FEATURED
Free speech group criticizes ‘unacceptably vague’ requirement
The University of Pennsylvania’s “special event review process” is drawing criticism after the school issued the guidelines ahead of the fall semester.
The Special Event Review Group says the guidelines are meant to support “open expression on campus.”
However, critics say the rules will have the opposite effect.
“Does the event have high-level, notable, or controversial speakers,” one mandatory question asks.
The school also requires all details “prior to an event being confirmed or publicized.”
These rules drew criticism from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The policy is “unacceptably vague, and could be applied to require students planning just about any event to jump through extra bureaucratic hoops,” Laura Beltz, the director of policy reform, told The Fix via email.
“The policy doesn’t explain what the term ‘[o]pen expression implications’ means, so it would be all too easy for the administration to claim any controversial event has such implications and levy this extra procedural burden on students,” she said.
The policy on controversial speakers could be “chilling,” Beltz said, since the group said it will “apprise university administrators as appropriate.”
“Students may find this process chilling and eschew planning potentially controversial events altogether,” she said.
That does not mean universities and students cannot legitimately work together on the smooth operation of an event, however.
“Universities should certainly work with students to best prepare for events that pose safety or security concerns,” Beltz said. “However, these processes should be clear and transparent, and students shouldn’t be burdened just because they’re bringing someone onto campus who holds controversial viewpoints.”
The Special Event Review Group is comprised of administrative staff members from the Office of General Counsel, the Division of Public Safety, and the Office of Risk Management and Insurance. There are no students or faculty in the review group.
“Vague processes like this one that suggest the potential for controversy may lead to greater burdens on event organizers and breed distrust in the administration,” Beltz said. “Instead, Penn should be looking to build trust, so students feel encouraged to prepare for events in partnership with the administration.”
The Fix reached out to Mark Bendas, the contact for the reissued Special Events Policy, via email and phone call but did not receive a response in the past several weeks. The Fix asked if the group would ever reject a speaker and for any free speech concerns about the policy.
FIRE previously criticized Ivy League university’s pending free speech proposal. The free speech group said the proposals surrounding online harassment are too vague. It also criticized the school for not explicitly allowing spontaneous protests, as The Fix reported.
A communications professor linked the speaker policy to the “open expression” overhaul in a recent opinion piece for The Daily Pennsylvanian.
“What separates this 2026 policy from those in the past are the direct references to open expression, the emphasis on preclearance and increasingly vague language,” Professor Jessa Lingel wrote. (The Fix could not locate earlier versions of the policy).
She said the Special Events Policy “makes the same mistake” as the revisions to the open expression guidelines because it “shows that vague language and obfuscated processes aren’t a bug of the administration’s policies — they’re a feature.”
“This policy must be overturned,” Lingel wrote. “We have to go back to having faith in faculty and students to organize events without fear of violating poorly worded policies overseen by invisible administrators.”
