Apolitical Integrity Is Not a Double Standard
In an age of intense polarisation, the principle of being apolitical—remaining neutral, impartial, and focused on duty rather than ideology—has been misunderstood and maligned. Far from embodying a double standard, true apolitical conduct demands consistency, fairness, and service above partisanship. Double standards belong to the partisan, not the principled neutral.
The British television series Foyle’s War offers a compelling portrait of this ideal. Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Foyle is a sharp, loyal, and effective investigator during World War II. He holds the line against crime and injustice even as colleagues and superiors succumb to wartime pressures and political expediency. In one memorable episode, Foyle’s driver delivers a humorous aside: if some people “hadn’t double standards, they’d have no standards at all.” The line resonates because it exposes the selective outrage that undermines justice. Foyle succeeds precisely because he refuses to take sides; his loyalty is to truth, law, and his country, not to factions.
This ethos is a basic tenet of public service in Australia. Under the Westminster tradition, public servants are expected to provide impartial advice and deliver services without fear or favour, regardless of which party holds power. When this standard erodes—whether through politicised mainstream media that blends editorialising into basic reporting, or through frontline agencies that pressure clients toward activism—the public suffers. An unemployed person at a Centrelink office should not face expectations of paid political activism, nor should a volunteer’s contribution to an “unwelcome” political group be dismissed while others receive credit. Such inconsistencies reveal partisan bias masquerading as principle.
Charlie Kirk exemplified how an apolitical approach to civic engagement can thrive. He maintained that individuals could support any candidate they wished, provided they were informed. Through public debates and sharp reasoning, he engaged opponents on the merits of ideas rather than tribal loyalty. For this, he was branded partisan and dangerous by critics. The labels may have contributed to the tragic end of his life, highlighting how quickly principled debate is reframed as threat in today’s climate.
Even the monarchy illustrates the value of apolitical restraint. Queen Elizabeth II was widely admired for her disciplined neutrality. She famously avoided overt smiles in certain contexts to prevent any appearance of endorsing positions. By contrast, King Charles III has faced criticism for perceived departures from that strict impartiality. The Crown’s strength historically lies in its role as a stable, non-partisan symbol above the political fray.
Education remains one of the most contested minefields. It is fundamentally wrong to use teaching positions as vehicles for proselytising personal political views. Students, especially in vulnerable or remote communities, deserve instruction grounded in skills, knowledge, and cultural respect—not ideological indoctrination. Creative arts stand as a partial exception: artists have long exercised freedom to present uncompromising visions. Yet even here, recent years have seen troubling reversals. Statues and public art face censorship, while public institutions adopt overt political stances. This inversion—where neutrality is punished and activism rewarded—turns the world upside down.
My own work as an author and teacher in the Northern Territory reflects a deliberate commitment to the apolitical. Books such as Bambi of the Jukurrpa adapt timeless fairy tales and stories for Warlpiri and Indigenous students. Choices are guided by age-appropriateness, popularity, and cultural sensitivity, not political agendas. The goal is straightforward: explain cultural elements respectfully and make quality literature accessible. I use tools like Grok to support this creative process and take pride in the results.
Yet presenting this work to education curriculum officers often meets resistance. Comments range from dismissive—“How many seconds did it take you to write?”—to pointed critiques of the AI tool itself: “Grok is too American/Chinese,” or suggestions to switch to alternatives like ChatGPT or Copilot. Some claim mispronunciations or culturally inappropriate images. These objections echo earlier complaints to a Minister that led to six months of my work being discarded. Meanwhile, materials reaching my students frequently carry inappropriate political charge. The double standard is evident: scrutiny falls selectively on neutral tools and adaptations, while partisan content passes with less examination.
This experience is not isolated. It reflects broader institutional drift away from apolitical standards toward enforced conformity. Recommitting to impartiality—in public service, media, education, and cultural institutions—would restore fairness and effectiveness. Apolitical does not mean apathetic; it means consistent standards applied without favour. Only then can we judge work on its merits, serve communities effectively, and protect the space for genuine debate and creativity.
David Daniel Ball is a teacher, author, and long-time advocate for principled public service and Indigenous education in remote Australia.



