FAS Faculty Praise Proposed Non-Attribution Policy, But Ask Whether It Will Stand Up to Subpoenas

A recent Faculty of Arts and Sciences report recommended that the FAS enforce a non-attribution policy for classroom speech — but professors questioned at a Tuesday meeting whether the proposed rule would allow statements to remain private in the face of subpoenas.

Faculty overwhelmingly praised the report at Tuesday’s meeting of the FAS. Still, some worried that subpoenas of University affiliates — a growing threat amid mounting pressure from Washington — could expose student identities that the proposal aims to protect under the Chatham House Rule, which allows students to share the contents of class discussion but not their peers’ names.

“I’m curious about the extent to which we can actually protect students’ names and our own names from subpoenas,” History professor Alison Frank Johnson said during the meeting.

In particular, Johnson raised the possibility that discussion posts and essays on the online learning management system Canvas could be subpoenaed, divulging students’ comments and identities outside the classroom.

Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88 — who co-chaired the Classroom Social Compact Committee, which issued the report — said that he couldn’t answer Frank Johnson’s question at the moment. But, he said, he would bring the issue to the University’s Office of General Counsel and recommended the FAS consider the issue as it implements the report’s recommendations.

History professor Robin Bernstein echoed Johnson’s sentiment, adding that students with accommodations for disabilities can receive permission to record courses — and that any existing recordings can be subpoenaed.

In recent months, faculty have expressed increasing alarm that their information could be turned over to federal investigators. Harvard turned over thousands of pages of documents to the U.S. House during an investigation last year — including some that exposed faculty members’ names and communications.

The Trump administration has already launched an investigation into Harvard and has promised to focus multi-agency scrutiny on allegations of antisemitism at U.S. universities.

The CSCC proposed that the FAS adopt the Chatham House Rule through amendments to the student and faculty handbooks, after its report concluded that students frequently self-censor during class discussions about controversial issues.

The new language was approved 13-1 by the Faculty Council, passing its first major hurdle, and will face a final vote during March’s FAS meeting.

The faculty’s positive reception to the handbook amendments on Tuesday suggests the changes are likely to be passed during the vote next month.

During the meeting, some professors also raised concerns about whether the proposed amendments — which stipulate that a student’s course standing and grades should not be affected by their beliefs — would limit faculty’s ability to address ethical questions.

Frank Johnson, who also chairs the Germanic Languages and Literature department, raised the possibility that the amendments could mean instructors might not be able to penalize well-reasoned arguments that are unethical — for instance, defenses of the Holocaust.

“How as a community can we decide when diverse ethical positions end and unethical positions begin?” Frank Johnson said during the meeting. “Is there space for us to think about our role as educators of ethical human beings?”

University Professor Danielle S. Allen said she wondered whether deemphasizing ethics could limit students’ development of principles and skills beyond course content.

“I appreciate the prioritization of academic excellence, but I also think of my classrooms as places where people can learn leadership and mutual respect,” Allen said.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.