As a new academic year gets underway, open inquiry appears to be top of mind for elite college presidents. The leaders of highly influential institutions such as Cornell, Princeton, and Stanford used the opening remarks of the 2025-2026 school year as an opportunity to spotlight the importance of open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas.

Many of these leaders spent the better part of the year navigating attacks from the Trump administration. Now, amidst growing calls for internal reform, such as those articulated in Heterodox Academy’s Open Inquiry U Agenda, college leaders have chosen to stress to their communities—and to society at large—the central truth-seeking and knowledge-generating purposes of the university.

For example, at Cornell University, President Michael Kotlikoff offered a ringing endorsement of open inquiry in his first address to Cornell’s class of 2029. To new students, President Kotlikoff described Cornell as a place “where free and open inquiry is central to who we are and what we do … a place of diversity and intellectual pluralism… an environment of open intellectual inquiry.” Likewise, President Michael A. Elliott of Amherst College stressed intellectual freedom to his students, which he described as “the freedom to pursue truth, to pursue wisdom, to pursue creativity, even when it creates challenge or discomfort,” as integral to the university.

Students at Brown University were briefed on their university’s commitment to open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas. “Academic freedom and freedom of expression, as well as a commitment to openness and diversity of ideas, perspectives, and experiences” are core institutional values of Brown University, President Christina Paxson emphasized to new undergraduates and graduate students. “Our students and scholars—all of you—must be free to study and learn what they choose, without fear of censorship, and in an environment that values open and respectful discourse.”

Dartmouth University President Sian Leah Beilock did not mince words when she informed new students that Dartmouth University is “singularly focused on one mission: education” and is neither a political organization nor an advocacy organization. Beilock also highlighted Dartmouth’s commitment to “institutional restraint”—a policy that limits institutional statements without silencing individual voices in the academic community —as well as the Dartmouth Dialogues series of bridge-building programs for students and faculty.

Notably, constructive disagreement appears to be high on the list of priorities for college leaders, with nearly all elite university presidents referencing the importance of generously engaging with those with different views and perspectives.

At Johns Hopkins University, freshmen were encouraged to “refuse orthodoxy, but also to develop the capacity to listen.” President Jonathan Levin of Stanford similarly told students that “new ideas often come from rejecting orthodoxy. So do the most productive debates. That is why universities today must strive to protect academic freedom.”

President Eisgruber of Princeton also encouraged students to embrace the challenging of their own beliefs: “when people ask hard but fair questions about our ideas, we should regard their inquiry as a compliment,” he noted. “It means they are taking our thoughts seriously enough to care whether they are correct.”

Many presidents explicitly called for students to engage in constructive disagreement. For example, President J. Larry Jameson of the University of Pennsylvania urged students to “engage across perspectives, to disagree respectfully, and grow through conversations” while President Vince E. Price of Duke University reminded students that “if you see past yourself, if you pay close attention to others and give them a chance to speak, and if you listen and engage respectfully with what they say, you will move closer to the truth.”

President Price also offered a gentle rebuke of the academy when he acknowledged that there is a larger “cultural tendency to politicize most every aspect of everyday life—something the academy has probably had a hand in propagating.”

Among this non-exhaustive collection of speeches, “viewpoint diversity” as a distinct phrase was not explicitly mentioned. Although the speeches were replete with calls for campuses to welcome different perspectives, experiences, and opinions, it seems that college leaders hesitate to utter the phrase “viewpoint diversity” despite clear support for the underlying principles.

The term, which HxA made mainstream a decade ago as a scholarly rallying cry, has been politicized in recent months after heavy use by the Trump Administration. College leaders may be shying away from the particular expression “viewpoint diversity”, but they nonetheless appear to be embracing its spirit and encouraging their students to do the same.

While opening remarks may not loom large in students’ minds, these speeches are an opportunity for college leaders to emphasize that their institutions are committed to open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, no matter the pressure from either side of the political aisle. These endorsements of open inquiry illustrate what HxA has long known to be true: universities are abundant in scholars and students who will steadfastly uphold the principles of open inquiry.

Skeptics may be quick to dismiss such remarks as merely lipservice, or the newest addition to a long list of cliches that get peppered throughout convocation speeches. And certainly, a full-throated defense of open inquiry demands much more than a few shout-outs in speeches. But the optimists among us are inclined to celebrate these proclamations of academic ideals as harbingers of better things to come. Now, it’s time for institutional leaders to back up these words with actions to drive meaningful change across the academy.