679. Why Does Vanderbilt Keep Winning?

Summary

Freakonomics Radio Episode 679: Why Does Vanderbilt Keep Winning?

Host: Stephen Dubner
Guest: Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt University
Date: June 26, 2026

---

Overview

This episode dives into how Vanderbilt University has bucked wider higher-education trends—growing in reputation, student demand, and even athletic performance—while many other universities face financial strife, controversies, and declining trust. Host Stephen Dubner interviews Chancellor Daniel Diermeier to uncover the factors behind Vanderbilt's success, with a central focus on the university’s policy of “institutional neutrality” and his unique leadership philosophy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of American Higher Education

• Dubner introduces today's higher-ed crisis: declining public trust, campus protests, financial pressures, federal oversight, and leadership ousters.
• Diermeier offers perspective on the sector’s challenges:
  • Issues include affordability, career readiness, inequality (concerns from the political left), and ideological bias or “drift” (concerns from the right).
  • Affirms the sector's “noble purpose” but admits universities must address real failings that erode public trust (06:28).

2. Vanderbilt’s Distinct Advantages

• Vanderbilt’s historical and contemporary context:
  • Founded after the Civil War to help unify the country; remained a strong regional university for decades, now a competitive national institution.
  • Achieving new peaks in applications, fundraising, research, and talent attraction (05:40).
• Diermeier explains how Vanderbilt avoids the pitfalls facing peers:
  • Proactive engagement with all political factions (“We talk to everybody...We need to be at the table.” [07:46])
  • Navigated federal endowment tax through active advocacy, reducing its impact compared to earlier proposals (08:31).

3. Institutional Neutrality: Principles and Practice

• Definition and Origin:
  • “Institutional neutrality” means the university (and its leaders) avoids taking official positions on public controversies not directly relevant to its mission.
  • Idea rooted in the “Calvin Report” (University of Chicago, 1967): “the university is the home and sponsor of critics. It is not itself the critic.” (04:54)
• Diermeier’s reasoning:
  • “We have to teach how to think, not what to think.” ([29:20])
  • Leadership should foster open inquiry but refrain from top-down political stances, which can “chill debate” and create “institutional orthodoxy.”
  • Neutrality is a “restraint on university leaders.” ([31:56])

The “Three Pillars” of Vanderbilt’s Approach (32:11)

1. Open Forums/free speech (e.g., students/faculty inviting any speakers—since the 1960s).
2. Institutional neutrality as above.
3. Commitment to civil discourse—cultural norms of reasoned, fact-based debate.

Notable Quotes:

• "Not everybody agrees with me, but my strong belief...we have a problem.” – Diermeier [04:10]
• “We want to teach how to think, not what to think.” – Diermeier [29:20]

4. The Problem of Ideological Drift

• Diermeier details how certain academic fields have become “monocultures,” promoting a single ideological perspective at the expense of viewpoint diversity and scholarly rigor (15:34).
  • Gives example: American Anthropological Association’s stance on “dismantling institutions of colonialism” as a disciplinary requirement ([19:11]).
  • Syllabi studies show overwhelming inclusion of texts like “The New Jim Crow” without presenting critical counterpoints ([20:12]).

Memorable Moment

• Dubner presses: Aren’t educators just teaching “the facts” about systemic discrimination?
• Diermeier responds: “That’s an assertion...our job is to now kick the tires on that and see...does it still stand up?” ([21:04])

5. Handling Political Polarization and Government Relations

• Diermeier’s philosophy is to engage across political lines, focusing on shared goals—economic competitiveness, national security, innovation—rather than where parties diverge ([45:18]; [46:02]).
• On Trump-era university politics:
  • Asserts problem of polarization preceded Trump, but has been “catastrophic among the conservative segment.”
  • Leadership’s task: “focus on depolarizing, bringing people together is a very good idea.” ([43:56])
• On being a potential “trust czar”:
  • Focus would be on “magnets” (shared goals) to rebuild trust, not further wedges. ([45:59])

6. Diermeier’s Unique Background and Personal Viewpoint

• First in family to graduate high school or attend university—father was a self-made fashion designer; mother a magazine illustrator ([35:19]).
• Growing up in divided Berlin, he describes the daily awareness of repression and the “constant part of your consciousness.”
  • “There were landmines, there were fences...automatic machine guns...The whole thing was just horrible.” ([35:12]; [36:00]; [37:32])
• Witnessed Berlin Wall’s fall and re-integration, which shaped his belief in the power of clear vision and personal trust between leaders to enable big institutional change ([39:11]; [41:18]).
• Lessons: “People are people and institutions are really important.” ([38:51])
• Belief in finding commonality—“there’s so much we have in common as people, and we need to emphasize that.” ([43:31])

7. Innovation, Expansion, and Leadership at Vanderbilt

• Vanderbilt’s growth agenda:
  • Four new/prepared satellite campuses: San Francisco (innovation hub), New York (arts, media, finance), West Palm Beach (business/tech), and Chattanooga (quantum science) ([59:46]–[62:22]).
  • The point is not franchising, but plugging into local ecosystems and offering students hands-on, site-specific experience ([59:46]; [61:13]).
• Diermeier’s involvement: All site selection and development happening under his direction ([63:40]).
• Vanderbilt’s position: “We’re already a national brand” ([63:53]), seeing booming applications post-October 7th, 2023.

Notable Quotes:

• “Whenever we do something, it needs to be a clear strategic rationale.” – Diermeier ([61:06])
• “We want to be a destination for the most talented students and we want to compete for them.” ([64:23])

8. Higher Ed Leadership, Reputation, and the Future

• Diermeier’s analysis of the university president’s role:
  • Must combine academic authority, business/management acumen, and political/community leadership ([55:31]).
• On the need for better training of academic leaders in business and politics, but affirms the irreducible need for scholarly legitimacy ([58:40]).
• Compares the German university collapse under the Nazis to today’s risks in the U.S.: “Germany as a cautionary tale...a tremendous exodus of scientists to the United States...to be a destination for the world’s great talent is really a good idea.” ([51:02])
• Warns that continued reputation/funding decline would be “flesh wound right now,” but “destructive” if prolonged ([52:24]).

9. Hopeful Closing: The Next Generation

• Diermeier is energized by students:
  • “Every day when I interact with our undergraduates...I see how they've embraced a culture of civil discourse...When I look at these students...let’s say 30 years from now, they run the country? We’re in fine shape.” ([65:01])

10. Athletics as a Metaphor for Institutional Change

• Quick postscript on Vanderbilt football:
  • “We had a very good year in football. We were terrible six years ago and nobody thought that we could do it...And so looking back to that now, we can say, wow.” – Diermeier ([67:54])

---

Key Timestamps

• 03:01 – Vanderbilt’s present strengths and national ambitions
• 06:28 – Public trust and major sector-wide problems
• 07:46 – Political engagement with all sides and endowment tax fight
• 12:10 – Erosion of trust, ideological monoculture
• 14:43 – Causes and consequences of political drift in academia
• 17:57 – How curriculum became ideologically skewed
• 27:38 – Purpose/Operating principles of the university
• 32:11 – Vanderbilt’s “three pillars”
• 35:19 – Diermeier’s biography: first-gen academic, Berlin upbringing
• 41:18 – Lessons from German unification and building trust
• 46:02 – Common goals as “magnets,” not wedges
• 55:31 – What makes running a university so complex
• 59:46, 61:13 – Vanderbilt’s campus expansions and logic
• 63:53 – National brand status and surge in applications
• 65:01 – Optimism about Vanderbilt’s students and the future
• 67:54 – Vanderbilt’s turnaround in football as institutional metaphor

---

Notable Quotes

• “We want to teach how to think, not what to think.” – Daniel Diermeier [29:20]
• “Neutrality is really a restraint on university leaders. Presidents, provosts, board members....” – Diermeier [31:56]
• “My strong sense from this is that there’s so much we have in common as people, and we need to emphasize that.” – Diermeier [43:31]
• “If I see demand for students going up to Vanderbilt, particularly the type of students that I want to attract, to Vanderbilt. That’s a good thing.” – Diermeier [64:54]
• “When I look at these students, let’s say 30 years from now, they run the country? We’re in fine shape.” – Diermeier [65:01]

---

Tone and Style

• Diermeier is direct but diplomatic, often returning to first principles, empirical thinking, and the value of open inquiry.
• Dubner probes with curiosity and skepticism, but with respect.
• The episode maintains a thoughtful, academic-yet-accessible tone, blending big-picture policy with personal narrative and institutional case study.

---

For Further Listening

Next time: Dartmouth president Sian Beilock on student outcomes and trust; more on the future of American higher education.

---

(End of summary)

Transcript

[Stephen Dubner]

Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Principal, the perpetual pen tapper, the arbitrary fridge reorganizer, the holiday party planner that starts in May. Principal knows that your star employees have their work quirks. Principal also knows how much those employees mean to your business. You need them. They need benefits. Work with Principal so they can help your team with a retirement and benefits plan that's right for them. Principal Life Insurance Company, Des Moines, Iowa. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. So go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers. One that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home life, and more coverage that fits your unique needs. Amica helps you protect what matters most. Visit amica.com and get a quote to today.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

This year's girls trip to Telluride was the best. We one uped ourselves with my Sapphire Preferred card and with 5 times points on Chase Travel plus 3 times points on vacation homes with top brands, we got this incredible cabin. It was a mansion. And with three times the points on dining, we ordered a Wagyu steak dinner and that pistachio gelato was too good. So where should we go next year? I've got ideas. Chase Sapphire Preferred the card that's preferred for a reason. Cards issued by JP Morgan, Chase bank and a member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Stephen Dubner]

Hey there, it's Stephen Dubner. Before today's episode, a quick announcement. We are about to launch a new project, a video show that we've been working on for a while. You could think of it as an indie TV talk show on YouTube. We are very excited about it and we're looking for Freakonomics Radio listeners who want to pre screen episodes and share their feedback. We will select 100 people to take an early look. If you are interested in in being an extension of our production crew, please go to the link in the show notes and sign up. We will have a lot more to say very soon about this new show. And now, here is today's episode of Freakonomics Radio. Right now is a hard time to lead just about any institution and leading a university is particularly hard. You've got your campus protests, your financial pressures, including federal funding cuts. You've got legal pressure from the Trump administration which contends that universities have become captured by left wing ideologies. And it's not like the American people are rushing to support you. According to Gallup Surveys, public Trust in higher education is near a historic low. A lot of university leaders have crumbled under all this pressure. Many have been pushed out, but some campus leaders are. Let's put it bluntly, they are winning. Over the next two episodes, we will talk to two of these winners.

[Daniel Diermeier]

First up, my name is Daniel Diehmeyer. I'm the chancellor of Vanderbilt University.

[Stephen Dubner]

Vanderbilt is a major research university in Nashville, Tennessee, with about 7,300 undergraduates and 6,300 graduate and professional students. Its graduate programs in medicine and education are world class. Its business and law schools are also very well regarded. On the undergraduate side, it's already highly selective, and applications continue to surge. Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is also expanding under Dearmire with four new or planned satellite campuses. Even its football team, which is usually a laggard in the powerful Southeastern Conference. They've been winning big lately. Perhaps most strikingly, Dearmyer and Vanderbilt seem to have dodged the federal government's ongoing assault on the broader university system.

[Daniel Diermeier]

We're a little bit of an outlier on that, and we have been able to deal with these situations quite well. But that is not typical.

[Stephen Dubner]

So today on Freakonomics Radio, we ask, why? Why does everything seem to be going Vanderbilt's way? According to Deirmeyer, one key to their success is their embrace of a policy called institutional neutrality, a policy that has made Dearmeyer one of the most polarizing figures in higher ed.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Not everybody agrees with me, but my strong belief, and I think there's increasingly evidence now that is supplied almost on a weekly basis that points out that we have a problem.

[Stephen Dubner]

What is the problem in American universities? And is institutional neutrality the solution? Let's find out, starting now.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything, with your host, Steve Stephen Dubner.

[Stephen Dubner]

Daniel Diermeier grew up in Germany, but has spent most of his academic career in the US as a political scientist and a scholar of management. At the University of Chicago, he became a dean and then provost. It was at UChicago where the modern doctrine of institutional neutrality was born. The university's Calvin report, commissioned in 1967 and still famous in some circles, said that, quote, the university is the home and sponsor of critics. It is not itself the critic. So what does that actually mean at a university today? We'll start with what Deirmeyer says is an important and often overlooked question. What problems were universities like Vanderbilt created to solve?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Vanderbilt was founded about 153 years ago by Cornelius Vanderbilt, hence the name. We were founded by Vanderbilt, really, with the Explicit purpose to create a great university, to bring together all the parts of a divided country, which, of course, was post Civil War. We were a great regional university. Our nickname always has been the Harvard of the south, which we have mixed feelings about. And then about 25 years ago, my predecessor decided we wanted to be a great national university, and we have been on that path over the last 25 years. We are very happy in where we are. We've had probably the best year in our history last year. Whenever we look at things like student demand, fundraising, research activity, ability to attract talent, we're in a very good place right now.

[Stephen Dubner]

I have seen polls showing that 7 in 10Americans believe the higher education system in the US is headed in the wrong direction. I assume you are not one of those seven.

[Daniel Diermeier]

No, no, I am. I'm not. Well, let me put it this way. I think there are real issues that need to be addressed. The fundamental purpose of the university is a noble purpose. It is about providing pathbreaking research and a transformative education, and that is absolutely critical for the country. We should never forget that. There's plenty of evidence that universities deliver on these promises. But there also are problems that we need to address, and that, I think, were some of the root causes that have led to the erosion of trust.

[Stephen Dubner]

Name the biggest problems to address.

[Daniel Diermeier]

There is a general concern about affordability and whether universities prepare students for careers. That's something that is kind of bipartisan, but also questions about inequality. That usually comes from the left side of the political spectrum. And then there is, from the right side of the political spectrum, ongoing concerns over ideological drift, intellectual monocultures, lack of viewpoint, diversities. These are all different ways to talk about that. Universities have basically become politically biased to the left.

[Stephen Dubner]

What kind of relationship do you have with President Trump and his administration?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Oh, we talk to everybody. We have great relationships with our mayor. We have great relationships with our governor. We have great relations with our fellow delegation. We believe that in order to have a positive impact on the political environment for universities, we need to be at the table. I think this was really validated, this belief, doing the endowment tax.

[Stephen Dubner]

All right, let's talk about the endowment tax. In Trump's first term, he introduced a tax on the returns from university endowments. This was a small tax, just 1.4%. But in the second term, he turned up the heat quite a bit. I know you have spent time in D.C. on that issue. What was the outcome, and how did you try to influence that outcome?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Yeah, so I was in Washington every other week, sometimes alone. Sometimes together with other university leaders. This was a proposal that came out of the House Ways and Means Committee. The highest tax would be 22%, and then it would go down. The critical thing here to understand is endowment is accumulated philanthropy. Okay? This is like what people have done to support the mission of the university. So if you're taxing the endowment, you're taxing philanthropic intent. And so we spend a lot of time trying to talk to members of Congress to just basically explain that this would have very negative consequences, especially on financial aid and especially on the research performing for universities. And we were able to, at the end of the day, you know, we, meaning a whole bunch of university presidents that were active in Washington. We have now two bands rather than four, and the highest is not 22, but eight. But we're affected by the endowment tax, and it will have a material impact on university.

[Stephen Dubner]

Give me a general assessment of how research funding toward universities is flowing or not flowing right now. I did speak with a Vanderbilt professor who's in the medical school who likes you, by the way.

[Podcast Advertiser/Narrator]

Good.

[Stephen Dubner]

He said that there's a lot of concern that NIH funding in particular is pretty bottlenecked. The Trump administration has plainly come after a lot of universities, including major research universities in the Ivy League. You are a major research university, too, and that takes a lot of funding. So tell me where things.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Multiple things going on all at the same time. The battle between the federal administration and Harvard is just one example. So this is about a group of universities where there is ongoing conflict and battle between the Trump administration and universities. That's one bucket. Then the second question is research funding. Overall, there were quite a few cuts post as part of the budgetary process. We ended up with appropriations that actually increased NIH funding by about $300 million. NSF went down a little bit, but not dramatically so. And I think what that shows is that there is strong bipartisan support for research funding. And that's great because that is the right policy. Then there are questions about the speed between grants being improved and money being spent. There's clear delays. I mean, we see it. Is that because there were so many people left, the nih, you just have kind of, you know, bottlenecks because personnel shortages. That's what we're being told. That needs to happen again because we can bridge some of the cash needs in the short term. But again, if this takes longer, then it will have a material impact.

[Stephen Dubner]

Have you seen material impact yet?

[Daniel Diermeier]

We are in a good financial position, but that is not true for all universities. We're one of the few universities, maybe the only one in our peer group. We have not done any layoffs or anything like that. But that is not true across universities. I mean, there are some universities that have laid off a lot of people because of funding cuts in particular segments, which is a whole other conversation, or because of the general uncertainty and the financial strain that's put on universities.

[Stephen Dubner]

Defenders of this administration say that they are essentially restoring sanity to America. That's the argument, including to the university system, that they argue got way off the norm. Critics, meanwhile, of which there are many from different sides. But one central critics critique, especially when it comes to financial matters, is that the Trump administration is essentially running the biggest grift in American history. Way too much self dealing. Where do you come down overall as a political scientist?

[Daniel Diermeier]

There have been problems, and the problems have manifested themselves in an erosion of trust on both parties, but has been catastrophic among the conservative segment of the electorate. The concern there is, which goes back years, is that universities have drifted ideologically to the left, that there is lack of viewpoint diversity, intellectual monoculture, wokeism. These are all different words that talk about the same thing. That is pre President Trump, and I frankly have seen it manifesting itself in different ways. That is a real thing. Okay. We have a problem, particularly in fields where I would say society reflects upon itself. Those are the humanities, the kind of qualitative, social sciences, anthropology, sociology, parts of the law school and kind of adjacent areas. We need to address that. And if we don't address that, we will not regain the trust of the American public. It doesn't matter whether it's the Trump administration or anybody else in there. This is a serious problem. The underlying concern over the ideological drift. Monoculture is a real thing, and we as university leaders need to address that. That's what we need to do. That's our job and we need to get on it.

[Stephen Dubner]

The American association of Colleges and Universities published an open letter last year speaking out against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. This was signed by hundreds of college presidents, but not you. Why not?

[Daniel Diermeier]

The way we always think about this is that we need to do the work of being clear about our principles and then have real conversations. Okay. I'm a little more skeptical that a big proclamation will do anything. My point of view is that I want to be at the table and I want to do the hard work on our campus and I want to try to convince my fellow presidents and chancellors that there's a real issue that needs to be addressed. And if you're being perceived as the villain, politicians will attack you because that makes them the hero. That's the way this works. So you have to ask yourself, honestly, are there real issues? And then how do we address them? There is a group of universities that think there's nothing wrong, that everything's great, and that this is entirely an attack by an authoritarian or quasi authoritarian government and we need to all stand together and resist. I disagree with that position, and I've made that clear in public before.

[Stephen Dubner]

Let's get back to what you have described as the political drift of universities in the US over the past couple decades. How would you think about the causes and especially the consequences of that drift?

[Daniel Diermeier]

The causes are complicated. I think the way you want to think about this is that most faculty members are motivated by doing their work. You're a biochemistry professor and you want to be in the lab 14 hours a day and do your work. Okay? And you may trend to the political left, but in some sense it doesn't matter because biochemistry is really not about political issues. And secondly, that political identity is pretty moderate and it's not part of who you are. You choose between Democrats and Republicans on the ticket for presidential ticket, you tend to vote Democrat.

[Stephen Dubner]

Fine.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Then there is a group on campus, and their point of view is that our world is structured fundamentally in an unjust fashion, that it needs to be understood in terms of power dynamics or oppressor, oppressed structures. And that is critical to who they are. It's critical to their work and their talk about it, of putting their teaching and research in service of this political agenda. They have very often taken over professional associations in this field. And the reason why that's important, because there's consequences for publication, awards, and of course, curricula. You know, what's happened in syllabus, including what happens in PhD programs. And then on the right, the right is not the right word here necessarily. There are some people that are conservative, but it's also like a kind of classic free speech kind of John Stuart Mill advocates. They exist, but they tend to be isolated and scattered. And they're like three in law school and two in economics and a bunch in the business school. But they're not coordinated, they're not organized. And so as a consequence of that, you have a very motivated, well organized group that has been able to act in concert. And universities just have been drifting. So unless you had a president like my boss at the University of Chicago, the great Bob Zimmer, was of course a big free Speech advocate that is clear about that and has an aligned board on that. Universities will drift because many university presidents or their boards don't want any drama or they may not want to deal with these issues, or they have different agendas for whatever reason, and so they cut deals. So you do this over 20 years and the shift starts drifting in a bad direction.

[Stephen Dubner]

Okay, so that was a very good answer to the causes, the consequences. I'm curious to hear you talk about, especially when think about Vanderbilt and I think about going back to the mission of Cornelius Vanderbilt, this desire to start a university to unite people after the Civil War. The universities in this country have contributed not only to the innovation economy and the economy generally, et cetera, et cetera, but there have been huge pro social contributions. Economists always like to talk about positive externalities, and there aren't that many. But education really is one tends to make everything better. So I'm curious how much you think that part of the university accomplishment or mission has been damaged.

[Daniel Diermeier]

When we talk about a transformative education, right, we mean that the students acquire skills in a particular area, their majors or whatever the field that they're studying, that they're ready for a meaningful career. And then the third thing we think about, that they are prepared to be citizens and leaders in a free and democratic society. Those are usually the way we think about a transformative education, at least at Vanderbilt. The problem is that there's a subordination of scholarly standards under an ideological agenda that manifests itself in research and in teaching. I'll give you just two examples of that that I thought were both very striking. I'll give you three, actually. One was look at a statement made by the American Anthropological association where they basically say the following. It is the professional standard for anthropologists to put their research and teaching in service of dismantling institutions of colonialism. So basically saying to be a proper anthropologist, you have to be aligned with the decolonization agenda. That is a striking thing to say. Okay, why?

[Stephen Dubner]

That may seem obvious to you, but why?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, decolonization is a particular ideology, right? It has a particular content. It is not the definition of anthropology. It's an ideological agenda. The second example is we've seen these studies now on syllabi that we can do now because we can use large language models. So there was a particularly striking example done by two professors at Claremont. They looked at syllabi and they basically picked three areas. Criminal justice, Israel, Palestine, abortion. And then they asked basically what is the relevant kind of different point of views on that well established in the literature. And all these point of views actually reflect an undergraduate curriculum. So the example that they picked was this book, the New Jim Crow, which I'm really simplifying there, but makes the argument that the mass incarceration after the war on drugs basically was intended and had the consequence of suppressing African American communities. Very controversial book. Of course, there was back and forth and people criticized it. That's what the academy should do, no problem.

[Stephen Dubner]

Great.

[Daniel Diermeier]

You should have that book in there because it's important to understand, to take a provocative contribution there and you want to debate it. But now you have to have the criticisms as well. What they found is that 94% of the syllabi only had the book, but none of the criticisms. What would actually pair it with even more kind of radical points of view. So if you are now taking a class on criminal justice as an undergraduate, you believe that the state of the field, but it's not the state of the field. It's a particularly biased view of the field.

[Stephen Dubner]

There are a lot of academics who would argue that that's not an ideological position they're taking, it's just a factual one. That racial discrimination in policing and law enforcement in America has a long and deep history, and it's a bad thing. And therefore people need to be educated about it. And we don't necessarily need to spend time defending the previous status quo or looking at modern critiques of the current argument.

[Daniel Diermeier]

But that's an assertion, right? That's an assertion about facts. And our job is to now kick the tires on that and see is and to what extent, and are they mitigating factors? And once you do a proper statistical model and you control for other factors, do these things still stand up? I mean, that's what real work means, right?

[Stephen Dubner]

So this widespread embrace of a certain kind of text, where does that come from, in your view? Is it peer pressure? Is it the chilling effect we hear about? Is it maybe more of a natural expression of the kind of people who become university professors?

[Daniel Diermeier]

We have certain disciplines now that are basically looking at the world from one point of view only is the belief that our world is structured in a fundamentally unjust fashion and that these structures of oppression need to be dismantled. That's the position. Then it manifested itself in multiple different ways. Number one, the free speech crisis that we had a little over 10 years ago and I lived through in the University of Chicago, the way this was manifested is that we had the speech codes and we had the shouting down of speakers that were not in line with this point of view or were challenging that the so called controversial speakers. That's better now. It's not done, but it's better now. Why? Because we had clear principles, Chicago principles. It wasn't so easy anymore, it wasn't free anymore to basically cancel speakers. So that was chapter one. Chapter two is institutional neutrality. We had it since the late 60s 70s. Chicago had it in the Calvin Report in 1967, but it came to the forefront really after October 7th, because the debate there was what the activist group wanted us to do was to take a position which is to denounce Israel, genocide, divest, cut ties with vendors that had any connection with Israel. That's much better now too because we had a clear principle, institutional neutrality. And there was this pressure that came from alumni, Jewish community that basically said, look, universities, you gotta get out of this position taking game. And the political pressure probably played a role. The third chapter now is what happens in the classroom, what happens in research journals, what happens in the practice of research and teaching. That's a much harder problem. But all these three things are manifestations, I think of the same problem.

[Stephen Dubner]

Let's talk about you a little bit more and your research. So you're a political scientist by training and the work of yours that I've always found especially interesting, although I haven't read all your work.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, we have to fix that. It's riveting.

[Stephen Dubner]

Okay, I'll try to read some more. But the work I do know is around reputation and reputational management. You write about moral outrage, so to me it seems like you are made for these times. I'd love to hear you apply your research lens to your administrative job.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Now I have done multiple things in my life, but I think the two areas that I'm most known for is the one you just mentioned. So that's about understanding reputation, particular in crisis settings, the relationship between companies and society. And of course, as you just point out, that applies to university just as much. The second area of my research, it was on studying institutions. So I was trained as an applied game theorist and then did a whole bunch of empirical work as well there I tried to understand how institutions work. So I was particularly interested in political institutions, legislatures, coalition governments and so forth. And what you learn there is that the details really matter. Setting things up the right way can make a big difference and you have to be very, very conscious on that. Now neither one of these areas, when I was a researcher I had any inkling that this would be related to my later work as a university leader. And of course I didn't know I would be a university leader. But even being in those roles, I think it was pretty clear that the reputation crisis stuff was immediately valuable. Look, reputation for university is absolutely critical. When families make a decision where they send their sons or daughter for university, it is one of the biggest decisions they will make as a family. For many people, that's the second biggest investment that they will make after their house. And very often they will have no personal experience with the university. And even if they're alums, they were alums 30 years ago. It's a different place. So reputation is really critical. It's critical for applicants, for hiring great faculty, it's critical for fundraising, is critical for attracting research grants. So everything that is driving the success of a university is driven by its reputation.

[Stephen Dubner]

Having studied reputation and moral outrage, why do you think that the Palestinian cause became a flashpoint on so many U.S. college campuses?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Very, very good question. We had underneath already some tensions that were kind of ready to explode. That had to do with a certain radicalization of parts of students and also parts of the faculty. And then the question is, what's the trigger? October 7th was particularly horrific event. And as you may remember, there were very quickly statements by students at Harvard and so forth. I would say putting the blame more on the Israeli government. That created a lot of drama at Harvard. Usually when you have student protest or activism, it's the students against the administration. That was not true in this case. You had student groups against student groups, or alumni group against faculty, or faculty against faculty. The campuses were split, in some cases ripped apart. That was different. And that I think created a tremendous amount of additional pressure and difficulty. I think many universities were not ready for that. There was mission drift, there was lack of consistency, was lack of clarity. One reason I think why we got through this much better than most universities is because we had years ago thought hard about what is our purpose, what our operating principles. And then when the challenge came, we were basically ready to put them into action, to apply them. We didn't have to think this through.

[Stephen Dubner]

Okay, so what is your purpose and what are your operating principles?

[Daniel Diermeier]

The way we think about this is that the purpose of a great research university is to provide path breaking research and a transformative education. That's what we believe. So we do not think that universities are political parties and they are not members of political or social movements.

[Stephen Dubner]

And this is something that you've become known for as a practitioner of institutional neutrality. Do you like that term?

[Daniel Diermeier]

That's one of the operating principles. In order to have path breaking research. And in order to have a transformative engagement, you must have an environment of open inquiry where ideas can flow freely. And so we believe that there are three pillars on that. The first one, which we call open forums, which is about free speech, that's very similar to the Chicago principles. We had it actually very early already. It's not something that is new to Vanderbilt. We had already in the 60s, for example. We have a policy on campus that student groups and faculty can invite speakers as they see fit. They don't have to be checked. And in 1967, our students brought Stokely Carmichael, Storm Thurman and Alec Ginsberg all to campus at the same time. 1967 in Nashville.

[Stephen Dubner]

That must have been a fun night.

[Daniel Diermeier]

It was interesting. Okay, so I was very young at the time, but that's a pillar that has been with us for a long time. Second pillar is the institutional neutrality piece, which means that universities, university leaders will not take positions on policy issues or political issues unless they directly affect the core function of the university.

[Stephen Dubner]

Right. But the university presidents who do get involved with political statements say, well, everything affects the core mission of a university because we're teaching young people how to think about the entire world. So your response to that would be

[Daniel Diermeier]

what we wanted to teach how to think, not what to think. We want to create an environment where our faculty or students can take different positions on something and do the hard work of figuring things out. We don't want to tell them from the top. That's the right answer. And that's not, if I give you an example, the Dobbs decision on abortion. There are some universities that have said that this decision is inconsistent with the values of the university. That is not institutional neutrality. How would you think, from a point of view, an institutional neutrality on that? You would say we have people that have different points of view on the Dobbs decision on campus, including among our faculty. For example, we have members of the law school that may have the following position. They may say abortions should be safe, legal and rare. But it's not the Supreme Court that should decide that decision, but Congress or state legislature. And they may say that Roe v. Wade was not decided correctly on judicial grounds. That's an argument that constitutional lawyers will make. That is a well established position among people in law schools. Now, I want that position to be debated. I'm not gonna say from the point of view of the president, you're wrong. You know, if you as a university president say this is the right outcome, then it chills debate. That is A real thing.

[Stephen Dubner]

Have you seen that in your academic career?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, I was fortunate enough to be at Chicago and at Vanderbilt. So we are committed to institutional neutrality.

[Stephen Dubner]

But you're interacting with professors and researchers from all these other institutions.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Oh, yes.

[Stephen Dubner]

Did you feel it from your peers elsewhere?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Absolutely, absolutely. You hear it from faculty kind of sotto voce, you know, when they talk to you. This is particularly a problem for young faculty members that are not tenured or for graduate students. It creates the sense of a party line or institutional orthodoxy. And that is a terrible thing to have at a university. The point of universities is to do the hard work. They're all about expertise. We really look into details and we have gone through a lot of process of learning and research. We are certified as experts in a particular field. That's what entitles you to teach in a law school. Now, if I come in and I say the Dobbs decision is inconsistent with the values of the university, I'm basically pretending like I'm a constitutional lawyer, which I'm not. So I'm sending exactly the wrong signal to our faculty and our students. So institutional neutrality is really about leaders. There's a separate question about what happens in research areas, but this, the institutionality really needs to be understood as a restraint on university leaders. Presidents, provosts, board members, but also deans, department chairs, and so forth.

[Stephen Dubner]

You were giving three pillars. We got through two.

[Daniel Diermeier]

The third one is Vanderbilt's commitment to civil discourse. We are a community that lives and learns together, that uses arguments, that uses fact based reasoning, that has a commitment to listen to each other, that doesn't demonize each other just because we have a different point of view, that's more a cultural thing. In addition to principals, you need to foster culture. We do an enormous amount of work on that with our students. And those three pillars together have really served us well as we were trying to navigate the last few years.

[Stephen Dubner]

Coming up after the break, how much of Daniel Diermeier's perspective comes from his own history?

[Daniel Diermeier]

There were landmines, there were fences that if you touch them, you're automatically killed by automatic machine guns. The whole thing was just horrible.

[Stephen Dubner]

I'm Stephen Dubner, this is Freakonomics Radio. We will be right back.

[Podcast Advertiser/Narrator]

A History of the United States in 100 Objects is a brand new podcast from 99% Invisible and BBC Studios. Each week we're looking at a different object from across American history with a unique story to tell about who we've been, what we've built, and what we've allowed ourselves to forget. Some of these objects are well known, many are not. But all of them carry the story of how we got to this moment. Find a history of the United States and 100 objects on the 99% invisible feed. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

This year's girls trip to Telluride was the best. We one upped ourselves with my Sapphire Preferred card and with 5x points on Chase Travel plus 3 times points on vacation homes with top brands, we got this incredible cabin. It was a mansion. And with three times the points on dining, we ordered a wagyu steak dinner. And that pistachio gelato was too good. So where should we go next year? I've got ideas. Chase Sapphire Preferred the card that's preferred for a reason. Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase bank and a member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Sound familiar? At Mattress Firm, we understand there are many problems that can keep you up at night, like snoring, aches and pains or sleeping hot. Our sleep experts have the unrivaled know how to match you with a mattress that can help. And through Friday at Mattress Firm you can get a Sealy mattress in any size for only $494.99. For the great sleep you deserve, visit Mattress Firm. We make sleep easy. Restrictions apply. See store or.

[Stephen Dubner]

Vanderbilt's campus sits a mile south of downtown Nashville. But on the day that I interviewed Daniel Diermeier, that is not where he was.

[Daniel Diermeier]

I'm in Munich today. Munich, Germany.

[Stephen Dubner]

What are you doing there?

[Daniel Diermeier]

I attended a technology conference and then I had lunch with my mom earlier today. She lives right outside of Munich, so it was a wonderful day for me.

[Stephen Dubner]

So you grew up in West Berlin, is that right?

[Daniel Diermeier]

That's true.

[Stephen Dubner]

Okay, tell me about your childhood. Let's start with when you were born and I'm curious what your parents did for a living.

[Daniel Diermeier]

I was born in 65. I think there are really two aspects of my childhood that were important to me that motivate me to this day. The first one was that I was a first generation student. I'm actually the first of my family to graduate from high school. My dad was trained as a tailor and then became a middle of the range, moderately successful fashion designer. So not Yves Saint Laurent, but something much more moderate than that. And my mother did drawings for fashion magazines. That's how she met him. And then she raised me and my sister. My sister's a beautician. There is really nobody in my close family that really had any academic inclination.

[Stephen Dubner]

So what happened to you? How did you become such an outlier.

[Daniel Diermeier]

That's a good question. So I loved school right from the beginning. I was one of the kids that couldn't get enough. I couldn't decide between classics and history and physics and biology. So everything was of interest to me. And that really became then the goal to become an academic. And then the second thing is where I was born. So I was born in West Berlin, the divided city. We all know it from John Le Carre novels and the Wall and all of that. And what was formative as a young person was the experience of living in a free society right next to a totalitarian state. And this was a nasty border. People may not remember this very well, but the Wall, of course, went right to Berlin. There were landmines, there were fences that if you touch them, you're automatically killed by automatic machine guns. There were German shepherd dogs, AK40. The whole thing was just horrible. And, of course, there was a border that was not intended to keep people out, but to keep people in. So there were many examples of people trying to flee East Germany, tragic stories, stories of incredible heroism. And so that was an important experience. And then later on, when I was in my teenage years, I would go to East Berlin frequently. Oh, and as Germans, we couldn't go through Checkpoint Charlie. We had to take the subway, Friedrichstrasse. And you leave this buzzling, vibrant West Berlin, and you come out on the other side, and all the color is sucked out. There's no street life. There are no cars, there are no cafes. There's nothing.

[Stephen Dubner]

Why did you go there? What were you doing there?

[Daniel Diermeier]

I was just so interested. You have to remember the experience when you grew up in Berlin at the time is you go for a restaurant, you have a great time, you stand right in front of the wall, and then each German border, God, is looking down on you. So that's constantly there. You want to go on vacation, you have to cross the border twice. It's a scary thing. So it's a constant part of your consciousness in your daily life. I want to understand the ideology behind it. You know, Marxism, Leninism, and all of that was, I think, a tremendous fascination to me. But then the final chapter of that was when I was able to get a fellowship to the United States. I was there for one year and then came back to Germany. And then the Wall fell, and I was in Berlin when the Brandenburg Gate opened. And the same nasty East German border guards that would give you a hard time a day earlier, the next day, when it was possible to cross the border without any Checkpoints were the nicest people you're ever gonna meet. They would take pictures, Polaroids. At the time, there were immediately markets that sprang up where people were selling their uniforms or their insignia. It was an amazing thing. And I think the lesson to me was people are people and institutions are really important.

[Stephen Dubner]

Okay, there's a lot in there I wanna ask a few follow up questions about. Cause that's interesting and that puts you in an unusual space for an American university president. Plainly, here's a big. What lessons do you think there are to be learned, positive or negative, about the way that east and West Germany and East and West Berlin were unified, reintegrated?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Oh, that's a big question. I remember these days very, very well. The first thing was how absolutely amazed I was by just the skill of getting this done. I was right there when the Brandbeck gate opened. I was on top of the wall. I ripped my jacket actually getting up there. I still remember to this day what you would expect. The Beethoven's lines and cheap champagne and all of that. But there was Chancellor Cole, President Bush 41 and Francois Mitterrand walking by maybe 10 yards away from me. And I remember very vividly how well this was executed. This was a tricky, tricky situation with the weakening and then collapse of the Soviet Union with reservations from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with Mitterrand, the whole question of European unification. At the same time, what I take away as a big lesson was people were absolutely clear on what they wanted. And Chancellor Kohl, I think, was very clear that he felt that that was a moment for German unification and it had to be seized, no matter the cost. And I think particularly the American foreign policy leadership at the time was absolutely incredible. Then there was also hugely important, a lot of trust that was established. Because these were tricky two years and the personal relationships that the German Chancellor had built, particularly with Francois Mitterrand. There was a famous scene when they held hands in front of the battlefield of Verdun. There was a lot of personal trust that really was necessary to get this enormous accomplishment done.

[Stephen Dubner]

You say that, you know, with some marvel in your voice, so I recognize that you appreciate how important that was. And maybe unlikely, let's say you're going into a situation right now where there's very little trust between whether countries, people, corporations, the university and the public, whatever. How do you think about creating or building a trust where there has been such a stark division? And I ask as an American who's fairly concerned about these things on the macro level.

[Daniel Diermeier]

When I was in high school, there was a lot of criticism of Chancellor Cole, and I was certainly not a big supporter of his politics when I was 15 or 16. And you just have your own ideas and you start thinking about politics. But he was almost made a figure of ridicule. It took me a while to really appreciate what he brought to the table. And there's something, I think humongously important is countries are lucky when they have the leaders that are required for this moment. So Cole was not a great economist. I think he underestimated the economic costs of the German unification, and there were a lot of mistakes that were made. But he was a historian. He understood history, and he understood that this was a historical moment that needed to be seized. The second point was, which brings me back to your trust question is, what Cole realized is that strategy is important, institution is important, but leadership is important, and personal trust between leaders is critical because the French government, Francois Mitterram, had to trust Cole, if you will, wave through, approved the German unification, and then had to trust him that they would not give up on European integration because these things were out of sync, if you will. So what's the big lesson here? It's very, very easy to demonize the other side and to focus on what divides us and to see, like, well, you know, if you have this point of view, I'm outraged by that. And then there's what sometimes called a rush to righteousness, often in politics. So we not only disagree, but we think that the other person really is immoral based on having those beliefs. And my strong sense from this is that there's so much we have in common as people, and we need to emphasize that. And what he did, he emphasized the history, the personal suffering from the Second World War as a motivator for European and German unification. That brings people together. Sharing a meal brings people together. Family stories brings people together. There are these very important things that just remind us that we're all people and we all have our stories and we all have our struggles, and creating this commonality is enormously important.

[Stephen Dubner]

You said that having a leader for the moment is important. I think we can all recognize and appreciate that. How do you see Donald Trump as a leader for this moment?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, I think what we have is a tremendously polarized country right now, and I think the politics of our country reflect the polarization.

[Stephen Dubner]

Do you think Trump is more an emblem of that as opposed to a primary driver of that or.

[Daniel Diermeier]

No, politicians in a democracy are. They're both a reflection, and they can reinforce things. When you're lucky, you have somebody who is exactly the right person. There's so many complicated aspects to this, how we think about the political situation right now, but no doubt is that having a focus on depolarizing, bringing people together is a very good idea. So I really understand politics. I know why people take positions on that. I see it in variety of different ways. I see it in different levels of government. But our job, I think, as people that have responsibility in particular parts of society, is to focus on what we are supposed to do and in my case, universities, and then look at how we fit into the broader issues. And the dangers of having countries ripped apart by polarization are non trivial.

[Stephen Dubner]

Let's say someone in the Trump White House is listening to this conversation and says Diermeier gets it. And he's got the history with Germany, he's got a political science background and he understands how institutions work, how they rise and fall, and how trust is a main lubricant of that. And we in the Trump administration think that we have some work to do. So let's bring him down here, let's bring him in, sit with the President and make him a trust czar for a couple of weeks or months. What do you do?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, I think the key thing is always to focus on the concerns and the goals that people have in common. Right. So just to bring it a little bit back at a more manageable scale for me, we're in Nashville. Nashville is a Democratic mayor. Then we have a Republican governor, we have a Republican state legislature, and of course now we have Republican federal government and we have before the Democratic one. We need to work with everybody. That is absolutely essential for us. And the way I think you do this as a leader is you find the type of things that people can agree on. The magnets, if you will, rather than the wedges.

[Stephen Dubner]

So what are the magnets in the US Right now?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, I think there's critical questions about economic competitiveness, national security. Of course there are issues such as innovation in general, universities can play an enormously important role in that, in addition to their educational mission. And they have almost every technology that we can think of right now either was invented or had a tremendous contribution being made by university researchers. That's an important thing and that is not a partisan issue.

[Stephen Dubner]

So universities, as this massive contributor historically in the United States, especially to the innovation economy, it's pretty obvious if you think about it for a minute, Silicon Valley wouldn't exist without Stanford. And you can see that across the country. How do you look at that contribution right now, do you think it's declining a little bit or a lot? Or maybe you're going going to tell me? It's not that.

[Daniel Diermeier]

I think is going really well. Of the multiple ways in which universities and society interact, the innovation machine of universities really humming, whether you look at cancer therapies, whether you look at quantum advanced manufacturing, national security, I mean every aspect of that you can think about. And AI, of course, universities are doing great work and so that is going

[Stephen Dubner]

super well from the outside. I could imagine that there's concern though, only because it seems like the momentum is moving out of the universities. Now, if you're a really good university researcher, you're going to be targeted by private firms immediately. And maybe you won't leave, maybe you'll just take on a consulting role, but your time may certainly be divided. Also, we hear more and more about the kind of researchers who would come to the US from elsewhere and are no longer coming in such number or maybe leaving and so on. So give me some data to back up your continuing enthusiasm for this movement.

[Daniel Diermeier]

It's very hard to get systematic data on that. There's multiple things that one needs to look at. One of them is what's the transition from university researchers to the private sector. Where we do see that to some extent is in AI, right? With the hyperscalers and so forth. Now, again, not the first time we've seen this. We've seen, for example, when the birth of Google and ebay and so forth, there was a sudden interest in people to understand auction design and things like that. That is perfectly fine. But you can also see, of course is two years ago everybody would have said there's insatiable demand for programmers and now people are cutting their workforce. So this is just the way this goes. It's like if there's a particular demand in a particular development need, where university professors or researchers, that level of talent is needed, they compete on that. And then as the businesses move on and they have other challenges, that changes again. So that doesn't bother me so much. The more fundamental question is that the tools that are being provided by OpenAI, Anthropic and so forth, they will have a revolutionary impact on doing research, that's for sure, and that we're seeing. And they were to a large extent not developed inside of universities. But again, it's not the first time in history. This happened when we had particle accelerators, they were developed by national labs and then university research would participate in that. Now, negotiating this relationship is complicated, but these things tend to happen in waves. We're certainly not seeing a big exodus. The second stream is like people leaving the country. Again, very hard to get data on that. We have to be careful that this anecdote or that is not kind of dominating the conversation. You really have to have systematic data on that. When you look at what are the opportunities right now. And by the way, nobody should relax about the threats to funding and the funding uncertainty and all of these things that are going on with research funding right now, that's a big deal. But is that enough so that people will pack up and go to Britain, go to Germany, go to Canada or go to China? Moving to a different country, if you have, you know, you're a researcher, it's a big deal. They have tremendous funding challenges in the uk, the Middle east, of course with the war, there is not an attractive place to be. And then you go to France or you go to Germany, that's an entirely different thing. And the funding levels are just not comparable to what you have in the United States. And unless you are like a Chinese national of Chinese origin, do you want to go to China? So my worry is more like about the other side attracting talent, particularly for graduate students and postdocs. The ability to attract the world's leading scientific talent is absolutely essential for the country, always has been, certainly since the Second World War.

[Stephen Dubner]

So it's especially interesting to hear you say that as a German, because of course Germany had the most influential university system in the world for most of the 19th century, part of the 20th century. I don't know whether you would attribute the decline and fall to Hitler per se, but how do you think universities today, including your own and others in the US stack up to that model? And do you see Germany as a cautionary tale in any way?

[Daniel Diermeier]

100%, it's a very cautionary tale. I mean, the University of Berlin, which was founded in 1810, was the model for the great modern research university. It heavily influenced the creation of places like Hopkins, University of Chicago and was the greatest university in the world. They had like one fourth of all Nobel laureates were from that one university. Planck was there, Einstein was there. It was unbelievable. And then of course the Nazis destroyed it. And then that created this tremendous exodus of scientists to the United States. And you just look at the names. Von Neumann, Fermi, just on the physics side. Amazing talent that was absolutely critical for establishing science leadership in the United States, including in the Manhattan Project. Of course, many of them were foreign born. So to be a destination for the world's great talent is really a good idea because you're getting the best and the brightest. You're getting the very, very top from around the world. They have received a lot of education already and they're motivated and they're willing to take risks. There's a tremendous asset.

[Stephen Dubner]

So where would you put the US Now? Because there are some people who say that the Trump administration and the general public turn against the mission of the university is severe enough to really damage the US Univers university reputation.

[Daniel Diermeier]

Well, I think these are two different things. Right. There's one question about the reputation of the universities, which we need to dig in a little bit deeper. That is a very serious question. And of course, the reputation leads also to actions being taken by the administration and by Congress. If we just focus on the research funding. My sense is that it's a bit of a flesh wound right now. If it continues for longer, that would really be destructive because we cannot be a scientific superpower without funding and without being a destination for the world's great talent.

[Stephen Dubner]

Coming up after the break, Vanderbilt University may be coming soon to a city near you.

[Daniel Diermeier]

I can't replicate this in Nashville. You need to be there on site to take advantage of this.

[Stephen Dubner]

I'm Steven Dubner. This is Freakonomics Radio. We will be right back with more from Daniel Diermeier.

[Podcast Advertiser/Narrator]

A History of the United States in 100 Objects is a brand new podcast from 99% Invisible and BBC Studios. Each week we're looking at a different object from across American history with a unique story to tell about who we been, what we've built and what we've allowed ourselves to forget. Some of these objects are well known, many are not. But all of them carry the story of how we got to this moment. Find a history of the United States and 100 objects on the 99% invisible feed. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

Our trip up the coast was perfection. With my Sapphire preferred card, we earned three times the points on gas, online, grocery and dining.

[Daniel Diermeier]

It was amazing.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

2 Taste Sapphire preferred the card that's preferred for a reason. Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase bank and a member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply. I'm Hannah. I've lost 75 pounds in 20 months with GLP1s diet and exercise on roe. I've gone from struggling to run a mile to running farther every day. You can access FDA approved GLP1s online. Get the support you need to reach your weight loss goals. Go to Ro Co Weight to see if you qualify. I'm a paid row partner 20% average weight loss in one year in non diabetics with obesity or overweight with a weight related medical condition versus 3.1% in placebo arm RX only. To stay informed about serious side effects, go to RO Co Safety.

[Stephen Dubner]

Daniel Diermeier became chancellor of Vanderbilt University in July of 2020. He recently had his contract extended through 2035, a major vote of confidence from his board. So most university presidents, including you, start off as university professors and at some you get chosen for or steered toward the administrative path. Do you think that makes sense? Because running university these days is like running a mid sized corporation or maybe a conglomerate. And no offense to you or your peers, but most people who set out to be professors have very little experience in that realm. So I'm curious what you think of this process for choosing presidents or chancellors

[Daniel Diermeier]

is a very good question. People sometimes say it's the hardest job in America. I actually disagree with that. I think it's a great job. But the reason why I think it is so challenging, especially today, is because it's really three jobs. Job one is you have to have domain expertise and you have to constantly make decisions on that. How do we think about from an education on AI, do we want to invest in Quantum? Yes or no. And then there's all the intricacies of just running an academic institution. Number two is you are basically the CEO of a mid sized business and it's a complicated business. It has the educational part and that's what most people think about. They think the university chancellor or president is like a headmaster of a school, but a little bit bigger. We have a $1.3 billion research activity every year. We have a corporate real estate function which is extensive. We have an asset management business, if you want to call it that. That's our endowment. We have a relationship with a hospital. We don't run their hospital, but we have a close partnership. It's almost kind of private equity relationship. And then oh yes, we also have college athletics at the highest level in the sec. And then the third role is you're like a mayor of a small town. You're a politician with all the challenges that comes with that. And you have to have relationships with the real mayor of Nashville. So these are different skill sets. And great presidents in some sense are able to do all three. So you're correct that most academic leaders come from the first pillar, if you will. They are academic leaders and they know this very well. They've been usually deans or provost or something like that. Now they may not have run a complicated business, and that's a challenge. And they may also not know or may not like to go to Washington, interact with members of Congress or the administration, which is a whole nother skill set. Now, the question is, if you pick somebody who is a CEO, or people sometimes pick military leader or senior politicians to run a university. Now you're missing the first one, which means in practice that the provost is running the academic side because it's too complicated. And I think the analogy you want to think about is, let's say you're a big law firm. Lawyers are not trained as managers either. They usually have a career as a partner in a law firm, and then they're being picked in a managing director. My sense is that we absolutely must do a better job in educating academic leaders in the nuts and bolts of the business side and the political side. But I think it's very difficult to do that without having real academic domain expertise.

[Stephen Dubner]

Fair enough. But let's say you do have great academic expertise and someone is identified, someone like you, who plainly was identified as having those other abilities as well. I mean, you were teaching in a business school, correct?

[Daniel Diermeier]

That helped. Yes.

[Stephen Dubner]

But let's say someone doesn't have that. I mean, universities have been around a long time. Why has a better training channel not been set up for that? To take the talented academics who you want to be running an academic institution, but don't necessarily have those administrative skills and train them up. Because to me, it seems like a fairly random process at the moment. I'll be honest with you, I think

[Daniel Diermeier]

that's a fair point. What's the reason? I can only speculate. I don't have any data or anything like that. I think it is a little bit. You have to be bilingual or trilingual. If you don't want to talk about the balance sheet or the income statement or the HR function. Even training will not get you there. I think you have to have a taste for it. If you save $50,000 on elevator repair, you can take the $50,000 and change the life of a nursing student forever.

[Stephen Dubner]

So a lot of colleges and universities are failing, going out of business or in deep financial distress. I just read a piece in maybe the Chronicle of Higher Ed about how a lot of schools are hiring interim CFOs to stop the bleeding. Vanderbilt, meanwhile, you're expanding. There's a new San Francisco area campus from the California College for the Arts. There's a New York City campus opening in former seminary buildings in Chelsea. Talk to me about this expansionist appetite, how you're able to do it, what the goals are.

[Daniel Diermeier]

We're doing four things at once. You mentioned San Francisco, you mentioned New York. We are also in the process of building a campus in West Palm beach, and we are also in the process of building what we call a quantum campus in Chattanooga, Tennessee. And each one of them, there's a strategic vision behind these four entities, but they all have their specific instantiation and way to think about them. The premise is that great universities today and for the future need to be deeply integrated with their innovation ecosystems. Once you believe that, then where you are matters. I was fortunate enough to start my career at Stanford from 94 to 97. So I was there when the Internet was born and it was described incredible symbiosis between Stanford and Silicon Valley. Magic was created. And we've seen this in a couple of other areas of the country as well. Pittsburgh on robotics is an example. So we're not trying to do what people sometimes call a franchise system. We're not trying to do what we're doing well in Nashville and now do that in San Francisco as well.

[Stephen Dubner]

You're also not opening satellites in the Middle east, which many universities have done.

[Daniel Diermeier]

No, we're not doing that.

[Stephen Dubner]

And why is that? Other than the fact that it might be seen as a pure cash grab?

[Daniel Diermeier]

We never even thought about it. Seriously, whenever we do something, it needs to be a clear strategic rationale. So what's the strategic rationale in Chattanooga? Well, I start with that because people usually ask, that's kind of, well, why Chattanooga? That's just an hour and a half away. Well, we have the capability and the possibility to be one of the leaders in the quantum revolution. Quantum engineering, Quantum science. Chattanooga 15, 20 years ago built the best fiber optics network in the Western hemisphere. And in the last few years they have developed a quantum testbed. And there are already some kind of corporate partners there. But they have difficulty attracting PhD level talent at the level that we can attract. So we're going to have about 50 faculty there, 100 students, mostly graduate students, but also destination for undergraduates, because you need to be there on site to take advantage of this. In New York, it's very different. In New York, we think that our students and our faculty would benefit to have the ability to spend some time in a great global city. Because if you want to work in healthcare, or you want to work in entertainment, or you're going to work, for example, in mobility, Nashville is fantastic. It's great. But if you want to work in media, you want to work in the arts, you want to work in finance. New York is fantastic.

[Stephen Dubner]

So this is a campus for students to go for four years or more, to rotate through.

[Daniel Diermeier]

No, no, no. Think about study away. Let's say you are a senior. You really have an interest in a career in the media. And so it's very important that we're deeply connected with internships and with companies there. We can house around 100 students per semester. We have faculty there. So that's what the campus does. That's New York. Florida is really very different. West Palm beach is exploding, and there we're interested in business, particularly the intersection of business and technology. And certain areas of engineering, space, defense, cleantech are really great in that area. And so these are areas that we have a lot of interest and we have already strength in the universities, but again, defense tech, there's just not that much around us.

[Stephen Dubner]

How big will that be?

[Daniel Diermeier]

Probably about 1,000 students and 100 faculty, mostly graduate students. Again with a destination for undergraduates that want to work in this area. San Francisco is still very much in the planning phase. What's attractive about San Francisco, it's arguably the world capital of innovation and it has the strong artistic community as well.

[Stephen Dubner]

How much were you involved in the choosing of the sites? Did some of this predate you?

[Daniel Diermeier]

No, that's all. That's all.

[Stephen Dubner]

That's all you. Wow, you've been busy.

[Daniel Diermeier]

It's a great role. It's a great responsibility.

[Stephen Dubner]

So what's the larger goal here? Is Vanderbilt trying to become a national brand? What would you do with that kind of market power?

[Daniel Diermeier]

We're already a national brand. I would say so. We've seen, in part because of the. I think the way we handled October 7th, better than many of our peers, we've seen a tremendous increase in applications.

[Stephen Dubner]

I know universities love to drive down the acceptance or admission percent, which to me is a strangely paradoxical goal for a university, which is to open up learning to everyone. But you become more successful by being more exclusive. How do you think about that paradox?

[Daniel Diermeier]

There's a good debate to think about. How do we broaden our impact on students? But right now that's what we do. We want to be a destination for the most talented students and we want to compete for them. We want to be an environment where people can perform at the highest level, and that includes being surrounded by people that have a similar level of determination and background and so forth. If I see demand for students going up to Vanderbilt, particularly the type of students that I want to attract, To Vanderbilt. That's a good thing.

[Stephen Dubner]

You have been very patient in answering my many questions about problems and the things that worry you, what lights you

[Daniel Diermeier]

up these days, I think that is utterly critical for everyone who is in a leadership role today is that there are these foundational institutions that are, I think, at the core, at the root of the success of our societies. Their universities, their democracies, rule of law, market based economies, media. There's a bunch of them, all of them right now are under attack and all of them have lost their trust. To a certain extent, I think we have a tendency to focus on the problems and that's great. We need to reform, we need to get things better. But let's not forget the tremendous good that many of these institutions do. Every day when I interact with our undergraduates, and I do it on a regular basis, I have dinner with a group of undergraduates. I see how they've embraced a culture of civil discourse on campus, how they live that and how much they're motivated by having an impact in the world. It's amazing. This may sound like an overstatement, but I don't really care. When I look at these students, let's say 30 years from now, they run the country. We're in fine shape. That's enormously impressive to see what they're doing and they're doing it the right way.

[Stephen Dubner]

That again, was Daniel Diermeyer, chancellor of Vanderbilt University. Let me know what you thought of this episode or if you have any ideas for future episodes. Our email is radioeeconomics.com Coming up next time on the show, we hear from Dartmouth President Sian Bailock, another scholar turned administrator who spent time at the University of Chicago. But her background is in psychology, in the business of helping young people reach their potential. So it's something I pay a lot of attention to. We'll talk about what schools owe their students.

[Daniel Diermeier]

I actually think that we should be

[Stephen Dubner]

responsible for our student outcomes and how they need to deliver it. We're not a political organization. We're not a social advocacy organization. We have a very clear mission. And when people trust in that mission, they trust you. That's next time on the show. Until then, take care of yourself and if you can, someone else too. Freakonomics Radio is produced by Renbud Radio. You can find our entire archive on any podcast app. It's [e-mail] where we publish transcripts and show notes. This episode was produced by Pete Madden and edited by Gabriel Ross. It was mixed by Jake Loomis with help from Jeremy Johnston. The Freakonomics Radio Network staff also includes Augusta Chapman, Dalvin Abuaji, Eleanor Osborne, Ellen Frankman, Elsa Hernandez, Ilaria Montenacourt, Mandy Gorenstein, and Teo Jacobs. Our theme song is Mr. Fortune by the Hitchhikers and our composer is Luis Guerra. As always, thanks for listening.

[Daniel Diermeier]

We had a very good year in football. We were terrible six years ago and nobody thought that we could do it. I mean, we had an op ed in the Tennessean when I started that basically said Vanderbilt should leave the SEC because you're an embarrassment to the conference. And so looking back to that now, we can say, wow.

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

The Freakonomics Radio Network the Hidden side of Everything.

[Daniel Diermeier]

This podcast is sponsored by Made in Cookware. Made in partners with multi generational artisans and some of the world's best chefs to create professional quality cookware, knives and kitchen tools. Their products are trusted in Michelin starred restaurants worldwide and designed to perform just

[Podcast Advertiser/Narrator]

as well in your kitchen.

[Daniel Diermeier]

From five ply stainless clad to carbon steel, every piece is built to last and made to actually make you a better cook.

[Podcast Advertiser/Narrator]

Discover award Winning [e-mail] A History of the United States in 100 Objects is a brand new podcast from 99% Invisible and BBC Studios. Each week we're looking at a different object from across American history with a unique story to tell about who we've been, what we've built, and what we've allowed ourselves to forget. Some of these objects are well known, many are not, but all of them carry the story of how we got to this moment. Find A History of the United States and 100 objects on the 99% invisible feed. Wherever you get your podcasts, this year's

[Chase Sapphire Preferred Advertiser]

Girls trip to Telluride was the best. We one upped ourselves with my Sapphire Preferred card and with 5 times points on Chase Travel plus 3 times points on vacation homes with top brands, we got this incredible cabin. It was a mansion and with three times the points on dining, we ordered a Wagyu steak dinner and that pistachio gelato was too good. So where should we go next year? I've got ideas. Chase Sapphire preferred the card that's preferred for a reason. Cards issued by JPMorgan Chase bank and a member FDIC subject to credit approval terms apply.