Is Silence Violence?

How Yale Law School reminded me of the virtue of viewpoint neutrality

Gracious Reader,

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—either 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.

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 corporate 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 why 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 Thinker by Auguste Rodin- disciplined reflection and intellectual autonomy necessary for principled neutrality in a divided society

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, there is an essential difference between civility and politeness. Politeness is technique—an unquestioning external compliance with social expectations and norms. Politeness is 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 of 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. But 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. I was recently contacted by the leadership of a U.S. federal circuit court about doing a series of talks across their states on intellectual diversity and my book, The Soul of Civility.

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. The circuit court leadership hoped that a lecture series on civil discourse could help.

It can, which is why I am excited to work with them in the coming months. If you’re a leader struggling with how to balance your commitment to principles with your vocation, I’d love to help you and your company or community as well. Feel free to reach out to my colleague, Viktoria Post, at ahudsonassist@gmail.com to explore further.

Oath of the Horatii - Jacques-Louis David- duty, principle, and courage under ideological pressure

Recent Speaking Engagements:

What a wonderful community event hosted by the Zionsville Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council. Thank you to Mayor John for your passion for civility, to Kate Swanson for having the vision for this conversation, and to Zionsville library, for hosting!

One thoughtful question I received from the audience was about the “high stakes” nature of public life. The “other side” is really bad, they said. Democracy is in peril! Shouldn’t we be willing to do anything to save it?

I receive this question a lot. My answer is always the same. There’s no question we live in divided times and the stakes are high. But we cannot forget the irreducible dignity and worth of our fellow persons and citizens, and the respect we owe to others in light of that. When the stakes are high is when it’s most tempting to depart from civility — which is the art of human flourishing, and the disposition that respects people enough to have hard conversations. But “high stakes” moments are when we need civility most.

Thanks to everyone who joined us and for the thoughtful questions and dialogue!

We loved our visit to San Diego! After my talk at the San Diego Law Library, we enjoyed The Del, gelato, the zoo, the beach, and just the laid-back life and culture of Southern California. It was all absolute perfection, and we already cannot wait to come back! Thank you for having us, San Diego.

Looking ahead:

• May 6 Book talk in LA

• May 7 Book talk in Orange County

• May 14, 20205- Court of Appeals of Indiana retreat

• May 23, 2025- St. Johns Classical Academy of Fleming Island, Commencement Speaker

• May 24, 2025- Redefining Classics, The Catholic University of America

• September 26- 27, 2025- Civility Summit

In the news:

• Zionsville Mayor’s Youth Council to sponsor author visit

• The World’s Oldest Stories to Help Your Relationships! With Alexandra Hudson- Truth Changes Everything Podcast

• I Love to Read: Author Alexandra Hudson to headline Zionsville Community Read event- Wishtv.com- Want to know the secret to doing politics well today? Doing politics LESS. We’ve allowed politics to take up too much of our mental consciousness, and it’s hurting society and ourselves. Join us in Zionsville at The Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library on April 30th at 6:30 PM in the Lora Hussey Room to explore this and many other surprising ways to heal our divides.

• Paideia, Humanitas, Civility and Education- I was honored to be invited to write this essay for The Ronald Reagan Center on Civility and Democracy. In a time often marked by division and discord, reflecting on the relationship between civility and education offers both wisdom and hope.

• Thanks to Timothy Donahue of Oakland University for this thoughtful Public Books review of The Soul of Civility! He highlights a key argument: civility isn’t mere politeness—it’s essential for real social progress. Read here!

• I had a great time joining Josh on the Good Morning Liberty podcast! We discussed historical lessons on civility, focusing on how John Adams and Thomas Jefferson overcame deep political divides to restore their friendship. Their story is a powerful reminder that mutual respect can heal even the deepest rifts. The episode is now live—tune in and let me know your thoughts!

• It’s Time for a New Era of Christian Civility- read my latest piece for Christianity Today!

• Thanks so much to MSNBC for hosting a segment about The Soul of Civility. Watch here!

A Year Ago on Civic Renaissance:

The Death of the Imagination

Thank you for being part of our Civic Renaissance community!