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
At Franklin’s Forum, we believe a shared understanding of the past is necessary to help the university's future. Last week, we published the first installment of Inside Penn: Two Years That Defined Our Campus, a series tracing the key events and policies that have reshaped Penn’s climate since the fall of 2023. The first edition covered the surge of campus antisemitism and the resignations of President Liz Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok (C ‘81, W ‘81, L ‘84). If you missed it, you can read it here.
Our goal in this series is simple: provide alumni the context needed to understand where Penn stands today. Franklin’s Forum believes Penn’s future must be fundamentally focused on academic excellence. That journey starts with a shared understanding of the key events that brought Penn to where it is today.
New leaders, same tensions
After Magill and Bok resigned in December 2023, the university looked within to quickly fill its leadership gaps. Julie Platt (C ‘79), the vice chair of the Board of Trustees, became its interim chair. Longtime medical school dean Larry Jameson stepped in as interim president. By January 2024, the board unanimously elected Ramanan Raghavendran (ENG ‘89, W ‘89, LPS ‘15) as its new chair.
The inauguration of new leaders did not immediately end the turmoil. Magill’s fall had ignited a fierce debate over freedom of speech and the role of donors in shaping the university. The University Task Force on Antisemitism and Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community continued surveying the university and crafting recommendations throughout the semester. President Jameson quickly took charge, emphasizing Penn’s commitment to safety, its new strategic framework unveiled under Magill, and plans to address antisemitism and hate. He focused on creating a more integrated campus, drawing ideas from across the university community and seeking dialogue and collaboration across divides.
Yet antisemitic incidents, including the creation and display of antisemitic cartoons by a Penn professor, continued on campus. At a January Faculty Senate meeting, the administration and faculty issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to free expression and academic freedom.
That spring, the Penn Faculty Senate (which we will discuss further in later editions) held two community roundtables with scholars on free expression. At the same time, Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian students pressed Jameson for recognition of increased Islamophobia while the federal investigation into antisemitism continued. In April, the Penn administration revoked the student-club status of Penn Against the Occupation (PAO) in an aim to enforce the rules of student conduct after an investigation into the prominent anti-Israel club (which was cited in the student antisemitism lawsuit).
For most of the semester, Penn avoided the encampments appearing on peer campuses, but warning signs mounted: anti-Israel students disrupted a Board of Trustees meeting, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) gave Penn a “D” grade in its first annual “report card” of universities, docking Penn primarily for antisemitic and anti-Zionist incidents and campus group activity. (In future editions, we will explore the ADL’s methodology and rankings for Penn.) Antisemitism and other forms of hate festered in a campus environment that did not encourage open dialogue or facilitate difficult conversations.
The encampment erupts
The relative calm didn’t last. In late April, after PAO was banned, protests escalated at peer universities, and a 16-day “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” took over College Green. It drew over 300 protestors including students from Penn, Drexel, and Temple alongside activists from Philadelphia and beyond, caused diversions of university operations and events (including Hey Day), and brought police presence into the middle of campus. President Jameson issued updates as the encampment grew louder, more disruptive, and at times openly supportive of Hamas. Jewish students reported feeling unsafe. Jameson warned the encampment violated university policy. Still, the encampment continued.
By May 1, Jameson was urging the Philadelphia police to intervene. After over two weeks of turmoil and failed negotiations with the protestors, with encouragement to end the encampment from Governor Shapiro, the Philadelphia police finally acted. On May 10th, police dismantled the encampment, arresting 33 people, nine of them Penn students. Disciplinary action followed for some of the students involved in the encampment and other campus protests that spring, including mandatory leaves of absence and suspensions after receiving initial disciplinary notices.
Tents are cleared, but challenges remain
The crackdown sparked fervent debate. Some accused Penn of violating free expression rights; others, including many alums, Governor Shapiro, and some Biden administration officials, argued Penn should have ended the encampment sooner due to its known violation of the school’s code of conduct. Former Faculty Senate Chair Tulia Falleti resigned as chair, claiming Penn violated the rights of students in the encampment.
Penn responded by explicitly banning encampments and announcing new temporary rules for campus events and demonstrations. The same week, the University Task Force on Antisemitism and Penn’s Presidential Commission on Hate and Bullying released sweeping recommendations to improve the campus climate. (We’ll dive into these in later newsletters.)
If the encampment was a turning point on College Green, surveys revealed a deeper problem: trust. In the Spring 2024 Penn Senior Survey, only 16% of students agreed the administration was transparent. Distrust in the administration, coupled with the lack of public trust we discussed in Issue 1, reflected the turbulent environment of the 2023-2024 school year and struggles that lay ahead at Penn.
The Senior Survey data also described a divisive climate unwelcoming to constructive dialogue and free expression. Over half of respondents said professors failed to often create a classroom environment where those with potentially unpopular opinions would feel free expressing them, and only 33% reported they felt comfortable expressing “opinions on controversial topics without fear of being unfairly judged.” These findings underscored a culture of division and a campus climate that stifled dialogue, and with it, genuine learning.
Penn closed the year with new leaders, new rules, and new promises. The harder work still lay ahead: turning pledges of reform into lasting change.
Next week’s newsletter will cover Part III, picking up where we left off at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please subscribe here to receive the rest of this series over the next few weeks.
The Almanac
Penn ranks 231/257 in new Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) College Free Speech Rankings
Penn ranked 231st this year, rising slightly from second-to-last in both 2022 and 2023 and 248th of 251 in 2024. These modest gains were driven in part by Penn’s adoption of an institutional neutrality policy (which we will discuss further in our next newsletter) and a decrease in student support for using disruptive conduct to stop speakers.
The survey data behind the ranking provides a window into the school’s poor speech climate. High shares of Penn students self-censor at least occasionally:
In classrooms (67%)
When speaking to professors (62%)
In conversations with peers (69%)
Penn students rank second-to-last across all colleges in comfort expressing ideas. An overwhelming majority of students said they are uncomfortable expressing potentially controversial ideas across settings:
Public disagreement with a professor (74%)
Disagreement with a professor on a written assignment (68%)
In class discussions (68%)
In public with fellow students (58%)
On social media (80%)
A staggering 75% of students noted it is difficult to have an open conversation about the Israel-Palestine conflict, far higher than on the 2024 presidential election (44%), police misconduct (36%), affirmative action (36%), abortion (35%), and transgender rights (34%).
So what? Penn has made modest progress but still has a lot of work to do. Starting last fall, New Student Orientation has included sessions on engaging in productive dialogue. However, this only scratches the surface of the work required to change the culture of speech and dialogue at Penn. In the wake of the Wednesday murder of Charlie Kirk — shot while debating with students at Utah Valley University — encouraging difficult and respectful debate at universities has never been more urgent. Kirk, known for founding the conservative movement Turning Point USA, was an ardent advocate of political debate. The shooting has been condemned by leaders across the political spectrum. The FIRE survey revealed 26% of Penn student respondents said there are some instances when it is acceptable to use violence to stop campus speech, rating such violence "sometimes" or “rarely” okay. Penn must foster a true culture of tolerance where all students respect the speech of others and recognize that violence is never an acceptable response to speech they disagree with.
Faculty Senate Chair aims to expand faculty engagement with Senate Executive Committee
History Professor Kathleen Brown began her one-year term in May after serving as Chair-Elect for the 2024-2025 academic year. In a conversation this week with The Daily Pennsylvanian (DP), Brown emphasized her desire to increase engagement from the governing body across the broader faculty, noting "engagement and trust in the Faculty Senate isn't where it should be.”
Brown reminisced about the engagement of the Faculty Senate of the 1980s, when “1000 out of 1200 possible standing faculty voted in an election.” Her priorities include community-building activities to unite the faculty and drive engagement. In a June interview with the DP, Brown stated she viewed her position as chair as a chance to “reinvigorate the democratic process at Penn.”
So what? As Brown told the DP, the role of the Faculty Senate at Penn as a governance body currently “teeters between an ‘advisory’ and ‘authority’ capacity.” As mentioned in last week’s edition, the senate oversees some faculty disciplinary processes including the suspension of Amy Wax. Across American universities, the positions played by faculty governance structures vary significantly. For example, at Columbia, the University Senate controls campus protest policies and has at teams been viewed as in "'opposition' to university leadership.” Now, some administrators and trustees are seeking to regain power from the senate at Columbia. Brown’s reevaluation of the governance role of the Penn Faculty Senate could potentially increase its influence and power.
Mark Trodden, new SAS Dean, plans to focus on advancing the liberal arts, excellence, and open expression
Thomas S. Gates Jr. Professor of Physics and Astronomy Mark Trodden, named the next Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences (SAS) in April, shared his vision and goals for the school this week. A longtime proponent of interdisciplinary studies and the liberal arts, he has been praised by President Jameson as “a champion of interdisciplinary collaboration.”
Trodden emphasized a focus on excellence and dialogue, telling the DP, “we want to have the best scientists, the best social scientists, the best humanists, and ideally, the best of those people who know how to talk to one another,” adding that his aim for the SAS is to “champion excellence.” He brings administrative experience as former chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy and as Associate Dean for the Natural Sciences.
So what? As FIRE’s survey shows, Penn must do much more to foster a culture of constructive dialogue. Trodden’s plan to “encourage open expression and dialogue for the whole school” is a step in the right direction. At Franklin’s Forum, we believe constructive dialogue is necessary for Penn’s core mission of academic excellence. A leader who shares that focus is encouraging. The true test, however, will be implementing programming and classes that actually shift campus culture.
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.