The events of the past few weeks have made it painfully clear why it is so important for a democratic society to protect individuals’ rights to protest peacefully, to assemble in the name of a shared viewpoint, and to express their views freely.
Penn’s status as a private university means that members of the Penn community do not automatically enjoy the protections of the First Amendment as faculty, staff, and students do at public universities. However, private universities can and do enter into binding contracts to extend similar rights to their communities. In 1969, in response to protests during the war in Vietnam, the University of Pennsylvania did exactly that. They formulated official Guidelines on Open Expression that committed the University to freedom of speech and assembly:
“The University of Pennsylvania, as a community of scholars, affirms, supports and cherishes the concepts of freedom of thought, inquiry, speech, and lawful assembly. The freedom to experiment, to present and examine alternative data and theories; the freedom to hear, express, and debate various views; and the freedom to voice criticism of existing practices and values are fundamental rights that must be upheld and practiced by the University in a free society.”
In June 2024, the Penn administration suspended those promises in an email notification issuing new “Temporary Standards and Procedures for Campus Events and Demonstrations,” including far more restrictive policies on open expression. These restrictions were issued without formal consultation from Penn faculty, staff, or students. The Temporary Standards gutted many of the protections of the existing Guidelines on Open Expression, creating new violations and bureaucratizing previously spontaneous expression. For example, organizers are required to obtain permission from the administration at least two weeks in advance in order to speak on Locust Walk (or elsewhere on campus), or risk being censured based on the Temporary Standards. Among other new violations are sidewalk chalk, previously considered an ideal way to produce political graffiti without vandalism, as well as projecting light onto building facades.
The Temporary Standards were issued without a sunset provision. Still, at the time they were issued, the administration’s email promised a process consistent with existing University procedures for changing the Guidelines, suggesting that it would “follow the historical precedent for reviewing the Guidelines on Open Expression, which last occurred in 1989.” When the Guidelines were put in place, an independent Committee on Open Expression was established with members appointed from faculty, staff, and students. Precedent and written policy call for the COE to be involved in any revision process. The revision in 1989 was driven by the COE and included open hearings for the University community to respond. They also added a clarification to address situations where university policy might conflict with the Guidelines:
“In case of conflict between the principles of the Guidelines on Open Expression and other University policies, the principles of the Guidelines shall take precedence.”
It has now been almost two years since these “temporary” restrictions were put in place. In response to our inquiry to the provost this past November, we learned that the process by which the administration is revising the permanent guidelines contradicts the University’s own rules. The first irregularity was appointing their own task force to propose permanent revisions, when the University’s rules specify that revisions to the Guidelines are solely the responsibility of the COE. Importantly, the revision process requires an open hearing for the University community to respond to any proposed changes to the Guidelines. To our knowledge, no such meeting has been held or scheduled. The revision process also requires the COE to approve the final draft after open hearings are held and any necessary revisions are made, before the final version is presented to the University Council.
The provost indicated to us that the task force had met with the 2024-25 COE, and approved the new guidelines, even though the document is still “preliminary” and is undergoing a revision process. The provost indicated that the University Council would be presented with these changes at their meeting in March. Importantly, the University community has yet to see any draft of the new Guidelines, and the provost has indicated that changes are still in progress with revisions having occurred since the February 2025 COE vote. Since the 2025-26 COE has yet to be constituted, it cannot possibly have approved a final draft.
We ask the administration for the following remedies:
1. The proposed changes should be made public to everyone in the University who is affected by them, including students, faculty, and staff.
2. The Faculty Senate should appoint a 2025-26 COE that is charged with revising any document it receives.
3. The mandated open hearing for the community should be scheduled after that document is distributed. Any resulting revisions should be incorporated and publicly distributed before their final submission to the University Council.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that protests be allowed to interfere with Penn’s central educational mission. That will always take precedence. But the existing Guidelines have served the Penn community well since 1969, and it is unclear how increased restrictions would benefit the University. Further, they may bring about reputational damage.
This is a fragile moment for open expression on university campuses and across the country. Penn faculty, staff, and students for consistency since that’s how they were ordered other times should not be forced to sacrifice the broad speech protections that have been a distinctive and cherished feature of Penn’s culture for more than half a century.
CAROLYN MARVIN is a Frances Yates Professor Emeritus of Communication. Her email is carolyn.marvin@asc.upenn.edu.
DIANA MUTZ is a Samuel A. Stouffer Professor of Political Science and Communication. Her email is mutz@upenn.edu.
ROBIN PEMANTLE is Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Mathematics. His email is pemantle@math.upenn.edu.
