The Chronicle of Philanthropy. June 26, 2024.

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…