The Committee on Open Expression (https://secretary.upenn.edu/univ-council/committees/open-expression) was established as an independent committee of the University Council to ensure openness and effectiveness of channels of communication among members of the University community on questions of common interest. Among its responsibilities is the interpretation of the Guidelines on Open Expression (https://catalog.upenn.edu/pennbook/open-expression/#text). The committee has been deeply engaged in interpreting the current guidelines in a manner that provides an operational framework for the University community. As per the Guidelines on Open Expression (IV.B.1), an open hearing was held on April 26, 2023, to hear comments on a proposed interpretation of the existing language. The committee subsequently finalized its interpretation of the Guidelines on Open Expression, which are recorded below.

These interpretative guidelines are adopted by the members of the 2014-2015 Committee on Open Expression of the University (Sections I and II, available here: https://catalog.upenn.edu/pennbook/open-expression/#interpretativeguidelinestext) and by the members of the 2022-2023 committee (Section III below), pursuant to the Guidelines on Open Expression, Section IV.B.

The Committee on Open Expression has as its major tasks: “participating in the resolution of conflicts that may arise from incidents or disturbances implicating these guidelines; mediating among the parties to prevent conflicts and violations of these guidelines; interpreting these guidelines; advising administrative officers when appropriate; and recommending policies and procedures for the improvement of all levels of communication” (Section I.C) 

This interpretation provides clarification to the University community regarding the role of the Committee on Open Expression (COE) on campus. Parenthetical references below are to the Guidelines on Open Expression (guidelines). This interpretation is adopted in accordance with Section IV.B.1 of the guidelines and will be published as Section III of the Interpretive Guidelines.

III. Clarification of the Role of the Committee on Open Expression within the University Community

1. The Vice Provost for University Life (VPUL) or its delegate (VPUL-D) has the authority to determine if the guidelines are being violated by any member of the University community. The COE is advisory to the VPUL and to members of the University community regarding interpretations of the guidelines (Section II.B). COE members may assist in offering real time advice to requesting parties regarding the Open Expression guidelines if they are present during a situation that involves possible violations of the guidelines. Currently, the VPUL refers to its delegates as “Open Expression Observers,” which has led some members of the University community, including some students, to view them incorrectly as representatives of the COE. In order to avoid confusion, the COE recommends that VPUL refer to its delegates instead as VPUL-delegates charged with enforcing the guidelines (Section III) but who do not represent the COE.

2. The VPUL or a VPUL-D may intervene to address in real time any conduct that it has declared to be in violation of the guidelines (Section V.C). Intervention may include instructions to participants to modify or terminate their behavior (Id.). The COE interprets these provisions to mean the following: 

• For students, compliance with instructions from the VPUL or a VPUL-D will have the consequence that no referral will be made by the VPUL to the Center for Community Standards and Accountability (CSA) for a disciplinary hearing or penalty. (The CSA was formerly known as the Office of Student Conduct and renamed in 2022.)
• Refusal to comply with these instructions may lead to a referral by the VPUL to the CSA, who will investigate the event and decide what disciplinary proceedings, if any, to pursue.

3. Whenever feasible, the VPUL and its delegates shall, in carrying out their responsibility for safeguarding the rights of open expression, obtain the advice and recommendation of the representatives of the Committee on Open Expression (Section V.C.2). The COE interprets this requirement to mean that the chair of the COE should be advised of any likely future possible controversial conduct or events (see also Section V.B.2) to determine if the COE should meet and provide anticipatory guidance. The COE recognizes that the VPUL and its delegates may sometimes need to act expeditiously in situations about which they did not have advance notice or warning.  Even in these situations, all instructions given by the VPUL or its delegates to members of the University community to modify or terminate their behavior under the authority of the guidelines should be reported to the COE as soon as practical and in a manner agreed with the COE chair. (See Section IV.B.6.b.)

4. Any member of the University community (including, without limitation, the VPUL and any of its delegates, as well as students or student groups) may request advice from the COE. Although the COE may sometimes be requested to provide advisory opinions in advance about its interpretation of the guidelines (Section IV.B.3 & 4), its primary role is to review incidents in retrospect to provide guidance to the University community for future action (Section IV.B.6 & 7).  The COE interprets these provisions to mean that the VPUL and its delegates, or any other members of the University community, including students and student groups, may consult with the COE in advance of meetings, events or demonstrations, but this is optional and choosing not to consult the COE in advance cannot be used as grounds for punitive action against any member of the University community. Advance consultation with COE does not offer any blanket protection with respect to VPUL’s enforcement jurisdiction. The COE shall respect the privacy of individuals as general policy and maintains the right to declare the confidentiality of its proceedings.

5. With respect to COE’s responsibilities in reviewing administrative decisions for the purpose of providing advice for future action (Section IV.B.6 & 7), the COE interprets these provisions to mean that it may provide advice to the appropriate governing body (VPUL for students, deans for faculty, supervisors for staff, etc.) prior to referral regarding the application/interpretation of the guidelines. The COE may suggest that their advice be included in any referrals for consideration of any further adjudication and/or restorative practice. However, the COE acts in an advisory capacity only in this context, and its advice is not binding with respect to either a decision to bring a disciplinary action or the nature of such disciplinary actions.