If you’ve recently become the dean or director of an academic library, you may now find yourself in an unusual and unexpected position. Like many (though not all) of us, you may have suddenly become a university official, with both the benefits and the restrictions that come with that status.

For example, one benefit I enjoy in my role as university librarian at Brigham Young University, and therefore a university official, is the right to park in any space on campus — except handicap spots and those designated “service vehicles only.” (I’m also pretty sure I’m not allowed to park in the president’s designated spot, though I haven’t tested that theory yet.)

However, by becoming a university official I also gave up some rights — notably, the right to “participate in activities on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office, publicly endorse partisan political candidates, donate money to or for the benefit of partisan political candidates, or hold partisan political office at the city, county, state, or national level.”

The basic reason for the policy restriction, in the United States at least, is to protect the university’s tax-exempt status. Once an institution begins involving itself in partisan politics, it loses that status, and public statements of a partisan political nature by university officials will likely be seen as evidence that the university is doing just that. (There are some exceptions, of course, but the basic principle remains.)

Of course, not all political statements are partisan. University officials’ expressions of support for principles like freedom of speech, or for sexual equality, or for expanded (or more limited) immigration rights, may or may not breach university policy, but are not likely to endanger the university’s tax-exempt status. There’s another reason for library deans and directors to avoid making partisan political statements, though, and that is the fact that when library leaders takes a public position on a social or political issue, they send a message to the people they lead. I discussed this at more length in an earlier post (“For Library Directors: Leading the Library After an Election“), but I’ll briefly recap the three main points of that piece here:

First, the people you lead are more ideologically diverse than you think. Those whose views differ from what seems to be the mainstream or majoritarian view in your organization will mostly keep their heads down in the interest of self-preservation. Mistaking apparent unanimity of viewpoint for actual unanimity of viewpoint can, if you’re not careful, lead you to say things that tell those with heterodox views that they do not belong in your organization.

Political statements made by people with more power entail consequences that don’t attend similar statements by those with less power.

Second, you are the leader of everyone in your library, not only those with whom you agree socially or politically. Chances are good that you and the majority of employees in your library have a similar perspective on many (if not most) social and political issues. But you are also the leader of those whose perspective you don’t share. You don’t always have to hide your own views, and you certainly don’t have to apologize for them, but you do need to think about how you will communicate to those you disagree with that they will not be penalized for having views or beliefs different from yours.

Third, what you say (and don’t say) makes a big difference. Sometimes, the wisest course actually will be simply to refrain from saying something you believe, because your expressions of personal opinion carry a lot more weight in your organization than those of the people you lead. That may not be fair and it may not be egalitarian, but it’s still true and it’s a reality you ignore at the risk of your effectiveness as a leader.

The bottom line is that political statements made by people with more power entail consequences that don’t attend similar statements by those with less power. Library leaders have power in their organizations, and with that power comes a moral obligation to wield it carefully.