The University of Pennsylvania is unwavering in its commitment to being inclusive, innovative and impactful. Last summer, we
charged the Campus Iconography Group (CIG) with advising us on ways to accelerate our progress in signaling those core values
on our campus. The CIG has provided us with a set of recommendations which we accept and will work to implement in partnership
with the Deans and the administrative Officers. We are grateful to the CIG members for this excellent report which will help ensure
that, going forward, Penn’s accomplishments and aspirations are more fully illuminated in the images and built environment of our
beautiful campus.
—Amy Gutmann, President
—Wendell Pritchett, Provost
—Craig Carnaroli, Executive Vice President
Campus Iconography Group Report
On July 2, 2020, President Amy Gutmann, Provost Wendell Pritchett, and
Executive Vice President Craig Carnaroli announced the formation of the
Campus Iconography Group (CIG). The Group was charged with provid-
ing advice “on further steps to ensure that the placement and presence of
statues and other prominent iconography better reflects our achievements
and aspirations to increase the diversity of the Penn community.” The CIG
was asked to engage in broad outreach to capture different perspectives that
would enable the University administration to “fulfill our firm commitment
to being the most inclusive, innovative and impactful university.”
The announcement of the CIG distinguished an important moment that
was the culmination of conversations that had been underway regarding
the explicit and subtle messages conveyed by campus iconography as
well as concerns that the stories of some of the individuals valorized on
campus were problematic or incomplete. The imagery and art on campus
were explored as a result of recent events, including the renaming of Penn
Commons, the research of the Penn & Slavery Project, and increasing calls
from faculty, students, and staff that Penn’s portraits, statues, and other
iconography better reflect the University’s strategic vision of inclusion,
innovation, and impact as articulated in the Penn Compact 2022. The
decision to seek a systematic assessment and recommendations regarding
naming, renaming, replacement, and removal was further galvanized by
the inequities brought into stark relief by the global health pandemic and
the movement towards greater racial justice.
The CIG was co-chaired by Joann Mitchell, Senior Vice President
for Institutional Affairs and Chief Diversity Officer, and Fritz Steiner,
Dean and Paley Professor of the Weitzman School of Design, and its
members were: William Gipson, Associate Vice Provost for Equity and
Access; Charles Howard, Vice President for Social Equity and Community
and University Chaplain; Lynn Marsden-Atlass, Executive Director of the
Arthur Ross Gallery and University Curator; Medha Narvekar, Vice Presi-
dent and Secretary of the University; Anne Papageorge, Vice President for
Facilities and Real Estate Services; Barbara Savage, Geraldine R. Segal
Professor of American Social Thought in the Department of Africana Stud-
ies; Wendy White, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; and Mark
Kocent, University Architect, who served as senior staff.
The CIG began its work as other colleges and universities also had
renewed their focus on the messages conveyed by the representations,
monuments, and symbols encountered on their campuses. As part of the
CIG’s work, the reports and media coverage of many institutions includ-
ing Brown, Stanford, University of North Carolina, University of Texas
at Austin, University of Virginia, and Yale were reviewed. The CIG drew
upon the work of those institutions as it sought to develop frameworks that
it believed would work best for Penn. We also had the opportunity to speak
with colleagues who were leading School-based committees engaged in
similar work, most notably at the Perelman School of Medicine and Penn
Carey Law School. The CIG also benefited from an early discussion with
Kelly Lee, Philadelphia’s Chief Cultural Officer, who is leading the City’s
review of whether and which changes ought to be made with respect to
its iconography, street names, and other memorializations of historical
and more contemporary figures. The CIG also had conversations with the
Council of Deans and commissioned PennPraxis with Monument Lab to
undertake five focus groups, including one with the Faculty Senate, to
capture diverse views from alumni, students, faculty, and staff.
University Oversight of Campus Design and Works of Art
The University has had policies, protocols, and committees that gov-
ern the design and naming of buildings and outdoor spaces as well as
the acquisition and placement of art, including statues and contemporary
works, for many years. Penn’s Board of Trustees has final authority for
the approval of all campus building projects. The Trustees are advised by
the President, Provost, Executive Vice President, and the Design Review
Committee. In 2001, the Campus Development Plan was adopted by the
Trustees. The Plan provided guidance for the future development of the
campus and outlined “the ways that new buildings and open space should
take account of neighboring structures, and serve the population intended.”
In June 2002, following a review and comment period, the Trustees adopted
“Design Guidelines and Review of Campus Projects,”1 which “outline a
process that ensures that the specific surroundings and the campus as a
whole are taken into account in each new building project.” The guidance
addressed a range of topics including landscape, streetscape, and signage;
ADA accessibility; the integration of art in buildings, noting that whenever
possible, projects were to “strive to create new art that advances the way
we think about the world we inhabit”; and the orientation of buildings,
particularly those that border public streets, which should have entrances
that are “visible to those arriving on campus and contribute to the life and
activity of streets and walks.”
The Penn Connects campus development plan, approved by the Trustees
in September 2006, reaffirmed Penn’s commitment to community engage-
ment and building an inclusive campus. President Amy Gutmann stated that
its name “underscore[d] our commitment to build ever stronger connec-
tions to our region and our world. We at Penn are committed to working
collectively, locally and globally, to ensure that our contributions to human
progress will benefit all who live and work in our community.” Penn Con-
nects 2.0 was adopted in 2012 to enhance and reinforce the vision for the
campus and respond to emerging sustainability goals. In 2018, Penn Con-
nects 3.0 was approved and continued the transformation of Penn’s urban
campus to support its teaching, research, and clinical care missions as well
as to enrich the living and learning environments, strengthen community
engagement, and advance sustainable leadership.
The University’s Art Collection includes more than 8,000 objects of
significant aesthetic, historical, and market value. As is the case for other
University assets, the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer is responsible
to the Trustees for its oversight who has in turn delegated primary respon-
sibility for the day-to-day oversight of the Collection to the Office of the
University Curator. In 2002, the University Trustees established the Campus
Art Committee to “review all outdoor art works, in relation to buildings and
the 1% Fine Arts Program for art commissions.”2 In addition, “All pieces
of sculpture or other works of art proposed to be installed in the campus
landscape or on the exterior of buildings are to be presented to the Campus
Art Committee for review, evaluation and acceptance or rejection, such ac-
tion being forwarded to the Office of the President for confirmation.”3 The
Campus Art Committee includes the University Architect, the University’s
Landscape Architect, the University Curator, the Daniel Dietrich II Director
of the Institute of Contemporary Art, and faculty members with expertise
in art and architecture.
The Design Review Committee, which is co-chaired by the Dean of
the Weitzman School of Design and the University Architect, includes
the Vice President for Facilities and Real Estate Services, a University
Trustee, several faculty members who are design professionals, and outside
planners and architects drawn from the extended University community.
A special subcommittee of the Design Review Committee may be created
(and include faculty and administrators not on the Design Review Com-
mittee) for art projects. That subcommittee coordinates its work with the
Office of the Curator’s Art Advisory Committee. In addition, the Cultural
1 See https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/v49/n06/design_guide.html.
2 See https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/volumes/v51/n33/OR-art.html.
3 See https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/volumes/v51/n33/pdf_n33/052405.pdf.
www.upenn.edu/almanac 1
ALMANAC SUPPLEMENT April 6, 2021 Resources Subcommittee is charged with reviewing all campus projects
that affect buildings of historical importance or within designated historical
districts.4 The Cultural Resources Subcommittee was created in response
to the demolition of Smith Hall to make way for the Vagelos Laboratories.
The Cultural Resources Subcommittee is co-chaired by the Dean of the
Weitzman School of Design and the University Architect and includes the
Vice President for Facilities and Real Estate Services, faculty experts on
historic preservation, a representative of the Philadelphia Historical Com-
mission, and a representative of the Provost’s Office.
In 2003, the Art Advisory Committee was established to review and
advise on proposed acquisitions, gifts, commissions, site-specific installa-
tions (inside and outside buildings), and general curatorial and collections
management issues for the University’s Art Collection. The Art Advisory
Committee must review all works being considered for loan or deacces-
sioning. The Art Advisory Committee includes the Vice President for Fi-
nance and Treasurer, Dean of the Weitzman School of Design, Senior Vice
President for Development and Alumni Relations, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, and University Curator.
In 2019, the University established a Naming Policy, revised in 2020,
that applies to all naming opportunities for recognition purposes. The Policy
includes but is not limited to buildings and indoor and outdoor spaces as
well as to Schools, academic and administrative units, professorships,
scholarships, and the like. The University’s Naming Policy provides that
“the appropriateness of the name in a public context should always be taken
into consideration, recognizing that every Penn Name is conferred by the
University subject to its continuing obligation to protect the University’s
traditions, mission, and values.”5
The University Curator, Vice President for Finance and Treasurer, and
Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations review re-
quests for contributions and gifts to the University Art Collection. A School,
Center, Division, or Department that is approached about making a gift of
art or other iconography to the University refers the request to the University
Curator’s Office where a recommendation will be made regarding whether
to accept the gift, and if so, further steps are taken to ensure that all legal
and fiscal requirements (including compliance with IRS regulations) are
fulfilled. Generally, donors are asked to provide 10 percent of the value of
the piece of art to assist with the care and maintenance of the object. If a
piece of art is purchased that is valued in excess of $1,000, the acquisition
is to be reported to the Office of the Curator to ensure proper documentation
as part of the University Art Collection.
If a School, Center, or Department commissions or receives an offer
of a gift of sculpture to be placed on campus, the Office of the University
Architect must be notified. The University Architect will present information
regarding the proposed project and its artist to the Campus Art Commit-
tee, which is chaired by the University Curator, for review based on the
materials to be used, the information provided about the work in question,
the proposed location, maintenance requirements, and funding for the care
and maintenance of the sculpture. If the sculpture is a prospective donation
to the University, Development and Alumni Relations is also notified. The
Campus Art Committee will make a recommendation regarding the proposal
and present it to the President. If the President approves, the Campus Art
Committee will notify the relevant School or Center.
Requests to deaccession artworks are serious matters and must be made
in writing to the Office of the University Curator. The request must include
the rationale for the request and provide information regarding any special
considerations related to a gift agreement (if applicable), and any other legal
requirements. If the artwork for which deaccessioning is sought is valued
at less than $5,000, the Office of the University Curator, in consultation
with the Art Advisory Committee, will decide whether the request will be
granted. If the object is valued at more than $5,000, a more fulsome review
is required, and the Office of General Counsel and other appropriate advi-
sors must be consulted for approval. If the artwork is valued in excess of
$100,000, the President also must be consulted for approval of the request.
Occasionally, requests may be received for the loan of an object in
the University Art Collection. All such requests are to be referred to the
Office of the University Curator who will enlist the support of the Office of
Risk Management and Insurance to assure that any objects loaned from the
University’s collection are properly insured. Copies of all loan agreements
and other documentation are to be submitted to the Office of the University
Curator to ensure that records are centrally maintained regarding the location
and loan arrangements made with respect to an object that belongs to the
4 See https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/v49/n06/design_guide.html.
5 See University-of-Pennsylvania-Naming-Policy.pdf (upenn.edu).
2 www.upenn.edu/almanac
University. Similarly, requests to reproduce or copy artwork in the Univer-
sity Art Collection are to be referred to the Office of the University Curator.
Key Findings
During consultations with community members and the focused conver-
sations facilitated by PennPraxis with Monument Lab on the CIG’s behalf,
it became apparent that there was a lack of awareness of the above policies
and protocols regarding naming and the management of the University Art
Collection. The CIG also reviewed the membership of existing commit-
tees and found that there is significant overlap on all relevant committees
The CIG urges that the membership of each committee be reviewed to
add diversity and establish reasonable terms for service. In addition, it
would be helpful to have either a single website or have information on
the sites of the Office of the Curator, the Division of Facilities and Real
Estate Services, and elsewhere that provided a single location where all
relevant policies and protocols can be found. This would also address, at
least in part, the calls for increased transparency regarding how decisions
are made regarding naming opportunities, acquisitions to and deaccessions
from the University Art Collection, and to remove or change the names of
buildings and other spaces.
Recommended Frameworks
As a University whose founding dates back to 1740, some of the behavior
and beliefs of those for whom buildings have been named, portraits com-
missioned and otherwise honored are antithetical to Penn’s contemporary
commitment to inclusion, innovation, and impact. Similarly, the mores
and values espoused by the broader society have evolved and modern-day
discoveries have discredited some of their beliefs. Penn’s founder Benjamin
Franklin was a slave owner until he became an influential abolitionist during
the latter part of his life. Early administrators and faculty benefited from
the labor of enslaved people, including in the maintenance of University
property. In addition, some of the pseudoscience regarding racial differences
was advanced by Penn faculty members. In a few instances, the behavior
that has come to light is so abhorrent that their names or likenesses have
been removed from the campus.
The CIG grappled with how decisions should be made by an institution
dedicated to the advancement of knowledge about removal, renaming, or
replacement of campus iconography. It was the unanimous view of CIG
members that doing so was a serious matter that should be carefully and
systematically considered and undertaken only in the most compelling cases.
As an educational institution with a storied and complicated past and as a
community dedicated to the creation and transmission of knowledge along
with service for the public good, providing context is generally preferred to
the renaming of buildings and other spaces or the replacement or removal
of statues, portraits, and other objects.
The CIG recommends that each decision on whether to remove, replace
or rename must rely upon a set of criteria—where the criteria themselves
may evolve over time—and also on a case-by-case complex set of contex-
tual judgments. The CIG proposes that the following framework should
be used to evaluate proposals to rename, replace, or remove a name (the
order in which a factor is listed is not intended to signify any priority for
its consideration):
• The centrality of the person’s offensive behavior to his or her life as a
whole. The case for renaming is strongest where the honoree’s offen-
sive behavior is inextricably connected with their public persona. The
case for renaming is weaker where the honoree’s offensive behavior,
though publicly known, is not a central or inextricable part of their
public persona—especially when, despite the objectionable behavior,
other aspects of the person’s life and work are especially significant.
• Harmful nature and impact of the honoree’s behavior. The case for
renaming is strongest when the behavior of the person for whom a
feature is named or otherwise honored is morally repugnant and that
morally repugnant behavior has a significant negative effect on the core
University missions of pursuing knowledge, receiving an education, and
service for the public good. Thus, the case for renaming is stronger to
the extent that retaining a name creates (or contributes to) an environ-
ment that impairs the ability of students, faculty, or staff of a particular
gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, or other
characteristic protected by University policy, to participate fully and
effectively in the missions of the University. The case is also stronger
to the extent that the morally repugnant behavior is especially egregious
(e.g. in violation of basic constitutional rights of life and liberty), violates
core principles of academic integrity (e.g. academic fraud or miscon-
duct), or if the President, in consultation with the Trustees Executive
ALMANAC SUPPLEMENT April 6, 2021 Committee, determines that continued name association between the
University and the individual (or entity) compromises the public trust
or is detrimental to the traditions, mission, or values of the University.
In assessing the harmful nature and impact, the salience of the named
feature for members of the Penn community should be considered.
The case for renaming is stronger where the name is prominent and
encountered in a personal or intimate setting (e.g., a student residence)
and generally is weaker where the feature is a relatively impersonal and
rarely encountered place. As a result, when several features are named
after the same individual, the impact may be more harmful for some
features than for others.
• Community identification with the feature. The case for renaming is
weaker where the feature is part of a valuable positive tradition or
identification shared by a substantial number of Penn community
members, including alumni.
• Strength and clarity of the historical evidence. The case for renaming is
strongest when evidence of the honoree’s wrongful behavior is clear and
unambiguous, and is weakest when the evidence is scant or ambiguous.
• Relation to the University’s history. The case for renaming is weaker to
the extent that the honoree had a more significant role in the University’s
history, and stronger to the extent that the honoree is a person without a
significant connection to the University. (The concern about “erasing”
the University’s history is diminished to the extent that the honoree’s
connection to Penn’s history is incidental.)
• The University’s prior consideration of the issues. The case for renaming
is stronger when the honoree’s offensive conduct came to light after the
naming, or where the issue was not the subject of prior deliberation. The
case for renaming is weaker when the University addressed the behavior
at the time of the naming and nonetheless decided to honor the person, or
when the University has already considered and rejected a prior request
for renaming. (The original decision deserves some degree of respect if
the decision makers considered the competing interests, but not if they
made the decision in the absence of relevant facts, or if they did not
address the honoree’s questionable behavior at the time of the naming.)
• Possibilities for mitigation. In considering whether to retain or eliminate
a name, the University should take into account whether the harm can
be mitigated and historical knowledge preserved by recognizing and ad-
dressing the individual’s wrongful behavior. When a feature is renamed
or when the name is retained but was considered a close question, the
University should consider describing the history in a prominent way—
at the feature, where practicable, or in some other suitable location.
• Donor Agreements and/or Other Legal Responsibilities. A search for
any gift agreements as well as curatorial and archival records should
be conducted when an item is presented for consideration of removal,
renaming, relocation, replacement or other significant change. The Of-
fice of General Counsel and the Division of Finance should be consulted
to determine whether and the extent to which there are legal or other
restrictions that must be considered before determining whether and
under what conditions any such action is legally permissible.
There are 59 public sculptures on display on campus, including Brick
House by Simone Leigh, which was installed in the fall of 2020—the first
of a Black woman and it was sculpted by a Black woman. Nine of the 59
sculptures on display are the work of women artists, including the iconic
Split Button by Coosje van Bruggen with Claes Oldenberg, and two are
the work of people of color (Brick House and the Antillean Couple by
Augustin Cárdenas). There are more than 8,000 works in the University
Art Collection; approximately 300 women artists created 700 pieces of art,
and 22 are known to be the creations of 11 people of color. In the fall of
2021, Penn Medicine’s newly commissioned work by Maya Lin, tentatively
titled DNA Tree of Life, will be installed in the lobby of the new Pavilion.
Additionally, the University owns hundreds of portraits of individuals that
were donated to or commissioned by various Schools and Divisions, most
of which are of White men. Faculty, students, staff, visitors, and applicants
for academic programs or employment have commented on the lack of
diversity in the portraits prominently displayed, including those in College
Hall; in part resulting from the relatively recent appointment of women
and people of color to leadership roles at Penn. (The first woman to serve
as Penn’s President was Interim President Claire Fagin who took office in
1993 and we still look forward to the appointment of a female provost).
The CIG was energized by the possibility of finding ways to ensure
that the campus environs better reflected Penn’s commitment to inclusion,
innovation and impact. We considered a wide range of opportunities in
the years ahead for all parts of the University to creatively and effectively
illustrate in multiple venues that Penn welcomes and values the diverse
perspectives of its faculty, students, and staff. Penn seeks to recognize the
contributions of the transformative leaders who helped make it one of the
world’s most highly regarded research universities as well as alumni whose
accomplishments reflect Penn’s strides from excellence to eminence—par-
ticularly those whose stories had not been widely known. Moreover, there
are opportunities to better educate members of the community and visitors
about the University’s artwork and the artists who created it. The following
framework for assessing whether proposed additions help demonstrate the
University’s commitment to inclusive excellence is proposed.
• Significant connection to the University’s history. The case for naming
or adding iconography to the collection is strongest when the honoree
had a significant impact on Penn’s history or reputation.
• The centrality of the person’s contributions to advancing diversity,
equity, and inclusion. The case for naming or adding iconography to
the collection is stronger if the prospective honoree’s achievements
made a significant contribution to the arts, sciences, professions,
education, politics, military, and/or the public good. Those
individuals whose contributions have been under-recognized should
be given special consideration.
• Positive impact of the honoree’s contributions. The case for naming
or adding iconography to the collection is strengthened when the
prospective honoree’s contributions have had a significant positive
effect on the University’s core missions of the pursuit of knowledge,
teaching, and service for the public good.
• Strength and clarity of the historical evidence. The case for naming
or adding iconography to the collection should be borne out by strong
and unambiguous historical evidence of the honoree’s contributions.
While there are many instances in which a proposed honoree will meet
all four criteria, the CIG’s recommendation is that anyone so honored
should meet at least three of the criteria outlined above. The University has
recognized some of its alumni, notably Sadie T. M. Alexander for whom
the Penn Alexander School and a professorship in Penn Carey Law School
are named. Also, the 125 Years sculpture project on Woodland Walk by
Jenny Holzer honors many distinguished alumnae, including President
Emerita Judith Rodin. A number of Penn alumni who might be recognized
were discussed, including renowned architect Julian Abele (BArch ’02),
women’s rights activist Alice Paul (PhD 1912), and architects Liang Sicheng
(GAr’27) and Huiyin Lin (BFA’27) who are considered to be the founders of
modern Chinese architecture. Finding ways to honor distinguished alumni
who made significant contributions both in the U.S. and globally would be
particularly inspiring for current and prospective students. While physical
representations will be welcome, the CIG urges the use of innovative strate-
gies not limited to depictions or other physical representations in order to
educate about the accomplishments of extraordinary people who are Penn
alumni or who have made an indelible mark on the life of the University.
Review of Requests for Naming, Renaming, Replacement, or
Removal
In instances in which a gift agreement is proposed that may include the
naming of a building or other physical space or that of a professorship,
scholarship, fellowship or the like, the senior development professional
in the School is charged with consulting with the Senior Vice President
for Development and Alumni Relations regarding the recognition prior
to discussion of the proposal with a donor. In the event the naming is of a
building or any other naming opportunity valued in excess of $1 million, the
Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations also discusses
the proposal with and seeks the approval of the President. The University’s
Naming Policy also provides that “gift agreements must expressly state
that names of buildings and physical spaces are retained until it requires
significant renovation or replacement, at which time the University may
rename it while continuing to appropriately recognize the original gift.”6
All such requests should initially be submitted to the relevant Dean or Vice
President. The University generally refrains from naming buildings, spaces,
scholarships or professorships after an individual or group in the absence of
a gift agreement with a donor. On occasion, the University will honor an in-
dividual who has made significant and sustained contributions to the history
of the University as was the case for example when Rodin College House
was named for Dr. Judith Rodin upon her retirement as Penn’s President.
Similarly, a decision may be made to honor a significant historical figure
6 See https://www.finance.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/University-of-Pennsyl-
vania-Naming-Policy.pdf.
www.upenn.edu/almanac 3
ALMANAC SUPPLEMENT April 6, 2021 who has a Penn connection and has enriched the diversity of the campus,
the canon or both, as was the case for Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois for whom Du
Bois College House is named. Ultimately, all such proposals are submitted
to and reviewed by the relevant School Dean or Vice President as well as
the Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations and the
Senior Vice President and General Counsel before being forwarded to the
President for approval and, in most instances, to the Board of Trustees.
Renaming, replacement, or removal should only be undertaken, as
discussed above, when providing education and context is determined to
be an insufficient response to the morally abhorrent behavior of the per-
son recognized. In those instances in which a member of the community
believes that renaming, replacement, or removal may be appropriate; the
submission of a written request that describes the specific conduct that
warrants consideration of renaming, replacement, or removal; provides
supporting evidence of that behavior; and details how the request is aligned
with the framework recommended above should be submitted to the Dean
of the relevant School or to the Executive Vice President. After the Dean
or Executive Vice President has reviewed the request, a recommendation
will be sent to the President that includes a statement of the reasons for
the recommendation. The President may either ask an existing consultative
group or constitute a special committee to review the recommendation and
the underlying evidence before making a decision. The President’s decision,
made in consultation with the Trustees Executive Committee, will be final.
Recommendations
The CIG discussed a number of near-term and longer term opportunities
to make significant progress in having the University’s iconography better
reflect the University’s commitment to inclusion, innovation, and impact.
We understand that the University intends to embark on a campus planning
process in the near future. An update of the campus plan presents an oppor-
tunity to help realize Penn’s aspirations “to create new art that advances the
way we think about the world we inhabit,” and “contribute to the life and
activity of streets and walks” on campus and in the community. Continuing
its efforts to make the campus welcoming and engendering a greater sense
of community and belonging should be among the objectives of the plan-
ning process. A great deal of progress has been made since 2002 when the
Trustees adopted the Design Review Guidelines. The Weitzman Plaza, for
example, has opened up a major public entr