Days after the community feedback period ended, Penn student groups remain concerned about the potential effects of the University’s draft open expression guidelines on free speech and protest.
The online feedback form closed Friday night — an 11-day extension from the original deadline of May 18, granted after community members voiced concerns that the window for comments was too short. In a campus-wide email sent Friday afternoon, the University issued a reminder of the deadline and expressed gratitude to those who had submitted their thoughts.
“We are grateful to everyone who has already submitted feedback, and we will communicate later this summer about next steps in the revision process,” the University wrote in the May 29 email.
In an April email to the Penn community, Provost John Jackson Jr. acknowledged that it was “a busy time of year.” He explained that he and Penn President Larry Jameson will “work with the chair of the Committee on Open Expression and the tri-chairs of the Faculty Senate” this summer to summarize “key themes” of community feedback — which will be shared with the Penn community — and write a revised draft “to present at University Council in September.”
On Friday, Penn Democrats issued a social media statement in opposition to the proposed guidelines, writing that the draft “will dramatically increase the University’s control over student speech and demonstration.”
“Student speech is a cornerstone of intellectual development, and it is vital to Penn’s purpose,” the group added.
Penn Dems wrote it was “unclear” how the new guidelines “will affect our political organizing efforts on Penn’s campus, adding that “As Penn students and as Penn Dems, we affirm our fundamental right to peaceful assembly and protest.”
Penn Dems joined a coalition of over 40 student groups supporting a petition objecting to the new guidelines that was launched in late April. The document, circulated widely online in the past month, outlines numerous concerns regarding the proposed policies, such as vague language, consolidation of power, and invasion of cyberspace.
RELATED:
Penn community criticizes ‘unsalvageable’ draft open expression guidelines at listening session
Penn unveils draft open expression guidelines following extensive review process
The petition also highlighted that the original guidelines were drafted “without meaningful student involvement,” adding that the feedback window was “compressed into 2 months, coincidentally during the busiest stretch of the academic year.”
Rising Wharton junior and Asian Pacific Student Coalition chair Simon Thomas wrote to The Daily Pennsylvanian that the coalition has grown, now encompassing “not just undergraduates, but also graduates, including the 7B, the UA Executive Board, and the GAPSA Executive Board.”
APSC was one of the earlier student organizations to sign the petition.
“Overall, this amasses a healthy majority of the representation of all students on Penn’s campus, and goes to show the collective sentiment across Penn,” Thomas added.
The APSC’s executive board wrote to the DP that the draft guidelines could “have drastic consequences for generations to come.”
“The old guidelines prioritized protecting speech unless it clearly crossed a line,” the board wrote. “The new principles prioritize managing speech to preserve institutional order, safety, and operations.”
Along with other student organizations, the group pointed to “vague” language, reduced student representation on the Committee on Open Expression, and increased disciplinary possibilities as key issues with the draft.
Rising College senior Niheer Patel — who serves as the chair external of the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education — echoed concerns about the potential negative impact of the new guidelines in the long term, writing that they “would cement a chilling effect on speech for at least the next decade.”
“The current guidelines treat public expression as an obstacle to be overcome to maintain other University functions,” Patel wrote to the DP. “While balancing is necessary, these lean much too far in the anti-speech direction.”
In a statement to the DP, the chairs of the Penn Association for Gender Equity highlighted online expression as one of their concerns.
“Currently, it is unclear what the cyberspace includes or what falls under the ‘disruption’ standard,” the chairs wrote. “This lack of clarity could mean that students’ personal social media could be subject to University discipline.”
Abuse and Sexual Assault Prevention connected issues with the guidelines to Denim Day, an annual day that raises awareness of sexual assault and has its origins in protests related to overturning of a sexual assault case in Italy.
“In the current form of the guidelines where ‘disruption’ remains broadly defined, movements like this do not have a place on our campus,” the organization wrote to the DP. “Survivors are silenced and harmful ideas continue to go unchallenged.”
Rising College senior and Undergraduate Assembly President Musab Chummun wrote to the DP that a current priority is “making sure the feedback is taken into consideration properly, and that the implementation in the fall is done cooperatively” through the University Council and the UA.
He added that the responsibility is a “dual burden” for the Committee on Open Expression to take feedback into account and for the Penn community to “hold them accountable.”
Open expression became a particularly contentious issue at Penn after the dismantling of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment and the subsequent implementation of the temporary principles for campus demonstrations in 2024, which tightened restrictions on hosting events and protests.
After nearly two years under the temporary standards, the University unveiled its updated draft guidelines in March and asked for community feedback.
Initial campus reactions noted some improvements over the temporary guidelines, but concerns about restricted speech and protections remained. Criticism of the revision process grew as former members of the Committee on Open Expression told the DP that the University’s draft included language that was not part of the committee’s suggestions.
At listening sessions in April, Penn community members criticized the University’s proposals as “unsalvageable.”
RELATED:
Penn community criticizes ‘unsalvageable’ draft open expression guidelines at listening session
Penn unveils draft open expression guidelines following extensive review process
Staff reporter James Wan covers academic affairs and can be reached at wan@thedp.com. At Penn, he studies communication and computer science. Follow him on X @JamesWan__.
