Universities have let progressive dogma degrade their academic missions, eviscerating public faith in higher education. College leaders willing to admit this truth are rare. Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier is one. He has long been a champion of political neutrality and has called out the politicization of scholarly associations—approaches other university leaders are only now catching up on.
Further, Diermeier has stood firm when students, faculty, or staff violate academic norms. After the October 7 Hamas attacks, campuses across the United States saw illegal encampments, vandalism, and unrest. Vanderbilt, by contrast, maintained order by swiftly disciplining students who violated university codes.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Adopting these policies and principles can be challenging for university leaders, partly because they fear how their own faculty or academic departments might respond. Yet Diermeier’s love of universities emboldens him. In a recent interview, transcribed below, he told me that education and research are “noble work,” but only if they are grounded in core principles. And he emphasized how politicization in some departments overshadows the good work conducted in others.
With American higher education in crisis, Diermeier’s is a voice to listen to. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Neetu Arnold: Universities face a trust gap on the question of whether academic leaders truly value open inquiry. Where do you think that gap comes from, and how do you see your role in rebuilding trust?
Daniel Diermeier: We have seen an erosion of trust over the last few years, and it’s pretty dramatic. The critical thing is that universities need to be super-clear about what their purpose is and the values that support their purpose. We believe that the purpose of universities is to create an environment for pathbreaking research and transformative education. Universities are not political parties, and they’re not in the business of taking positions on political or policy issues. Universities have not always done a good job making this clear.
We need to go back to the core purpose of universities and the principles and values that sustain that purpose. At Vanderbilt, we have three pillars.
The first pillar is open forums. This means that we have the most open possible environment for our students and faculty to explore ideas without fear of retribution and censorship. It means, in practice, that our registered student organizations or faculty can bring to campus any outside speaker they want.
Openness also needs to happen in the classroom. We have a class that we started a few years ago, and it’s very popular, called “Free Speech and Dangerous Ideas.” About 120 students are enrolled in that class right now, and they only discuss hyper-controversial topics.
The second pillar is institutional neutrality. It means that, as an institution, we will not take positions on political or policy issues unless they directly and materially affect the core functioning of the university. We do not take positions on foreign policy. We do not take positions on domestic policy. We don’t criticize the Supreme Court. If there is something directly affecting higher education, then we would get involved, but not on general issues such as abortion. And we believe that if you [comment on political issues], you are creating a chilling effect. You are creating an institutional orthodoxy that inhibits the free expression of ideas.
The third pillar is a commitment to civil discourse. Civil discourse means that we’re members of one learning community. And we are committed to using arguments and fact-based reasoning—to treat each other with respect, to advocate for all ideas, but also to be willing to be convinced. We don’t demonize each other. We don’t shout each other down. Our students, when they come on campus, are signing a pledge that reinforces their commitment to these values. By doing that, students are committing themselves to be stewards of civil discourse and to make sure that the culture is alive and well at Vanderbilt.
Arnold: Declining trust isn’t just about leadership. Recent events on campuses have raised deeper concerns about student culture and the civic values universities are shaping. There have been reports of students celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk, such as a student at Texas State University who mocked Kirk’s death at a vigil. What does this say to you about the intellectual, moral, and civic health of our universities?
Diermeier: We’ve seen this already with October 7. In many cases, universities are tearing apart the fundamental fabric that makes us great, which is that we are places for research and education. Once you get the right values in place, then you need to foster a culture. This is crucial. It’s not just about principle—it’s also about the culture. Then things get better.
We do this here by having a commitment to dialogue. Our program is called “Dialogue Vanderbilt,” which is about a whole variety of different activities to make sure that our students know and practice the culture of civil discourse at Vanderbilt. That starts the moment they arrive on campus.
We see the fruits already. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, our student Democrats and student Republicans issued a joint statement condemning the killing and reemphasizing the importance of free expression and civil discourse on campus. To me, this is a sign that the student culture, the culture on campus is healthy.
Arnold: University research has also come under scrutiny, especially over the past year. There’s been growing public criticism of unserious or overtly ideological research, especially coming out of the humanities and social science departments—academic papers like “My pronouns are f*** ICE.” Regardless of whether one finds these topics valuable, do you think this kind of work makes it harder for the public to take academic research seriously?
Diermeier: There’s going to be a distribution of research, and that’s okay. Universities need to be places where people explore a variety of ideas. The problem is when entire fields become politicized. When we get intellectual homogeneity, or when disciplines are viewed as serving a particular political ideology, that’s when things become problematic. Like the statement from the American Anthropological Association about putting your research and teaching into the service of “dismantling institutions of colonization.” That to me means that we’re setting aside scientific standards to advocate a particular ideology. That’s when things are going dramatically in the wrong direction. So I’m less worried about the specifics of this paper or that. I’m worried about entire fields that have signed up to a particular ideology.
Arnold: Would you say the politicization comes from the academic organizations, or does it come from the departments?
Diermeier: At the end of the day, it’s people in departments, faculty in departments and associations, that make those decisions. It’s the responsibility of our faculty to uphold fundamental standards of the academy, even though they may have strong political commitments. If we are setting this [responsibility] aside to advance particular political or ideological positions, we’re basically not living up to those standards, whether that happens in a department or in a professional association.
Arnold: It’s worth mentioning that universities are doing important work. Engineering faculty at your university, for example, recently published research in the area of nanophotonics, making discoveries that could improve opto-electronic devices such as night-vision cameras. There’s an interesting contrast here. Do you think the highly politicized climate in some departments is making it harder for serious, nonpartisan research to get the recognition and trust it deserves?
Diermeier: The vast majority of research that’s happening in universities has tremendous benefits for the American public and humanity as a whole—medical innovation, economic competitiveness, national security. Universities are the heart of the innovation economy. We know from research that for every dollar the federal government invests in basic research, the American taxpayer gets about $5 back. The research capabilities of America’s great universities are an incredible asset for the country.
It’s very unfortunate that these tremendous benefits are being overshadowed by politicization on campus. We have to be much more effective and intentional about communicating the benefits of research to the American public. At the same time, we also must address the real problems that are happening on our campuses—whether that’s free expression, institutional neutrality, breakdown of civil discourse, or the politicization of research.
Arnold: Do you think communicating the benefits of research is enough if people are criticizing the actual rigor of the research produced?
Diermeier: Both need to happen. We need to be more effective in communicating with the general public, not just with specialists. But we also must live up to our own standards. And that means rigor in research, evaluation, and publication standards. And particularly some areas in the humanities and social sciences—the areas where society reflects upon itself—[we need to ensure] these areas do not become political monocultures.
Arnold: What do you see as the biggest unresolved challenges still facing Vanderbilt when it comes to preserving academic freedom and institutional integrity?
Diermeier: We’re pretty happy. We’re making good progress. I’m especially pleased to see how our students and faculty have embraced these values, particularly during a time of very real challenges like the Kirk shooting. Recently, the faculty senate passed a resolution on academic freedom that I think is textbook on how to reaffirm the core values of academic research. So we’re happy about where we are. There’s always going to be some problems, and we’re going to continue to work on that.
Our main worry is that this erosion of trust is leading to policies that will create significant damage for the American research university, in particular the research output and the educational contributions that we make to this country.
Arnold: That brings me to my next point. Universities aren’t only shaped by campus leadership. They are also shaped by state and federal policies. What could the Trump administration do to aid your work in higher education reform?
Diermeier: The most important thing is that we need to recognize that research funding is an important benefit to the American public. With all the desire to change the conduct of universities, that’s really important. And that’s why we were vocal and participated in lots of discussion on the endowment tax. The endowment tax did not differentiate between universities in terms of their conduct. Everybody was subject to it, and we’re concerned about that because those resources couldn’t be invested in students and faculty.
Whether it’s the endowment tax, the indirect costs on research, or our tremendous regulatory burden (we’re spending $300 million on regulatory compliance). Universities are absolute cornerstones of research infrastructure in the country that cannot be substituted with anything else. If we want to remain a superpower and not yield that status to China and others, we need to continue to invest.
Now, creating an environment where universities are encouraged to do the right thing—I understand that. I think that’s important. We just need to make sure we’re doing it without undermining the very foundations of what great universities are all about.
Arnold: What advice would you offer university leaders navigating the current political landscape in higher education?
Diermeier: You’ve got to be crystal clear about your values and purpose. You’ve got to communicate them, and then you need to have the courage to act on them. My sense is that universities get into trouble when they’re trying to navigate the political waters, whether the political waters are on campus or off campus, to try to make it to the other side of a crisis. That’s when people get into trouble.
From my own experience, both here and when I was at the University of Chicago as a provost, we had a lot of free speech challenges. You may remember Chicago’s no-safe-space, no trigger-warnings letter. There was a lot of drama surrounding that, but we did the right thing, because that’s what the value of free expression requires.
Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Concordia Annual Summit