Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for our Philanthropy Today newsletter and joining our Commons LinkedIn group.
Harvard recently adopted a policy of “institutional neutrality,” saying it would no longer take a position on divisive issues. This follows controversies over Harvard’s handling of student protests, leading to the resignation of President Claudine Gay.
Many organizations “stay neutral” about controversies in this time of polarization, workplace divisions about diversity, the Israel-Hamas War, and a divisive presidential election. Depending on the situation, that decision may be morally right, pragmatically prudent, or strategically effective. Or it may not. But leaders and communications professionals often embrace neutrality with unrealistic expectations. Some use it to hide from problems that often find them anyway; others may underrate its value.
Here are five principles of neutrality to help make hard decisions about whether and when to take sides.
“Neutral” isn’t declining to take a stance. “Neutral” is a stance. You might intend your neutrality to signal, “This organization will not answer this question.” But it doesn’t. Rather, neutrality suggests that the organization accepts all answers. Depending on the circumstances, that position may be great or terrible. Consider a question like: Do you approve of Nazis? It’s obvious that “neutral” doesn’t always feel truly neutral.
And neutrality is a stance even when the matter at issue is “unconnected to our work.” Leaders sometimes lean on that phrase as if it is a shared truth affirmed by all. But the world is large and ornery, and someone will dispute it. The issue might truly be “unconnected to your work,” and everyone you trust may agree. But not everyone will.
True neutrality is not impossible — just unsustainable. It occurs when an organization has never considered an issue. But as soon as an issue is raised, and a nonprofit’s leaders consider whether and how to respond, even momentarily, true neutrality is lost. From that moment, whether you speak or say nothing, that’s a stance.
When issues are likely to arise and stir passionate disagreements, it’s risky to assume you can maintain true neutrality. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, many workplaces assumed what they believed was a neutral stand on abortion; after Dobbs, that became harder. Stakeholders demanded responses, and practical HR questions — e.g., whether health benefits would cover interstate travel for abortions — forced groups to take up critical issues. True neutrality can collapse in a flash.
Neutrality can’t protect you from defending your position. Leaders sometimes expect neutrality to rescue them from the need to discuss or defend their views. It can’t. A neutral stance might sometimes minimize the volume or difficulty of the defenses you must mount, but internal and external stakeholders — staff, trustees, donors — will ask questions about any stance on a hot-button issue — including your neutrality. And while some voices can be ignored with little or no cost, you will likely have to engage in these conversations at least sometimes.
Neutrality can offer organizations some amazing gifts.
- It may maximize your external reach, alienating fewer supporters or potential partners than taking sides would do. It allows your organization to engage people on multiple sides of an issue. Of course, neutrality might lose you some people who judge neutrality as unacceptable. But for some issues, it may be the most inclusive option.
- Neutrality might maximize your talent pool. You may benefit from talented people with strong opinions on any and all sides of an issue, as well as talented people who feel uncertain or ambivalent.
- Neutrality might improve your team’s culture and thinking. Workplaces with proactive norms of free expression and open inquiry — including staying neutral on at least some hot-button topics rather than creating a “party line” for every conceivable controversy — may cultivate creative cultures. Teams may disagree more constructively and are more likely to think critically, seeking the truth without fearing disagreement or retaliation and unlocking new insights related to the organization’s core work.
Own your moral choices. In our secularized age, we’re sometimes uncomfortable with explicit public moralizing. We don’t want our organizations to express religious values, moral judgments, or even subjective opinions. The problem is: Explicitly or not, they do. Taking a position — including a neutral one — is a moral and subjective act. Taking a neutral stance means you believe the benefits of neutrality (see No. 4) are worth accepting every side (see No. 1). That’s moral math that people calculate differently. There is no place to hide from subjective judgment or values.
And that’s OK! Depending on the issue, neutrality can mean cruelty or curiosity, cowardice or courage, hubris or humility. Let’s choose our sides and our neutralities wisely, and own them with conviction as morally meaningful choices.
(The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and JPB Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.)
