Penn’s proposed open expression guidelines have drawn sharp backlash from faculty and students, according to a memo published on Tuesday.
The University released a formal summary of community feedback, which compiled 193 responses from an anonymous online survey and email, two listening sessions, and various governance meetings. The takeaways highlight widespread concerns over both the content of the draft policy and the transparency of the revision process.
According to the Aug. 25 document, the Office of the Provost is “grateful for the time and thought that has gone into the feedback” and emphasizes common values of “engaging with ideas, seeking truth, producing knowledge, and expressing different viewpoints.”
“The Penn community deserves Guidelines that unambiguously embrace the foundational importance of open expression and effectively support it on our campus,” the document read. “With that goal as their guiding light, the COE has been working on an updated draft of the revised Guidelines.”
The summary was assisted by members of the president’s and provost’s offices, the Committee on Open Expression, and University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Eric Feldman — a former Faculty Senate tri-chair who now serves as the senior advisor to the provost on open expression. Feldman moderated the April listening sessions, which allowed students and faculty to share feedback on the guidelines.
Provost John Jackson Jr. pledged to release a summary of comments on open expression in June — a request made by listening session attendees in April who asked for the document to be shared with the entire community rather than only administrators.
According to the summary, criticism of the revision process largely centered on transparency issues — including a lack of clear explanation for why the guidelines were changed and how the Task Force on Open Expression’s recommendations were incorporated.
In June, the Faculty Senate called on the task force — which shaped the draft guidelines without final oversight from the Committee on Open Expression — to release its recommendations.
Other concerns included a perceived “lack of openness to feedback” and “discontent that the full transcript of the listening sessions would not be made public.”
Numerous points of feedback in the summary also focused on the concentration of authority under the provost — who will now have the power to approve members of the Committee on Open Expression along with its new executive director, who will oversee relevant disciplinary matters.
Provisions governing free speech and demonstrations also garnered criticism, particularly those regulating spontaneous protests, restricting signage and other forms of demonstrations, and governing social media. A major theme was how the new guidelines would affect interactions with law enforcement, including possible “police violence” and ID checks that “could potentially be used for criminal prosecution and deportation.”
Further comments described concerns about academic freedom, vague wording that could enable “unbridled interpretive discretion,” and “overly legalistic and prescriptive” language that heavily focused on consequences for guideline violations.
The summarized criticism was accompanied by numerous suggestions, some of which the University has already implemented.
Recommendations regarding authority asked for a greater distribution of power, joint decisions on disciplinary referrals, and increased independence of the Committee on Open Expression. Commenters also suggested balancing the representation of faculty, staff, and students on the committee — which, under the current structure, is heavily skewed toward faculty.
Other respondents advocated for more leeway on permissible protests, stricter limits on ID requests, a hands-off approach to personal social media use paired with anti-doxxing protections, and a stronger emphasis on “the value of expressive activity.”
Penn extended the feedback period in accordance with community suggestions and is now set to circulate a new draft in the fall.
The Guidelines on Open Expression — which are decades old — have seen several iterations and have been under review since 2024. The beginning of the overhaul of open expression on campus came after a semester marked by on-campus protests, including the Gaza Solidarity Encampment.
At the time, Penn instituted temporary standards for events and demonstrations, effectively replacing part of the guidelines. Those policies are still in place, while the current provisions governing authority and committee structure originate from the 1993 version of the guidelines.
The draft was released in March and is expected to be finalized by November, with implementation scheduled for January 2027.
Senior reporter James Wan leads administration reporting and can be reached at wan@thedp.com. At Penn, he studies communication and computer science. Follow him on X @JamesWan__.
