Academic developers are often positioned as intermediaries who wield value-neutral tools--languages, models, and techniques--in service of decidedly non-neutral institutional goals. We challenge the value of perpetuating the ideal of the neutrality of academic developers and their tools by examining the ways in which our resources and approaches produce imbalances of control, power, and authority in a consulting relationship. We suggest that the values embedded within the practices of academic development lead developers, and the people they help, to act inauthentically. By recognizing the improbability of neutrality in academic development work, the authors seek to open the way to constructive reflection, intentional practice, and ethical consulting choices. (Contains 2 tables.)