Wokeness, campus protests, and the instruction of leftist ideas within universities do not erode civil discourse or violate free speech norms. Or so President Christopher Eisgruber argues in his new book, Terms of Respect. Overall, I agree with Eisgruber’s assessment, but there are some conceptual nuances that I will offer in order to refine his argument. This review will not provide a comprehensive summary of the book nor will it recount every minor personal agreement and disagreement I have. Rather, it will present Eisgruber’s most important arguments and my opinions on his larger takeaways.
Eisgruber discusses the positive and negative features of free speech as it manifests on college campuses and across society. Peaceful campus protests that take place reflect a robust free speech culture: they consist of individuals ardently voicing their vision of justice. He debunks popular myths – like the alleged intolerance of Gen Z – that certain right-wing muckrakers disseminate. Problematically, however, the presence of protests also reflect the fact that normative forms of civil discourse have faltered. If civil discourse functioned with maximal efficacy, students would not feel obliged to turn to protest in order to communicate their political concerns. Moreover, polemical and ad hominem rhetoric dominate contemporary discourse, provoking vehement retaliation in turn. Charged discourse has caused many individuals to perceive their ideological opponents as immoral or evil rather than as well–intentioned interlocutors. Eisgruber addresses these free speech myths and issues throughout his books, and I will address the most important ones in three sections: conceptual frameworks for free speech, the effects of ideological hegemony, and digital communication.
Section I: Frameworks
Eisgruber offers multiple frameworks to interpret free speech issues that ground his own assessment of Princeton’s political discourse throughout the text. Two of the most significant are as follows:
First, the Anticensorship Principle: colloquially invoked in the refrain that “the solution for ‘bad’ speech is more speech.” This principle originated from the 1927 case Whitney v. California. Of course, certain situations demand censorship. In libel cases, for instance, it must be proven that the defendant’s statement(s) were made with “actual malice.” A deliberate attempt to defame an individual warrants prosecution, while a statement that incidentally produces defamatory results does not. The anticensorship principle has manifested itself as an inflexible stance on free speech. Consider the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, a homosexual American soldier who died while serving in Iraq. Outside his funeral, protesters displayed homophobic signs. Snyder’s father unsuccessfully sued these protestors for disturbing his son’s funeral. In an 8-1 case with Justice Alito as the lone dissenter, Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion concluded that, “As a nation, we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Second, Civility Rules: the rules that regulate how we converse with each other. For example, contemporary pop culture has, fortunately, repudiated 20th century pop culture’s vicious homophobia. Eisgruber mentions Philadelphia’s Andy Beckett, whose firm fired him because of his sexuality – something unacceptable today – to show how civility rules evolve over time. Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech also serve as a kind of civility rule. Social media has eroded civility rules because it both reveals and encourages prejudice. Eisgruber argues that the “cancel culture” phenomenon is symptomatic of online communication rather than our generation’s abnormal intolerance.
Section II: Ideological Dominance
Eisgruber proceeds to argue that college campuses receive unjust scrutiny for their affective polarization, which exists when individuals view a minority political opinion (e.g. conservatism) as not just disagreeable but immoral. Contrary to popular belief, affective polarization is not a unique feature of university campuses but derives from our larger society’s polarization. He further raises the question of whether or not liberal hegemonies erode civil discourse by suppressing ideological minorities. He seems to think they largely do not, while I believe that they do to a greater degree than he recognizes.
On one hand, political hegemonies do not suppress minority viewpoints. Civil dialogue can prosper as long as professors do not suppress differing viewpoints. Viewpoint unpopularity must not be conflated with suppression – thinking as much would reflect a victimhood mindset, which conservatives should not adopt. Suppression exists only in isolated cases, and not nearly to the extent that many believe. He cites FIRE as an organization that publishes misleading data to exaggerate this problem. To understand FIRE, one must understand the Chicago Principles, which assert that college campuses cannot suppress speech because it is disagreeable or offensive. Although FIRE promotes the implementation of these Chicago Principles, they misrepresent the number of incidents that genuinely curtail free speech. FIRE asserts that 1,000 “cancellations” occurred between 1998-2024, an astronomically large number if one does not take into account important context. As Eisgruber writes, “there are nearly 4,000 colleges in the [US]… Thousands of classes, speeches, and panels take place [in total] on those campuses every day. The overwhelming majority of events occur without incident.” Moreover, FIRE categorizes “anti-free speech” incidents without an appreciation for nuance. In 2018, NYU students uninvited their graduation speaker because he was not a prominent enough figure. FIRE, however, categorized the incident as a “disinvitation attempt” that indicated the university culture was hostile to free speech. The NYU situation is not an anomaly in FIRE’s database – Eisgruber lists several of FIRE’s dubious “anti-free speech” classifications in the fifth chapter.
On the other hand, political hegemonies do unduly suppress legitimate contrary viewpoints. Eisgruber experienced robust and productive dialogue in his education at multiple institutions, some with conservative leanings and others liberal. He thus contests the notion that ideological dominance does not significantly erode free speech, though he properly admits that the drift towards liberal homogeneity is dangerous – just like any form of ideological unanimity would be. Nevertheless, what he glosses over is that dominant social favoritism and the entrenched institutionalization of politics compromise the flourishing of free speech. At Princeton, the School of International and Public Affairs has failed to present competing arguments (see: here). Politicizing institutional spaces meant to be neutral deter ideological dissenters from participating in them (e.g. orientation events, bipartisan political activities, and other similar affairs). To be clear, the critique of politicized spaces is not a critique of spaces that cause discomfort, which everyone should welcome. Nor does political dogma imbue all our orientation events. The risk is that political institutionalization invites the drift towards ideological homogeneity. Colleges should strive through programming to demonstrate that conservatives are respected. Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions exemplifies how universities should cultivate conservatism in liberal hegemonies. The program welcomes ideological sympathizers and dissenters upon application (I was unaware that it did so when I applied – it is a constitutional studies program, not a conservative one). Programs like JMP help to counterbalance ideological orthodoxy, and Eisgruber recognizes the importance they carry. Although he is content settling for political dominance with conservative alcoves, we should recognize that a university population that possesses an overwhelming proportion of liberals to conservatives does not optimize free speech. The need to create these alcoves should say as much.
Section III: Digital Communication
The rise of cancel culture and its effects accent the shortcomings of digital communication, lack of nuance in popular beliefs, and alarming need for change. “Cancel culture” evokes the vindictiveness that pervades unhealthy dialogue. We should strive to use terms that imply respectful but firm dissension with individuals we do not wish to affiliate with. ‘Disassociation’ is an example. Disassociation should be practiced: individuals who repeatedly disseminate racism and similar prejudice should not be affiliated with any respectable political movement. The recent controversy surrounding Nick Fuentes is illustrative. The dearth of consistent robust and strident denunciation of Fuentes’ beliefs is concerning, particularly among conservatives. The attitude that there are “no enemies to the (political) right” is just as insidious as cancel culture; rather, conservatives should disassociate from Nick Fuentes. Of course, not all counterspeech enhances the marketplace of ideas. Society errs in vilifying figures who do not deserve such treatment. Look no further than Charlie Kirk. Such cases demonstrate how the anticensorship principle does not imply that more speech is necessarily desirable.
Eisgruber recounts an illustrative situation where greater online communication inflicted permanent damage to someone’s reputation: a fifteen year old high school student named Mimi recorded a video of herself using a racial slur while expressing her excitement over earning her driver’s license. This video spread through Snapchat, and someone leaked it after Mimi was admitted to college. The college rescinded her admissions offer, and she enrolled in community college. Eisgruber states:
“Mimi’s ordeal is a cancel culture nightmare. She sent her message to a limited audience; she did not intend to harm or insult anyone; she was fifteen years old when she recorded it; the message was four years old when it became public; she had no special leadership responsibilities at her school; and she was the target of a vindictive public attack that deliberately damaged her life.”
Mimi’s situation highlights how “short clips” – TikToks, Instagram reels, and YouTube shorts – often misrepresent an individual’s character and beliefs. These clips are designed to capture attention and prey on bias and ego, not engage one’s intellect or reason.
While conventional wisdom might claim that only “woke” students exploit social media to unjustly vilify their ideological opponents, Eisgruber argues that many on the right do the same, when they, for example, depict the education system as the enemy by pointing to misleading evidence. Short videos of misbehaved students do not prove that Generation Z is uniquely intolerant. If students believe someone (often a conservative speaker) to be extraordinarily bigoted, then those students would be fervently exercising free speech through attempting to disinvite that speaker. This attempt would not seem unreasonable – the speaker’s hateful rhetoric (as those students would believe) is detrimental to the prosperity of free speech.
Eisgruber is right to argue that we should not ignore bipartisan culpability for censorship, the distortion of opposing viewpoints, and sophistic and demagogic rhetoric. But he too casually downplays the danger posed by individual attempts to control the kinds of speakers that come to campus. Just like how misbehaved students are the exception and not the rule, most speakers who have been shouted down or disinvited do speak respectfully. Speakers showing up in good faith to voice contested opinions contribute to the university’s truth seeking mission, because (a) the opinions they voice may in fact be correct and (b) even false opinions contribute to our understanding of the truth, forcing us to better understand the reasons for why our true beliefs are actually true. The fact that some people categorically and unjustly condemn most conservative speakers as racist, homophobic, and “anti-diversity scaremongers” harms that mission, and results from the intolerance that left-wing echo chambers generate through ad hominem rhetoric. Short-form content magnifies society’s dim perception of campus discourse, often glorifying polemical arguments and decontextualizing interactions from the larger conversation. Ignore the short videos. They dominate our perception of others, despite often representing the worst of all parties involved.
Conclusion
Free speech cannot thrive if we do not expose ourselves to new ideas, challenge existing dogma, and practice the tolerance necessary to become responsible American citizens. Agreement and disagreement follow from this posture. I highly encourage everyone on both sides of the political aisle to read Terms of Respect. Whether or not you agree with Eisgruber’s belief that cancel culture is an online phenomenon rather than a pervasive in-person practice, or believe that colleges do in fact get free speech right, taking the time to read his book and discuss his ideas will continue to improve our discourse on campus.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.