91ÊÓƵ

Interim Fence Policy

Policy Statement

Background:

The Fence has long stood at the heart of Carnegie Mellon's Pittsburgh campus as a dynamic tradition that has embodied creativity, expression and connection for generations of 91ÊÓƵ students. What started as an iconic gathering place exclusively for seniors more than 100 years ago has continued to evolve over time as a medium for student expression. It has been a place to gather, to celebrate, to share personal views on diverse topics, and to give voice to moments throughout the university's history.

The tradition of the Fence is fiercely guarded as a vital forum for student self-expression and community connection. This cherished practice is balanced by the realities of a low-bandwidth medium, the safety and rights of our diverse campus community, and the legal responsibilities of the university.

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a framework for decision-making shared by University Administration and Student Government related to messages painted on the Fence and making shared governance over the Fence predictable as cases emerge.

The Policy is based on the thoughtful work done by the Fence Working Group (access the Final Report of the Fence Working Group [pdf]) and the Student Government (access the Student Government August 2026 Fence Policy Memorandum).

For additional details on the interpretation of this Policy, including the application of standards and protocols discussed herein, please reference the Fence Governance Guidelines.

Authority over the Fence and Shared Governance

As noted in the Final Report of the Fence Working Group, because the Fence is a physical part of the Carnegie Mellon campus, authority over its use resides with the university's Board of Trustees. The Board delegates day-to-day operational responsibility to the university's President and their administration.

Because of the student-centered nature of the Fence, Student Government historically has served as the primary steward of the Fence, and continues to actively regulate time, place, and manner rules under the Graffiti and Poster Policy. The Undergraduate Student Senate and Graduate Student Assembly typically take the lead on day-to-day Fence operations. They, as Student Government, liaise with Fence painters as direct contacts and are assisted by any Student Government staff member with Fence-related responsibilities in their job description(s).

Only 91ÊÓƵ-enrolled students are authorized painters of the Fence.

Content Prohibited on the Fence

In order to ensure that the university's policies (including those reflected in the Student Handbook) and the law¹ are upheld, this Policy and the Fence Governance Guidelines prohibit content on the Fence that is determined by the university's Office of General Counsel or University Police (collectively, "Policy Experts") to violate university policy or laws, or create legal liability for the university. For example, prohibited activities and content, written in English or any other language, on the Fence include:

• Obscenities: Words or symbols for which the reasonable interpretation is obscenity, as well as any other speech determined to be illegal obscenity by Policy Experts.
• Threatening Language and Harassment: Direct threats of violence, including words or symbols that Policy Experts believe may constitute threats, or may harass or advocate for the harassment of individuals or groups.²
• Vandalism, as described in the Graffiti and Poster Policy.
• Personal or ad hominem attacks: Words or symbols that Policy Experts and Student Government believe constitute personal or ad hominem attacks on private individuals.³
• Violations of University Policies or Law: Any words or symbols outside of the above that violate, as determined by Policy Experts, University Policies or the Student Handbook, including the university's Statement of Assurance, Discriminatory and Sexual Misconduct Policy, Freedom of Expression Policy, or other applicable university policies and regulations, as well as applicable federal, state and local laws.

Messages containing the above-described content may be subject to overpainting pursuant to the processes set out in the Fence Governance Guidelines discussed below.

Protection against Misrepresentation

To protect the right of individuals not to be associated with beliefs they do not hold, painters should avoid explicitly or implicitly speaking on behalf of the broader university, collective student body, such as by utilizing phrases like "91ÊÓƵ thinks" or "91ÊÓƵ believes," or any other group or individual. Painters should be confident that their messages represent the positions of anyone to whom they are explicitly or implicitly attributed.

Fence Governance Guidelines

The university's Fence Governance Guidelines were created to provide the protocols for decision-making shared by University Administration and Student Government. In instances of disagreement or concern related to messages painted on the Fence, the aim of these guidelines is to decrease ambiguity and miscommunication and to make shared governance over the Fence predictable before difficult cases emerge. These guidelines set forth the processes by which University Administration and Student Government shall determine whether intervention is necessary and, if so, what type of intervention is necessary. As set forth in the Fence Governance Guidelines, the particular process of Intervention is based on the nature of the content on the Fence, subject to viewpoint neutrality.

Bilateral Restraint and Grace

This Policy endorses that both University Administration and Fence painters practice the complementary concepts of bilateral restraint and bilateral grace. These concepts are described in the Final Report of the Fence Working Group as being rooted in the university's commitment to fostering civil discourse.⁴ In the practice of bilateral restraint and bilateral grace, both groups should recognize that, even with restraint, at times, some will be troubled by the actions of either University Administration or Fence painters. At such times, our community should be a place of patience, grace and forgiveness that prioritizes reconciliation, learning, and non-recurrence in response to isolated violations of norms.⁵

¹ Includes applicable federal, state and local law.

² As detailed in the Freedom of Expression Policy and the Freedom of Expression Guidance, unlawful conduct or other conduct prohibited by university policy will not be permitted, even when such conduct may have taken the form of speech or expression. Such conduct includes harassment and threats of bodily injury or damage to property.

³ Derived from a concept discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the Final Report of Fence Working Group, this is not intended to discourage speaking out against public officials, or against policies or actions, but rather suggests doing so by something other than ad hominem attacks.

⁴ See Section 6.2.1 and "Summary of Recommendations for the University Administration" in the Final Report of Fence Working Group.

⁵ See Section 6.2.4 of the Final Report of Fence Working Group.