Harvard and Bari Weiss University Both Embrace a New Higher Education Fix

Plus, the new Egypt-Turkey axis moves to seize Syria

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo: The Editors.

The full “60 Minutes” segment on the new University of Austin, or UATX—which I affectionately call Bari Weiss University after one of its founders—runs 13 minutes and 20 seconds. The most newsworthy piece of it, I thought, was the discussion of the Chatham House Rule.

“To combat fears of saying the wrong thing in class, UATX comes armed with a weapon,” the “60 Minutes” reporter intoned. He then asked a British historian, Niall Ferguson, who like Weiss is a member of the UATX board of trustees, to explain the Chatham House Rule. “The Chatham House Rule is a great British invention and it says that if you are participant in a discussion and you hear an interesting thing said, maybe a controversial thing, you can refer to the information that you’ve gleaned, but you can’t attribute it to a person. People fear that the thing they said that was not, not right, was politically incorrect, ends up on X or for that matter on Instagram,” Ferguson explained. “That which happens in the classroom should stay in the classroom.”

In October, Harvard University’s “Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group” issued a report. The working group was co-chaired by Tomiko Brown-Nagin, who is dean of the Radcliffe Institute, Daniel P.S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and professor of history in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and by Eric Beerbohm, who is professor of government and Faculty Director of the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Among that task force’s proposals was “Promote the Free Exchange of Ideas by Enacting Policies That Mandate Classroom Confidentiality. To preserve confidentiality and promote candid conversations, consider new rules or norms about the dissemination of class-related content, discussions, or activities. New policies might include the University-wide adoption of the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution of in-class comments, already mandated by some schools.”

An appendix to the Harvard task force report includes three examples of “Non-Attribution Policies (the Chatham House Rule)” that are already in effect.

A Harvard Business School policy states, “Because of the potential permanence and widespread dissemination of communications designed to reach a broader audience, if statements made in class are quoted or described with attribution in online channels or platforms, students may be reluctant to approach any question, particularly controversial ones, with the openness and vulnerability they need to grow and to learn from one another. Moreover, it may be hard, when quoting statements made in class, to accurately distinguish when speakers are expressing their own views or seeking to test their views against others, to capture all of the qualifications or nuance that speakers may have provided, or to fairly convey the full context necessary to understand why speakers took a particular position on a complex business question. In addition, the widespread dissemination of such statements with attribution may risk subjecting the speaker to harassment, bullying, or worse.”

The Business School policy goes on, “When communicating with anyone who did not participate in the relevant classroom discussion, whether verbally or in writing (including via text, email, or social media platforms), no one may repeat or describe a statement made by a student in class in a manner that would enable a person who was not present in the class to identify the speaker of the statement.”

A Harvard Kennedy School policy says, “All HKS events are, unless otherwise explicitly stated, not for attribution. This means you can share in a general way what you learned, but not who said what, without expressed permission.”

And a Harvard Law School policy says, “When using social media or other forms of communication designed to reach members of the public, no one may repeat or describe a statement made by a student in class in a manner that would enable a person who was not present in the class to identify the speaker of the statement.” It says it is “modeled on the Chatham House Rule.”

Chatham House is a sort of British version of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its website publishes the rule as follows: “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.” It further notes that “Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted ‘on the record’ with the Rule occasionally invoked in relevant cases.”

I’m open to experimenting with whatever people think might help. We can check back in a few years and see if any changes work. Yet mark me down as exceedingly skeptical that the “Chatham House Rule” will be any more useful in rescuing elite American higher education from its crisis and decline than it has been at preserving the influence and prestige of the waning British empire. I see the promise of confidentiality as a variation on the “coddling” that fuels the fear and reluctance in the first place.

The “60 Minutes” episode actually cuts right to the heart of the matter with the language about “fear”: “fears of saying the wrong thing in class…People fear that the thing they said that was not, not right, was politically incorrect, ends up on X or for that matter on Instagram.”

The way to combat the “fear” is to admit courageous students, and to cultivate further the virtue of courage among those who have arrived on the campus. It’s also to fight back against the cancel culture and the conformity it enforces, not to yield to it by lowering a cloak of secrecy around the campus.

I understand that classrooms are different from public squares. I get that students who have their remarks misinterpreted or taken out of context may be upset. And I get that live simulcast video to social media may not be the environment most conducive to teaching and learning. Even so, bringing the Chatham House Rule to college campuses seems more like a surrender to the excessively risk-averse campus culture than a solution for improving it.

If you were shopping for a college for your children, or looking to hire graduates of one, where would you want them to go? Somewhere where the culture is: our students are not afraid to be provocative and to explore controversial ideas, and when they hear such an idea from someone else, their first impulse is to discuss it with curiosity with the person who said it, not to run to social media and take offense with it? Or somewhere where the fear of being canceled for a provocative or controversial ideas is so intense that the university has to impose a rule against attributing statements by name? Given a choice between bravery and secrecy, I’d prefer the bravery. You could say the secrecy helps cultivate the bravery, like a greenhouse for seedlings in early spring, or something to that effect. But I don’t really buy it.

The most inspiring message I’ve heard on any campus this academic year came from Gavriel Gimpel, 23, an Israeli soldier who told Harvard students “choose to be brave.” He wasn’t worried someone would put his words and his name up on social media.

Eventually the graduates of these universities will have to go out into a society where the Chatham House rules don’t apply. If the lesson they learn in college is timidity rather than courage, they’ll be ill-prepared.

Syria opportunity: While everyone’s been paying attention to Gaza and Lebanon, the situation in Syria is changing rapidly, with reports that Sunni Arab forces aligned with Turkey and Egypt have taken the city of Sarqib and also have either conquered or are on the verge of conquering Aleppo. Former Pentagon official Simone Ledeen has an insightful tweet about it: “The stakes are high. Syria is the fault line where Turkish, Russian, Iranian, and Western interests collide. The incoming Trump administration will need to decide: •Will the U.S. lead in reshaping Syria’s future? •Or will we allow others—Turkey, Russia, and China—to define the region? Syria’s unraveling is happening now. The time to plan is yesterday.”

If the incoming Trump team moves quickly and with sophistication (granted, a big “if”), it could find a way to use the situation to American advantage by bringing Syria over onto the anti-Iran side. Israel has already made progress pushing Iran and its proxies out of Gaza and Lebanon. Syria is a logical next step. Leaving it in chaos or a power vacuum or to be carved up by its neighbors just breeds terrorism and humanitarian disaster. At the moment, it is an opportunity for some power to seize. Russia has been sophisticated in playing on the Syrian field. Iran has, too, up to a point, though it is now in retreat along with the forces of Bashar Assad.

Kareem Rifai posted, “Syrians deserve to live in a pluralistic democracy where all — Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Christian, Jew, Druze, Kurdish, Assyrian, Circassian, Turkmen, Armenian — are treated equally under the law. Free from Assad, Iran, and Russia. A free Syria is a free Syria for all — no more oligarchy, no more secret police, no more corruption. Free elections, free enterprise, free civil society.”

Plenty of cynics will say that will never happen. Yet the experiences of America and Israel show that with freedom, democracy, and rule of law, diverse societies can prosper and grow. It’s hardly a utopian fantasy to see the potential for a Syria that is better than what exists today, the barely functioning satellite of a fading Iranian regime.

Democracy-promoting forum: Speaking of advancing freedom and democracy, all 11 contributions to our forum on promoting freedom, democracy, and rule of law are now conveniently posted on a single page.