Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right

by Christopher L. Eisgruber

The president of Princeton, a constitutional scholar, reveals how colleges are getting free speech on campuses right and how they can do better to nurture civil discourse and foster mutual respect

Conversations about higher education teem with accusations that American colleges and universities are betraying free speech, indoctrinating students with left-wing dogma, and censoring civil discussions. But these complaints are badly misguided. 
  
In Title TK, constitutional scholar and Princeton University president Christopher L. Eisgruber argues that colleges and universities are largely getting free speech right. Today’s students engage in vigorous discussions on sensitive topics and embrace both the opportunity to learn and the right to protest. Like past generations, they value free speech, but, like all of us, they sometimes misunderstand what it requires. Ultimately, the polarization and turmoil visible on many campuses reflect an American civic crisis that affects universities along with the rest of society. But colleges, Eisgruber argues, can help to promote civil discussion in this raucous, angry world—and they can show us how to embrace free speech without sacrificing ideals of equality, diversity, and respect. 
  
Urgent and original, Title TK is an ardent defense of our universities, and a hopeful vision for navigating the challenges that free speech provokes for us all. 

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Education

320 pages, Hardcover

Published September 30, 2025

Reviews

[Emma Magalhaes]

I had to read this for my nj policy class. It was nothing enlightening and I think most people reach the same conclusion the author does by using their critical thinking skills.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a deliberative, thoughtful and incredibly important book. Written by the president of Princeton University, the author walks us through what free speech on campus is and how a commitment to free speech also requires a parallel commitment to diversity on campus. Rooted in Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ edict ideal that the answer to disagreeable speech isn’t censorship but instead is more, and better, speech.

While this book is a clear and intellectual defense of first amendment rights, where it really shines is on the campus environment. In the text Eisgruber highlights the role campuses have in fostering vigorous, intelligent and polite pursuit of truths. He also frames civility and the assumed social contexts of speech as being part and parcel with the speech itself. It’s not just what you are saying but the manner with which you deliver it. This isn’t “tone policing” rather it reinforces the idea that listening is as important as speaking. Finally the book is timely as it speaks to the pernicious politicalization and affective tribalism, fueled by social media, and the threat it offers to societies be they in campus or our country in general.

This is a well written, clear and persuasive boon that is important not just for academics but for anyone concerned with the ability of the US democratic institutions to thrive.

[Henry Ogilby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal book by President Eisgruber of Princeton, who I had the pleasure of meeting a couple times. Reading this made me nostalgic for college humanity classes; it felt like I was being given a tool to understand the world around me better, and carve through events and conversations I have seen and heard around me to understand what is really happening. His bottom line is that universities and Supreme Court jurisprudence protects with extreme prejudice the ability to say nearly whatever you want, and that like justice Brandeis, the cure for bad speech is more good speech. Something I did not spend much time thinking about previously is the concept of disinviting (which some might call deplatforming) a guest. Eisgrubers position is that this is not the University’s role whatsoever, BUT that leadership positions, board seats, and the respect and admiration of those around you are all fair game if you say something inappropriate, just not your job as a faculty member. Bottom line, protect people’s right to say zany weird and offensive things so that better conversations about truth can occur. He skated around it a bit until the end, but spent some time discussing how it’s normal for Universities to have opinions which don’t align with the rest of society because inherently their job is to push boundaries on conversations and try to learn about what is better than the status quo - I thought this was pretty insightful, as were his comparisons of civil disagreement to to 60s on campuses, when students were arming themselves (yikes!) I’m glad and grateful to not have grown up in the 60s; makes me think a lot about the consequences of unjust war and government actions.

[Serge · Rating 4 out of 5]

President Eisgruber offers a vigorous defense of free speech and equality on college campuses. He reject popular caricatures of wokeism in higher education and the charges of left wing indoctrination on matters of race and gender. He advances and ethical and political principle for safeguarding civic discourse in its most uncivil permutations because "we need to know how to recognize, answer, and discourage hateful speech without censoring it."He recounts the occupation of his office by a Princeton group that called itself the Black Justice League. Online communication and interaction with third parties through social media widened the scope and reduced the authenticity of campus specific grievances. He cautions that we should keep today's turmoil on college campuses in perspective He references the armed militancy on Cornell's campus in 1969, the bombing at University of Wisconsin that resulted in the death of a physicist , and countless acts of vandalism and arson that accompanied Vietnam War era protests. Eisgruber argues that the civil rights movement of the 1960's reshaped America's understanding of free speech. He traces the Progressive roots of free speech to the 1927 Whitney v California SCOTUS case where Brandeis that the remedy for bad speech was more speech, not censorship or punishment. He also hails Times v Sullivan and Brandenburg v Ohio as the hallmark free speech cases that defined the last half of the 20th century.
Eisgruber acknowledges that the free speech community that Brandeis imagined presupposed certain virtues and habits of citizenship: deliberation, courage, a sense of political duty, and a commitment to reason. He concludes that speech must be uncensored and regulated. Legitimate constraints and civility rules mediate between free speech and equality. He argues that civility rules promote the respect that deliberative community requires and foster mutual respect. Eisgruber disagrees with the right-wing popular narrative that students hide from scary ideas. There are 4,000 colleges in the United States and selective evidence from a handful of bad actors is exaggerated as system wide attempts at campus deplatforming. He takes to task FIRE and reminds readers that "if college students are more agitated about outside speakers today, it is because a variety of right-wing organizations are riling them up. He disputes methodologically unsound polling by RealClearEducation : answers that appear to endorse disruption or censorship might be a way for students to express their opposition to certain kinds of hateful speech without concomitantly endorsing censorship. He cities a North Carolina that surveyed eight campuses in the UNC system that found that "political engagement exacerbates ingroup preferences.
Eisgruber is particularly critical of the weaponization of free speech in online fueled media carnivals: Exclusion, isolation, and bullying replaced deliberative engagement. Online media coarsen discourse because the "dynamics of online speech are vastly different from those that characterize TV, radio, print, and face to face conversation. He attributes the civic crisis to the twin threats of extreme polarization and internet communication. The civility rules that guided discussion in the past are insufficient and inadequate. Today, affective polarization makes it costlier for either conservatives or liberals to challenge broadly held liberal opinions.
Eisgruber recommends Prudential steps that campuses can take to reclaim institutional autonomy. He traces the political cooptation of campus conflict to Reagan's jeremiad against the Universityo f California Berkeley where the gubernatorial candidate insinuated that Communists and sexual degenerates had captured a great University. Strengthening campus discourse can forestall these public denunciations of higher education for political benefit. He reminds the reader that "a well-funded network of specialized media organizations amplifies and sometimes distorts stories designed to embarrass higher education." He endorses the Chicago principles of institutional viewpoint neutrality and time, place, and manner restrictions that protect the university from endless interruption. He also notes that intellectual curiosity has to be fostered as "student political engagement is negatively correlated with open-mindedness. Colleges and universities must continue to be truth-seeking institutions which create discontent with existing social arrangements and propose new ones , in keeping with the American dynamism that propelled the United States to greatness. Free speech, to quote Abe Fortas, is the basis of our national strength. We , who choose to live in a relatively permissive and often disputatious society.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Eisgruber is wise, kind, and smart. So is this book. The book is a road map for preserving equality and decency, as well as freedom of speech. It's mostly for college administrators, but there's a lot in there for anyone running an organization of tightly wound, opinionated people. It's (if you'll forgive the oxymoron) stridently moderate in walking a thin line between advocating for a strongly for (very) free speech, as well as "rules of the road" to assure that an institution can keep functioning all the while preserving an inclusive environment for a wide variety of constituencies. It's certainly not a memoir, but it's anchored in the author's experiences as president of Princeton, so it's also a bit Princeton-centric. Although he acknowledges missteps he's made, he offers a vigorous defense of American higher education generally, and he savages critics of elite universities, starting with William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan, then moving on to F.I.R.E., J. D. Vance, and you-know-who, the latter being mentioned only obliquely and only once by name. The book isn't all that well organized, and could have used a lot more vigorous editing than it got, but it is a smart, sophisticated book that is well worth reading.

[Stephen Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a defense of American higher education and its role in fostering free speech, drawing on the author's dual vantage point as both a constitutional scholar and a sitting university president. It argues against the narrative that campuses are hotbeds of censorship, but are instead places where free-speech flourishes He acknowledges that there are some aberrant examples of people being shouted down or intimidated, but the norm is for civilized discussion and exchange of ideas. The problem is the overall American civil crisis rather than specific to higher learning. The book grounds its argument in the Civil Rights Movement and the "Sullivan v. NY Times" case about libel, showing how open discussions are essential to a free society and that colleges are where those norms grow. Eisgruber makes a good argument, but is hardly a disinterested observer. The book often reads more as an institutional defense than a rigorous empirical study. That said, it is still a valuable analysis by an insider on the issue of free speech on campus, which he convincingly argues is still going strong.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

I downloaded this book after hearing the author speak on CBS Sunday morning. It was a great insight into how unrestrained "free speech" actually limits free speech because it becomes a shouting match where bullies will always win out. To have productive discourse, you have to have rules of civility that are enforced. Essentially, tolerating intolerance will only lead to biggots controlling the narrative.

[Lottie C · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5⭐️

Interesting insight into the current politics of free speech in the US

[Anne Wen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t usually like books related to free speech but liked this book because it was written from a scholarly perspective.