Institutional Neutrality?

Is this now “the way?”

Since maybe 2016, but definitely since COVID, we’ve had a lot of confusion about what companies need to weigh in on. Do they need to acknowledge George Floyd? Do they need to acknowledge a school shooting? Do they need to acknowledge Trump in some way? Recently, the de facto approach has been “bend the knee,” probably best classified by Zuck almost going full MAGA after the Butler, PA shooting — and then doubling down after the election. (I think Zuck would have gone full Kamala if she had won, given he is a corporate executive and seemingly a guy who moves where the powers are.)

I found this reference to “institutional neutrality” in a Stowe Boyd newsletter, and here's the full pull-quote:

Increasingly, universities have adopted neutrality policies to recommit to their core mission. So can corporations. The key is committing to institutional neutrality, which requires leaders to stay silent on social and political issues that do not directly affect their operations. This means reining in corporate political statements — progressive and conservative — as well as the political activity of chief executives like Elon Musk and political flip-flops by companies like Meta. Our own university, the University of Chicago, committed to this ideal in 1899 and restated that commitment in the seminal Kalven Report of 1967…