A new commentary focuses on how campuses can tighten institutional neutrality policies by defining clear, written rules on who may speak on behalf of a university. The piece argues that without explicit boundaries, the same university can face confusion over whether speakers are authorized to represent institutional positions. The core governance challenge is operational: neutrality commitments depend on enforceable communication rules, including who signs statements, how announcements are attributed, and what happens when internal units speak publicly in ways that imply institutional endorsement. For university counsel and governance offices, the recommendation underscores that neutrality is not just a policy statement—it becomes a compliance and risk management function once public-facing messaging expands during controversy.