Penn’s draft Guidelines on Open Expression stir debate on campus

A draft of Penn’s Guidelines on Open Expression has garnered mixed reactions from students and faculty.

Since 2024, Penn has operated under temporary rules governing demonstrations and events. While some community members welcomed the University’s proposed revisions, others raised concerns about its implications for student expression, event planning, and institutional transparency.

College junior Musab Chummun — who is the current vice president of Penn’s Undergraduate Assembly and the group’s next president — wrote blankly that “the proposed revisions do not effectively protect open expression on campus.”

“Firstly, what constitutes disruption/violations of open expression is too arbitrary,” Chummun explained in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian. “If the University can restrict speech without clear justification, the application of open expression becomes inconsistently applied and subject to bias.”

According to the draft guidelines — publicly released on Tuesday — Penn community members violate the principles of open expression if “[t]hey interfere unreasonably with the regular activities of others,” including “unreasonably disrupting the normal activity that takes place within the University.”

Chummun wrote that disruption “should not be overly restricted” because “it directs attention toward a cause that would otherwise be met with indifference.” He referenced a 1973 sit-in at College Hall that led to improved protections for women on campus, including the establishment of the Penn Women’s Center.

College junior and current UA president Nia Matthews similarly expressed concern that the draft “still does not clearly define what level of disruption to University operations is enough to cross the line,” noting that “[p]rotest is, by nature, disruptive.”

Matthews wrote that “the University continues to approach open expression through the lens of institutional risk and public scrutiny rather than through a clear commitment to academic freedom and dissent.”

She also questioned Penn’s approach to handling demonstrations.

“I have concerns that requiring permission for things like tents or encampments could limit protests that are meant to be urgent and responsive,” Matthews wrote.

Political science and communication professor Diana Mutz echoed a similar sentiment, that “students’ abilities to voice their views need to be encouraged.”

“The whole idea of protests is that there can be spontaneous events in reaction to real-world events,” Mutz told the DP. “If we cannot have spontaneous ones or we must go through the Provost’s office to get permission, then obviously they’re not going to give us permission if they don’t like what we have to say.”

The new Open Expression Observer Program — which appoints faculty, staff, and administrators as “neutral parties” to monitor demonstrations — was also a point of concern for Chummun.

The draft policies state that open expression observers, “shall refer potential violations of the Principles” to the executive director of open expression and “should endeavor to issue a clear verbal or written warning and instruction to those involved.”

“Students need more of a say in how the observer application program works, who can administer final referrals, and what truly counts as an open expression violation,” Chummun wrote.

College first year Sophie Rivell, a member of the UA and the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education, wrote that she was “curious” about the program’s development.

“My hope is that it functions as a safeguard that makes people feel more comfortable being vocal, rather than creating a chilling effect,” Rivell wrote. “The success of that program will depend a lot on how it is implemented and perceived on the ground.”

Matthews also pointed to the draft’s provisions on student speech as an area of apprehension.

“The guidelines say that content of student speech or expression is not, by itself, a basis for disciplinary action, and they say community members have the right to express themselves, including on social media,” she wrote. “But in reality, Penn community members have still been scrutinized for what they say, and I’d argue that the University has not always done satisfactorily enough to protect those facing harassment.”

Communication professor Jessa Lingel — who serves as the president of Penn’s American Association of University Professors chapter — stated that the “inclusion of digital content, which hasn’t been really listed as part of open expression before,” was one of her major issues with the draft guidelines.

“I’m really worried about how that will shake out in terms of people who are part of the Penn community feeling free to express themselves online out of fear of retribution,” Lingel added.

AAUP-Penn previously released a statement criticizing the University for a lack of “transparency and meaningful input from campus stakeholders” as it reevaluated open expression on campus.

College junior Simon Webber, who serves as the president of Penn for Liberty and the vice president external of the Government and Politics Association, expressed “mixed views” on the guidelines in a statement to the DP. 

While Webber agreed “in principle” with the “new guideline limiting speech or conduct seen as threatening or harassing to specific individuals,” he noted his disagreement with how Penn considered such speech more severe if it targets certain protected individuals or groups.

“If someone is being legitimately harassed or threatened, they deserve protection,” Webber added. “Identity should play no role in this.”

Matthews clarified that, despite her numerous concerns, “not every change is negative.”

“The new draft shortens the amount of advance notice needed for events in VPUL spaces and on Locust to seven business days, which is better than the current system,” she added. “It also says some events can be approved on shorter notice, and I hope that flexibility is actually available in practice.”

Second-year Wharton MBA student Colin Duffy — who serves as president of the Wharton School’s Adam Smith Society chapter — was less optimistic about the implementation of policies governing events on campus. He wrote to the DP that he believes “broad administrative discretion can still be used to burden disfavored speakers.”

“Penn’s new draft says the right things about viewpoint neutrality, but our experience shows the real issue is enforcement, not wording,” Duffy wrote. “If the University still has broad discretion to restrict access, delay events, and impose vague security requirements, then controversial speakers can still be treated differently in practice even if the policy sounds neutral on paper.”

Still, some community members remarked positively on the draft guidelines and feedback process. Rivell expressed her belief that the University has made “real progress” on communication, especially compared to “the lack of transparency” after Penn received the Compact for Excellence in Higher Education.

“We are seeing substantive written updates, publicized listening sessions open to the entire University community, and genuine opportunities for students to weigh in on decisions as they are being made,” Rivell wrote.

Ludwig Zhao, a bioengineering Ph.D. candidate and the president of the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, wrote that “GAPSA views the draft of the updated Guidelines as a thoughtful and constructive step toward a more comprehensive framework for open expression at Penn.”

“GAPSA greatly appreciates the forthcoming opportunities to provide feedback and looks forward to participating in the upcoming listening sessions as this process continues,” Zhao wrote.

Despite expressing extensive concern about the updated guidelines’ content and revision process, Lingel encouraged community members to share feedback at the listening sessions.

“I want to take the Provost on their own terms and say that they’ve set up these listening sessions for feedback,” Lingel said. “It just feels like it’s important to use that opportunity to make sure our voices are heard.”

---