The Year of the Chatham House Rule

2024 was the year that universities suddenly discovered the value of institutional neutrality. Henceforth, administrators at such schools as Dartmouth, Harvard, Michigan, Penn, Stanford, and UNC will no longer issue statements on hot-button political and social issues—statements that invariably stifle dissent within campus communities. These administrators have, to varying degrees, pledged instead to ensure that each of their institutions is, in the words of the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report, “the sponsor of critics” and “not itself the critic.”

This has been a welcome development in the bleak landscape of American higher education, but there is, of course, much more to be done if students are to feel safe expressing heterodox opinions in or out of the classroom. We need to keep up the momentum. Now that the Kalven Report has become a quasi-household name, I urge colleges and universities in 2025 to adopt another pro-speech policy that is ripe and ready for prime time: the Chatham House Rule.

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.

If you are affiliated with Harvard, where reportedly 67% of students would feel “somewhat” or “very uncomfortable” expressing their “views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion,” let administrators know that you’d like to see the Chatham House Rule implemented across the university. And no matter your institutional affiliation, if you’re reading this, you need to help spread the word about the Chatham House Rule.

I’m not talking just about universities. In a society bereft of trust, we have lost the ability to argue with neighbors and colleagues in good faith. 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.

If 2024 was the year of institutional neutrality, let 2025 be the year of the Chatham House Rule.

This article was first published by RealClear Education on January 21, 2025.