When We Disagree

Andrew Perrin, SNF-Agora professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, reflects on leading a high-stakes effort to redesign general education at the University of North Carolina, revealing how institutional change sparks deep and often personal disagreements about what students really need to learn. What begins as a debate over course requirements becomes a broader argument about the purpose of higher education itself. Perrin describes shifting the focus from content coverage to core capacities like asking questions, evaluating evidence, and acting on informed judgment. The conversation highlights how academic turf wars, incentives, and identity shape conflict, even among experts. Ultimately, this conversation reframes argument as a fundamental skill at the heart of education, citizenship, and public life.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Jennifer Borda, professor of communication at the University of New Hampshire and the co-director of the Civil Discourse Lab, reflects on a family crisis that sparked a lasting insight into the nature of conflict. A painful confrontation with her father during her mother’s final days reveals how fear, grief, and loss of control often drive arguments more than the surface issue. The conversation explores the limits of language in moments of emotional intensity and the unseen forces shaping what people say. Drawing on her work in civil discourse, Borda highlights how storytelling can open space for understanding and shift deeply held positions. The episode connects personal experience to a broader framework for navigating conflict with greater awareness and empathy.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Sarah Igo, the Andrew Jackson chair in American history at Vanderbilt University and the faculty director of Dialogue Vanderbilt, explores why some people rarely experience heated conflict and what that reveals about how we argue. Drawing on her research into privacy and public life, she makes a bold case: over time, reasoned arguments can actually reshape culture, even if the process is slow and uneven. Igo contrasts the generative disagreements of academia with the more chaotic clashes of public life, asking what we lose when arguments abandon evidence and curiosity. The conversation digs into how institutions like universities can model better discourse and why that matters now more than ever. It’s a thoughtful, quietly optimistic take on disagreement as a force for intellectual and democratic progress.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

A firsthand witness to January 6 recounts a surreal argument at a casual gathering. Sherman Tylawsky, founder of the George Washington Institute and host of the Friends and Fellow Citizens podcast, reflects on the emotional weight of hearing the event dismissed as fictional, even as he recalls being locked down inside the Capitol. The conversation explores where disagreement breaks down: when people no longer share basic facts. Rather than escalate, Tylawsky models a strategy of grounding conflict in shared values: rejecting violence and reaffirming democratic norms. It’s a powerful look at how civic trust frays and how it might be rebuilt through principled, human-centered dialogue.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

What happens when a heated professional conflict comes back years later with unexpected consequences? In this episode, Bill Imada, Chairman and Chief Connectivity Officer at IW Group, shares a high-stakes agency clash that nearly burned a bridge only to reveal a deeper lesson about communication, trust, and second chances. Drawing on IW Group's research into national civility trends, he discusses a striking paradox: most people believe they’re civil, yet expect others not to be. This dynamic fuels silence, avoidance, and missed opportunities for connection. Together, we explore how incivility isn’t just loud and aggressive, but also quiet and withdrawn and why both are dangerous. The path forward? Curiosity, courage, and conversations that bring more voices to the table before it’s too late.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

In this episode of When We Disagree, host Michael Lee sits down with advocate Radia Baxter, a community advocate and political advisor in South Carolina, explores a powerful tension: our desire for economic growth without equal access to opportunity. Drawing from her experience as a teen mother who defied expectations, Baxter shares how personal adversity shaped her commitment to second chances and community empowerment. She argues that true “significant success” means helping others see their own value and bringing them along in the process. From leading programs inside detention centers to building trust across divides, Baxter reveals how vulnerability, access, and belief can transform lives. This conversation explores what it really takes to create opportunity and why trust is the foundation of it all.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Wilk Wilkinson, host of the Derate the Hate podcast and a leader with Braver Angels, about what it really takes to bridge deep divides. During the pandemic, Wilk worked at a job where he was forced to enforce a mask mandate he disagreed with. The tension between his personal belief and professional responsibility was powerful, and that moment sparked a personal and professional transformation in his life. He dedicated himself to depolarization and constructive dialogue. This conversation explores why curiosity, humility, and a willingness to be wrong are essential for meaningful conversations, why “you can’t hate someone into changing their mind.” Wilk offers a hopeful vision: if more people embraced these habits of curiosity, we might move from zero-sum politics toward genuine understanding and shared solutions.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

School choice sparks some of the most heated arguments in education, and Shaka Mitchell, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and the founder of the Come Together Music Project, lives them firsthand. From tense legislative showdowns to personal confrontations, he explains why the issue cuts so deeply and what’s really at stake for families. Drawing on his own upbringing, Mitchell makes the case for expanding educational options while engaging seriously with critics’ concerns about equity and community impact. But beyond policy, he reflects on what years of disagreement have taught him: most opponents share the same core values, even if they clash on solutions. The conversation ultimately asks how we can argue fiercely, listen generously, and build broader coalitions without losing conviction.

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

John Inazu, the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis, reflects on a painful argument with his father and what it taught him about humility, boundaries, and repairing relationships. Inazu, author of Liberty's Refuge, Confident Pluralism, and his newest book, Learning to Disagree, shares why our hardest conflicts often happen with the people we love most. The conversation explores why online arguments rarely lead to understanding, how shared humanity can rebuild common ground, and why institutions like universities still matter for healthy disagreement. It’s a candid conversation about family, politics, empathy and learning how to disagree without losing each other. 

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram

Steve Cody, veteran public relations and strategic communications strategist and founder of Peppercomm, shares the story of a dramatic “business divorce” with his longtime partner that nearly destroyed the company they built together. Just as a major acquisition was about to close, a last-minute disagreement over the future of the firm blew everything apart. The fallout compelled Cody to rebuild the company from the ground up with a smaller team and a renewed sense of vulnerability. In the process, he learned the importance of inviting dissent and creating a culture where disagreement is safe and constructive. What began as a devastating split ultimately became the catalyst for success and a different model of business leadership. 

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at [email protected]
• Follow us on Instagram