Sometimes, even in the most difficult of situations, the simplest answer is the best.

A year after it began, the University of Pennsylvania's free speech saga came full circle recently when the school's administration unveiled a new speech rule, which states a student may not be punished for his or her speech unless it threatens physical harm to another student.

You may better recognize the rule as the First Amendment.

After wisely rescinding the school's controversial speech code last November, Penn President Claire Fagin announced the school would form a new rule using input from student groups. Penn officials recognized that political correctness is an unrealistic goal and formed a new one that gets back to the "Three Rs," so to speak:

Right: Denying anyone their Constitutional right to free speech goes against the basic beliefs we, as Americans, function under.

Realistic: The speech code Penn scrapped prohibited behavior that "insults or demeans the person . . . or abuses a power relationship with that person." Vague terminology is as difficult to define as it is to enforce.

Responsible: The new rule is on target for making people accountable for their actions, not their beliefs and ideas.

Although some students have criticized Fagin's plan as being a quick solution to a long-term problem, the new rule is the most right, realistic and responsible approach to the free speech quagmire that the push for "P.C." forced Penn into.

And Penn could teach adminstrators at Dear Old State a thing or two. Penn State's recently reinstated intolerance policy hampers free speech as much as ever. The policy essentially punishes crimes more strictly if they are committed out of racist, sexist or homophobic motives.

While the rules are meant to preserve the safety of some, preserving the sacred rights of free thought and free speech is central to preserving the freedom of all.

University administrators could learn a lesson from Penn -- simple can be better.