Princeton disputes FIRE free-speech rankings as watchdog says school 'misunderstands the data'
Princeton University is pushing back after receiving an 'F' free-speech climate grade from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, prompting the watchdog to issue a detailed rebuttal.
FIRE argues Princeton’s own students drove the university’s falling speech-climate grade.
In an Oct. 31 statement, FIRE said Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber “misunderstands the data” which had ranked Princeton 160th out of 257 universities in its 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.
In the original report, FIRE gave Princeton this rating based on student survey data, documented speech controversies, and administrative restrictions on political expression. The group ranked Princeton 165th nationwide out of 257 universities for the “comfort expressing ideas” metric, a score FIRE says demonstrates widespread self-censorship among students.
FIRE evaluates universities by measuring student comfort with expressing views, administrative tolerance for dissent, and the frequency of campus speech incidents.
[RELATED: Harvard ranked worst school for free speech, receives worst rating ever recorded by legal group]
In remarks delivered Nov. 5 at Harvard University, Eisgruber argued that the rankings do not reflect Princeton’s culture of open debate. He said inviting controversial speakers “can be a valuable thing to do,” and insisted that Princeton encourages engagement across political lines.
FIRE responded that Eisgruber’s comments sidestepped its primary findings. “The numbers come directly from Princeton students, not FIRE staff,” the organization wrote in its rebuttal, emphasizing that respondents reported significant hesitation to voice views—an issue FIRE says universities cannot ignore.
Princeton states on its website that it seeks to “foster free expression and academic freedom.” However, FIRE identified several policies that give administrators discretionary authority over protest activity and “respectful behavior” requirements that may chill dissent.
Such rules at elite universities have frequently been used to regulate or restrict conservative speech, according to years of Campus Reform coverage.
FIRE considered metrics such as the total number of deplatforming attempts, which they define as attempts “to prevent someone from expressing themselves in a public forum on campus.”
Out of 14 deplatforming attempts at Princeton, FIRE says 10 were successful, meaning the individual or event under fire was “Canceled, Postponed, Withdrew, Rejected, Removed, Revoked,” or faced a “Substantial Event Disruption.”
FIRE’s methodology guide notes that high-performing institutions typically place narrower limits on student expression and demonstrate lower levels of political self-censorship.
Princeton’s placement near the bottom of the national ranking places it alongside other Ivy League schools that have faced criticism for policies that make students reluctant to voice viewpoints—especially viewpoints that diverge from dominant campus ideologies.
Campus Reform reached out to Princeton University and FIRE for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
Follow the author on Instagram: @s0ph.i.a
