In sports, many are saying that it is a “great year to be a Princeton tiger.” The question this week is whether the same is true for free speech at Princeton. For years, we followed free speech controversies at the school over the investigation of dissenting faculty, the targeting of critics, and general intolerance for opposing views. Three-fourths of Princeton students told one survey that they believed it was appropriate to shout down or deplatform speakers with opposing views. That mistaken view of shout-downs as a form of free speech is obviously still prevalent on campus after a group of protesters stopped a discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. The question is whether Princeton will do anything about it or whether, when it comes to free speech, it will prove to be a mere paper tiger.
In his appearance on campus, Bennett drew a large crowd of pro-Palestinian protesters. Most remained outside of the event and chanted loudly. That is, of course, a form of free speech and should be protected on campus. They have every right to protest and express their disagreements with Bennett or the State of Israel.
However, roughly a couple dozen protesters went inside the event and shouted down Bennett, according to reports in the Princetonian. The protesters screamed profanities and chanted “Naftali Bennett, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.”
Supporters of Bennett stated that the “sustained disruption and illegal activity forced the premature end of an event.”
While initial disrupters were removed from the room, other protesters took turns interrupting the event. Then one protester pulled the fire alarm and brought the event to a close.
I discuss deplatforming in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” It is a false claim that such shout downs are a form of free speech. We have seen such disruptions continue, particularly with Israeli speakers.
Years ago, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. It is the antithesis of free speech and the failure of schools to protect the exercise of free speech is the antithesis of higher education. In most schools, people are not allowed to disrupt events. They are escorted out of such events and told that they can protest outside of the events since others have a right to listen to opposing views. These disruptions, however, are often planned to continually interrupt speakers until the school authorities step in to cancel the event.
Princetonians for Free Speech have struggled to restore free speech on campus and they have had some success. However, this is an obvious test of that commitment. While some protesters wore masks, most did not. Any students who went inside the event to prevent Bennett from being heard should be suspended. Any faculty involved in such action should be terminated.
The essence of higher education is the fostering of diverse viewpoints and open dialogue. Those who are shouting down speakers are seeking to impose their own views and orthodoxy on others. They are unwilling to allow others to hear opposing views. In doing so, they have removed themselves from a community of intellectuals committing to the free exchange of ideas.
Yet, universities like Stanford and Northwestern are notorious for mouthing free speech values but doing little to protect. After the disgraceful disruption of the event with Judge Duncan at Stanford, I wrote a critical column on the ridiculous response of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez who declined to punish any students. Instead all students were required to watch a widely mocked video on free speech.
It is now Princeton’s time to decide whether it will actively defend free speech or adopt a purely passive or pedestrian stance. I hope that Princeton will announce that it will investigate and respond to this disruption.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I will never pay an Ivy League grad to so much as mow my lawn. That is a promise, and I know from private conversations that the sentiment is growing, even among the more so-called influential. We are witnessing the self-destruction of many corrupted institutions in real time, and it is something to behold.
Really – the word is spreading. The center of the madness cannot and will not hold, like a whirling Dervish, when it smacks up against reality and the truly free will of other people.
And do not be remiss and forget that we are talking about *self* destruction. They asked for reprisal, and it is being metered out to them, bit by bit but more and more continually. Sanity is not optional in a functional world that one shares with others.
#. The heart of this problem are donations so huge they dwarf US funding in colleges. The donations are washed through Qatar and are Islamic. Within the protests at each college are student visa holders sent to do business. The current hero is Mahmoud Kahlil. Instructors are funded, as well. Donations are not being reported and Bondi needs a task force.
Until this is undertaken American univ and colleges and American students are in peril.
Money and religion…
Some very thoughtful comments here. The reality though is Princeton will do nothing than maybe issue a garbled comment,
True
# . The effort is in student visas and a concerted agenda to disrupt across colleges, media, judiciary and all branches via extortion, blackmail and payola and services. Stop giving them out except to genius level ability. I don’t think anyone wants into those schools anymore.
Your a labor force if you want to eat. You’re competing with people earning approx 750 dollars per year. 750 dollars is a low weekly wage US.
Can the US produce a Nike Air Jordan for 1.50?
It’s incredible and China is on the NYSE. Blackrock is investing in Chinese military tech?
My decades old experience at Northwestern may not be relevant now. But it did work, and might be worth trying.
I had graduated years before, but some of my friends at Northwestern were members of a conservative students group. In 1985, they invited Nicaraguan Contra leader Adolfo Calero to speak on campus. (The Contras were a guerrilla resistance fighting the communist government of Nicaragua.) I warned them to be ready for trouble because in my undergraduate days I remembered that the South Vietnamese ambassador was physically thrown off the stage at the University of Illinois, Champaign. My student friends said things had changed. They hadn’t.
Marxist English Professor Barbara Foley organized a riot to prevent Calero from speaking. She seized the podium and announced that Calero had no right to speak there. Somebody threw red liquid on the suits of Calero and the local Cuban and Central American emigre businessmen who had organized Calero’s Chicago visit. The mob was physically threatening.
We got even later. Someone privately funded over a thousand cheap bumper stickers that said “Fire Foley! Expel Red Rioters.” These were plastered all over campus, and they were not the easy to remove kind of bumper stickers. Foley was denied tenure and got fired. The campus newspaper headline read “Red Rioter Fired.” We used protester tactics against the protesters, and it worked.
What the bumper stickers did, and could do again, was to give the college administration a vision of opposition from the conservative side that might escalate. Today, you might consider it a reverse broken windows policing strategy. We were breaking the rules in a minor way by plastering bumper stickers everywhere they weren’t supposed to be. But the question that the NU provost had to ponder was how far were conservative students willing to go. If there’s only one side, campus authorities have an easy choice. They appease the loud left wing protesters. But if there are two sides, campus authorities have to think about it a little harder. That’s why the Northwestern provost insisted on firing Foley.
Here’s a potential solution: cancel federal funding to any university that allows the trampling of free speech rights of any speaker invited to campus. That should get the attention of university administration. Look how quickly Columbia University responded when their federal funding was cancelled.
Universities should foster all ideas. There was an article why an employer would not hire Ivy League grads — how could he run a business with people who could not be inventive in their ideas? Good point. The system is a mess because we have created indulgent people who are riding on a system of takers. Professors have always been arrogant so what’s new?!
Regarding Trump — it is far to easy to dump on him when the real enemy for the future of our country are the people who do not foster free speech, creativity and above all, insist that we have to work for our survival. For those of you who won’t give Trump a chance, would you really like to have had Ms. Joy – Harris — standing up for this country. The Dems are a sad group of people who have no platform and can seem to be anything but disrupters. To hear Schumer on Tariffs today vs his speech in 2005 is an embarrassment. The winds of fortune will doom the hypocrites. They are so vested in their hatred that the can’t see the future for the our citizens. Is it better to be an obstructionist that to try to understand what Trump is doing for the country? And, if he succeeds will you apologize or continue to hate. Imagine all this hate hosted on each of you? Could you stand up? I seriously doubt it because most people are cowards when they have to stand up and out from the crowd.
JT – your columns are very important and to speak with knowledge and courage is a gift to us all!
“Those who are shouting down speakers are seeking to impose their own views and orthodoxy on others. They are unwilling to allow others to hear opposing views. In doing so, they have removed themselves from a community of intellectuals committing to the free exchange of ideas.”
Well said professor. Well said.
Professor Turley writes, “Three-fourths of Princeton students told one survey that they believed it was appropriate to shout down or deplatform speakers with opposing views.”
And just imagine how these same privileged twerps, once in a position of authority, would react to being shouted down themselves. They would brutally beat down any outspoken dissent against themselves. People who think like this SHOULD NOT have authority over any other human beings.
New Jersey has two federal prisons needing shower-room attendants. If I was as evil as these students, I’d send ’em.
OT: I would like to preempt George’s ramble about deportees to ask him to answer one simple question, followed by however he wants to extrapolate. My question is (and I want simple, not ramble): Who has been widely regarded as Deporter in Chief? And why (extrapolate)?
rabble rabble
Well, wearing a mask on campus should be immediate grounds for suspension and loss of credit in any course the student is enrolled in as well as loss of all fees previously paid. Disruption in a speaking hall should be immediate expulsion with loss of fees and they should never be allowed to enrolled again.
Of course you could go the soccer route and allow one yellow card per semester such as for masks and make then wear the yellow card on the shirt like the Star of David Jews had to wear in WW2. Disruption of a speech or official function should mean a red card and this should be worn on the shirt or blouse and they are then required to stand in the busiest area on the campus for 8 hours prior to their expulsion. Also 2 yellow cards in 1 semester should mean an automatic red card and expulsion.
Personally I liked the Game of Thrones approach where the student is required to disrobe and then march around a public trail on campus with the Princeton Tiger following behind, in full costume, yelling “shame, shame” and then expelled.
“. . . a group of protesters stopped a discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.” (JT)
Rather than remedial courses in math, the Ivies need remedial courses in civilized behavior. The student’s practicum is four years of civilized action. Grades to be assigned at graduation. Degrees carry a new stipulation: Graduated civilized, semi-civilized, a barbarian.
Saying that disrupting a speech of an invited quest speaker and that other students have come to listen to is free speech is the most Orwellian thing you will read today. This is the level of discourse at our “elite” colleges.
The so called “free speech movement” on campuses was always led by loud mouthed, far left angst ridden young and immature people and the campuses today continue that tradition. Screaming at a moderate Israeli leader (I thought they only hated Bibi) while arguing in favor of people and groups that would kill them is the height of stupidity.
The same people fighting for Hamas and the Pals also scream and fight for gays, trans, women and minorities????
Also, please note that since October 7th, 2023 and November 5th 2024 we have not heard a peep about the greatest existential threat to our existence…the climate?? Odd that the climate crowd now attacks the greatest American EV car company?
Every, and I mean every, cause of the left has been in furtherance of hurting America and the west. From the fake anti-nuke movement of the 70s and 80s, which was just a Soviet led astroturf movement to end our nukes while leaving the Soviet nukes in place, to the climate battle that aims to end our use of fossil fuels while not saying anything about China’s use of them.
The left hates the country and is being led by academics that believe it, foolish kids that believe their professors, the media which jumps in front of the parade and all being financed by China and radical leftists like Soros.
You neglected to mention the flood of petrodollars supporting Islamic and Middle East centers and studies on our campuses. I would wager a case of craft beer that there is a direct correlation between the rate of growth of this money on any campus with the increase of antisemitic behavior.
MAGA loves the destruction of America. They cheer Trump’s retarded logic, they cheer the destruction of capital, they cheer the destruction of high value productivity in knowledge based professions in favor of screwdriver turning jobs, they cheer a trade war, they cheer hating Canada, they cheer Putin and Russia. The MAGA dumphuks want nothing less but to create their anti woke, anti-foreigner, anti-affluent, anti-education, anti-science hillbilly paradise. Xi just announced 84% tariffs on US goods. MAGA is cheering. They want it as bad as it can get. Who needs a 401k according to FOX. The patriotic thing to do is burn it all down so that they can own the libs.
And yet, you still don’t give any source as to what you are saying. You even got the tariff number wrong.
So to you, I say Rabble Rabble Rabble!
Doesn’t matter. You’d fabricate anything to nay say.
Thank you for your valuable comment on today’s subject of free speech on campus.
It must be a real gift to you to be able to read the minds of other people. Plus you bless us by sharing this esoterica. Adding to that skill. your bravery in posting as Anonymous shows the depth of your convictions. Brave heart, you are not.
Johnson & Johnson Increases U.S. Investment to More than $55 Billion Over the Next Four Years
“Investment builds on almost 140-year legacy of improving and saving lives and supporting American jobs
Includes four planned new manufacturing facilities, with ground-breaking today in North Carolina on $2 billion+ facility
Total Company U.S. economic impact estimated to be more than $100 billion per year”
https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/johnson-johnson-increases-u-s-investment-to-more-than-55-billion-over-the-next-four-years
Nvidia CEO Announces Massive U.S. Manufacturing Investment Amid AI Expansion
Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang stated in a March 20 interview that the company plans to spend “several hundred billion” dollars on manufacturing in the United States over the next four years, marking a significant commitment to domestic production amid global shifts in the technology sector.
“I think we can easily see ourselves manufacturing several hundred billion of it here in the U.S.,” Huang said.
https://yournews.com/2025/03/20/3316010/nvidia-ceo-announces-massive-u-s-manufacturing-investment-amid-ai-expansion/
Are those screwdriver turning jobs?
Robot jobs.
Upstate: I pointed this out before–click on the Eli Lilly link and you get this:
“Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements (as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) including about planned capital investments in new manufacturing capacity, production of medicines, hiring and related initiatives and reflects Lilly’s current beliefs and expectations. However, as with any such undertaking, there are substantial risks and uncertainties in the manufacturing process, development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products any of which could impact the overall commercial success of our products, and as related to cost, completion timing, expected capacity, personnel, and other factors which could impact expected benefits of the capacity expansion and related initiatives. For further discussion of risks and uncertainties relevant to Lilly’s business that could cause actual results to differ from Lilly’s expectations, see Lilly’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by law, Lilly undertakes no duty to update forward-looking statements to reflect events after the date of this release.”
Here’s what Johnson & Johnson says:
“Cautions Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections of Johnson & Johnson. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: challenges and uncertainties inherent in product research and development, including the uncertainty of clinical success and of obtaining regulatory approvals; uncertainty of commercial success; manufacturing difficulties and delays; competition, including technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges to patents; product efficacy or safety concerns resulting in product recalls or regulatory actions; changes in behavior and spending patterns of purchasers of health care products and services; changes to applicable laws and regulations, including global health care reforms; and trends toward health care cost containment. A further list and descriptions of these risks, uncertainties and other factors can be found in Johnson & Johnson’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, including in the sections captioned “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” and in Johnson & Johnson’s subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of these filings are available online at http://www.sec.gov, http://www.jnj.com or on request from Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information or future events or developments.”
Nvidia is depending on grants from Biden’s Chips Act, but wants to export to China, which could impair our AI advantage. Here’s what NPR says about that:
“American lawmakers have been pressuring the Trump administration for weeks to place stricter curbs on cutting edge technology related to artificial intelligence. In February, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., jointly called for export controls on the H20 chip after Chinese tech company DeepSeek unveiled a breakthrough AI chatbot that stunned the world in January.
The Trump administration’s decision to allow Chinese firms to continue to purchase H20 chips is a major victory for the country, said Chris Miller, a Tufts University history professor and semiconductor expert.
“Even though these chips are specifically modified to reduce their performance thus making them legal to sell to China — they are better than many, perhaps most, of China’s homegrown chips,” Miller said. “China still can’t produce the volume of chips it needs domestically, so it is critically reliant on imports of Nvidia chips.”
The White House and the Commerce Department did not return requests for comment. A spokesman for Nvidia declined to comment.
It is unclear if Huang spoke directly to Trump during the Friday event, but two sources say until then, the assumption had been that Washington’s trade war with China would soon include tight controls on the H20 chip — which were among the chips used by DeepSeek.
Since 2022, U.S. regulators have restricted what semiconductor chips Nvidia can sell to China out of fear that Beijing could harness American technology to bolster its AI and military capabilities. The H20 arose under these constraints, becoming the most powerful AI chip it could export to China under the law.
This year, the H20 chip has become increasingly coveted by artificial intelligence companies, because it is designed to support inference, a computational process used to support AI models like China’s DeepSeek and other AI agents being developed by Meta and OpenAI.”
So, we the taxpayers are supposed to subsidize the creation of chips to send to China?
After today the world is coming to the US and not to China. The art of the deal. Independent Bob.
Lilly plans to more than double U.S. manufacturing investment since 2020 exceeding $50 billion
“Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) today announced at a press conference in Washington, D.C., plans to bolster its domestic medicine production across therapeutic areas by building four new pharmaceutical manufacturing sites in the United States.”
https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lilly-plans-more-double-us-manufacturing-investment-2020
Apple will spend more than $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years
“Teams and facilities to expand in Michigan, Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Oregon, North Carolina, and Washington
Plans include a new factory in Texas, doubling the U.S. Advanced Manufacturing Fund, a manufacturing academy, and accelerated investments in AI and silicon engineering”
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/apple-will-spend-more-than-500-billion-usd-in-the-us-over-the-next-four-years/
Are those screwdriver turning jobs?
Robot jobs.
You will be needed to clean up after the Robot poops. You are a very impotent person.
Hyundai Motor Group Commits to U.S. Growth with USD 21 Billion Investment
The Group to invest a total of USD 21 billion in the U.S. from 2025 to 2028
USD 9 billion to expand U.S. automobile production to 1.2 million units annually
USD 6 billion to enhance parts, logistics and steel business, increasing the localization of auto parts and strengthening supply chains
USD 6 billion to expand future industries and strengthen external partnerships and energy infrastructure, including EV charging
Investment is expected to create more than 100,000 direct and indirect job opportunities by 2028, including 14,000 direct full-time jobs
https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/4404
Okay. Some of those might be screwdriver turning jobs. But they are also well paying jobs. Which means people who cannot afford college or chose not to can get those jobs.
The only thing you got right is the “anti-woke” part. The rest was wokeism BS.
You used a Screwdriver as an example, my suggestion, you find a Left-Handed Screwdriver and use it to tighten all the screws you have lose in your head!
I would be interested to learn if Princeton declares any conditions on the continued enrollment of disruptors. Do they , at the time of enrollment or at any time thereafter, make it clear that if there is disruption and the effect of the disruption is the prevention others to hear the designated speaker, then the further enrolled status of the student disruptor will be evaluated. Much of what is identified as a determining factor will be the fact of whether or not the disruptor had to be removed. If so the enrollment relation should be dissolved.
I witnessed the Kent State event and the three preceding nights. Disruption has little to do with academic performance. It has much to do with the emergence of adolescent development. There are always outside forces that play on the susceptibility of the adolescents. Now that we have diminished the determination of admission based on race, perhaps we can put into place a system that advances civil discourse and in turn, objectivity. Perhaps it will evolve into a mature student body that represents the university as a source of actually valuable citizens who have resolved the need for attention and are able to calm themselves in otherwise agitating circumstances.
Does Princeton have rules for where protest is OK and NOK? Does it receive any taxpayer funding? Is there any read on how Princeton’s alums are taking this? And what is known about the written authority of Princeton’s leadership to actually effect change?
I was for free speech before I was against free speech.
Free speech for me but not for thee is the alleged progressive’s mantra.
If, as is the most likely response, Princeton’s reaction takes the form of a “modestly-worded letter of disapproval,” its insouciance regarding preservation of the First Amendment will be confirmed.
Is free speech a civil right? Back in the 1950s Eisenhower brought the 82nd airborne into Little Rock Arkansas to escort some black students into the high school. Should the national guard be used to enforce our first amendment rights?
Nothing will change until there is either (i) a tragic “Kent State” event or (ii) an Ivy president with guts expells the disrupters. To be clear, I am only advocating for the latter.
Three guesses what the brain trust at Princeton does. Zip, nada, nothing
Never hire a recent Ivy League grad.
And never “forgive” another student loan.