Issue 37 — Penn Asked the Community to Speak. Did It Truly Listen?

Over the last few weeks, Penn’s Office of the President has solicited community feedback on proposed new Guidelines on Open Expression through two listening sessions and an online feedback form. After nearly two years of Temporary Guidelines on Open Expression and criticism surrounding the revision process, the feedback plan appeared to mark a meaningful step toward greater transparency. 

But the way the feedback process has unfolded created the perception that the ask for input is merely an empty gesture. Many community members left the listening sessions pessimistic about the chance that feedback would meaningfully shape the final result. 

Policies governing speech and protest at universities depend on legitimacy as well as substance. If students and faculty do not trust the process used to create the rules, they are less likely to trust the rules themselves or their enforcement mechanisms. As faculty and students warned, this may lead to a chilling effect on campus speech that stifles the free expression necessary for learning and academic excellence.

The current effort to revise Penn’s speech and protest rules grew out of the turmoil of the 2023-2024 academic year. Following leadership turnover, antisemitic incidents on campus, public criticism of the university, and polarized reactions to the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” Penn enacted Temporary Standards that imposed stricter limits on spontaneous protests, event livestreaming, encampments, and other forms of expression.

As we discussed earlier this year, criticism mounted over both the longevity of the temporary rules and the process used to revise them. Faculty and student leaders argued that the university had departed from promised governance procedures and operated with limited transparency while developing permanent guidelines.

At the end of March, President Larry Jameson and Provost John Jackson released draft permanent guidelines and announced a new formal feedback process. The proposal immediately sparked criticism from faculty, students, and outside free speech advocates. 

During the first listening session last month, attendees described the draft as “unsalvageable” and criticized the review timeline, with the draft published on March 31st and the in-person listening session on April 23rd. Student leaders also warned that the proposal created too much “consolidation of power.” As we discussed a few weeks ago, much of the final authority for approving, amending, and enforcing open expression policies would rest with Provost Jackson.

But the criticism extended beyond the substance of the draft itself. Many participants questioned whether the process was designed to genuinely incorporate community input.

President Jameson and Provost Jackson did not attend either listening session. The university community was told comments would be summarized privately to “capture the key themes,” but Penn does not plan to publish transcripts, aggregated feedback, or even summaries of the most common concerns raised by students and faculty.

“Nobody was confident they were being listened to,” Professor Robin Pemantle of Penn’s math department told The Inquirer after the first session.

Penn may have legitimate reasons for limiting public disclosure as it revises the guidelines. But without clearly explaining that decision, the administration risks reinforcing and deepening the mistrust it is trying to repair. 

To Penn’s credit, its leadership took an important step by publicly outlining a revision timeline and inviting broader community participation. But rebuilding confidence requires more than procedural openness.

A straightforward start could be Penn publishing a summary of the major feedback themes and explaining what recommendations are, and aren’t, being incorporated and why. This single step would begin to give the community evidence that the process was real, and it would provide Penn's leadership a defensible record of having seriously engaged.

Whatever path is chosen, Penn has much to gain from clarity and transparency and much to lose from the breeding of further mistrust. Open expression rules work best when the community believes the process behind them is legitimate. A process that collects and reviews input behind closed doors and that is run without the presence of the university's President or Provost does not meet that standard. Without that trust, even well-intentioned policies risk deepening the skepticism and self-censorship they are supposed to address.

Curated highlights from this week’s Penn news

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.