In his April 11 op-ed, Nicholas Wu mischaracterizes the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s determination that Princeton’s speech codes threaten students’ expressive rights. FIRE objects to section 1.2.1 of the conduct code —not “section 1.3.3” — because it allows Princeton to punish speech that “demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures another.” This broad definition encompasses everyday speech like pointing out an error in a class discussion or trash-talking in an intramural sports game.
It also arguably covers the Black Justice League’s statement discussed by Wu, which reads, in part: “[W]e are not beholden to working within the political frameworks dictated by the institution? ?… we are committed to … broadly dismantling structural racism … on our own terms.” A sensitive reader could interpret that statement as “intimidating” or “threatening” — and thus a violation of the speech code Wu defends. He may be correct that Princeton “is not on a path toward police-state levels of speech suppression,” but its broadly worded policy means it may go down that road whenever it wants.
Wu misunderstands the purpose of free expression. It’s unfair to expect Wu, who is not an attorney, to know that “clear and present danger” is no longer the standard for assessing threatening speech, but he should realize the folly of allowing “the will of the campus community” to determine whether “to eliminate” offensive speech. The purpose of free expression is to protect minority voices whether they be righteous or “reprehensible.” Eliminating protected speech is never the answer.
Catherine Sevcenko
FIRE Director of Litigation
Read More
Progressives failed a lesson in free speech
Anais Mobarak“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
“The recent controversy surrounding Charter Club has demonstrated that progressive voices on campus have failed to recognize the value of free speech beyond its usefulness as a political instrument. Thus, as a community, we must work to foster an ideologically-free understanding of free speech.”
Campus through a lens: Announcing the ‘Prince’s inaugural columnists
Eleanor Clemans-CopeReading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Reading a series of columns by the same author is seeing things through the writer’s lens — it’s looking at campus through the ‘Christofer glasses’ or the ‘Eleanor specs.’ This is the thinking behind having named columns.
Bring back the course packet
Abigail Rabieh“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
“With the recent news that Labyrinth Books will no longer supply the coursebooks for Princeton classes, we are facing a new era in which all readings will only be accessible by some digital medium, whether that be via Course Reserves or online ordering from faraway publishers. While some may see this as a step in the right direction of modernity, the increasing digitalization of our scholarship hurts our learning.”
