The Key — Who Holds Penn’s Power Over Open Expression?
Last Tuesday, Penn’s Provost’s Office published its new draft Guidelines on Open Expression. The proposal makes some positive strides in better safeguarding free expression on campus compared to the Temporary Standards. However, the draft also concentrates authority for amending, overseeing, and enforcing open expression policies under the Provost.
Penn announced its plan for creating permanent open expression policies last month, emphasizing its intent to gather community feedback as it refines the proposal. As we’ve discussed, over the past two years, Penn strayed from promised procedures in developing this draft, operating with limited transparency. After criticism from students, faculty, and external advocates, the administration now has an opportunity to rebuild trust in its commitment to free expression as a foundation of its academic community.
If this new process meaningfully incorporates community input, and is transparent about that input, Penn can strengthen the culture of open expression that underpins excellence on campus. But process alone is not enough. Ultimately, it is the policies and their enforcement that enable expression, not statements from leadership.
The draft released last week gets some things right. It incorporates notable improvements over the Temporary Guidelines, including protecting more speech while still prohibiting threats of violence and harassment. It also clarifies restrictions focused on conduct rather than content by banning all structures built without approval (instead of just encampments as the Temporary Standards did, which some interpreted as directed to the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” in Spring 2024). Additionally, it reduces the required advance notice for protests from two weeks to one, with flexibility for certain shorter-notice events. Penn also introduces Open Expression Observers, which could help protect speech and reduce the risk of disruption.
However, these policies need more work before Penn demonstrates it truly “embraces its bedrock commitments to freedom of thought, inquiry, speech, and lawful assembly.” As community input is gathered and the guidelines are refined in the coming months, we will explore additional changes needed to better support Penn’s mission. This includes ideas such as creating clearer pathways for spontaneous protest while preserving the university’s core functions and not unduly disrupting academics.
First, though, there is a more immediate issue: governance and the concentration of authority.
Under the proposed rules, the Committee on Open Expression (COE) will report to both the Faculty Senate Tri-Chairs and the Provost. Its responsibilities include reviewing and proposing revisions to the guidelines, supporting open expression across the university, assessing implementation, and issuing reports. Yet its role would be purely advisory.
The draft also creates an Executive Director of Open Expression (EDOE), who oversees a new system of Open Expression Observers (OEOs). These observers drawn from Penn’s employee pool would be trained and deployed to events to monitor compliance with the guidelines. They would report to the EDOE, who in turn reports to the Provost. While the EDOE would consult with the COE Chair and Faculty Senate Tri-Chairs, those relationships are advisory. Authority ultimately rests with the Provost.
Centralized authority can make enforcement more consistent and easier to understand. But it also concentrates power in a way that raises legitimate concerns. When the Provost alone is in charge of approving and enforcing rules over open expression, his or her discretion becomes final authority. Even with the best intentions, vesting this level of control in a single office risks undermining the principles the policy seeks to protect.
Instead, Penn should supplement the system with a division of power. The administration could rely more on committee decisions. It could change the EDOE’s reporting and evaluation line to be split between the Provost, the President, and the Board of Trustees, with a majority of support needed to approve important decisions. It could create an election among the university community for these critical roles. Or, it could elevate the COE’s role from advisory to decision-making and implement an open referral and election process.
Penn has said it is committed both to protecting free expression in pursuit of academic excellence and to engaging the community in shaping these policies. To do that, open expression authority should be diversified to be both balanced and accountable. Improving that balance is a necessary step toward truly supporting free inquiry.
The Almanac
Curated highlights from this week’s Penn news
Wharton and Penn Law ranked 2nd and 4th in U.S. News rankings
In the 2026 U.S. News rankings, Wharton’s MBA program placed 2nd, behind Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. Last year, Wharton ranked first with Stanford and Northwestern tied for second. Other MBA rankings this year ranked Wharton 3rd (Financial Times) and 4th (LinkedIn).
Wharton’s decline was driven by “a sizable drop” in employment three months after graduation, which averaged 87% over the past two years.
This jump comes during Penn Law’s fourth year abstaining from submitting data to U.S. News. In 2022, a group of law schools including Penn, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia stopped providing data for the rankings, saying that the rankings disincentivize public service and conflict with parts of the schools’ missions.
So what? The U.S. News rankings are controversial among Penn and its peers, with critics emphasizing their disproportionate focus on employment outcomes and sometimes unclear evaluation criteria. However, to many in the public, the rankings still serve as an important signal of Penn’s academic excellence and prowess compared to peers, which can be a benefit in competing for talent.
Governor Shapiro chosen as Penn Law commencement speaker
This week, Penn Carey Law announced Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as its 2026 commencement speaker. Current students were surveyed to identify potential speakers, and Governor Shapiro—who also serves as the president of Penn’s board— was a popular pick.
Governor Shapiro is a born-and-raised Philadelphian and a career public servant, two qualities the class president, Emma Kopp L’26, identified as important to the decision.
Despite his popularity among Penn’s law students, Shapiro has also come under fire for his involvement in Penn’s governance following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7th, 2023 and the aftermath on campus. He was criticized for his “campaign of influence” and for “shaping” policies at Penn during the 2023-2024 school year.
So what? Although Shapiro has been criticized over the last few years for his involvement at Penn, he remains one of the most popular governors in Pennsylvania’s history and is seeking reelection. His selection suggests that, despite controversy, a meaningful share of the law school community respects and values his leadership experience and perspective.
M&T appoints Wharton Professor David Hsu as new director
Hsu currently teaches entrepreneurship, management of technology, and innovation classes and has received school-wide teaching awards. His research focuses on entrepreneurial innovation and management.
So what? As Penn grapples with the impacts of AI on both education and the workforce, programs like M&T that blend business leadership with technical expertise may become increasingly important. In his LinkedIn post about his appointment, Hsu raised the importance of “good judgment” in technology, suggesting a focus not just on technical skill, but on how it is applied.
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.