{shortcode-67b4886663303cfc7b1bda6bad49c8f59c8e6be9}

With its new classroom conduct recommendations, Harvard risks prioritizing quantity over quality.

President Alan M. Garber ’76 and Provost John F. Manning ’82 wrote in an email this Tuesday that they would accept the recommendations of the University’s Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group and work with administrators to put it into practice.

The Editorial Board acknowledges some of the helpful aspects of these recommendations in its editorial, including a review of disciplinary policies to protect individuals from needless investigations and programs to educate incoming students about constructive dialogue.

What is worrying, however, is the Board’s endorsement of the Chatham House Rule, a norm of discussion that instructs students and instructors to repeat ideas from discussions only if they are not attributed to their speakers.

Broadly speaking, the Chatham House Rule is intended to address the concern that controversial speech could make it out of the classroom and face harsh punishment in the court of public opinion. It’s a noble idea. But those who support it — the Editorial Board, now included — ignore the reality that the discussion of ideas must happen with the real world in view.

We must, of course, create an environment in which students are free to explore challenging concepts. But by emphasizing the importance of non-attribution over the response controversial comments receive, the Chatham House Rule fails to acknowledge that academic theorizing is not done wholly apart from the world in a safe realm of de-contextualized ideas. It is always caught up in the world.

There may be statements we can make in the classroom without worrying about the social world — few mathematical proofs would arouse controversy. However, when we discuss topics that are embedded in complex social and political contexts, how our interpretations function in the world and affect others is part of what should lead us to accept or reject them. If non-attribution is the norm, then we are shielded from the kind of accountability that could cause us to reckon with the impact of their comments.

A second vital flaw in the Chatham House Rule is that it minimizes the importance of standing by what one says.

While we should not expect people to face an angry mob because of controversial comments, we should expect them to be willing to defend what they say when faced with fair and respectful pushback from the wider community. If I am going to say something in class I would be embarrassed to have repeated, then that may be a sign that I should reflect further before I speak to better understand what I truly believe.

Indeed, a good method to identify beliefs we believe to be worth standing for is asking a simple question: “What if my friend heard that I said this?”

The real pursuit of truth requires ownership of what one says — what matters is not that a point can be made but whether we genuinely believe it to be right. When we speak our ideas under the auspices of a universal Chatham House Rule, we don't have to take ownership of them later. This does not mean we should never utter anything that provokes a strong negative reaction in someone else — it just means that when we do so, we must be willing to stand behind any harm it may inadvertently cause.

To be clear, I am not saying that cancel culture is non-existent. I am saying that the Chatham House Rule is the wrong solution. We, as a community, should instead prioritize practicing healthy forms of criticism that are respectful and fair to the criticized.

Good speech practices cannot involve anonymity. To take ideas seriously is to be willing to stand by them, and to be an earnest truth-seeker requires that we apprehend ideas not just as they are in the classroom, but in their totality as they also function in the world.

Yes, we must stand by what we say — and replace ostracization and judgment with empathy and dialogue. We just can’t do it by getting rid of the ability to criticize individuals altogether.

Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.