Penn’s Open Expression Guidelines guarantee University members the right to “assemble” and “demonstrate.” As those rules undergo their first major revision in three decades, archival records show how the provisions have evolved — much like the protests they seek to regulate.

The guidelines are meant to regulate student protest on campus and ensure demonstrations are conducted within the “limits” of uninfringeable rights to speech and assembly, while also “protecting” University activities. Since they were established in 1968, open expression has been a focal point of campus debate.

The University is now continuing the review of its current temporary guidelines — which were implemented in June 2024 following the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. 

Ahead of the revisions, The Daily Pennsylvanian chronicled how the University stance on student activism has changed throughout the decades. 

The Vietnam War and the origins of a debate

The campus debate on open expression began with student protests over the Vietnam War, which included large demonstrations in University buildings and spaces. In 1968, students protested Penn’s involvement with the Dow Chemical Company, which manufactured napalm during the war.

In response to the protests, former University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Dean Robert Mundheim formed an early commission to address “all aspects of open expression and demonstrations on campus.” The Mundheim Commission specifically evaluated if protest activity “interfere[d] too much” with University operations.

The group’s “key recommendation” in 1968 was the formation of a University-wide committee to interpret guidelines and resolve disputes. That same year, Penn released its first Standards on Open Expression.

The Commission’s final report — dated April 22, 1968 — condemned protests involving physical violence, while warning of the “mistake” to end demonstrations by “force.” 

The report stated that protest standards would apply regardless of “the nature of the view expressed” and required that demonstrations comply with rules governing safety, noise, and disruption of academic activities. At the time, protesters could appeal decisions to the vice provost of student affairs.

A year later, the Commission submitted its report to the University Council, which approved the guidelines and formally established the Committee on Open Expression — a body of students, faculty, and administrators that closely resembles today’s Committee.

Early challenges

One of the earliest challenges to the new guidelines came in May 1971, when protesters blockaded Van Pelt-Dietrich Library in support of union rights. 

Then-Penn President Martin Meyerson condemned the action in an official statement at the time.

“Your acts were immoral in setting aside the rights of others,” Meyerson wrote. “They also were illegal.”

He also warned that the University would seek a court order to “open access” to its facilities and, if protesters ignored citations, administrators would “turn to civil authorities.”

The following year, demonstrations at College Hall caused what a University News Bureau document described as a “blockage” of the building’s entrances. Anywhere between 10 to 20 graduating seniors were charged in the wake of the demonstration, and the University withheld their degrees.

In a report published in the University’s Almanac, then-Faculty Senate Chair Jean Crockett argued that the students were not properly held accountable.

“It was not possible to identify even one individual as having engaged in these illegal activities,” Crockett wrote.

Crockett called on University administrators to take an active role in collecting “on-the-scene evidence” and improving the disciplinary processes, especially in circumstances involving legal counsel.

“It is quite clear that under existing administrative procedures the Guidelines are not generally enforceable,” she wrote.

In April 1977, the Committee of Open Expression investigated allegations that Penn’s Office of Security and Safety had employed students to “spy” on campus political groups and meetings. 

The Committee report found that student employees had been asked to attend these meetings without identification as security staff, often sharing information with local and federal civil authorities. The Committee described these practices as “not within the spirit of open inquiry and association” protected by its guidelines. 

In an open letter at the time, Penn’s “Committee to End Campus Spying” — a student activist group – urged for the immediate release of security files associated with the allegations.

Meyerson also wrote that he was “saddened” by “activities not within the spirit of open inquiry and association treasured by this University.”

According to his statement, the Committee on Open Expression’s report following the incident did not adequately emphasize that “freedom of any kind cannot flourish without protection.”

In 1978, then-University attorney Stephen Burbank questioned the legitimacy of the Committee in a letter to Meyerson. He specifically flagged the language of the guidelines — including the distinction between “imminent” and “immediate” danger.

The same year, the Committee ratified multiple revisions to its guidelines, including distinguishing between “demonstrations” and “meetings” based on whether the space is reserved in advance, formalizing its role in investigations, and identifying “force” as the most “serious step” to terminating a demonstration.

The Committee also directed Division of Public Safety personnel to remain clearly identifiable and prohibited information collection without prior written authorization. These changes were published in the Almanac on March 21 of that year and later incorporated into the guidelines that same year. 

The 1980s

In 1982, a Penn Political Union event featuring the South African consul general was canceled after threats against the speaker. In response, then-Faculty Senate Chair Murray Gerstenhaber proposed a revision to the guidelines to qualify “threats” against a speaker as a violation. The Committee ultimately recommended no changes.

Three years later, a Black Student League disruption during a class violated guidelines prohibiting demonstrations inside classrooms. According to reports at the time, administrators present at the protest failed to warn students about the consequences of potential violations.

Seeking to clarify the enforcement process in 1986, then-President Sheldon Hackney and then-Provost Thomas Ehrlich formed a special committee to review “ambiguities in language” within the guidelines and make its “wording more clear and less cluttered.” 

Certain members of the Committee saw this as an attempt to “dilute” the group’s authority, warning that changes could shift power elsewhere.

“Maybe Hackney is really saying that he can’t get his proposals through the Committee on Open Expression,” Committee member and Penn Carey Law student Jon Landsman told the DP at the time. 

Enforcement debates came to a head in 1987, when a special committee formed by Hackney and Ehrlich proposed removing the Committee’s power to decide whether violations occurred. The plan — which limited the Committee’s functions to advisory and mediation roles — would transfer adjudicatory authority to a separate judicial “Hearing Board.”

Proponents of the change argued that it would resolve conflicts of interest and “expedite” the judicial hearing process, while others warned it could limit students’ rights to protest. 

With the approval of the University Council, the Committee became a fully advisory body in 1988.

The 1990s

In 1990, former President Ronald Reagan delivered a speech on campus, during which two students were removed for displaying protest placards intended to raise awareness about the AIDS epidemic. Hackney acknowledged the “limitations” of the Open Expression Guidelines in the presence of high-profile non-University speakers, especially federal government figures.

Responding to such ambiguities, Penn adopted a clause in December 1991 clarifying that the Guidelines on Open Expression “always take precedence” in cases of conflict with other official policies.

The following year, the University Council recommended that Penn Police be allowed to photograph individuals who violate guidelines if they refuse to identify themselves. The new oversight was described as a “last resort” tool.

The measure drew opposition from many students, who called it a “tremendous blow” to demonstrations. Administrators, on the other hand, framed the decision as a compromise necessary to strengthen judicial investigations. 

“I hope that by all the ventilation of this we got down to something people can understand and live with,” then-Faculty Senate Chair David Hildebrand told the DP at the time.

The 2010s

The early 21st century brought few formal changes to the guidelines but revealed the Committee’s growing authority — especially across online spaces.

In 2015, Committee members reaffirmed Penn’s commitment to hosting “controversial” speakers after several individuals — including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — were uninvited from the previous year’s commencement ceremony. The Committee aimed to “distance” itself from its practice of removing speakers.

The Committee also addressed free expression through the anonymous social media platform YikYak. As other universities moved to ban the app, Committee members unanimously voted to allow it, maintaining that the Guidelines on Open Expression “still count” despite the platform’s anonymity and lack of regulation.

The Committee also expanded its “Open Expression Monitor” program — a team of faculty and staff who attend protests and deescalate conflicts — to include students. The observers have the responsibility to issue a warning to those who violate guidelines.

During 2017 protests over neo-Nazi recruitment flyers posted across campus, the Committee defended the right to distribute materials, adding that the “content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action.”

Many students expressed disappointment with the University’s neutral stance.

“Neutrality takes the side of the oppressor, and we are sick of being told to just take hate speech,” one protestor told the DP in 2017. 

The encampment and a new era

After the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023, Penn Students Against the Occupation of Palestine and the Philly Palestine Coalition posted photos of several messages projected onto Huntsman Hall, Irvine Auditorium, and Penn Commons with pro-Palestinian slogans.

Penn denounced the projections, calling the displays antisemitic and “vile.”

That spring, Penn community members occupied College Green for 16 days during the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, during which protesters chalked messages on the pavement surrounding College Green, projected films as part of their programming, and climbed the Benjamin Franklin statue in front of College Hall.

Penn Police officers in riot gear accompanied by Philadelphia Police Department officers disbanded the encampment and arrested 33 individuals, including nine students.

Months later, Penn implemented new temporary guidelines for campus demonstrations and initiated a review of the Guidelines on Open Expression. A faculty task force led by Lisa Bellini, a professor of Medicine and Sigal Ben-Porath, a professor of Education was charged with the review process.

The new guidelines state that all on-campus events are “presumed to be private.” They also require organizers of “non-academic” events to make reservations two weeks in advance. Organizers are limited to holding events during “stated business hours” unless given prior permission. 

---

---