In his new book “Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right,” Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber presents a defense of higher education’s approach to free expression — and, in the process, singles out the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) for what he portrays as its skewed portrayal of campus speech climates. The resulting back-and-forth has opened a revealing window into how universities and watchdog groups alike are shaping the national debate over academic freedom and political pressure on higher education.
Eisgruber’s book, released amid heightened tensions between universities and the Trump administration, argues that American campuses have become flashpoints in a broader civic crisis. “It’s on campuses because it’s in society,” he told CBS News. “We are having trouble talking to one another across political differences.” He portrays universities as essential laboratories for civil discourse but cautions against aligning too closely with political movements or government directives — such as the Trump administration’s proposed “compact” requiring colleges to adhere to federal priorities on speech and gender in exchange for research funding. Princeton, he said, would not sign the compact, calling it “dangerous.”
Throughout the book, Eisgruber also turns his attention to data-driven critics of campus speech environments — particularly FIRE, whose annual College Free Speech Rankings have become a widely cited benchmark for assessing institutional openness to expression. Eisgruber dismisses some of the group’s conclusions and questions whether its methodology paints an accurate picture of campus life.
That criticism prompted a pointed rebuttal from FIRE’s Director of Research, Ryne Weiss, who accused Eisgruber of misrepresenting the organization’s work. “Eisgruber reports on FIRE’s data on free speech and First Amendment norms on campus while making no effort to understand it and misusing the data of others,” Weiss wrote in a detailed response. “In other words, he’s skipped that first step — and now Princeton is tumbling down the staircase.”
Weiss defended FIRE’s methods and transparency, emphasizing that the group’s data — drawn from policy reviews, student surveys, and case outcomes — are public and reproducible. “If someone believes these factors should be weighed differently, or has different factors they would like to include, they are welcome to do so,” he said. FIRE also noted that its funding base is politically diverse, countering Eisgruber’s suggestion that conservative donors might influence its findings.
The rebuttal takes particular aim at Eisgruber’s treatment of self-censorship. The Princeton president suggested that students’ tendency to withhold opinions may reflect civility rather than fear. FIRE, by contrast, defines self-censorship as refraining from speech out of fear of social, professional, legal, or violent consequences — a distinction that Weiss argues Eisgruber ignored. According to FIRE’s 2025 survey, 91% of students report self-censoring at least occasionally, and roughly one-quarter do so “very often.”
The disagreement underscores a philosophical divide more than a statistical one. Eisgruber sees universities as imperfect but resilient spaces where academic norms still protect dialogue. FIRE sees growing evidence that many students feel constrained — and that institutions often fail to defend controversial speech when tested.
FIRE’s response also notes the irony that Princeton, which receives FIRE’s lowest “red light” rating for speech restrictions, stands in contrast to universities in the University of North Carolina system, whose policies and programming — often shaped in consultation with FIRE — have earned top “green light” scores. “If UNC campuses are far more likely to have a ‘green light’ than the rest of the nation, that’s in significant part because of FIRE’s ongoing work,” Weiss wrote.
Both sides share at least one premise: that the health of democratic discourse depends on the ability of universities to foster open inquiry. Where they differ is in assessing whether higher education is meeting that standard. As political scrutiny of universities intensifies — and as the Trump administration continues linking funding to ideological compliance — the debate between Eisgruber and FIRE offers a case study in how even data about speech itself can become contested territory.
