Can a person, country, nation, community, individual, politician, etc., ever be “neutral”? Or, as recent events have postured, do we all have inherent preferences, biases, “systemic” characteristics of natural or artificial preferences which guide our thoughts, words and actions? Is it more dangerous to pretend to be “neutral” on a matter, as opposed to openly expressing one’s biases and preferences?
To express “apparent” neutrality, of course, is either to hide one’s preference on an issue, or at the very least to act “as if” — as if one has no interest, either personally or professionally; to act as if there are no “leanings” one way or another.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management in a Federal Disability Retirement case does this — expresses apparent neutrality, as if their decision on a Federal Disability Retirement application is purely based upon “the law” and therefore is tantamount to a computer software program or an automaton which expresses pure neutrality on the matter and is merely applying the objective criteria of legal standards. Bosh! For, wherever interpretive input is required, by necessity one’s biases will ultimately come to the fore.
Contact a Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer when considering applying for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, and make sure that any “apparent neutrality” on the issue is decided in your favor; for, in the end, neutrality is merely a pretext to hide behind, and in preparing, formulating and filing an effective disability retirement application under FERS, it is best to have a legal expert as an advocate on your side.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire