Deep Dive
Is Silence Violence? How Yale Law School Reminded Me of the Virtue of Viewpoint Neutrality
Author Alexandra Hudson reflects on a pivotal moment at Yale Law and makes the case for why institutions and the people who lead them must rethink what it really means to stay neutral in polarized times.
When I spoke at Yale Law School recently, interviewed by Tony Kronman — “The Sage of Yale Law School,” as The New Yorker once called him — it was the week of the second inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.
I should have anticipated at least one provocative question.
One student asked, “Is it civil that four days after the inauguration, the administration of Yale Law School has still not recognized or congratulated J.D. Vance, an alumnus of this school, on becoming Vice President of the United States?”
The questioner went on to predict that, had a Yale Law alumnus become Vice President of the United States in a Democratic administration, the law school administration wouldn’t have hesitated to issue a statement and offer public congratulations.
I answered by praising Yale’s faculty and administration for caring enough about intellectual and political diversity to have me as a guest speaker, and for the Crossing Divides Program, under which I was invited. I also spoke about the virtue of viewpoint neutrality, and why institutions should have a single, unified policy regarding public statements and apply it consistently, whether they make statements on all issues and alumni, or none. Picking and choosing which public issues to comment on, or which alumni to congratulate when they become Vice President, will inevitably offend some people.
My response was substantially less provocative than Dr. Kronman’s.
Dr. Kronman was uncompromising in his view that Yale Law School should have publicly congratulated the new Vice President, as they have done with many past presidents and public officials from that “small backwater town” (his affectionate appellation for New Haven, CT).
Why Viewpoint Neutrality Matters
If you’re a public leader today, in government, education, law, or in the business world, it can feel as if, no matter what you do or say, you will endure criticism.
If you speak out on a topic, you may win praise from those who agree with your stance, but you’ll be criticized by, and also alienate, those who disagree with you.
If you remain silent, you may also be criticized. Indeed, some may place your silence in the face of injustice on the same moral plane as committing the injustice itself, hence the common phrase “silence is violence.”
I think there’s only one good way to navigate the landmines that lie around when we try to speak out in our era of division: an uncompromising commitment to viewpoint neutrality. Viewpoint neutrality means treating all viewpoints equally instead of favoring one over another, and it is a close cousin of civility, which means treating others with the basic respect they deserve by their dignity and irreducible moral worth as human beings.
On an institutional level, viewpoint neutrality requires that leaders refrain from taking overt political positions and refrain from demanding that everyone who works at the institution take a “correct” position (much less demand that everyone be sufficiently vocal about it as well).
In the final chapter of my book, The Soul of Civility, I write about how institutional activism is a symptom of politics becoming too dominant in our lives. Suddenly, it’s not enough for people to agree with us; they must now do so with sufficient gusto, and we must relegate politics to its proper place, namely, after friends, family, faith, and other, more noble avocations, passions, and interests.
Viewpoint neutrality is the antidote to the unintended perils of corporate activism, which, despite good intentions, tends to do more harm than good.
In a world of increasing polarization, viewpoint neutrality serves as a necessary foundation for fostering a healthy and civil society.
So, why does institutional viewpoint neutrality matter? It ensures that all individuals are heard and respected, regardless of their political leanings. Institutional political statements may seem well-intentioned, but they carry a series of unintended consequences that undermine the essential fabric of civil discourse and social cohesion.
The Problems with Institutional Activism
Activism may aim to unify, but instead, it divides.
Many corporations and universities seek to serve a broad constituency. When these entities take political stances, they inherently create an “us versus them” mentality. For example, when a company publicly aligns itself with a particular political or social movement, it risks alienating consumers and employees who hold differing views. Similarly, when universities issue political statements, they can foster an environment where students feel pressured to conform to a particular ideology or risk being marginalized. This fracturing of society, though often justified by claims of moral responsibility, ultimately impedes the ability of these institutions to bring people together, preventing these institutions from realizing their unifying potential. Viewpoint neutrality, in contrast, ensures that all voices can be heard and fosters an environment of mutual respect, free from the divisiveness of partisan politics.
1. Activism Undermines Institutional Missions
Corporations exist to provide goods and services, while universities are designed to educate and promote intellectual inquiry. When these institutions insert themselves into political debates, they lose sight of their foundational goals. For corporations, this can lead to a degradation of their brand, as consumers perceive them as more interested in politics than in their products. For universities, political statements detract from their academic pursuits, turning them into ideological battlegrounds rather than centers of learning. In both cases, the consequences are the same: important work is sidelined in favor of engaging in political discourse, thereby diluting the effectiveness and purpose of these institutions. By remaining neutral, corporations and universities are better positioned to fulfill their primary functions and contribute to society without unnecessary distraction.
2. Genuine Moral Progress
It’s tempting for leaders today to think that taking bold political stances is a necessary means to advance social justice or address pressing moral issues. Yet it’s viewpoint neutrality that actually provides the best environment for true moral progress. When institutions remain neutral, they create space for open, respectful dialogue between individuals with differing perspectives. This open exchange allows for more thoughtful consideration of issues rather than simply encouraging dissenters to stifle their views. By creating a space for diverse voices, neutrality encourages genuine moral reflection and allows for new solutions to emerge organically.
3. Authentic vs. Performative Social Impact
It’s easy to put out a statement. It’s a lot harder to make systemic internal changes that address the root causes of social injustice. When companies take political or ideological stances, they may feel as though they are contributing to progress, but in reality, they are often engaging in performative actions with little concrete impact. For example, a company may make a public donation or support a particular cause without addressing deeper, systemic issues within their own operations, such as fair wages, workplace diversity, or environmental sustainability. In this way, activism can become more about image-building than about authentic social impact. Viewpoint neutrality frees corporations from this performative trap, allowing them to focus on concrete actions that directly benefit their employees, customers, and communities, leading to tangible, long-lasting change.
4. Stakeholder Backlash
We live in divided times. That means that a company that supports one movement may inadvertently provoke the ire of an entirely different group, creating unforeseen conflicts and backlash. A corporation supporting a particular social cause may face intense criticism from opposing political groups, media outlets, or even its own employees who do not share the same views. In many cases, these unintended consequences are not immediately visible, but they can undermine the company’s position and even result in boycotts or negative publicity. Neutrality, on the other hand, avoids aligning with any one group or cause, ensuring that companies remain insulated from these unexpected backlashes and are able to focus on their actual purposes.
5. Individual Autonomy and Empowerment
People often assume that institutions should take clear political stands to guide individuals toward what is morally or politically “right.” This assumption, however, undermines individual autonomy. When institutions adopt political positions, they risk infantilizing their members, implying that they are incapable of forming their own opinions or making their own ethical decisions. Viewpoint neutrality, on the other hand, empowers individuals to think critically and make decisions based on their own values and reasoning. Far from being a passive stance, neutrality fosters the cultivation of independent thought and personal responsibility, enabling individuals to engage with complex issues in a way that aligns with their own principles and convictions.
6. Encourage Civility, not Politeness
As I argue in my book, The Soul of Civility, compliance and politeness with social expectations and norms are easy. Civility, on the other hand, is an internal disposition of the heart that requires respect for others, and respect for others means telling hard truths that may, at times, feel impolite. Civility can often be hard. Civility, grounded in basic respect for the dignity of others and ourselves, requires effort and courage. Respecting others means telling them when we disagree. Elevating one public stance at the expense of others encourages politeness over civility. However, living in a free and flourishing democracy depends on encouraging civility, not politeness.
7. The Chilling Effect on Free Speech
Free expression is easy to lose, and hard to regain. When an organization or institution aligns itself with a particular political stance, it inadvertently sends a message that dissenting opinions are unwelcome. Employees, students, and consumers may feel pressured to align themselves with the dominant viewpoint or risk facing backlash, discrimination, or even professional consequences. This suppresses the free exchange of ideas, as individuals silence themselves out of fear of reprisal. In contrast, by remaining neutral, institutions create an environment where individuals feel free to speak openly and engage in robust discussion, unafraid of ideological persecution.
Courageous Viewpoint Neutrality
Viewpoint neutrality is not a cop out. It takes courage to resist the demands of a vocal and outraged contingent in your community. It’s not a denial of truth and justice. It’s a principled stance that respects that reasonable minds can disagree and that people who hold different views still deserve a basic minimum of respect. It requires one to stay disciplined and mission-oriented as an institution. It requires a commitment to preserving the principles of civility in our communities.
Institutional activism, while motivated by good intentions, ultimately harms the social fabric by fostering division, distracting from core missions, and undermining democratic discourse. By embracing neutrality, institutions can contribute more effectively to the common good, uniting diverse voices and preserving the integrity of civil society.
Embracing institutional neutrality does not require becoming a relativist or believing that all points of view are true. After all, the point of institutional neutrality is to allow the individuals within institutions to express their own points of view.
Nor does institutional neutrality mean that all institutions must be neutral. Some institutions are defined by their ideological, political, religious, or philosophical commitments. And those institutions are an important part of our society’s exchange of ideas. The critical thing is that all institutions be honest — whether the institution is neutral or sectarian, it should make those commitments up-front and stick to them. It is also important that institutions remember their purpose. The purpose of a university is to craft character and inculcate learning. The purpose of a company is to provide a good or service to consumers. When these institutions try to add new mandates, they’ll necessarily do less for their primary mission.
Leaders across our government are grappling with this issue. Why?
Because they know that recent vocal voices had created a chilling effect in their offices across the state. From judges to managers, assistants to clerks — all felt less free to voice their opinions or speak their minds. They no longer brought their best and full selves to the workplace. It was clear something had to change, starting with how we talk to and hear one another.
Events aren’t easy, but working with WSB is. WSB works with thousands of respected influencers, thought leaders, and speakers each year and our experienced sales team is committed to the success of your event. For more thought-provoking speaker ideas, please contact us.