A storm is brewing in Minneapolis, and it is proving to be a tumultuous test of both our country’s democracy and its protection of free speech and protest. On Jan. 7, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis shot and killed Renee Good, who was a poet and mother of three children. On Jan. 24, in the same city, a Border Patrol officer killed Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital. Both were killed while peacefully protesting ICE’s long-term operation in Minneapolis.
But the threat of ICE — and the implications of Good and Pretti’s killings — are not confined to Minnesota. ICE has already raided the municipality of Princeton, taking two members of the community into custody on Jan. 15. Minnesota college students have expressed a fear that ICE may come for them next, identifying the mounting oppression of free speech in protest against political violence. Princeton claims to care about free speech — University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has written a book about it, and maintains an official policy of institutional restraint to protect students’ freedom to form and express their own opinions. But in this era of government violence, it is no longer possible to defend free speech with an institutional restraint policy tying the University’s hands behind its back.
It is time for Princeton to deviate from the conciliatory principle of strict institutional restraint. It must stand in vigorous opposition against the cruelty of federal immigration officers, as well as other government overreaches that threaten freedom of speech for members of our community.
To be clear, I empathize with advocates for both strict institutional restraint and the even stronger policy of institutional neutrality. The proponents of these policies are well-intentioned, and seek to protect the ideological diversity of our campus community by keeping our school’s administration neutral on most or all political issues. It isn’t inherently wrong to defer to individuals or campus groups when it comes time to take firm positions on social and political conflict — it’s intended to make Princeton a safe haven for disagreement, discourse, and protest.
But with ICE raiding our own community, and having shown no hesitation in Minneapolis to punish protesters with uninhibited violence, Princeton must break its restraint in order to defend the free speech it claims to value. As stated in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, the University is committed to the principle of freedom of expression. It claims to have a “solemn responsibility” to protect the freedom of debate and discussion, including when “others attempt to restrict it.”
More than mere restrictions of free speech, the killings of Good and Pretti are horrifying instances of political violence. They were both killed while engaging in peaceful protest and did not appear to be threatening the lives of federal agents according to a New York Times analysis. The implications of these killings are clear: if you protest against federal agents, you risk being killed. Princeton may want to maintain its status as an “impartial forum for vigorous, high-quality discussion,” but the environment around us is far from this vision.
In defending free speech, Princeton would not just be advocating for a specific position on a specific issue — it would be advocating for the right to advocate. Therefore, it is an especially important right for Princeton to fight for.
Standing up against ICE would not be an unprecedented move by Eisgruber, and could even be construed as a responsibility for an educational institution in the face of political violence. The president of Wesleyan University, Michael S. Roth GS ’84 — a long-time and courageous critic of the Trump administration’s overreaches — published a statement on Sunday calling ICE’s actions in Minneapolis “an assault on the fabric of our democracy.” Roth rightfully points out that violence and education are firmly incompatible concepts. Princeton’s own institutional restraint policy acknowledges that education depends on the active protection of speech. Educational institutions cannot support learning without opposing the violence that makes freedom of expression dangerous and impossible, including when it comes from state actors.
The University must speak out against the threat of ICE: it poses a genuine risk to our community, and represents an unapologetic governmental disregard for free speech that directly violates the very principles on which Princeton stakes itself as a defender of discourse. Princeton’s tradition of institutional restraint restricts the University to only taking stances in rare cases. Given Eisgruber’s plans to speak “less frequently” on political issues, a statement on ICE would be a deviation from the University’s current spin on institutional restraint, and how they try at the moment to protect free discourse in the community. That being said, it is a necessary deviation.
Federal agents have shown a willingness to tread on protesters, killing two of them in the street. Clearly, there are far bigger obstacles to free speech than Eisgruber taking a stance against violence. The necessary defense of “free speech” in the face of violent ICE invasions is not one of silence. It is one that defends the right for protesters to advocate for their beliefs without a reasonable fear that they may be killed, and acknowledges the raids unfolding nationwide as contrary to the University’s values.
So Princeton stands at a crossroads. It can either remain silent, showing that its commitment to freedom of speech is hollow while the federal government grants its agents a license to kill. Or, it can choose to take the brave path forward, standing up against ICE’s injustices on behalf of free speech. I call upon it to choose the latter.
Raf Basas ’28 (he/him/his) is an assistant Opinion editor from Elk Grove, Calif. You can reach him at raf.basas[at]princeton.edu or @raf.basas on Instagram.
Read More
Why Princeton needs opinion journalism
Charlie Yale and Lily Halbert-AlexanderEngaging with Opinion — whether through reading or writing — brings you into closer contact with campus discourse. Just as news reporters provide unbiased coverage on campus developments, we work to communicate to our readers what these events mean for their lives, and how current campus issues might intersect with their own values and roles in the community.
Engaging with Opinion — whether through reading or writing — brings you into closer contact with campus discourse. Just as news reporters provide unbiased coverage on campus developments, we work to communicate to our readers what these events mean for their lives, and how current campus issues might intersect with their own values and roles in the community.
PAW omits reporter’s Supreme Court appeal — at the cost of journalistic principle
Laurel Leff and Jon OrtBy publishing Sittenfeld’s profile of Park without noting his interests before the Supreme Court, PAW neglected its journalistic duty to alert its readers when a writer cannot fairly cover a story.
By publishing Sittenfeld’s profile of Park without noting his interests before the Supreme Court, PAW neglected its journalistic duty to alert its readers when a writer cannot fairly cover a story.
Don’t trust your campus paper? Here’s the case.
Miriam WaldvogelIn a moment of crisis, a trusted student newspaper transforms from an everyday service to a lifeline. Even when national outlets swoop in to cover a tragedy or an encampment, student reporters can provide deep sourcing and unique insight into the happenings on the ground.
In a moment of crisis, a trusted student newspaper transforms from an everyday service to a lifeline. Even when national outlets swoop in to cover a tragedy or an encampment, student reporters can provide deep sourcing and unique insight into the happenings on the ground.