The rule with no reason

Every institution accumulates rules whose origins nobody remembers. A school forbids a particular coat. A library requires a form for something a click could do. Asked why, the most senior person available says that this is how it has always been done, which is not an answer but is frequently the truth.

There is a well-worn piece of advice about such rules, usually attributed to the writer G. K. Chesterton. If you come across a fence in a field and see no reason for it, the argument runs, do not remove it until you know why it was built. The person who put it there probably had a reason, and the reason may still apply even though it is no longer visible.

The advice is sound and it is also incomplete, because it is frequently used to end conversations rather than start them. The instruction is to find out why the fence exists, not to leave it standing indefinitely because nobody has asked. A rule that cannot be explained by anyone currently employed is not protected by the principle; it is exactly the case the principle tells you to investigate.

The awkward cases are the rules with a real original reason that has quietly expired. A ban on a coat because an earlier version had metal fastenings that scratched desks. A paper form because a system once lost records. Each was sensible. Each outlived the problem, and because removing a rule requires someone to take responsibility while keeping it requires nobody to do anything, the default is that it stays.

This is why institutions tend to gain rules and rarely lose them, and why asking 'what would happen if we stopped?' is a more useful question than it sounds.