Those of us on the Steering Committee of the World Anthropological Union are regularly confronted with the issue of where we should stand on world events. Should we take a stance upon global injustices, such as those taking place in Gaza and the Ukraine and Xinjiang? Or should we limit ourselves to only commenting on issues that directly concern anthropologists, such as the arrest of an anthropologist in Iran, or the decision to close an anthropology department in Australia? Each of the public injustices mentioned above—Gaza, Ukraine, Xinjiang—has some anthropologists defending Israel, Russia, China, the societies generally viewed as oppressors. In terms of anthropological values, are they “wrong”? Or can this judgment not validly be made? Max Weber distinguished between the values of the social scientist and those of the citizen, claiming that the former must be value-neutral in the pursuit of social scientific truth. Many contemporary anthropologists disagree, such as Nancy Scheper-Hughes proclaiming that anthropologists should pursue justice rather than truth. But in a global anthropology, is there a justice that all anthropologists can agree upon? I think not. As anthropologists, unless we have done fieldwork in the societies mentioned above, and thereby have special insights, we do not share values as anthropologists that give us professional insights into these domains. As anthropologists, we have a broad view of the cultural evolution of our species on the planet—this, as well as our own ethnographic specialties, is what we as anthropologists can indeed speak about: we can indeed discuss the Anthropocene, climate change, and cultural development, as well as more particular issues pertaining to anthropologists around the world. Following Weber, we can also speak out as citizens about Gaza, Ukraine, and Xinjiang, but not as anthropologists. This, to me, means that WAU should stay out of such commentary.