Your Cart is Empty
Joseph Anthony Gonzalez '28
The specter that the “chilling” of free speech has replaced official administrative suppression is real. I have experienced it, and if empirical evidence is not enough, then the data will corroborate it. It has been recorded in college polls, surveyed, and yet still appears to be a mystery to the people in charge, as they change their tune and beat the drum of “Free Speech.” Maybe it is time that they give up the ghost.
Case in point. It was Wednesday, November 6th, 2024, and the classroom in which I sat was a somber setting. Internally I was pleased, but I found myself surrounded by melancholy. The professor presiding over these events was Dr. Eddie Glaude, better known outside the University for his MSNBC (MS NOW) punditry. Dr. Glaude would go on to give an interview, called “The threat the second Trump term poses to Democracy”on that network on November 10th. The class (Black Intellectual Thought and The Philosophy of Race) ended early after he shared his personal feelings about the election (reflected in the interview above) that had just taken place. I welcomed it, exhausted as I was, after staying up through the night to watch my preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump, became the 47th president of the United States, sweeping all 7 swing states en route to victory.
I did not discuss this with my classmates; many were crying, some seemed legitimately scared that Trump had won. The professor did not tell me not to speak my mind; in fact, I have taken two more classes with Professor Glaude since then (Black Rage and Black Power and Malcolm, Martin, and Ella) classes where I have also kept my conservative views in check for obvious reasons. I enjoy his classes. I love history and I want to look at it from every lens. But I did not feel comfortable testing to see if my fellow classmates shared the same point of view. It was not due to lack of courage. I had served as an infantryman in Iraq. It was the fact that I knew there would be little to no civil discourse about the election. I felt that there would be no productive conversation that could possibly come out of it. My conservative values were clearly in contention with the beliefs of my professor. I just did not share the same worldview as my fellow classmates.
That was enough to find myself outside of the groupthink. I wanted to avoid being castigated as a supporter of some “White … (fill in the blanks and consider some invectives while you do so, you have heard it all before). Even though I am a minority and I have had many disadvantages in this life: I was a high school dropout, my mother died from a drug overdose, and I went to community college before I transferred to Princeton University. I did not fear the incoming administration; I welcomed it, and that would have been considered beyond the pale.
This trend has been consistent since I was part of the Freshman Scholar Institute (FSI) during the summer of 2024. A program designed to help incoming first-generation/low-income students (FLI) prepare for the rigors of Princeton, since FLI students lack many of the advantages, educational backgrounds, and cultural capital that most Princeton students possess. It’s there, at our introduction to Princeton. We read Dr. Ruha Benjamin's “Race after Technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code” in a class titled “Ways of Knowing”. This is a Princeton professor who recently received the MacArthur “Genius” Grant , while on probation for protesting Israel, turned around and then called into question integration in the United States on Trevor Noah’s podcast . Honest discourse cannot take place if minds are not willing to be changed. I simply ask, how do you engage in exchange in the currency of ideas and begin to reason with someone who holds that view? These are the ideological leaders on campus, professors with devoted acolytes instead of basic note-taking students, and media personalities in their own right. When it comes to opposing the dogma, I, as a simple student, just say to myself… Don’t.
Joseph Gonzalez ‘28 is a History major. He is a veteran and transfer student, having served as both a Marine and Army infantryman. After he retired from the military, he attended community college and was then fortunate enough to be accepted to Princeton. He is a PFS Writing Fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
