Welcome to the Franklin’s Forum newsletter. The newsletter contains two sections. First, in The Key, we will explore and analyze one key issue affecting Penn, why it matters, and what it means for the university’s future. Next, in The Almanac, we’ll highlight recent developments in higher education and at Penn — giving you what matters most, without the noise.
The Key
This week, President Jameson unveiled Penn Forward, designed to carry out the strategic framework In Principle and Practice, announced in the fall of 2023. Through Penn Forward, six committees of students, post-docs, faculty, staff, and administrators will spend the semester developing plans to “challenge legacy assumptions; propose bold, implementable strategies; and remain grounded in Penn’s values.” Implementation is set to begin in 2026.
Penn Forward is the university’s attempt to get ahead of a rapidly changing higher education environment. As peer institutions continue to grapple with the chaos, seen in Northwestern’s president’s resignation and Harvard’s contentious litigation with the government, Penn should seize this opportunity to lead. As Jameson said, “If we can make it easier for other institutions to follow our lead, then the whole higher education sector can move more quickly.” This is a positive move for Penn — reaffirming its focus on academic excellence, cultivating a university environment that can adapt to the shifting higher education landscape, and committing to self-improvement.
To understand how Penn got here, and why the university is focused on a renewed strategy, we need to go back to the fall of 2023. That August, Penn appeared steady from the outside. Within a year, the university had lost its president and board chair, faced federal investigations, endured a 16-day self-proclaimed “Gaza solidarity encampment,” and revised its rules on protest. The Penn that welcomed the Class of 2029 at Convocation last week is an institution shaped by these crises — and still in flux.
Since then, the school has faced fresh scrutiny from the federal government — and even Pennsylvania’s own senators — over antisemitism, Title VI, Title IX, tuition price fixing, and DEI. This summer, Penn reached an agreement with the federal government to address Title IX concerns and reinstate $175 million in frozen federal funding. Nonetheless, Penn and other research institutions face continued uncertainty around the changing federal grant landscape, with scares around indirect cost caps, a shrinking pool of NIH funding in the past year, and a new forward-funding policy that will further cut available awards. The pressure on Penn has been immense, and the university’s work towards its promise of self-improvement is just beginning.
Penn has recognized many of these challenges and is attempting to respond. Penn Forward is the latest step. At Franklin’s Forum, our goal is to help alumni understand what matters most and what is real (as opposed to noise) about the changes shaping Penn’s future: celebrating progress and highlighting where more work is needed.
Beginning this week, we will publish a series chronicling key events that have affected Penn since August 2023. Rather than cataloging every single event, we will focus on the moments and incidents we view as critical to Penn’s trajectory. Later editions will dive deeper into their implications for Penn’s mission of academic excellence. This series is about building a shared understanding and setting the stage for conversations to come. To look forward, we must first understand how we got here.
Part I: Rising Antisemitism and the Fall of Liz Magill
In September of 2023, the Palestine Writes and Literature Festival (PWLF) was held on Penn’s campus. The event sparked outrage from alumni, faculty, and students who viewed many of its speakers as antisemitic. Then-President Liz Magill defended hosting the event in the name of promoting the free exchange of ideas while simultaneously denouncing antisemitism. She acknowledged that although the event was not organized by the university, “individual faculty, departments and centers, and student organizations are engaged as sponsors, speakers and volunteers.” These sponsors and partners included the Department of Cinema and Media Studies, the Kelly Writers House, Penn Arts and Science Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations program, Penn Arts and Sciences Middle East Center, and Penn-associated student clubs.
Her statement satisfied no one. Supporters of the festival, including Arab students, faculty, and some in the Penn Jewish community, condemned Magill’s criticisms of festival speakers. They demanded she more openly support the event, “immediately amend[ing] your statement so that it is clearly in support of a diversity of views and diversity of religious, racial, and cultural communities on campus.” Meanwhile, more than 2,000 community members — among them Trustees, Penn school advisory board members, and prominent donors — signed an open letter urging Penn to do “all within its power to distance itself from the event’s antisemitic speakers.”
Magill tried to assure the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that Penn was taking “immediate steps” to curb antisemitism. But nevertheless, the PWLF went forward on September 22nd–24th, even as antisemitism on campus continued to fester. Throughout that month, swastikas were found in graffiti on campus and Penn Hillel was vandalized. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (C’65) labeled the school’s handling of the PWLF and its aftermath a “significant failure.”
Penn’s weak speech environment allowed hostility to spread rather than be confronted. That same month, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranked Penn second to last for a second year in a row, at 247 out of 248, in its annual College Free Speech Rankings. Penn’s “very poor” speech climate ranking cited restrictive speech codes, intolerance of conservative speakers, and administrators punishing faculty under public pressure. (We will explore the FIRE rankings and findings further in future editions.)
Two weeks later, on October 7th, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel. In an open letter to the Penn community, Magill and Provost John L. Jackson remarked they were “devastated by the horrific assault on Israel by Hamas” and highlighted resources and responses at the university. The letter stopped short of calling the attack terrorism.
Magill’s omission only fueled anger and concern that she was failing to confront rising antisemitism on campus. The next week, she published a new letter, clarifying her position on the “acts of antisemitism on our campus and the terrorist attacks in Israel.” Many saw it as too little, too late. Notable alumni denounced Magill, called for her resignation alongside that of then Chair of the Board of Trustees Scott Bok (C ’81, W ’81, L ’84), and pulled funding from the school. Bok, in turn, rebuked Chair of the Wharton Board of Advisors Marc Rowan’s (W ‘84, WG ‘85) attitude and response in his own letter. With criticism mounting, donor support evaporating, and funding at risk, Penn’s leadership spiraled deeper into crisis.
As pressure built, Magill tried to reset. Three days later, she published another message. This time she emphasized Penn’s goal of protecting its students while defending free expression. The Board of Trustees expressed support, “unanimously endorsing” steps taken by Penn. Alumni remained divided. Rowan rallied alumni to “Close their Checkbooks” unless Magill and Bok resigned.
By November, pressure escalated beyond campus. Twenty members of Congress signed a letter expressing disapproval of Penn’s handling of antisemitism and its administration’s public statements on Israel, in contrast to its quick condemnation of other recent geopolitical events. That same day, Magill announced “Penn’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism,” which revolved around “safety and security, engagement, and education.” At the Board of Trustees meeting later that week, Magill reiterated her commitment to combatting antisemitism on campus and her plan to create a Presidential Commission on antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate.
Still, antisemitic acts and anger continued: some Jewish staff members received threats over email, antisemitic messages and images were projected across campus onto various buildings, and protestors chanted “Penn trustees you cannot hide, stop funding this genocide.”
Federal scrutiny soon followed. The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a complaint, and the Department of Education launched antisemitism and Islamophobia investigations into Penn and six other schools. Penn scrambled to get on its feet, calm alumni and external voices, and restore order on campus. It published a new strategic framework with four principles: “Anchored, Interwoven, Inventive, Engaged.” Pressure only mounted, culminating in a student lawsuit (later dismissed) alleging Penn’s response to antisemitism was insufficient.
The breaking point came on December 5th, when Magill testified before Congress. Asked by Representative Elise Stefanik (NY) whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated Penn’s code of conduct, Magill stated it was “context dependent.” The outrage was immediate. Penn boards, significant alumni donors, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned her testimony.
Within days, Magill and Bok both resigned from their roles, noting that Magill’s position was “no longer tenable.” Their departures closed one of the most turbulent chapters in Penn’s modern history and left the university at the center of a national debate over antisemitism, free expression, and leadership in higher education.
Next week’s newsletter will cover Part II, picking up where we left off at the end of 2023. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please subscribe here to receive the rest of this series over the next few weeks.
The Almanac
Lawsuit against Penn by law professor Amy Wax dismissed by district judge
US District Court Judge Timothy Savage dismissed Professor of Law Amy Wax’s lawsuit against Penn, in which Wax claimed the university discriminated against her because other professors’ “anti-Jewish speech [was] not subject to discipline” while her speech “directed at other racial groups is.”
While Wax argued she was discriminatorily singled-out and punished for her race-focused speech, Judge Savage explains that anti-discrimination laws only “protect speech, not speakers” and “as much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case.” He also found no evidence that the disciplinary process penalized Wax because she is white and Jewish.
The ruling follows years of contention between Wax and the law school over her comments about immigrant, minority, and LGBTQ groups that drew fire from many in the community. Her disciplinary process, conducted by the faculty senate, ended in sanctions including a one-year suspension at half pay with benefits and permanent loss of summer pay and her chair position.
So what? This case posed a difficult question for Penn on where the line should be drawn between protected free speech and violations of university policies. Some donors pulled funding after Penn first disciplined Wax in 2018. However, there has also been support across the university community arguing that Wax’s comments are inconsistent with Penn’s values and should not be tolerated. While Wax lost this case, it is unlikely to be the final time Penn and its peers will arbitrate this question.
New federal guidance aims to limit foreign research threats following investigation launched at Penn
Last week, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) released Safeguarding Academia, new recommendations to protect research at American universities “while fostering international collaboration.” This comes as Penn and peers are under investigation for inaccurate foreign funding disclosures.
Concerns include foreign actors stealing taxpayer funded technology, placing spies in research universities, and influencing the direction of research through funding. The NCSC says stronger diligence over foreign involvement can help the U.S. “better protect its scientific enterprise while sustaining its global leadership in innovation.”
So what? Penn, Harvard, UC Berkeley, and Michigan are all under investigation for incorrect and incomplete records of foreign investment. Until 2019, Penn did not disclose foreign funding, “despite a decades-long statutory obligation to do so.” As federal scrutiny increases, universities will face mounting pressure to protect research integrity, especially when federal funding is heavily involved. Heightened awareness of who funds and participates in research, and why, can ultimately help Penn, and America, lead in innovation.
University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) settles discrimination lawsuit, renaming Black Doctors Directory
Penn Medicine and Philadelphia radio station WURD settled a March Title VI, Affordable Care Act, and Pennsylvania state law lawsuit filed by Do No Harm, a nonprofit focused on eliminating “identity politics” (including DEI) from the medical field. Black Doctors Directory was launched in 2024 by Penn Medicine and WURD to match Philly-area residents with doctors.
As part of the settlement, the Black Doctors Directory website has been removed and will relaunch as WURD Radio Community Health and Wellness Directory. The new directory will include doctors of all races who “have demonstrated a commitment to helping underserved patients and communities.” Despite the lawsuit, WURD expressed in an April statement their continued “commitment to advancing health equity in our community.”
So what? Following the federal government’s January executive orders banning DEI initiatives at federally-funded institutions, Penn and its peers have removed such programs. This lawsuit is another example of the federal government’s use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to dismantle DEI-focused efforts. The University of Pennsylvania Health System is technically part of Penn, falling under the purview of the Board of Trustees and President Jameson. Therefore, this suit, and further litigation over DEI practices at Penn Medicine, could directly affect Penn’s broader operations and funding.
Thank you for reading the Franklin’s Forum newsletter! We love connecting with our readers — send us your thoughts and questions, Penn news, and ideas for future issues. If you enjoyed this edition, please spread the word by forwarding it to friends and classmates.