Robert George and Cornel West share rare model of principled disagreement rooted in integrity, love, and faith at a campus lecture.
In a time that could feel marked by polarization and cultural division, the Wheatley Institute and Peacemaker Project at Brigham Young University gathered students, faculty, and community members for a joint lecture titled “Fruitful Disagreement in the Age of Division.” The lecture featured Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and Cornel West, philosopher and Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy at Harvard University.
Though positioned on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the two scholars modeled what principled disagreement rooted in truth and love can look like. Their conversation offered no easy answers, but rather an invitation to the audience on how to engage one another with integrity and mutual respect.
BYU President C. Shane Reese opened the lecture by sharing counsel he once received from Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, about what this generation needs most — “models of how to disagree better.”
Seeking Truth
George reflected on his long friendship with West and the role it has played in shaping his teaching and scholarship. While acknowledging that he does not always agree with West’s conclusions, George referred to West as “the guy in the room who was asking the right questions.”
West later echoed that sentiment, capturing the heart of their relationship when he said that loving someone means staying with them even “when he’s on the way to being either wrong or right.”
George explained that even in moments of intense disagreement, a shared goal to keep in mind is always truth.
“If I’m wrong, I don’t want to persuade him,” says George. “I want him to persuade me so I can swap out a false belief for a true one — and he feels the same way.”
That mutual commitment, George noted, is what makes trust and honest dialogue possible, even amid deep disagreement.
Throughout the lecture, George returned to the theme of moral courage and personal integrity. He urged students to choose to be a person of integrity and to love truth more than their own opinions, even when it’s an unpopular truth.
As an educator, George stated his responsibility is to help students discern what truly matters to a person of integrity. This includes faith, family, friendship, the pursuit of knowledge, and learning how to honor those commitments. He invited the audience to view education not just as an intellectual endeavor, but also as a moral endeavor.
That emphasis carried into West’s remarks as he turned to the question of moral formation and what it demands of individuals. Reflecting on a course he co-teaches with George, West shared that he introduces the class by telling students they will “learn how to die” — a phrase he uses to describe the difficult but necessary work of intellectual humility.
“Learn how to think critically for yourself. Find your voice and don’t just be an echo,” West says. “Be able to call into question certain assumptions and presuppositions you have. When you let some of them go, that’s a form of death.”
For West, that kind of humility changes how people should think about greatness in the first place. Rather than equating power with victory or control, he pointed to moral exemplars rooted in everyday life.
“Where are the great exemplars of high moral integrity?” West asks. “Your hope is mom. Your hope is dad...coaches, musicians, and artists.”
He spotlighted the influence of ordinary people who live with integrity day in and day out.
Choosing to Love Despite Conflict
For Madison Curtis, a senior from Rexburg, Idaho, majoring in history and global business, the lecture felt personally meaningful even before it began.
As a Wheatley Scholar, Curtis heard about the lecture from her cohort and chose to attend due to her deep interest in depolarization. The impact of seeing two thinkers with starkly different views who express genuine respect and affection for one another felt like an incredible example to Curtis of “truly loving across differences.”
The lecture helped Curtis rethink how she understands conflict itself.
“We often think conflict automatically means contention, but it doesn’t have to be that way,” Curtis says. “It can be, ‘I don’t agree with you, but I love you regardless, as a child of God.’”
Through their friendship and example, George and West demonstrated that unity isn’t uniformity or conformity and that honest dialogue can be both rigorous and charitable.
“Our goal is not to change each other’s mind. Our goal is to deepen our understanding,” George says.
For many in attendance, the evening offered not just ideas to consider, but a lived model of how to engage a divided world with faith and hope.
Watch George and West’s full lecture “Fruitful Disagreement in the Age of Division” here.
Join the Peacemaker Project student association for more opportunities to practice unity in disagreement.