I find the whole sentiment confusing. From their own expectations of their researchers: "Urban scholars and experts are expected to be objective and follow the evidence wherever it may lead." (Source: https://www.urban.org/aboutus/our-funding/funding-principles#expectation)

They then published on their blog a post that contradicts those expectations. And then after they got blowback, they *pointed back to those very same expectations.* Huh? It's not even coherent, unless one reads it as "Ms. Farrell's argument contradicts our stated and cherished principles of rigorous research. We publish even those ideas of our researchers that do not agree with our most valued beliefs." But it doesn't say that. Instead, it's a mealy-mouthed non-disavowal disavowal.