Leading Through Polarization—with Principle and Purpose

As someone whose Irish immigrant ancestors once faced exclusion, a deep commitment to fostering belonging is in my DNA. Every year on the first day of school, my mother would urge us to “find the new kids and make them feel welcome.” That ethic shaped my path—and continues to guide my leadership.

As a first-generation college graduate, I’m passionate about extending the opportunities that a degree opened for me. That means reaching out to students who might not see college as part of their future—and ensuring they have the support to not just enroll, but to graduate and thrive.

At CU, I was proud of the structural progress we made: appointing diverse leadership based on merit, holding tuition flat, expanding student support, and embedding inclusive excellence into our strategic plan. We significantly improved graduation rates across all demographics and broadened access through digital learning and outreach—efforts made more complex by the pandemic, which limited direct engagement for much of my tenure.

Still, in the emotionally raw aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and the national reckoning that followed, some faculty and activists felt our efforts weren’t enough. I led with constitutional clarity and institutional stewardship—prioritizing durable impact over symbolism. Every initiative was aligned with the university’s mission and the law. But for some seeking highly visible, identity-based gestures, that didn’t go far enough. I understand that. Belonging is personal, and moments of national pain often sharpen the desire for immediate recognition.

I chose to act in ways that were inclusive, grounded, and principled—not performative. That distinction can be misunderstood in highly charged moments, but it protects long-term trust and institutional strength.

My experience at CU—and the transition that followed—left me better attuned to the tensions universities face and better equipped to lead through them. I understand more deeply the urgency behind calls for inclusion and the concerns of those who question identity-based approaches. That experience gives me greater credibility to speak across the divide—to build coalitions that broaden access, uphold free inquiry, and deliver the diverse talent our states and nation need.

When the CU Board of Regents chose to take the institution in a different direction—despite having rated my performance as exceeding expectations—I prioritized the university’s stability and reputation. I worked collaboratively with the Regents on a thoughtful transition. They unanimously adopted the strategic plan I led and honored me with the designation of President Emeritus.

As the Denver Post editorial board wrote: “We are displeased and a little sickened by the orchestrated opposition to Kennedy based not on his qualifications but on his political affiliation. The CU Faculty Council has set out to demonize Kennedy in a disturbing manner…”

That moment was difficult—but it strengthened my resolve. Today, I remain committed to leading with humility, clarity, and a steady focus on the values that sustain great public universities: access, academic freedom, public trust, and principled inclusion.