Penn’s Committee on Open Expression released a revised draft of the University’s Guidelines on Open Expression on Tuesday.

The proposal revisits provisions of the March draft concerning administrative authority, spontaneous demonstrations, online speech, and identification checks — issues raised during the spring feedback period. It would give the committee greater oversight of a proposed executive director of open expression while retaining the director’s authority to initiate disciplinary referrals.

A request for comment was left with a University spokesperson.

“By embedding layered checks and balances, shared governance, and strict viewpoint neutrality into event facilitation and guideline oversight, the guidelines aim to strike a careful balance between preserving robust internal disagreement and protecting the University’s academic environment from institutional censorship and undue external pressure,” the committee wrote in its announcement of the revisions.

The changes incorporate feedback from listening sessions and written submissions, as well as input from the Offices of the President and the Provost. Feedback for further revisions will be accepted through additional listening sessions scheduled in November. Written comments will be accepted until Dec. 7.

Get the DP delivered straight to your inbox.

Once finalized, the revised guidelines will replace the currently in-effect 1993 rules, which have been clarified by interpretive guidelines over the years and partially replaced by temporary standards for demonstrations.

Here are key changes in the new draft.

Committee structure

Compared to that initial draft, the revised structure moves much of the authority away from the Provost’s Office. The provost’s expanded role had been a significant source of concern for previous committee members and others in the campus community.

The March draft proposed a committee of 13 members named or approved by the provost. The revised draft returns to 17 voting members selected by their respective constituencies, consisting of eight faculty members, three staff members, and six students — the same composition prescribed by the 1993 guidelines.

The new proposal also identifies the Committee on Open Expression as a standing committee of the University Council and introduces a tri-chair structure consisting of a past chair, chair, and chair-elect. Committee members select the chair-elect from among their faculty representatives.

Currently, the Committee on Open Expression is an independent body of the Council. The March draft proposed having the committee jointly report to the provost and the Faculty Senate tri-chairs.

Executive director of open expression

The March draft introduced a new title: the executive director of open expression, charged with maintaining the guidelines and making the final decision regarding disciplinary referrals. While the role remains similar in the most recent proposal, the Committee on Open Expression gains enhanced oversight of the executive director.

The proposed executive director would work in an independent Office of Open Expression under the provost, with “primary operational oversight from COE,” according to the revised draft. Committee members would constitute a voting majority of the search committee for the position.

In the first draft, the executive director reported to the provost and provided a “dotted line report” to the Faculty Senate tri-chairs. The provost would have selected the executive director in consultation with the Faculty Senate tri-chairs and the Committee on Open Expression chair.

The previously proposed Open Expression Observer program has been renamed the Campus Expression Facilitator program. In the new draft, individuals referred for disciplinary action can appeal to the open expression committee’s tri-chairs, who can temporarily issue a stay of the referral pending review by a committee panel.

Clarified language

A central complaint in the previous draft was vague language. Many community members pointed to phrases such as “unreasonably disrupt,” “interfere unreasonably,” and “event” with a concern they could enable “unbridled interpretive discretion.”

The new proposal features a section dedicated to defining key terms, including “event,” which is “a planned undertaking for the purpose of expression.”

The line that featured the phrases “interfere unreasonably with the regular activities of others” and “unreasonably disrupting the normal activity that takes place within the University” has been deleted. The remaining standards for determining whether an individual violated the guidelines now frequently feature the words “negligently, recklessly, or intentionally.”

Scheduling events and spontaneous demonstrations

The revised scheduling provisions also address a concern documented during the spring feedback period: whether advance registration requirements would accommodate protests responding to unfolding events.

The general scheduling section has removed the earlier seven-business-day application requirement for specified campus spaces, which had included Blanche P. Levy Park and Locust Walk. It now states that “spontaneous expressive activities may occur in any outdoor, publicly accessible campus space, provided they do not violate any guidelines or conflict with previously-registered events in the same space.”

A separate provision retains seven business days as the definition of a timely request for speaker venues and related services. Scheduling procedures continue to vary by venue, and some events may require security assessments.

Currently, event scheduling is governed by the temporary standards, which call for all events to be registered at least 48 hours in advance. Those occurring in Blanche P. Levy Park, on Locust Walk, and in certain other locations must be registered two weeks beforehand.

Online speech and the guidelines’ scope

The scope of online regulation was among the concerns raised about the March proposal. In a statement from the spring feedback period, the chairs of the Penn Association for Gender Equity questioned whether the draft’s provisions could extend to personal accounts.

“This lack of clarity could mean that students’ personal social media could be subject to University discipline,” the chairs wrote.

The new draft removes a broad reference to “cyberspace” and specifies that the guidelines apply to circumstances involving University premises, affiliated groups, University resources, or representations of University affiliation.

The draft expressly excludes “teaching or research activities or clinical care,” stating that those activities are governed by policies specific to their respective domains.

Police and identification

According to the compiled feedback, some community members raised the possibility of “police violence” and ID checks that “could potentially be used for criminal prosecution and deportation” under the March draft.

With the revisions, ID requests would remain possible under a process tied to perceived violations. Campus Expression Facilitators can ask to see Penn IDs if repeated de-escalation attempts fail to resolve a potential violation. If the violation persists after the request, they can record identifying information, provided they first notify those involved.

The proposal separately permits facilitators or the executive director to contact the Division of Public Safety in extenuating circumstances. Such requests for assistance would be reported to COE.

“Obligations regarding ID requests from law enforcement officers such as Philadelphia Police and Penn Police are governed by statutes,” the proposal adds.

Compared to the March draft, the new proposal prescribes greater limits on when ID requests can be made.

Restrictions on protests and signage

Restrictions on blocked access, disruptive sound, and unauthorized temporary structures broadly remain, though some details have been changed.

Temporary structures — including tents — still require authorization, although the revised draft omits the word “encampments.”

Projected images now require the executive director’s review and approval, with detailed written reasons required for submissions that are rejected. The March draft referred projection requests to the Vice Provost for University Life or the relevant dean’s office.

The new proposal clarifies that chalking is “permitted on sidewalks and outdoor stairways only” — in accordance with existing policies.

The old draft placed rigid restrictions on time and location for amplified sound, while the most recent proposal specifically bans “continuous, recurring, or daily high-volume sound” when it “systematically degrades surrounding living, study, or research environments.” 

Senior reporter Ananya Karthik covers central administration and can be reached at karthik@thedp.com. At Penn, she studies communication and economics. Follow her on X @ananyaakarthik.