Harvard’s Open Inquiry Report Gets the Free Speech Problem Right

This week, after months of consideration, Harvard reached a conclusion: What is said in the classroom should stay there.

On Tuesday, the University’s Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group released its recommendations for bolstering critical engagement in the classroom. They include implementing the Chatham House Rule, which allows members of a classroom to share the contents of discussions but not the names of speakers, and reviewing its discrimination, bullying, and harassment policies to protect academic freedom.

The report injects a needed dose of common sense and serious academic insight into the often-interminable discourse about discourse on college campuses. Now, the onus is on the University — and all of us — to put its proposals into practice.

There’s no denying it: All is not right with campus speech culture. Per the working group, 45 percent of the 5,000-plus students surveyed across the University hesitate to share controversial views in class, while only 49 percent of faculty feel comfortable facilitating conversations about contentious issues.

The sources of this trepidation are murky, certainly not the kind that can be tidily summed up by a single buzzy phrase like “cancel culture.” We appreciate that the working group attended to the complexities of the problem, narrating challenges to campus speech in all their many shades of gray.

One of those challenges, indisputably, is social stigma — much less from the infinitesimally low risk of an ill-phrased section contribution going viral on Sidechat than from the subtle chuckles, whispers, or sideways looks such comments can sometimes elicit. These common gestures, often nothing more than an innocent reflex, exert a far stronger chilling effect than vigilante posting. The report takes them seriously; we should too.

It’s more than social pressure though. The working group describes other threats to speech that don’t make magazine cover stories but do derail open inquiry. For example, untenured academic workers reported worrying about the consequences for misstepping during controversial class discussions, their hesitation surely intensified by the reality that their job is no guarantee.

How should Harvard approach these threats to its mission? Creating norms that build classroom trust is a good place to start.

We enthusiastically support the University’s schools adopting the proposed Chatham House Rule. After a year full of vitriol on campus, assuring students that they will not face reprisal for their classroom comments — however unlikely that reprisal may be — would give students space to honestly present, explore, and develop their views.

As the University moves to actually implement the Chatham House Rule, we have some advice: Don’t take the word ‘rule’ too literally. Open conversations don’t happen under threat of sanction — they rely on strong norms of constructive, respectful engagement that students really believe in. Violations of the rule should not generally be grounds for disciplinary action.

The Chatham House proposal needs student support — not administrative enforcement. The working group’s report recommends a required teaching module for undergraduates about constructive disagreement. That would be one place to explain to students why the Chatham House Rule is worth abiding by. Professors, meanwhile, should include the rule in syllabi and would do well to mention it at the start of class discussions.

In this same spirit, while we don’t object to the working group’s recommendation that Harvard review its anti-discrimination policy for threats to speech — there’s no harm in taking a look — we’re skeptical that discrimination investigations are the main threat to open dialogue. Likewise, while the report is right to note that discussing identity and personal experience can be hard, we reject the notion that rules discouraging such comments would do anything but limit the vitality of classroom discussions.

The working group delivered a valuable, smart blueprint for improving classroom dialogue at Harvard. Now we must ensure the proposal to keep comments in the classroom makes it off the page.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.