Uncommon Interview: Outgoing IOP Director Heidi Heitkamp

Heidi Heitkamp, the outgoing director of the Institute of Politics (IOP), sat down with the Maroon last month to discuss her tenure as director, challenges the IOP faces going forward, and her future plans.

The former U.S. senator has led the IOP since January 2023. The IOP announced in January that Heitkamp will step down later this year following a “global search” for her replacement. She will stay on as a member of the IOP’s board of advisors after her departure.

Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Chicago Maroon: What do you see as your major accomplishments as IOP director?

Heidi Heitkamp: In this transition between a founder—David [Axelrod]—and thinking broadly about what the next 10 years of the IOP look like, I think we set it on a good trajectory. The one thing that I would say that I’m probably most proud of is I think we’ve increased the collaboration across programs…. Before I came here, the place was pretty siloed. By that I mean, civic engagement did their thing, career development did their thing, speakers did their thing, [Pritzker] Fellows did their thing.

What we’ve really tried to do with the staff is say, “Look, we’re student-facing.” We have to look at a student who is thinking: “I want to be an ambassador for a fellow who works in climate.” How can we help that same student find an internship in climate? How can we find an opportunity for them to engage in the community in a way that helps them build their climate resume? So to me, [one of my major accomplishments at the IOP has been] the collaboration across the various groups that we operate.

The second thing is broadening the scope of [the IOP’s] Bridging the Divide [initiative]. As we have seen more and more political discourse becoming very siloed, very, very rancorous, [we aim] to try and figure out how we can engage students in ways that give them the skills to engage in respectful dialogue. And so [with] Bridging the Divide, we did our big conference on urban–rural [division]. Now, with [the] Divided We Stand [initiative], we’re looking not just at urban–rural divisions but gender divisions, cultural divisions, religious divisions.

David [Axelrod] ran Bridging the Divide, but it was a much more contained program. It involved taking 15 students and having them engage across with other universities, other campuses. My feeling was that those 15 students could have gotten a great advantage, but in this time of polarization… broadening Bridging the Divide is responsive to the times we’re in.

A lot of this, to be fair, has been driven by our student advisory groups. My goal coming here was to maintain, if not increase, student-facing reaction. By that I mean the ability of students to come here and say, “This is more of what we need from the IOP.” We’ve always been student-facing, but I think we’ve really tried to make it much more about our students.

CM: The University’s financial issues have been under the spotlight for much of your time as director. How have those concerns affected programming at the IOP, if at all?

HH: This has been a difficult time because of the University budget concerns.… We haven’t been able to hire because of] the hiring freeze, [so] people have been doing double time. We used to do a lot of programming that involved students being able to get subsidized trips; I don’t think we’re as robust [as we used to be] in that area.

The one thing that I would say that I have refused to do, that I think other programs have, is eliminate any of our internships. I think there’s some programs that have gotten rid of their academic-year internships—it means that our applications tripled. And so, to me, [eliminating internships] is a nonstarter.

CM: How do you see the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal government affecting the IOP and similar institutions at other universities?

HH: There’s been plenty of students who want to work in this administration. But we’re seeing more students wanting to have an internship experience that is outside of government, and I think that’s good. Looking at state and local [government] is an important recalibration, because I think way too often students think that the only experience that’s worthwhile is in Washington, D.C., and I disagree with that. If I compared my internship in D.C. that I did when I was a junior in college with my internship at the North Dakota legislature, the North Dakota legislature had a much greater impact on how I thought about my role. I ended up being a state official, and I’m not sure I would have done that without that experience in the state legislature.

So what I would say is that it has now broadened our thinking about how we do more hometown internships, which is a favorite program of mine. How do we be responsive in the moment? And then how do we become a place for dialogue for students who are concerned?… There’s just a lot of students on campus who haven’t been all that interested in politics and now are approaching our student leaders because all of a sudden they’re not going to get into a Ph.D. program because [the National Institute of Health’s] money has dried up. And so, I think it’s a real opportunity to bring non-traditional students to the IOP who now realize the impact of government decisions on a much broader swath of America.

So, we’re looking for the opportunities: the opportunities to build state and local leadership experiences, internship experiences; the opportunity to have programming for students who would not otherwise have an interest in politics that now are saying, “Whoa whoa whoa, I guess this could affect me”; and an opportunity for reflection for a lot of students on how this vote happened.

And then one thing that we’re deeply concerned about is the future of science. That’s one thing I’m very excited about and will stay engaged and involved in, which is this political intersection between science and scientific discovery and politics. That’s a role we can play at a university that’s a major research university.

CM: Could you talk a bit about what happened during pro-Palestine protesters’ occupation of the IOP last year?

HH: I was right here, actually, doing a hit with ABC. I’m an ABC contributor. I wasn’t on air yet—I was waiting to go on air. And the door burst open because I always keep the door shut when I’m doing this. I had heard the protesters come down.… I thought, maybe they’ll move on so that background noise won’t be there. And all of a sudden, the door burst open, and three masked protesters came in the door. The first thing they said is, “You have to leave.” They clearly did not want me in this building. And I said, “No, I don’t think I do.” And then in the meantime, ABC is like, “What’s going on?” So I kept saying, “Just let me do the ABC hit. Let me do the ABC hit, and we can talk about this.” And they were not having any of that.

Eventually I just said, “I’m not leaving.” And they said, “Well, you know, you’re going to get hurt.” And I said, “Who’s going to hurt me?” It was not well thought out on their part in terms of how they were going to occupy this building. The only time that I got irritated is when I heard them throwing furniture because I thought, “You don’t need to do that.”

But we had a great conversation about why they were in this building. I never really did understand [why], and I wanted to say, this is a place where—well, I wouldn’t say it’s First Amendment hallowed ground; that’s a little grandiose—but it is a place where we want to be respectful of all opinions. And it was our feeling that, to maintain that obligation we have on this campus, we can’t just simply capitulate; we have to engage. And so that’s what happened. Eventually, after 20, 30 minutes, that’s when the police came in, and the [protesters] jumped out the window.

I like to think that, as somebody who is here as a steward of the ideals of the IOP, that that was a period in time where we reflected those ideas. Let’s engage in dialogue, respectful dialogue.

CM: Looking back at your tenure at the IOP, is there anything you wish you had done differently as director?

HH: I wish I had more time. And, you know, that was self-imposed. I made a three-year commitment and knew that I really could not take any more time away from my family. And so, you know, it always takes you about a year to get your feet underneath you and another year to get people to trust you, and so I feel like we’re kind of hitting on all cylinders. But when I leave here, I’ll go on to the advisory board—I mean, I’m not really leaving the IOP in terms of thought participation on what this [institution] should be.

I’m trying to think of regrets. I mean, I am somebody who does a lot of evaluation at the moment, right? So if I think I’m not articulating or not doing enough with students, I’ll try and correct that. This has been a journey of, what can we do differently? How are we going to respond to students who have legitimate concerns about whether we’ve been responsive to their issues? How can we do better?… If I had to leave with one goal, I would say expanding the internship programs would be a huge goal. I once told [a group of College parents that] my goal for the IOP would be that every student who qualified and wanted an internship could get one. And I don’t think we’re there.

CM: You spoke about budgetary issues a bit earlier. What do you see as the biggest challenges for the IOP going forward, after you leave this role?

HH: Funding—to fully fund all the things that we should be doing here on campus, especially expanding our internship program and our civic engagement. I think we do a great job with speakers. I think we do a great job with Fellows, thanks to the Pritzker family. We have what we can manage there.… I think the next IOP director is going to have to be very forward-facing on funding challenges and fundraising.

[And] continuing to build out student engagement. Listening to students. To me, a fellowship is successful when I hear a fellow say, “My favorite part is office hours. I love the kids”—I had someone tell me that reason. And I just think, “Now I’m glad we picked you because you get it, you get why we’re here,” which is to expose people [to nontraditional figures with] the Pritzker Fellow program, to not just have more traditional former elected officials. Even if you’re picking former elected officials like Jon Tester, Jon Tester’s been teaching people a lot about farming, about nutrition, and that’s something that students wouldn’t otherwise [learn about].

Obviously, Pete [Buttigieg] is a fan favorite, but you know, he’s not really saying anything different than what he says every day. That’s valuable for students, and I’m grateful that he has accepted the opportunity. But we also want to expose students to a whole different way of thinking about how they can engage civically, rather than just traditional political engagement. We want to maintain that responsibility, but we also want to say, “You can do it through art, you can do it through music, you can do it through your religion—you know, how does that work? As a scientist, what do you need to do to be engaged?”

CM: What is next for you? What do you plan to do after you step down from the director role?

HH: I have a lot of obligations and responsibilities beyond the IOP. Because I knew that this was time-limited, I didn’t really cut back on a lot of my nonprofit work [or] civic engagement. I’ve been very involved in pro-democracy work since I left the Senate. So for me, what this will do is give me more time with my husband and my new grandbaby. It’s almost cliché, “Oh, I’m leaving to spend more time with my family.” But I’m turning 70 this year, and so for me, that was kind of a pivotal point of, you have maybe, God willing, another 10 years of runway. How are you going to use it?

Like I said, that will include staying very involved in the IOP. They may want me to come back and moderate a program; they may want me to come back and do a student engagement [program]. I’m [still] going to be engaged here at the University of Chicago, even though I won’t be the director of the IOP.

CM: Has there been any progress on the search to find a new director?

HH: It’s very robust. We’re just very grateful that there’s been so many really great candidates who have stepped forward. We continue to work with the University, because obviously the University will be part of that process, the president and the provost, but we’re excited about the depth and the experiences of the applicants.