Penn’s Faculty Senate passed a resolution in response to the University’s proposed open expression guidelines Tuesday, criticizing the language and drafting process of the policies.
The statement, endorsed by the Senate Executive Committee and published on June 23 after a vote, characterizes the draft guidelines as “misaligned” with Penn’s values. SEC called for a return of authority to the Committee on Open Expression and for the Provost’s Office to release the 2025 recommendations from the Task Force on Open Expression.
“The content of the proposed guidelines would undermine Penn’s operations and chill speech,” the statement read, citing restrictions on event registration, “spontaneous assemblies,” and social media posts.
Instead, the statement described ideal open expression guidelines as “clear and precise” with “a practical simplicity” and “consistent expectations for safety and respect for different viewpoints.”
In a statement on behalf of the Faculty Senate tri-chairs, neurology professor and Faculty Senate Chair Roy Hamilton wrote that SEC adopted the statement unanimously with one abstention. He explained that the response originated in “a special meeting” that SEC held on May 27 — which came from a vote at SEC’s “last regularly scheduled meeting” — to further discuss the University’s proposed revisions.
“At the meeting, there was agreement that a representative working group should be formed to draft a statement for SEC’s consideration,” Hamilton wrote. “That ad hoc committee undertook its work following the May 27 meeting, and the result of that effort is the draft that was voted on today at a second special meeting.”
SEC’s statement also detailed historical inconsistencies with the drafting process, especially regarding the conclusions of the Task Force on Open Expression — created in May 2024 — and the draft guidelines released by the Provost’s Office in March.
“The process by which the draft guidelines were created was a clear departure from the University’s commitment to shared governance,” SEC wrote.
Noting that the Committee on Open Expression has been entrusted with matters relating to the guidelines for almost 60 years, the statement described how the committee did not receive an opportunity “to deliberate on” the task force’s recommendations.
Former members of the COE previously told the DP that the task force had continued revisions after the committee had approved its recommendations. They also said that the draft guidelines contained provisions that had not been reviewed by the committee, including language about event registration and the structure of authority.
“These draft guidelines would radically shift authority toward the Provost’s Office and away from the rest of the University community, an unacceptable weakening of shared governance in matters of open expression,” the statement read.
The details of the task force’s recommendations and the subsequent review process undertaken by University administrators before the draft guidelines’ publication have remained unclear. The 2025-26 iteration of the COE was not convened for a majority of the academic year, only being fully assembled around the time the draft was released.
Last week, the University announced that it would be extending the timeline for a final version of the open expression guidelines, including further feedback opportunities. The extension means that the 2024 temporary standards for campus demonstrations — which bypassed conventional procedures for revising the guidelines — will remain in effect for longer than previously anticipated.
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__.
