘rocks for jocks.’” This sentiment remains widespread at Princeton. During course selection periods, I often encounter inquiries on apps like Reddit or Fizz about easy classes to fulfill Princeton’s distribution requirements.

It’s time we say the quiet part out loud: many Princeton students are gaming the system. Rather than exploring the foundations and methodologies of a broad range of disciplines, they’re engineering the narrowest possible encounters with classes outside of their comfort zone and interests.

College competitive debate is not your classroom disagreements or high school suit-and-tie resume-building extracurricular. The Princeton Debate Panel (PDP), Princeton’s intercollegiate debate team, operates under the American Whig-Cliosophic Society (Whig-Clio). Competing with PDP involves weekend tournaments at other campuses, sometimes twice a month, late-night spars twice a week, and reading up on venture capital and other topics alien to a History major. It is time-consuming, nerdy, and fun, which makes it a hotspot for those who debate for the love of the game. Thus, on the surface, college competitive debate markets itself as a neutral ground for the free exchange of ideas and the training site for public speaking. But unfortunately, these principles can become susceptible to debaters’ pre-established views, and that is when the metric of good debating becomes a sliding scale: the more popular an argument is among judges and debaters, the less proof it needs, and the less popular it is, the more it must prove.

Oversized inflatable beach balls get bounced out on college campuses by student organizations that invite everyone to write on the “speech ball.” Students scrawl political slogans, insults, and provocative symbols. On some campuses, it might be a speech wall or a boulder. In all these cases, the idea, we’re told, is to exercise free expression. But what actually happens is a spectacle of empty rhetoric, where showboating and shock masquerade as meaningful discourse and campuses become stages for provocative performances rather than spaces for genuine intellectual exchange.

After vague signage policies led to backlash at Boston University last month for the removal of a pride flag hanging visibly on a faculty office window, the president announced on Monday that the university will be “pausing” their “long standing, routine university policy” of removing outward-facing signs. As well-intentioned as this might be, such vague policies, inconsistent implementation, and pausing that appears viewpoint-contingent only contribute to chilled expression.

But expression policies aren’t the only thing chilling speech on campuses right now. Across the U.S. there are a variety of state-mandated and other institutional policies that are threatening academic freedom protections for faculty and their comfort in speaking freely.

Dear PFS Subscribers and Friends,

We’d like to take this moment at the end of an eventful year at Princeton and throughout the country, to acknowledge two national organizations that pursue higher education reform in important and different ways, both of which are critical to PFS’s success. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), whose impact on free speech and campus discourse policies at over 30 campuses nationwide cannot be underestimated. Collaborating with FIRE on Princeton student surveys and campus reform policies has been invaluable to our growth and impact. The other is Heterodox Academy (HxA), the leading non-partisan membership organization for faculty, staff and students, whose campus community network has now reached over 80 campuses in the US and UK.

October 1, 2025

Dear PFS Subscribers, Members and Friends,

On September 25, PFS Vice-Chair Leslie Spencer ‘79 and Executive Director Angela Smith attended the third annual conference of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, an affiliated alumni group. The conference focussed on this fraught moment in higher education, with threats posed by both left and right and by the federal government.

July 1, 2025

Dear PFS Subscribers, Members and Friends,

June provides a welcome pause for PFS to try to make sense of a year uniquely disruptive in the history of American higher education. There was no better place to do this than at Heterodox Academy’s third annual conference, Truth, Power and Responsibility, held June 23 - 25 in Brooklyn, New York.

To Princetonians for Free Speech Subscribers, Members and Friends,

Happy New Year! At PFS we are delighted to welcome our inaugural Executive Director; you can see below our introduction to Angela Smith. Our Special Feature includes two original articles by our PFS student writing fellows Marisa Hirschfield ‘27 and Khoa Sands ‘26. And nationally, we feature an event of particular importance to anyone interested in the state of academic freedom and free speech on America’s college campuses, held by the University of Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression. It is presented virtually as well as in person on January 31, 2025, and features Princeton professor and New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci. See below for details.

And PFS momentum is building! As 2024 came to a close, over 1,200 hundred new subscribers signed up with PFS. Please help to build awareness by asking your alumni and other friends to join us HERE. And for those who may have missed it, here is our 2024 Annual Report.

To Princetonians for Free Speech Subscribers, Members and Friends,

As the academic year begins at Princeton and on campuses throughout the country, an extraordinary array of newsworthy events has already occurred. In the wake of last semester’s sustained campus disruption and a contentious national election around the corner, this may be just the beginning. We start not with the usual one, but three Special Features.

April 30, 2024

To Princetonians for Free Speech Subscribers, members and friends,

A major PFS event will occur at Reunions 2024:  “You Can’t Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” On Saturday, May 25, at 10 am, Princeton’s leading First Amendment scholar Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, will appear in conversation with Jonathan Rauch, prize-winning author and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. See the description and details for this event in the Special Feature below. We hope to see you there!

In Princeton, we have access to opportunities that can enrich our experience of the anniversary. Walking our university’s campus every day makes it easy to take for granted the footsteps of greatness we follow. However, I believe that reflecting on Princeton’s role in the Revolution – the legacy of which surrounds us in the form of buildings, monuments, and documents – will help us gain a deeper appreciation of our history and lead us to recommit to the values we hold dear as Americans.

On Sunday, May 24, Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) hosted a breakfast at the Nassau Inn — and despite dreary skies outside, the energy inside couldn't have been brighter. About 70 alumni, current students and other free speech supporters turned out for what proved to be an engaging and inspiring morning.

PFS leadership set the stage with organizational updates from Co-founder Ed Yingling '70, President & CEO Todd Rulon-Miller '73, and Executive Director Angela Smith — including the exciting news that PFS has grown to over 26,000 email subscribers (20,000 of whom are Princeton alumni). This represents remarkable growth from just 1,400 two years ago, showing a momentum that was on full display during this packed event. 

Free speech and open inquiry are not abstract ideals – they are the lifeblood of a healthy university community. At Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), we strive to advance those principles through practical, tangible support for students and faculty who put them into action. 

As such, we are pleased to tell you about two recent events at Princeton, supported by PFS that reflect this mission in powerful ways.

A Minnesota judge dismissed the federal government’s challenge to a state law in Minnesota that makes some undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition.

This is the first ruling against the Trump administration’s campaign to end in-state tuition for undocumented students—a policy that the government’s lawyers have argued violates federal laws. In three of the seven lawsuits so far, the states agreed with the administration and scrapped their state laws. But Minnesota challenged the Justice Department in court and sought to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.

Almost 10 months after the Trump administration temporarily froze all student visa interviews in spring 2025, the State Department has released data showing the impact of that pause.

According to Inside Higher Ed’s analysis of the data, which was released Friday and covered the months from June to August, the number of student visas issued in summer 2025 declined by more than 100,000 from the previous summer, to 186,160. While the sharpest drop was in F-1 visas, which are for international students studying at a college or university and is the largest category of student visa, the number of J-1 and M-1 visas also declined.

Is there a difference between formal protections for free expression and who actually feels free to speak at Princeton?

On many occasions, like freshman orientation events or panels open to the public, we are reminded of the university’s policies on free speech and academic freedom. 

But in lecture halls and precepts, students like me – a practicing Muslim woman from Turkey – often experience pressures that are enforced socially, rather than through the university’s official disciplinary mechanisms. The limits of free speech are rarely physical here on campus. It is not the fear of being removed from a classroom for your ideas, but more often, the invisible chilling effect of entering a classroom where your identity communicates a message before you’ve said a word.

Now the administration is back with Compact 2.0, formally titled "A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards." It includes some rhetorical flourishes intended to make it seem less threatening to teaching, learning and research. But make no mistake: It once again asks colleges and universities to align themselves with a far-right agenda at the expense of students’ education and the public’s well-being.

The rapid expansion of funding for “civics institutes,” along with the spreading of state mandates that civics be taught as a core subject in colleges, has ignited much controversy. Debates focus on whether civics should be prioritized above other vital subjects, whether civics education should be concentrated in autonomous centers on campus, and whether states should dictate how it should be taught.

Ironically, the impetus to make civics a discipline came from progressive scholars nearly 20 years ago, not the conservatives now founding civics institutes across the country.

Jan-Werner Müller, renowned scholar of democratic theory and the history of political thought, was named Class of 1943 University Professor of Politics. Professor Müller is the founding director for the Academic Freedom Initiative and Forum for the History of Political Thought, which bring scholars together to examine academic freedom and the development of political ideas, respectively. Princeton endows 25 University professorships, which are the highest honor for faculty at the University.

Princeton faces many domestic threats. In 2024, a Forbes College dryer burst into flames, setting off fire alarms and forcing students to evacuate the residential college. Last year, residents of Yeh College and New College West were plagued by droves of mice in dorm rooms when they returned from winter break. Still, despite the formidable challenges these campus snafus represent, the threat these mishaps pose to the University pales in comparison to recent polemics against Princeton’s humanities education.

In an October podcast episode with The Free Press, Shilo Brooks, a former Princeton lecturer and executive director of the James Madison Program, painted a grim picture of the state of humanities education at Princeton. But Brooks’ issues with the humanities at Princeton are completely unfounded — a simple rebuttal lies in students’ level of passionate and sincere engagement with the humanities.

Last week, FIRE released results from April’s National Speech Index, a quarterly poll designed to track Americans’ changing attitudes and beliefs about free speech. The latest iteration sampled 1,000 Americans from April 9 through April 17, 2026, asking how acceptable they find various protest tactics in response to a speech in their community.

Notably, the average American opposes censorship far more than college students in this country. Most Americans reject overtly violent censorship tactics. In fact, only 18% say it’s at least rarely acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker, compared to 33% of college undergraduates — and 27% last fall despite the murder of Charlie Kirk weeks before.