Tag: shared governance

By Posted on Posted in Statements

March 19, 2026

As the Executive Committee of the University of Pennsylvania’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-Penn), we write to alert members of the Penn community to the current state of the University’s Guidelines on Open Expression. The Provost’s Office plans to replace our current “temporary” guidelines with new policies, announcing changes to the policy at an upcoming University Council Forum meeting. We have a narrow window of time to advocate for a policy that reflects a commitment to the values that are at the core of Penn’s academic mission: shared governance and academic freedom. It is imperative that the proposed open expression guidelines, and the process behind them, are driven not by a desire to protect the university from litigation or political attention, but rather by a fundamental commitment to open expression and rigorous debate, even (and especially) about controversial topics. These guidelines are taking shape in a process that lacks transparency and meaningful input from campus stakeholders.  We remind the administration that adherence to established policy is not only required, but also will result in guidelines that a much broader contingent of the university community can fully embrace.

Failures of shared governance

In June 2024, the administration pledged to follow historical precedent in revising the open expression guidelines. This process was meant to follow a clear path of accountability: recommendations from the Task Force on Open Expression (TFOE) to the Committee on Open Expression (COE), followed by a formal presentation to the University Council. Yet at present, this pledge has been ignored. We highlight four primary points of concern:

  • The promised process is consistent with not only precedent but also written policy: According to Penn’s Guidelines on Open Expression, the Committee is charged with reviewing administrative decisions made without consultation of the full Committee, at its discretion. While a draft was approved by the COE in February 2025 (Almanac), it appears to have been stalled or diverted. There is no record of a final draft reaching the University Council or Faculty Senate.
  • Despite the requirement for the current COE to approve any post-2025 drafts, according to concerned colleagues, no 2025-2026 COE has been formed.  It’s unclear why the Committee hasn’t been formed, and the lack of clarity surfaces additional concerns around transparency and process.
  • The Provost’s Office has assured faculty (via bodies like Faculty Senate) that multiple stakeholders have been involved in conversations regarding open expression, but the process remains opaque, seemingly operating by invitation rather than any sort of democratic or representative process. 
  • The higher education landscape has changed drastically since the temporary guidelines were introduced and the 2024-2025 COE was formed.  Changes to immigration policy, devastating cuts to government funding allocation and the continued politicization of higher education mean that it’s even more important to ensure that parties invited to participate in the creation of the new guidelines are gathered from diverse sectors of the campus community.
  • Procedurally, open expression policy reveals a deeper structural failure. At present, the Vice Provost for University Life (VPUL) holds exclusive power to interpret and enforce the Guidelines, while the Committee on Open Expression (COE) has been relegated to a purely advisory role. 

Repressing open expression

Our concerns about the open expression guidelines aren’t just about process, they’re about institutional norms. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech … Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.” Surely the University of Pennsylvania must hold principles of free speech especially dear. Yet, as our open expression guidelines are being re-written, we must grapple with recent actions toward members of our community, including peaceful protesters. In recent months:

  • The administration has demanded identification from students in nonviolent demonstrations, directly contradicting Section V.B.4 of the Guidelines, which guarantees a right to privacy when no violation has occurred.
  • University faculty, staff, and students have had their social media subject to monitoring, with speech declared as problematic after doxxing by non-university actors. Instead of protecting university personnel from targeted hate speech directed at them, the administration has distanced themselves from victims of actual harassment and even censured these faculty, staff, and students, especially by referral to the newly established Office of Religious and Ethnic Interests (Title VI). Notably, the procedures regarding investigations of Penn faculty, staff, and students by said office have not been made public despite multiple requests.

As an organization representing standing and non-standing faculty from all 12 schools, with a core commitment to academic freedom and shared governance, AAUP-Penn seeks clarity from the administration about the open expression guidelines. More specifically, we are asking the administration to:

  1. Provide immediate clarity about the committee and individuals who have been revising the open expression guidelines since February 2025, including how they were selected.
  2. Resubmit the revised draft that this secret committee has developed to the COE for review, as required by University procedures.
  3. Affirm their commitment to COE’s sole authority over approving the Guidelines on Open Expression.

The “temporary” guidelines are now almost two years old. Thus far, the process to replace them has been opaque rather than transparent, stalled rather than rigorous, and more concerned with avoiding scrutiny than protecting core institutional values. The Guidelines on Open Expression are meant to protect discourse and debate, which are foundational to university life. Looking over the long trajectory of open expression guidelines at Penn, we see a steady decline in the commitment to free speech and the right to protest, a reduction of input from faculty and students, and a prioritization of institutional protection. These guidelines must exist to protect the rights of the community, not as a toolkit for administrative overreach. We call on the Provost and the administration to return to a legitimate, transparent process of shared governance in redefining these policies.

Statement on Open Expression – 03.19.2026Download
Tagged with: ,

By Posted on Posted in Statements

UPDATE (October 7): This statement and the accompanying petition urging the administration to say no to the Compact are co-sponsored by GETUP-UAW and RAPUP-UAW. All members of the campus community are encouraged to sign the petition and to come together on October 17th at 3pm to stand publicly against the Compact (details forthcoming).

October 2, 2025

We were alarmed to read reports that Penn has been “invited” to sign a so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” by the federal government, and that failing to do so would jeopardize federal funding. Compliance would be subject to ongoing review by the Department of Justice, and insufficient obedience would result in a loss of access to student loans, grant programs, federal contracts, funding for research, approval of visas, and tax exemption. When an invitation is accompanied by consequences for not accepting it, it is in fact a threat, not an invitation. Decisions about hiring, tuition, admissions, grades, and discipline are made according to shared governance procedures that are essential to the independence and academic freedom of the University. Penn must not allow itself to be threatened into ceding its self-determination. Whatever the consequences of refusal, agreeing would threaten the very mission of the University.

This attempt at coercion is just one of the many examples of intensifying political interference into higher education. The compact characterizes efforts to improve diversity as discriminatory, a continuation of other efforts to undermine the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It makes other demands about admission, like requiring the use of standardized tests and limiting the admission of international students, that directly flout the shared governance rights of faculty. It redefines sex and gender according to rigid binaries incompatible with both science and Penn’s values; forcing members of the University to accept these definitions would be a violation of our academic freedom. Finally, it instructs universities to ensure a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus.” Given recent government actions to suppress the expression of ideas with which it disagrees, such as the unconstitutional policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty members for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, this can only be interpreted as a thinly-veiled attempt to restrict academic freedom to those who express government-approved views, defeating the very purpose of academic freedom and of higher education as a whole.

While the loss of federal funding would threaten Penn’s ability to perform its vital education and research work, agreeing to this compact would not forestall that outcome. As the AAUP-Penn executive committee warned when the Penn administration became the first in the country to make a closed-door, secretly negotiated deal with the Trump administration, a concession to threats will simply embolden the Trump administration to come back for more. Funding cuts are also not insurmountable. For example, the University could temporarily raise the rate of spending on its endowment, as it has done before in times of crisis, while collaborating with other institutions to sue for the restoration of unconstitutionally withheld funds. Sacrificing our values, on the other hand, would irreparably damage the fabric of our university. Penn’s Latin motto, Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, is usually translated to “Laws Without Morals are Useless.” It is time to put that principle into practice.

AAUP-Penn EC Statement on CompactDownload
Tagged with: , ,

By Posted on Posted in Statements

This spring, more than 1100 workers at Penn signed a petition demanding that Penn uphold research and counter funding cuts, affirm sanctuary and legal rights of immigrants, maintain commitments to DEIA, and stand up for equal treatment for LGBTQ+ members of our community. Yesterday’s announcement of a resolution agreement between the University and the Department of Education over a Title IX investigation is a painful reminder that Penn’s administration will not adhere to these values. By following a path of political expediency at the expense of trans athletes, Penn makes all trans students, faculty, staff, and community members less safe, exposing them to renewed and emboldened harassment and discriminatory treatment.

Penn’s Latin motto, Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, is usually translated to “Laws Without Morals are Useless.” Rather than putting these principles into practice, Penn has put a price tag on our values, showing the Department of Education that it can use funding freezes to hold us hostage. This outcome is fundamentally about two things: (1) a failure to commit to a campus where everyone can thrive, and (2) the lack of input that key stakeholders have in making decisions that affect how people learn, teach and work at Penn.

The AAUP-Penn Executive Committee calls on all members of the university community to recognize the urgency of this moment. Those who work and study at Penn must together hold this institution accountable to its professed ideals, including the freedom to teach, the freedom to learn, and the freedom to engage in shared decision-making for the future of Penn. The need for all workers at Penn to join together and fight for the principles we share has never been more critical.

For further information, please see the following resources:

  1. Penn labor coalition petition “Penn must uphold research, sanctuary, DEIA, nondiscrimination, and the rights of all members of our community”
  2. AAUP policy statement “On Academic Freedom and Transphobia” 
  3. AAUP “Statement on Professional Ethics”
  4. AAUP policy statement “The Role of the Faculty in the Governance of College Athletics”
  5. AAUP Academe article “The Assault on Transgender Students”

Tagged with: , ,

By Posted on Posted in Events

AAUP–Penn is organizing a public demonstration on Monday, January 22 at 2pm in support of freedom to learn, teach, and study; shared institutional governance; and diversity and racial justice. We are calling on faculty, staff, students, workers, and allies from across Penn, across institutions, and across Philly to stand together to defend and strengthen these principles.

This is a crucial time to push back against billionaires and politicians who are threatening all of us who work and study at Penn. You have undoubtedly seen that Marc Rowan, CEO of Apollo Global Management and co-chair of the Wharton Board of Governors, has circulated a memo suggesting that unelected Penn trustees assume powers to unilaterally close departments, impose McCarthyite speech codes clearly aimed at suppressing protest, and change hiring and admissions policies to turn back the clock on gains in diversity and racial justice. These are serious threats to our institution’s educational and research mission and to the work that all of us do.

Now is not a moment to stand on the sidelines. Your participation is vital in demonstrating that the majority of Penn faculty, students, and staff believe in academic freedom, shared governance, open expression, and diversity. So come out to the button (in front of Van Pelt) on Jan. 22 at 2pm to say loud and clear that we will not let CEOs and politicians destroy these principles, and we intend to win positive institutional changes strengthening them.



Tagged with: , , , ,

By Posted on Posted in Events

Penn colleagues and students, please mark your calendars for a January 19 Open Forum on Academic Freedom and Shared Governance, featuring remarks from invited guest speakers Joan Wallach Scott and Hank Reichman—former chairs of AAUP’s national Committee A on Academic Freedom. This will be an opportunity to learn more about academic freedom and shared governance—principles that AAUP defined over a century ago and that are written into Penn’s Faculty Handbook—and to discuss together how we can strengthen them at Penn.

Join via zoom on 1/19 at 1pm; email for the meeting link if you haven’t received an invitation. Sign language interpretation will be available throughout the session.

Tagged with: , ,

By Posted on Posted in News, Statements

December 12, 2023

Today, unelected trustees with no academic expertise are evidently attempting a hostile takeover of the core academic functions of the University of Pennsylvania—functions related to curriculum, research, and the hiring and evaluation of faculty. A letter circulated to trustees asks, “Should any of the existing academic departments be closed?” It seems to propose unilateral changes by trustees to “instruction of students,” changes in “criteria for qualification and admission for membership in the Faculty,” and a “Code of Conduct” to constrain campus speech. And it raises the possibility that the university might discipline faculty for “promoting a particular viewpoint.”  

The questions being considered by the trustees represent an assault on the principle of academic freedom, which was first articulated a century ago to safeguard the educational mission of universities.  Academic freedom ensures that professionally qualified researchers and educators, not donors or politicians, make decisions about curriculum and scholarship. It also ensures that the hiring, promotion, and discipline of faculty members are based on their fitness to do the work of research and teaching, and that fitness is determined by members of the academic profession.  These norms are necessary to ensure that the university can serve its fundamental purpose: to foster free and open inquiry that can produce knowledge for the public good in a democratic society.  They prevent institutions of higher education from being turned into instruments that serve private and political interests. Over the course of a century, these principles have been endorsed by over 250 scholarly and educational organizations and written into the faculty handbooks of universities nationwide, including Penn’s.

Unelected billionaires without scholarly qualifications are now seeking to control academic decisions that must remain within the purview of faculty in order for research and teaching to have legitimacy and autonomy from private and partisan interests. Any attempts on the part of Penn’s trustees to close academic departments, constrain hiring, discipline faculty members for political reasons and without due process, censor faculty’s intramural or extramural speech, or impose new McCarthyite speech codes on faculty and students would constitute the most flagrant violations imaginable of the core principles of academic freedom and faculty governance. Those principles are not negotiable.

The transparent purposes of the questions being considered by the trustees are to restrict legitimate, long-established areas of study, to silence and punish speech with which trustees disagree, and to turn back the clock on gains in diversity and equity.

The AAUP-Penn Executive Committee first sounded the alarm on such threats to academic freedom in October.  We issued the following recommendations, and we stand by them today.

  • It is likely that donors and administrators will attempt to respond to the present crisis by creating new academic programming—whether new hiring, curricular offerings, or research initiatives. Faculty must design and control any such effort rather than allow donors to set the terms.
  • When interacting with the university and its members, Penn’s trustees, alumni, and donors must be held to the same university policies that govern the rest of us, particularly policies prohibiting threats, coercion, retaliation, and intimidation. The statutes of the Board of Trustees and all university policies should be revised to reflect that expectation.
  • Those trustees and members of advisory boards who have made coercive threats against members of the university and academic programs within Penn have already violated the Guidelines on Open Expression, to which they are expressly bound. We recommend that they be removed from all university advisory and governance boards.

Trustees who neither understand nor respect the purpose of the university and who threaten its educational and research mission should not govern these institutions.

Tagged with: , , ,