Your Cart is Empty
2025 Student Free Speech Survey
PFS Student Survey Shows Increased Awareness of Free Speech Principles, but Little Understanding of What Free Speech Looks Like in Practice
Join the Inner Circle
Inner Circle members help us fight for our mission to restore academic freedom, viewpoint diversity and free speech on campus through your contributions and insight.
In many ways, Marisa Hirschfield ’27 represents the typical high-achieving Princeton student. A history major, Hirschfield writes for the Triangle Club and is interested in filmmaking and public interest law. Like many Princetonians, she identifies as politically progressive.
But where Hirschfield’s resume diverges from many of her classmates is that she serves as a writing fellow for Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), a nonprofit founded by Stuart Taylor Jr. ’70 and Ed Yingling ’70 that seeks to promote free speech and academic freedom on campus. At Princeton, the free speech issue has been contested for the past several years but mostly involved conservative students who felt that they were being silenced or bullied for their views.
By Leslie Spencer
The Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) third annual survey of Princeton students is now available. Comparative data over three years provides valuable information and insight into changes in student views and progress in student knowledge of and attitudes toward free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The 2025 report shows some progress on questions such as awareness of campus free speech rules. Other results, for instance on the question of shutting down controversial campus events, are worse as compared to the last two years. The number of students who support the use of violence is up. Overall, Princeton still has much work to do to create a robust culture of free speech, academic freedom and respect for widely divergent viewpoints.
New Reunions policy information regarding free expression
Excerpt: As we enter this celebratory time, please be reminded of the University’s principles and policies related to free expression. Our Statement on Freedom of Expression guarantees our community “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn,” while also noting that members of our community “may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”
Rose Horowitch
The Atlantic
Excerpt: No one would be surprised to learn that an elite university has a plan to counteract the structural barriers to the advancement of a minority group. Johns Hopkins University’s latest diversity initiative, however, has managed to put a new spin on a familiar concept: The minority group in question is conservative professors.
Several elite red-state public universities have recently established academic centers designed to attract conservative scholars. And institutions that haven’t sought out conservative faculty may soon find new reasons to do so. The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard hire additional conservative professors or risk losing even more of its federal funding.
Keith Whittington, Cass Sunstein
Academic Freedom Podcast, Academic Freedom Alliance
Excerpt: Keith Whittington interviews Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, whose scholarly interests include free speech, constitutional law, and administrative law. He recently authored a paper, “Our Money or Your Life!’ Higher Education and the First Amendment,” available here, which explores the First Amendment constraints of federal funding to American universities. Sunstein helps unpack the legal and constitutional questions raised by the Trump administration's strategy of withholding federal grants from schools like Columbia and Harvard to force internal policy reforms.
By Nick Perrino
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Maybe you're sick of hearing news about Harvard. We can't blame you.
But as free speech defenders, we go where the censorship is. The government picks the targets, not us. And — once again — the government is unconstitutionally targeting Harvard.
You don't have to like Harvard to oppose the government's recent demands of the university.
To PFS subscribers, members and friends,
April saw a major campus protest, one that disrupted and cut short an April 7 event featuring former Israeli Prime-Minister Nefthali Bennett. This disruption was by far the worst we have seen on Princeton’s campus. In response,PFS issued two letters to President Eisgruber and the administration. The first letter was sent on April 9 in the immediate aftermath of the event. It makes specific recommendations for swift action to sanction those responsible for breaking university rules. Anticipating a possible recurrence at an April 22 event with Yechiel Leiter, the new Israeli Ambassador to the US, PFS sent the second letter on April 18, outlining measures not taken at the first event, that are critical to preventing more disruption.
To PFS Subscribers, Members and Friends,
On March 10 the Department of Education’s office of Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, including Princeton. Theseletters warned of potential “enforcement actions” if institutions do not protect Jewish students.
On March 20, in reaction to the Trump administration’s threat to cut $400 million in Federal funding from Columbia University, 18 law professors with a range of views from liberal to conservative, signed a public letter in The New York Review arguing: “the government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment-protected speech.” The next day, Columbia conceded to government demands. Other thanBrown University’s President Christina Paxson, who detailed what Brown would do under similar threats, Princeton’s President Eisgruber was a lone voice amongst the leadership of these universities – in The Cost of Government Attacks on Columbia, published by the Atlantic on March 19.
This week in The Chronicle of Higher Education, three of the 18 public letter signatories, all first amendment scholars, discuss what Columbia and other universities threatened with funding cuts should do. It is worth reading “It is Remarkable How Quickly the Chill Has Descended.” with Michael C. Dorf, of Cornell University; Genevieve Lakier, of the University of Chicago; and Nadine Strossen, of New York Law School.
223 out of 251. A “red light” institution has at least one red light policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.
