There is a certain kind of institutional leader who will talk endlessly about “tone” and “messaging” and “being a voice for those who don’t have one,” but who falls mysteriously silent when asked to articulate what, exactly, the institution believes.
This is abdication dressed as prudence.
The implicit bargain in any membership organisation is simple: members defend the institution publicly, and leaders defend the principles that make it worth defending. When leaders decline to hold up their end—when they treat conviction as a liability and clarity as a risk—they are not preserving the institution. They are hollowing it out.
Silence, in such cases, is not neutral. It shifts the risk downward. Members are left to absorb criticism without support, to defend positions without guidance, while leadership maintains deniability.
The serious people notice. They always do. And they leave.
An institution that expects loyalty while treating its own principles as an inconvenience will eventually find itself with neither.