Apple Podcasts | Android | Spotify | Email | RSS | YouTube

What does it take to build a university where open inquiry is not just protected, but actively practiced? 

In this wide-ranging episode, University of Denver Chancellor Jeremy Haefner offers a rare, candid look at the challenges and opportunities of transforming campus culture in a polarized era. From institutional neutrality to civil discourse, from pluralism to DEI reform, Haefner shares how the University of Denver is attempting to lead higher education into its next chapter.

Today, John Tomasi, President of Heterodox Academy, speaks with Haefner about DU’s ambitious initiatives aimed at strengthening the university’s core commitments to open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement. Haefner discusses the Denver Dialogues, a flagship program that brings scholars with divergent perspectives into sustained engagement with students; Debate Across the Curriculum, a faculty-led innovation that measurably shifts students’ readiness to engage across differences; and Spark Day, DU’s annual celebration of free expression and civil discourse.

The conversation also probes deeply into Haefner’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, the university’s response to the Trump Administration’s directives on DEI, and the complexities of balancing inclusion with the truth-seeking mission of the academy. Tune in to explore how universities can renew their mission, and why pluralism matters now more than ever.

Jeremy Haefner is the 19th Chancellor of the University of Denver, appointed to the role in 2019 after serving as the university’s provost and executive vice chancellor. He holds a PhD in mathematics from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and began his academic career as a professor before moving into administrative leadership.

Prior to joining DU, he served as provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and spent two decades at the University of Colorado–Colorado Springs in a variety of academic and administrative roles. His leadership work has included areas such as faculty development, research support, international education, and interdisciplinary program design.

At the University of Denver, Haefner has overseen strategic efforts focused on academic transformation, civic engagement, student belonging, and the development of a comprehensive undergraduate experience. His tenure has included the launch of initiatives aimed at strengthening open inquiry and free expression on campus, alongside adjustments to institutional policy in response to changes in the legal and political landscape surrounding higher education.

Episode Transcript

John Tomasi: As my team was helping me prep for this conversation, we uncovered something about you that I didn't know, and that's that you're a triathlete. Indeed, you've completed, as I understand, five Ironman triathlons.

Jeremy Haefner: Well, actually, ten now.

John Tomasi: No!

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. It is a passion of mine.

John Tomasi: Oh, my gosh.

Jeremy Haefner: It's a way of balancing, you know, for my own personal interests. Of course, I have my family, and that comes number one, and then the work at the university, and then triathlons, Ironmans.

John Tomasi: That's amazing. So my team wanted me to ask you, which is tougher, training for an Ironman or leading a university?

Jeremy Haefner: You know, they are mutually compatible in many ways, right? Because when I'm at mile 82 on the bicycle leg, which is 112 miles. This is after swimming two and a half miles and knowing that I have a marathon. If I can say, I can do this, I can finish this, then I will. I will have succeeded in that. And there's oftentimes in my day-to-day job when it says, if I can get through this, and if I can really help the campus move forward, then we do.

John Tomasi: Nice.

Jeremy Haefner: And that's how I look at both of those endeavors.

John Tomasi: That's lovely. I want to just start talking about some of the work you've been doing at the University of Denver, and just generally talking about some of your initiatives regarding building a culture of open inquiry. So at HxA, that's what we're interested in primarily. How do you build a whole culture of open inquiry? And we think of that culture as having three components. You know this, I'm sure. One of them is the free exchange of ideas. Another is diverse viewpoints. And another is constructive disagreement. If you have one or two of those things without the other, you don't really get the knowledge-producing factory at work. So, for example, if you have formal pre-expression of ideas, so no one's constrained in speaking, but everyone on campus thinks exactly the same way, it doesn't do much good.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: If they think really differently, you get a diverse faculty and a diverse student body, but no one knows how to listen to each other, then you don't get the magic either. So we're interested in that whole culture. And looking at some of the things you've been doing, which we've been following for some time, the Spark Day is one initiative. The Denver Dialogues is another one that you've been doing. I just wanted to say a bit about a debate across the curriculum.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: Can you just talk to us and talk to our listeners, tell our listeners about each of those programs, what they are, what effect you think they're having? Just tell us about them, please.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. I think the principle that we started all this on is the notion that those three key ideas, those three key principles that HxA is all about, are also what we are all about at the University of Denver. But I knew that culture changes really slowly and has to start really, in a certain sense, at the top, saying these principles of free expression, of open inquiry, of thought pluralism and constructive dialogue and disagreement, those are fundamental things that we believe in at the University of Denver. And I want everyone to know, and I want everyone to know that if you adhere to those principles and our values, of course, then we've got your back. And the ways that we started doing that are organic ideas that have come from the faculty. So the Denver Dialogues, for example, is a wonderful initiative from our Josef Korbel School of International Studies that really brings in partners like AEI, Hoover Institution, New America, Aspen Institute, and brings in scholars from these think tanks to discuss, in front of our students, faculty, and staff, of, you know, issues that have, you know, issues that have some controversy on them. So whether it's immigration or congressional reform or democracy over the world and climate change, for example, these are hotly contested topics. And to see scholars have discussions that are very balanced and students walk away with the fact that you can have these discussions and disagree is really, really powerful.

John Tomasi: And so how often does a Denver Dialogues occur? Is it once a year, twice a year?

Jeremy Haefner: Well, it's at least once a quarter. So they're organized by, again, the Korbel School and the Scrivner Institute for Public Policy, which is part of the Korbel School. And they, you know, they worked really hard to really bring in this balanced kind of conversation for our students, faculty, and staff. They did it at the Aspen Institute, a summer when there was a focus on security in particular. Of course, one of our famous alums is Condoleezza Rice, and she is, of course, the director of the Hoover Institution. So she kicked off our inaugural Denver Dialogue with the other leaders of those think tanks. And it was a marvelous gathering of diverse thought.

John Tomasi: When was that? When did it kick off?

Jeremy Haefner: Jeez, that was almost two years ago. So that was in 23. I'm pretty sure of that.

John Tomasi: And on those events, do you find that – so I ran a center of Brown that had something called the Janus Forum or the Janus Lecture Series, which was two speakers and conversation. What we found early on was that sometimes we'd get two speakers who are really combative with each other. A memorable one for me was – the topic was justice, gender, and the American dream. And we had Harvey Mansfield, the well-known conservative from Harvard, who had just written a book called Manliness, pitted up against Catharine MacKinnon, who was a very famous feminist, law professor, and philosopher. And it was an incredible event, but it was kind of like a combat on stage. And we were worried that the student experience was really sort of passively watching an exchange of ideas rather than actually – what we cared about was the student. What happened in their minds, and did they change? I'm just wondering, have you had that experience with the Denver Dialogues? Are there any – is it passive? Do you have any sense that it's actually active? Is it having the effect on students that you wanted to have, or does it become a spectator sport?

Jeremy Haefner: It's a great question. One of the things, of course, that we always insist on doing is having a robust Q&A of the speakers. And Korbel School does a really good job at empowering students to ask questions along the way.

John Tomasi: Nice.

Jeremy Haefner: So I think from our student perspective, it has this potential for really engaging students and not be passive around this. The other idea that we've had modest successes is to build little follow-up seminars around the discussions that are student-focused and faculty lead those discussions in order to help the students think, well, you know, break down the arguments that all the speakers presented. And which ones did you feel carry your thoughts along the way, and did they argue persuasively? So we need to do more of that. But I think that is a great example of that it is sinking in. If I may, I can also talk about the debate across the curriculum.

John Tomasi: Please, please.

Jeremy Haefner: This is an innovation from one of our most respected faculty members, former president of the Faculty Senate. He was a longtime debate coach, so he believes firmly in the power of debate as a pedagogical tool. So he's introduced this notion of debate across the curriculum, much like kind of writing across the curriculum is. And what he has done is to bring non-competitive debate into the classrooms. Whatever faculty member who's teaching, in particular, first-year seminar or senior seminar might be open to, and they take three class periods. That's non-trivial in a quarter system. And they introduce the idea of a non-competitive date. They select the topic which is relevant to the course. They break the students into two different groups rather randomly so that they don't necessarily choose the side that they're comfortable with. In fact, it's much better if they don't. They research, and then they come back, and they offer their positions on it. So it's not really a back and forth. But then there's this moderated question period. And that's where students really become engaged. They, on the third visit, they debrief, of course. But what's really gratifying from my perspective is they do a pre-assessment and a post-assessment. And they look at politicization and the affective approach behind that. And there is statistically relevant data now showing that it is changing kind of hearts and minds of our students. They feel more empowered that they can enter into discussions when there is a controversial issue. They know that research and the behavior of how they conduct themselves is really important in that process. And that's what is really taught in that thing.

John Tomasi: So what really strikes me is that you're measuring this. We're not just saying we put on the event. This is what we're seeing at some universities so far. Maybe the first stage of a transition towards more heterodoxy on campus is that people are now organizing events like the one you described. But they often don't measure. And that's maybe the future states will be they will measure and see what the impacts are. But it's a sign that it's not merely performative because you're actually finding out whether it works or not.

Jeremy Haefner: It is actually working. Now, what we don't know is how sticky is that change in students' hearts and minds, right? So we're trying to figure out longitudinally, can we show that this debate across the curriculum is having a deep impact in the lives of the students during their time at the University of Denver and then even beyond?

John Tomasi: Have you heard of the AI tool, Sway?

Jeremy Haefner: Yes, I have.

John Tomasi: We did a podcast on it recently, and HxA is co-sponsoring it. But as you know, and some of our listeners may remember, it's an AI tool developed by some of our members using the HxA way. And if it breaks the classroom of students into pairs based on their answers to questions, I think, so they have different viewpoints, then it moderates a conversation between them. And I can imagine Sway being a follow-up that might help with the stickiness, perhaps, that you were just mentioning.

Jeremy Haefner: Absolutely. I've talked about Sway to my faculty director for free expression and tried to get them to – I think there is – we're also piloting a similar AI tool that the Coalition for Presidents for Civic Education is – I'm aware, I'm aware of that tool. There's so many innovations happening now in this area, it's fantastic.

John Tomasi: Yeah, and artificial intelligence is clearly going to disrupt higher education.

Jeremy Haefner: That is true, but it's another episode together, perhaps.

John Tomasi: I want to ask you about Spark Day, which I heard about several years ago, I think.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: Can you just tell our listeners what it is and how it works?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah, sure. So, in a nutshell, Spark Day is a celebration of free expression, open inquiry, civil discourse, and dialogue. And it's intended to raise the awareness of our entire campus around these issues. We've done it – we're starting our fourth year. And the idea is to constantly grow the participation. We've been a lot focused on our internal community, but lately, in the last couple of years, we've invited other faculty and students from the Front Range universities – Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs. We offer different ways of getting at the issues of free expression and civil discourse. So, one of my favorite is a student panel that we always run. And sometimes on the panel is both students and faculty, and they talk about the challenges of free expression on a campus like the University of Denver. Can they feel comfortable at bringing forward ideas that may disagree with the faculty member in the class? Can they bring forward ideas that they know are going to find disagreement with their fellow students? And, you know, so it really gets it to the heart of this cultural change. There's workshops that we also celebrate around how to, you know, how to elevate civil discourse in your classroom discussions, for example. And hopefully, we're also igniting students to really take a leadership role in creating their own, you know, group that really supports free expression. I'd love to see more empowerment of our students and our alums, as well as our faculty, which is, of course, led by HxA.

John Tomasi: And are there, are there, have there been incidents on Spark Day where students have taken it as an invitation to be, I'm not sure the right word is, simply inflammatory or outrageous or, and things. And did, have people use Spark Day to exercise their less, less high angel, their worst, their worst, their worst are angels? You're the worst are angels.

Jeremy Haefner: We haven't really seen that yet. I think they're, they are coming in with great respect for, the notion that, they're, they're representing the University of Denver in this way. but I welcome the, I welcome the little grittiness that we could be introducing into this and feel like that.

John Tomasi: Why do you say that? Why do you say you welcome the grittiness?

Jeremy Haefner: Well, what do you mean? you know, I, I, I think, you know, when we, when we think about civil discourse, we often talk about respect and, and, sometimes I think we walk away with the, with, the, the notion that dialogue has to be logical and flowing and unemotional, but come on, this, this is the world we live in. Emotions are going to surface here. And the question is, can we be resilient when we hit those moments and really, recover from them quickly and get back to, the, the heart of the matter, which is ideas and not people that, need, need to be contested in that regard.

John Tomasi: That's extremely well said. And if I can just add to that, we sometimes, we have conversations around here at the Segal Center about the bridge building efforts that we're seeing at many universities across the country, which we applaud. And we're very happy for that, but we also sometimes worry that some of those bridge building efforts turn dialogue into just being nice to each other all the time.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. Yeah.

John Tomasi: And there is a, you know, there's, there's a, there's a role within the free exchange of ideas when we're searching for truth on serious issues for, for emotion, strong emotions, tempers even. I have a, I have a dear friend, a philosopher at Brown, David Estlund, who does deliberative theory. And he has an article that I love. It's called deliberation down and dirty. And he explores all the different times in which, there's grittiness to use your word. The grittiness is sometimes necessary to make these conversations happen on topics. There were things that are kind of just frozen and no one can break in. So I, I think it's very interesting that you're sensitive to the grit.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: The grit, the grit, the grit, the sandpaper there. I'd like to, I want to shift to, one of the policies that you've adopted and much in the news lately of the policy, policy, institutional neutrality, which is, as you probably know, is part of one of the requirements of the Trump's compact that people, the universities adopt institution neutrality. At Denver, you did it before Trump was elected, I believe in 2024, is that what it's called?

Jeremy Haefner: Yep. 2022 is when we really.

John Tomasi: Oh, is that right?

Jeremy Haefner: Yep. Even, even sooner.

John Tomasi: Wow.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: respect. can you just tell us a little bit about what led you to, I guess you're, you're an early adopter. What led you to institutional neutrality? What's your experience been?

Jeremy Haefner: It's really, really hard. So I'll talk a little bit about, about that. it was in 2022 when the provost and I really started questioning how we use the university voice. It was very ad hoc. We didn't have a set of principles to guide us. we felt compelled to respond to just about any geopolitical kind of issue right then.

John Tomasi: Why did you, why did you feel compelled?

Jeremy Haefner: It was, it was, yeah, it's a great question. I, I think it was, how the previous administrations had, entered into it. And, I, I think the, the machines of the university just kind of wanted to carry that forward.

John Tomasi: were you aware of other university leaders and the Front Range and beyond making statements all the time that, yeah, no, there, there was a lot of conversations considered part of the job.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah, it was part of the job. And, it just was also untenable. We all said, we can't keep doing this.

John Tomasi: So you had the Ukraine, Russia war, breakout in February.

Jeremy Haefner: And that was really the last point where I had used the university voice outside of neutrality. And we saw, Supreme court decisions in the pipeline. We knew that, the, the Dobbs case was going to be announced in June. And we knew that, students for fair admissions was already being considered. And we knew that there were going to be other, you know, other acts of violence out there that, you know, it, you know, may have occurred clear across the world. So we just made the decision that we have to pivot and we have to say, we have to adopt the Kalven principles of neutrality. and so I started working with my cabinet.

John Tomasi: I'm sorry, just, I'm sorry, if I may, I'm just interested in that, in that moment. So, you mentioned the Kalven, Kalven report. Were you aware of the Kalven report or did, did it, did it, were you looking for a solution to the problem? Like how do I get out? How do I get out of this? How do I get off this treadmill of constant making?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: And then the Kalven report, of course, is a very deeply principled mission of the university. The university is the home and sponsor critics on itself, the critic. So was it expediency that led you to the policy? Then you found Kalven as a way to explain why, or how did it, how did it happen to you? If I can ask the inside view.

Jeremy Haefner: Well, so this.

John Tomasi: If you remember.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to try to remember. Well, you know, this, this whole effort around open inquiry, search for truth, free expression, started, or at least for me when I became chancellor. And during my inauguration, I made this one of three kind of anchors to how I was, really going to be engaged with the campus and, and on broader issues for that affected the university. I knew of course that the university of Chicago was, had this incredible reputation, free speech and, and, and a dedication to it. And, I remember a conversation with, president emeritus Zimmerman, who had recently stepped down. I'm, I've, I'm so fortunate to have had that opportunity because shortly afterwards, of course he passed away. He was my mentor, he was my mentor, by the way.

John Tomasi: I mean, he was a provost at, at Brown.

Jeremy Haefner: Oh, sure. And, and I, I, I remember the first time I went to his office and he, I was a young assistant, assistant professor and he was just very, just fiery about, about these issues. And it was the first time I'd met an administrator who was fiery about these issues and it just deeply affected me, but, but please.

John Tomasi: Well, and, and affected all of us in higher education.

Jeremy Haefner: And I, you know, I, I, I, you know, I learned from him that yes, Chicago had an approach around neutrality, but it wasn't black and white either. They, they knew that they had to respond to incidences that profoundly and deeply impacted their community. And so we started building, an approach around that very idea of knowing that neutrality is an imperfect idea. I'm not even sure you can be neutral, but, restrained use of university voice is where we really ended up. and, those times when we do use it or, when we want to defend the very important principles of a university, academic freedom, our values of inclusion, say, for example, and, and so forth. So, we, we, vetted this across, you know, key stakeholder groups, across campus and with the trustees. And, we eventually decided that this was the way to go and we piloted it for several months. and then most recently we've made it, a policy standing at the university.

John Tomasi: That little bit that you just said, it was probably more interesting to me than, you know, or than you can know, because we're really interested in following, in a variety of different policies, how does a policy get six, become successfully implemented and woven into a culture of the place?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: And we've seen some instances at some universities across the country where, leaders adopt institutional neutrality, for example, but without much buy-in without much piloting, they sort of drop it down from the top as it were, and there's often kick feedback and negative complications. And I'm sure there was in your case too. And as, and the way you describe it is how I think of it as well. It's, it's an ongoing process to navigate. What does it mean? What's the fundamental interest of the, interest of the, of the university?

Jeremy Haefner: Yep.

John Tomasi: some people think that adopting institutional restraint as opposed to institutional neutrality is a softball way of doing it. And it shouldn't, it's unprincipled. I'm not so sure about that. We're a commitment to the neutrality view, but there is interesting. I like the thought that there, the principles themselves are alive and it requires ongoing discussion and consideration. It's not a mechanical thing. It's now taken off your plate entirely. It won't be the thing you do every Monday morning anymore, but Tuesday morning or Wednesday morning, etc. Can I just ask you about that then? So, I'm just going to still be really frank with you on the, on the question and take that any way you like. so you said that there have been some times when it's been, tempting or maybe you have spoken out. What's been, what, have you spoken out about the, essential interests at the university with respect to the Trump administration's policies?

Jeremy Haefner: We have, we have, I, I've really, this is where I really appreciate, working with my colleagues across the country. you know, the, you know, the American association for colleges and universities, has been a wonderful source of, collegiality and vibrancy around, the issues that are most important to, to me and, and other leaders in higher education in these really challenging times. And so, you know, a, a vocal supporter of, the constructive engagement statement that came out, most recently, regarding the compact we've, we've signed on to, really reject the notion of the compact because it threatens directly, academic freedom and, the institutional independence that we've enjoyed for years. and they also then most recently came out with, really what are the principles that we do believe in? And there's a lot of parallels, between those principles and the compact, but, it, it, it, it, of course, vehemently defends, academic freedom and, and at the very core of, of our principles in that regard.

John Tomasi: And so that is one example of where we've, we've leaned out, you talk, but you've also, you're also known for advocating or reconciling a commitment to, to open inquiry with a commitment to inclusion, which in HxA, we think those things go together or should go together or must go together. We must find ways to bring them together. But for example, with, you know, with Supreme court cases that, affect admissions, for example, do you, did you see those as, threats to inclusion as you understand inclusion, you just speak out about any of those decisions that you saw coming down the pipeline as you frankly, well, so yeah, interesting.

Jeremy Haefner: So I'll, I'll, I'll give you a little bit more background cause it might be interesting. when we did make this pivot, we had made a statement on Russia, Ukraine. and we, then all, you know, all of a sudden didn't make statements that came out about, the Supreme court ruling or what was happening in, in the Middle East, say, for example. and we, and I took a lot of flack and pushback on that. And I understand why.

John Tomasi: From whom?

Jeremy Haefner: From, our community members, mostly our, our alumni base. They said, why did you come out, in favor of Ukraine under this situation, but you haven't come out in this position and I had to explain to him, we, we made a policy shift and it was hard. And I know, I know it lands for you, whoever wrote me, in a difficult way, but this is the way that I believe is the best way to, for the university, to run its organization, really empowering faculty and students to grapple with these issues and give them the agency, to, to make up their own minds around these kinds of important issues. but there will be times when we, we'll take a stand or we'll, we'll certainly support our community with resources. If they feel like they've been particularly hit hard and harmed, you know, that's, this is what a university does. We support each other in a caring way.

John Tomasi: I spoke with you a minute ago about, subtlety or softness or buying, getting buy-in when, when a university leader adopts a new policy, that's not always possible. Sometimes there are directives that come from Washington DC that are, that seem to require more direct action. And so I just want to turn now to talk a bit about DEI and the Trump administration's policies regarding DEI and how that's affected DU. Can you just tell us a bit about what your experience has been with, the new DEI directives and how that's affecting your leadership?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. You know, I, I think we took a pretty measured approach, because it's, you know, as soon as the Trump administration, came in power, we knew there was a, executive order around DEI. we knew there was a dear colleague letter coming out on Valentine's day and we still kind of waited, we were just assessing, we wanted to see what other institutions were doing. Some institutions came out really quick and started changing, titles and, really pivoting, so that they wouldn't be under the microscope. And I, and I get that, but we, we really wanted to think carefully about what, what is DEI 3.0 going to look like? And, and this literally started way back even before Trump was elected because, you know, we saw the public sentiment change around what that meant. and, and we wanted to be prepared for that, to be quite honest. And we wanted to rethink, you know, are we doing everything we could into leaning into our values of inclusion, really leaning in, and, and so over the course of all these months, 18 months, we had been working in the background, trying to figure out what it would look like. What do we want, to be the, the principles that would really guide our, our values of inclusion. Of course, then the department of justice memo came out in July. We had already set up a community and belonging kind of steering group to help give us.

John Tomasi: July, July of 2025, July of 2025.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: Thank you.

Jeremy Haefner: and knew that, these were interpretations of law by the department of justice who is, you know, authorized to, to implement and to enforce, the laws, they interpret it. They're not making new law, but, they do do the interpretation and we felt it was in the best interests of the university to, adopt, changes in those, our practices, if you will. the unfortunate thing was that we weren't quite ready to really tell the campus community what we had been really designing through task force and other conversations that came two weeks later.

John Tomasi: And so there was, you mean the announcement came two weeks later?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I'm not being super clear.

John Tomasi: That's fine. But so you're saying you're, you're working on a transformation of DEI before, before the director.

Jeremy Haefner: Exactly right. Yeah.

John Tomasi: But didn't you got, didn't you release a statement expressing disappointment in the interpretation of the administration?

Jeremy Haefner: Oh, for sure. Oh yeah. There's just no question that, you know, what they were saying about our, our, our approach around DEI was, an affront, an attack to, our values of inclusion. and while I wanted to be very clear that we will continue to, support our, our, our value of inclusion and we're going to lean in heavily on it, it means now, we might have to change some of our practices. I was particularly upset that, we really had to, rethink how scholarships for protected class, students were, were really considered a discriminatory practice. To me, you know, a donor, a donor should really feel empowered to, use their money in the most effective way that they deem fit. but the federal government was saying universities can't, can't accept this money. So we've been, we've been working, to adopt new language and in some of these scholarships to still accomplish much of our inclusiveness, but not be exclusive at the same time.

John Tomasi: Can I ask, I want to just go back on just a minute for a moment about the expression of disappointment with their, with, with administration's interpretation. So how do you square that with a commitment to institutional neutrality? And I'll, I'll say the, I'll put the question in a little more pointed way. And we may find, we find that you and I disagree about something, but we'll find out. So as I read, main, most interpretations of the Kalven principle and the HxA has our own model called extraordinary you. Our model has the same feature. What counts as the core mission of the university is something like the knowledge seeking and knowledge transmission function. Absolutely. So the idea that we're, that's our main, our, our telos as John Haidt would put it. but is inclusion, part of the knowledge seeking? Is it inclusion for the service of, of knowledge seeking? Or is it inclusion for the sake of social justice or repairing past wrongs? And if it's not inclusion for the sake of knowledge seeking only, how do you square that with institutional neutrality?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah, that's a great question. so completely agree that inclusion, has to be, all encompassing. So it doesn't matter, of your race or your orientation or your, your religious beliefs, or your, even your own perspectives to get to the point of, diversity of thought, say, for example, it has to be, all things are welcome in a sense at the university because otherwise, you can't really lay claims to inclusion in the same sense. So, this notion that, inclusion means differing perspectives, differing ideas is absolutely fundamental, but I guess I felt like, the, the direct attacks on diversity, equity, inclusion were really directed to, our, our community of marginalized, students, faculty, and draft. It felt more personal than it did, from a policy point of view. And that's what I, that's what I felt was, really objectionable, that it struck at even our value of inclusion in, in a, in a sense, the practices that we've, we have done, you know, we're probably, we were probably ready to make some changes around how we look at things. And certainly the Supreme Court decision laid the foundation for that, you know, diversity statements, for example, in an era of generative AI, become kind of outmoded in my opinion. And quite frankly, are not an effective way of really, looking at students and faculty and how they look at our definition of inclusion, right? Open to everyone, and really welcoming and all.

John Tomasi: So was there a period where you guys used, diversity statements or DEI statements in hiring? Do you still?

Jeremy Haefner: they, we had a long time practice of using those and they, they ended, in July when we made this statement that we were going to comply with the interpretations from the department of justice. It, it hurt, it hurt the community. It, it landed hard, because it felt to them that we were taking a step back from our values. but I wanted to emphasize that, especially when two weeks later, we could announce what we had been working on, which is a, a, a new division of community support and engagement, which would really support all of our community, really making inclusion, leaning in heavily in inclusion, leaning in on pluralism, free expression as well. a part of the, the new ways that we were approaching things. It wasn't that, our values had changed at all. No, not at all. And in fact, they've been magnified even more.

John Tomasi: I want to ask you a sort of a general question about your, about your, your leadership. some people talk about viewpoint diversity and they talk primarily about, they're thinking primarily about the ideological dimension. People on the, so there's a lot of surveys and data that we, you're familiar with, I'm sure is showing that there's been a marked increase in the, in the difference that, and the ratio between Democrats and Republicans on faculty. So in the sixties was roughly two to one currently and nationally, it's something like 20 to one, a huge Delta in that dimension. And we think it's important that there'd be a variety of, ideologically diverse voices on campus. We worry when the ratio becomes too big, but another thing that we emphasize around HxA sometimes is that the really important and fundamental distinction or division on campuses, within faculties is not so much between Democrats and Republicans. It's between something like professors who believe that the purpose of the university is clearly searching for knowledge and the transit, the transmission of knowledge and searching for truth. And professors who think that university purpose is something different as something more like, let's say social justice in some way. And I'm just wondering, because you seem to be, you're known as, and you've made Denver well known as one of the schools that's really leading the country in terms of standing up for the knowledge, seeking interpretation. How has that played in your campus with the members of the faculty and perhaps students who share the other view, who reject the view that the HxA exists to support this? Do you, do you, do you, do you feel a strong opposition and pushback from your own faculty members because of this, these stands you're taking this culture that you're building? Do you, do you regularly encounter opposition from within and people who say, that's not what I want my university to be. I want it to be a vanguard for social justice. What do you, how do you, how do you, how do you respond to that? And I just want to add it. I know it's a bit, I don't mean to put you on that fence. Like I'm a for truth or for my approach to social justice. It's, you know, we can be, two things can be true at once. I'm really interested in the dynamics on your campus. Are you feeling pushback as you adopt these policies, which we hope other university leaders will adopt following you? Can you just give us any words of wisdom to them or from your own experience about what it means to face opposition within your own faculty for some of the things you've been doing?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah, there's just no question that there are pockets of faculty that would disagree with many of the decisions that I've made as chancellor. I hope and expect that the majority of faculty see the direction that we are taking the university and feel like they have a role to play in that. For me, I do believe the fundamental purpose of a university, and I could talk a little bit more about this, is the seeking of truth, however that plays out. And in order to do that, you have to have an environment that deeply embraces free and open inquiry. That is critical to it. And therefore, it leads to, well, you've got to have free expression. You have to have an ardent defense of academic freedom. You have to understand that we need to help students learn the competencies and skills of civil discourse, all those kinds of key issues on that. And to me, this notion of a purpose of a university, and I use a university as really important, transcends even the mission and vision of a university. It says we can't veer off of this fundamental idea of why we are all gathered here. It is the discovery of new knowledge, and it's the education of our students. And if there's anything that casts doubt on that new knowledge, then we're not fulfilling our purpose. If there's anything that we are not helping students learn and grow in, then we're not living into our obligations on this. So I feel very strongly about that. But because we also support academic freedom, we know that there will be faculty that bring their own perspectives into the classroom. And I do honestly believe for the vast majority of faculty that they may have a political leaning one way or another, but they are open to creating this environment of inquiry in the classroom. And I think it's challenging in today's environment where we are so polarized and equipping them with the skills to teach in that is really, really hard. But I think fundamentally they are that way.

John Tomasi: In this polarized climate, listening to the other side seems like an act of betrayal to many people. It's like you're betraying your own side. As we're coming toward the end of our conversation, I want to be sure we have time to talk about one of the initiatives that you're soon to launch, maybe in the process of launching now, the National Academy for Pluralism and Free Expression, sometimes called the Free Expression Academy, as I'm hearing it already, as a nickname already. Can you just tell our listeners what that initiative is about, what stage it's in, and what you hope for it?

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah. So the University of Denver has, I think, a rich history of really serving the city of Denver, the state of Colorado, as a real convener on issues of substance. So over the course of decades, we've seen the University of Denver convene dialogues and discussions on immigration and really how that has, say, for example, impacted public policy. It was back in 2013 when we had a strategic initiative around that very topic that really informed our senators to lean in on immigration policy. And while it wasn't adopted by Congress and the president, we did feel like there was a real contribution that we've made. So this convening role has always been one that we've done an exceptional job with, and we continue that to this day. I guess I felt that tapping into that convening role was just a logical extension of our commitment to free expression and pluralism. And while the University of Chicago had built a huge reputation on free speech, I felt the University of Denver could really build a reputation around pluralism. The notion that we really adopt difference as a fundamental strength of ourselves as individuals, as organizations, as our state, our country, we are stronger, better, more informed, more creative, more innovative because of difference, all kinds of difference. And I really believe that. So if I aspire to see anything, it will be that our graduates become evangelists for pluralism, evangelists for difference. I think it's how our country was built. So the National Academy for Free Expression and Pluralism is our aspiration to build this convening role to really embrace pluralism and spread the word about how important it is. It doesn't mean we're going to agree. We are definitely not going to agree. But we're going to actually love and embrace the fact that we are different. And we're fortunate to have a significant donor to support it. So it's officially the John and Sandy Miller National Academy for Free Expression and Pluralism.

John Tomasi: Congratulations.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah, I'm very excited by that. It's a great vision that he shares with myself and others at the university as well. We do expect that this will have a focus on our own campus. But more importantly, what I'd like to see the University of Denver do through this academy is be a convener nationally because we don't have all the answers. There's great work that's being done by Brown and, of course, the University of Chicago and Vanderbilt and so forth. So let's bring these great ideas all together and share them. And maybe we can iterate on these ideas and bring them to our own campuses. And then what about how can we help leaders in K through 12 also think about these issues? Again, we don't have the answers that might work in K through 12. But can we help support the teachers and the administrators and really helping them navigate these same issues? Same is true with the corporate world. They're the ones that are recipients of our graduates. And I want our corporate world to be empowered with the same set of tools that we might use in higher education.

John Tomasi: I really appreciate your talking about the convening power, that power that you have. And I'm especially interested to hear that you see, as I see, too, that there are so many experiments going on now across the country at university campuses. I'm in conversation with presidents and chancellors all the time who have their own initiatives, a new way of doing it, little wrinkles on things, little twists they try, little obstacles they faced and ways they found around it. And I just think it would be – HxA, of course, does a lot of this work, but I think very parallel with the work you're doing.

Jeremy Haefner: Yes, absolutely.

John Tomasi: But I just really am excited about the idea about you guys creating this center to – an academy to bring all these things together.

Jeremy Haefner: Yeah.

John Tomasi: It's been such a pleasure having you on Heterodox Out Loud. I started by telling you how much I admire the work you do and we all at HxA do. I want to close on that same note. The story's not yet finished. There's more chapters to come. For sure. For you and your leadership. We just wanted you to know that we watch you, we admire you, and we wish you well as you go forward.

Jeremy Haefner: Well, John, thank you so much for having me on. I admire HxA. You know we've had conversations of how can we amplify and expand our commitment to Heterodox Academy on our campus. And I know I've got some really strong vocal voices in support of that, and I can't wait to see us really achieve those wonderful goals.

John Tomasi: We so like what you're doing and want to be complimentary all the way.

Jeremy Haefner: Thank you.

John Tomasi: And from our side, quite the same.

Jeremy Haefner: Thanks so much.

John Tomasi: Thank you.