The Virtue of PR Pros Asserting Neutrality

There is tremendous pressure for PR pros to counsel their organizations to take a stand on social issues. I take a stand for neutrality.

I was part of a webinar a few weeks ago on the topic of universities taking a public stand on social issues. I took a stand for not always taking a stand.

The individuals on the call were mostly other college professors, a representative of an academic publisher, and one college president. But what we talked about could broadly apply to all organizations when it comes to the popular current dilemma of whether or not to advocate a particular point of view on social issues.

I maintained that, in higher education in particular, universities should be what they were established to be—places of free expression on multiple issues and various perspectives on those issues. This is important to me because, as a conservative and a Christian, I am in the minority about many social issues on a college campus. I don’t expect endorsement or agreement, just mutual understanding. And I expect this for all—from each classroom to presidential proclamations.

I was pleased last year when several students—at both the undergraduate and graduate level—told me that my classes of all the ones they had taken were where they felt most able to express themselves. This is because I always look at every angle of a discussion, every side of an issue, with a goal of understanding it—not to elevate or rule out particular views. 

That’s what I was taught college should be. But we are in an era where people think the role of college is persuasion toward single viewpoints, versus a forum for all.

In fact, one person on the call asserted there is no neutrality. "Silence enables the oppressor,” she said. 

True to my point, I understand this notion, but I disagree with this over-generalized mantra that frames every issue as victim-oppressor. Only rarely is that true. Foucault reduced everything to power, Marx said everything requires revolution. I take a stand against extreme conclusions without empirical basis.

Yes, on some issues, it is important and there may be an obvious need to take a stand. If it is to articulate a mission, to be accountable to an action, or it is about something that can be seen as a universal normative value. But otherwise, leaders should resist the social pressure by a self-proclaimed morally-superior vocal group to choose sides.

That’s because most social issues are not reduced to fact vs misinformation. Most social issues have various opinions that are values based. People often marshal facts to support opinions, but both sides can produce consonant facts. The rub comes down to values, beliefs, and resulting principles.

Also, there is often nuance on issues that are too often framed as black and white. As one example, I have spoken with many Hispanics who abhor the term “Latinx,” preferring Latino or Latina. One woman on the call had a Black Lives Matter poster in her office and she was shocked when she was told to take it down. But of course, I told her, there are many Blacks who are critical of Black Lives Matter as an organization, even though they have obvious concerns about racism. But there is a diversity of opinion about racism's scope and causes. And then there are people of all three Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—whose opinion of sexual identity and behavior is guided by God in the Torah, Bible or Koran and not secular laws or cultural popularity. The Pew Research Center reported that 66% of Black Democrats believe whether someone is a man or woman is determined by their sex at birth. These are but a few  examples of foregone conclusions showing some alternative views and nuance.

Leaders of universities as well as organizations of any kind have some important things to think about when it comes to taking sides. 

Is it really the popular opinion?  A danger of taking a side is the perceived lack of authenticity, that it is being done as a virtue signal or responding to perceived public opinion and trying to appear current. Two recent articles point out the danger of this. Barton Swaim wrote an opinion in The Wall Street Journal about how the leftward tilt of business, entertainment media, tech companies, government, and news creates the “misinformation” of agreed-upon truth when there is actual variance. Meanwhile, PR Week recently had an article noting that only 7% of PR professionals identify as conservative and asked “Is PR too liberal for its own good?”

What is the objective? PR pros know that all communications should have some objective behind it. So, when taking a public stand, it would be good practice to ask why and toward what outcome. Do you seek to educate, or persuade, students, faculty, the community or others on an issue? They are all adults, capable of making up their own minds. A university should educate on the issue broadly to allow informed decisions, not make decisions proactively for people. Or do you seek to affirm some group or cause? It would be enough, and more appropriate, to declare non-discrimination. Is a public stand to provide comfort? Sometimes this is an act of good empathic leadership, but it should be done judiciously so it does not appear to coddle or pander. 

Consider the difference between Individual vs institutional neutrality. I don’t know if my colleague on the call was against individuals or organizations remaining silent. I understand the point that on really important issues it is hard to imagine persons having no opinion. But whether they personally articulate it is up to them. Compelled speech is as much a violation of free speech as denying it. A person may have good—i.e. civil—reasons to remain silent to maintain relationships. Institutions can think about this too. But that leads to the next point.

Responsibility and accountability. Ethicists make a distinction between responsibility, which is a duty to do or say something, and accountability is after the fact accepting blame or credit. Organizations should ask if they have a duty to choose a side on a public issue. But they should also consider consequences, unintended or not, of doing so. 

Discourse ethics. Discourse ethics would have us consider whether as an organization we are unfairly wielding power when taking a stand. Advocating one side of an issue may delight some students, faculty, donors and other publics of any organization. But the result would also be to implicitly discredit alternative points of view among those same constituent groups. This yields a spiral of silence, lack of dialogue, and resentment by those who do not think the public stance represents them and delegitimizes them

Tolerance vs endorsement. Organizations can note the difference between making a statement and taking a stand. The former could be an expression of tolerance, which welcomes all views without judgment and is virtuously neutral. Taking a stance is a judgment, and often crosses a line and subjectively chooses whom to support and whom to offend, who is included and who is not.

Mutual understanding vs. compliance. When universities and other organizations take public positions, it should be done to ensure open dialogue and mutual understanding. But too often these days, “diversity” has become an Orwellian leviathan. In the name of diversity, a monoculture of predetermined opinion is enforced. Woe to those who disagree. Talk about giving power to the oppressor. 

So yes, when it comes to maintaining neutrality, I’ll take that stand. These days, neutrality takes more courage.