Should What Happens In The Classroom Stay In The Classroom?
Will "the Chatham House Rule" catch fire as a campus free speech reform in 2025?
If 2024 is remembered as the year when “DEI” was deservedly put on the defensive and institutional neutrality gained traction as a long overdue higher-ed reform, what big changes could 2025 bring?
Some hope this will be the year when "the Chatham House Rule" takes academia by storm.
What is “the Chatham House Rule” and why is it needed?
Solveig Lucia Gold, a Senior Fellow in Education and Society for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (or ACTA), calls it a “pro-speech policy that is ripe and ready for prime time” in this new Real Clear Education piece.
What is the rule? “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.” In other words, “share the information you receive, but do not reveal the identity of who said it.”
The new University of Austin, “dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth,” has made the Chatham House Rule a cornerstone of its program. Truth is pursued by testing hypotheses, and the hope at UATX is that students will be more likely to test new—and sometimes provocative—hypotheses if they do not have to fear retribution from classmates quoting them on social media. As UATX co-founder and trustee Niall Ferguson says, “That which happens in the classroom should stay in the classroom.”
But that which happens in UATX classrooms should be emulated across the country. And there is reason for optimism on this front: since May, faculty members at Stanford have been encouraged (though not required) to adopt the Chatham House Rule in their classes, and in October
Harvard’s “Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue” working group recommended that the university’s various schools consider adopting the Chatham House Rule—a recommendation that was accepted by the president and provost and endorsed by most (though not all) of the Harvard Crimson’s editorial board. Now it’s up to individual faculty members at Stanford and the deans of Harvard’s schools to follow through.
Gold thinks “the rule” has applications and benefits that can reach beyond just the ivory tower, given how hesitant Americans have become to speak openly and honestly, for fear of being shamed, pilloried, shouted down, or disinvited to Thanksgiving dinner.
“In a society bereft of trust, we have lost the ability to argue with neighbors and colleagues in good faith,” she notes. “If you belong to any group where people are afraid to speak freely, consider implementing the Chatham House Rule. Your office, your book group, your wine club—all might benefit from the protections afforded by this simple but powerful policy.”
Gold has a point. Our increasingly uncivil, irrational, and degraded style of public discourse could benefit from a return to more civility, decorum, forbearance, and receptivity to unfamiliar or controversial ideas. More reasoning and less railing would do the country good. But colleges and universities are in the most immediate need of these changes, given their critical role as incubators for new thinking and forums for freely testing and exchanging ideas. Let’s put the Chatham House Rule to work there first and assume that the better tenor of discourse and debate will soon trickle out to the country at large.