And why that excuse no longer works now that a Special Meeting has been called

By Amy Van Riper

If you are a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, you may have heard the phrase lately: “We aren’t allowed to talk about this.”

You may even have been told that discussing certain issues could threaten DAR’s nonprofit status, violate policy, or land someone in trouble with a mysterious “disciplinary committee.”

That fear is being anchored to a document issued in June 2025 called the Circularization and Communication Policy.

So let’s talk plainly about what that policy actually says, what’s wrong with it, and why it no longer applies the way some people are trying to use it.

1. What the Circularization and Communication Policy actually is

DAR has used the word “circularization” since 1896 to mean “cause to become widely known.” The June 2025 policy defines it very broadly to include “any document or communication distributed with an intent that its contents become ‘widely known.’” (Circularization and Communication Policy, June 2025)

The policy states that members may propose changes and express concerns privately to state leadership or to a Vice President General. But it also says that:

“No member is authorized to circulate information… that inaccurately states or conflicts with National Society policy or causes disharmony; disparages other members; or harms the good name/reputation of the National Society…”
(Circularization and Communication Policy, June 2025)

It further restricts members from contacting media or public officials regarding DAR matters, declares that only the President General is an official spokesperson, and ties violations of the policy to potential investigation and discipline.

Near the end, it states plainly:

“A violation or breach of this policy may be reported to the Disciplinary Committee…” (Circularization and Communication Policy, June 2025)

So what is this document in practical terms?

It is not a reminder about kindness.
It is not a memo about etiquette.
It is a centralized speech control policy.

It funnels concerns upward, forbids broad member discussion that leadership deems “disharmonious,” and attaches enforcement mechanisms to speech.

That is what it is.

2. Why this policy is deeply problematic…and frankly un-American

The stated purpose of the policy is to “foster constructive dialogue.” But constructive dialogue does not begin by threatening people with discipline for speaking.

DAR is an organization rooted in the American founding. The women we trace our lineage to did not whisper their objections quietly to a supervising authority and hope for permission to speak. They wrote pamphlets. They held meetings. They published arguments. They circulated ideas.

The Circularization Policy does the opposite. It treats widespread discussion itself as a potential offense if leadership decides it “causes disharmony” or “harms reputation.”

Those phrases are so elastic they can be stretched over almost anything.

A policy that says “you may speak, but only privately, only upward, and only if what you say does not disturb anyone” is not about dialogue. It is about containment.

And let’s be honest. An organization confident in its principles does not need to fear its members talking to one another.

Trying to manage disagreement by restricting speech is not strength. It is insecurity.

It is also profoundly un-American.

DAR is not a corporation. It is not a government agency. It is a voluntary society of women bound together by heritage, ideals, and shared history. The idea that women in such a society must be warned not to “cause disharmony” by discussing legitimate governance concerns should make every Daughter uncomfortable, regardless of where she stands on any particular issue.

3. Why this policy no longer applies the way some are using it

Here is the part that matters most right now: A Special Meeting of the National Society has been formally forced under the bylaws.

As of today, 33 chapters across 18 states have joined together to demand this meeting. These chapters have publicly identified themselves as the Resolute Chapters.

This is not gossip.
This is not agitation.
This is not informal dissent.

This is the Society’s own governance mechanism in action.

Once a special meeting is officially called according to the bylaws, the matter that triggered it becomes official organizational business.

At that point, members are no longer “circulating unauthorized information.” They are discussing an issue that the Society itself has formally acknowledged requires national consideration.

The fact of the meeting, the process used to call it, and the subject that necessitated it are not rogue communications. They are part of DAR’s official life.

Trying to claim that members are still “not allowed to talk about it” after a bylaw-driven special meeting has been scheduled is not policy compliance.

It is narrative control.

And there is a real difference.

The Circularization Policy was written to funnel private complaints upward and prevent members from independently shaping public perception of DAR. It was not written to erase the reality of a bylaw-authorized special meeting initiated by dozens of chapters across the country.

Once the Society’s own rules have been invoked, silence is no longer unity. It is avoidance.

Where this leaves us

The Resolute Chapters did not act in secret. They acted through the mechanism DAR itself provides when enough members believe an issue is serious enough to require national attention.

That alone tells you something important.

When over thirty chapters in nearly twenty states force a special meeting, the appropriate response is not “don’t talk about it.”

The appropriate response is: Why did this many chapters feel they had no other choice?

Trying to bury that question under a speech policy does not protect DAR. It weakens it.

The daughters of the American Revolution were not silent women. They were principled women.

And principled women do not need permission to discuss the future of their own society.