The benefits and drawbacks of a ‘principled neutrality’ statement
Penn recently joined a growing list of universities to adopt a policy that limits topics on which officials can comment.
A growing number of prestigious universities are implementing formal strategies to restrict their public statements on national and global events that don’t directly impact their institutional functions.
Since 2022, Princeton, Vanderbilt, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Northwestern, Stanford and Harvard have all adopted these kinds of so-called “principled neutrality” policies.
The most recent example is the University of Pennsylvania, which now forbids university leadership – but not professors or educators – from commenting on things such as political, judicial or military actions, as well as instances of discrimination or human rights violations.
Penn created the policy following criticisms for comments it made to students and staff on issues related to the Israel-Hamas war. Those comments eventually contributed to the ouster of then-President Liz Magill.
“It is not the role of the institution to render opinions,” Larry Jameson, Penn’s interim president, said in a university announcement on Sept. 10. “Doing so risks suppressing the creativity and academic freedom of our faculty and students.”
But are these types of policies helpful or harmful? After all, the communications team or university leaders could simply decline to comment on a case-by-case basis moving forward. They can also just ignore the situation altogether.
Ultimately, the decision for how – and if – to respond to a situation comes down to the unique needs of the organization or brand, said Michael Perry, vice president of external communications for the E.W. Scripps Company.
It doesn’t matter, Perry said, whether comments are made in public messages to students or to a reporter.
“Every organization has to do what’s best for them and their situation. But there is also a way to not comment that can show respect and professionalism and not damage relationships,” Perry said.
The Penn case
Between September and December 2023, Magill, then still Penn’s president, sent eight emails to undergraduate students about the Israel-Hamas conflict and student demonstrations, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn’s student newspaper.
Pro-Israeli community members criticized Magill’s response as an insufficient condemnation of antisemitism, while pro-Palestinian demonstrators and community members criticized her for failing to address civilian suffering in Gaza.
In that situation, having a policy that outlined what the university would or wouldn’t comment on would have been beneficial, Lisa Rodriguez, EVP of issues and crisis communications for Spectrum Science, said. With such a protocol in place, Penn – or any company or organization can quickly and calmly assess a situation, weigh the risks in responding and determine the best path forward.
Rodriguez advised all organizations to invest “thoughtful time and effort” into developing a thorough response protocol. She stressed they’re particularly effective when integrated into the overarching crisis strategy.
“A well-crafted protocol enables your crisis team to assess situations and respond strategically, rather than being caught off guard and forced to create a plan under pressure,” she said.
Determining how, if to respond
When determining whether to issue a comment, it’s crucial to consider not only what to say but why you’re saying it. Rodriguez advises considering the nature of the situation, anticipated media coverage and the potential benefit of commenting.
For instance, while a blanket “we don’t comment on X” policy can be an effective response to a news outlet, it can also backfire. She gave the example of a legal matter where having only one party comment can lead to unbalanced media coverage.
A key consideration must be the organization’s stakeholders. When Penn outlined its new policy, it noted that addressing one issue can attract negative attention to anything unintentionally omitted, leading to misinterpretation.
It’s impossible to please everyone – even a straightforward response can alienate an important business demographic. In the case of a college or university, the organization must also consider its donors’ needs, who may hold different views than its students.
One way to possibly work around this is by distinguishing between a statement that expresses a point of view on a polarizing political issue and releasing a statement that outlines steps to ensure safety and that that all parties feel heard, Rodriguez said.
On a recent trip to New York, she attended several graduation events and activities at NYU during protests. Students could freely express opinions and frustrations, but the university never specifically acknowledged, supported or opposed any of their expressions.
“Maintaining a neutral stance on an issue while not tolerating violence and disruption is certainly not easy, but it’s possible if policies are clear,” Rodriguez said.
Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.
