You Really Should Know About John Inazu

Many of the people we admire for their work on dispute resolution aren’t formally part of the dispute resolution community.  They include lawyers, judges, law professors, and others whose work embodies the spirit of our field – even when they use different language, work in other disciplines, or serve in different roles.

Some time ago, I wrote a post, You Really Should Know About Kris Franklin, about a family law professor whose pedagogy and worldview reflect the deepest values of our field.  This post is in that same spirit.

You really should know about John Inazu.

John Inazu is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis.  He teaches criminal law, law and religion, and seminars on constitutional theory, law and theology, and the role of religion in public life.

He recently visited the University of Missouri Law School and spoke about his latest book, Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect.  I listened to the fabulous audiobook version.  He has a beautiful written and spoken voice, and I fell in love with his spirit.  This post reflects on his wonderful book.

Across the Aisles

But first, a word about our new and very timely “Across the Aisles” initiative in which John Inazu was the keynote speaker.  Here’s Dean Paul Litton’s announcement.

As we all know too well, we live in polarized times.  Political dialogue often involves expressions of contempt and attacks on character and motivations.  We rarely witness respectful engagement with ideas and a willingness to understand others’ points of view.  Too many citizens stay in their silos, refusing to test their convictions with honest and rational conversation, and to explore shared constitutional commitments.

If any profession can model – and must model – disagreement with respect, it is the legal profession.  Lawyers help protect the rule of law and thereby the health of our constitutional democracy.  Both depend on the ability of citizens to recognize reasonable disagreement, to find common ground, and to respect one another despite differences.  This is what we do as lawyers.  We actively listen.  We negotiate.  We mediate.  We meet disagreement with evidence and reasoned argument, not personal attack.  We maintain friendly and professional relationships with colleagues across the aisle, and doing so is important for advancing our clients’ interests.

With that background, I write to announce a new initiative … .  “Across the Aisle” events aim to provide students experience listening carefully to each other, reflecting on opposing and challenging views, and engaging respectfully yet compellingly with reason and evidence.  My hope is that this ongoing initiative will help prepare you to represent your clients well, enrich your experience, and strengthen our community.  We should be mindful that calls for civil discourse are sometimes used by those with power to silence those without it.  But that is one reason why we want an atmosphere in our law school and on campus where all voices can be heard, and where we share an intent to listen, understand, and engage with a spirit of discovery, curiosity, and friendship.

Kudos to Dean Litton for this initiative.  I don’t know if other law schools are doing similar things.  I sure hope so.  If they aren’t doing so already, they should consider it.

Learning to Disagree

Learning to Disagree unfolds month by month across an academic year, with each chapter exploring questions that arose through his teaching or personal experiences each month.  These include chapters on things such as “Can We Know What’s Fair?”, “What Happens When We Can’t Compromise?”, and “Can Anything Be Neutral?”  Inazu offers an unusually honest, humane view into the rhythms of disagreement in real life.

Drawing from his courses in criminal law and law and religion, he presents real interactions and difficult conversations.  His students grapple with moral injury, systemic injustice, constitutional ambiguity, and interpersonal vulnerability.  His reflections are neither theoretical diversions nor idealistic detours.  They are grounded in his own experiences, including awkward social encounters and messy family dynamics.

This is not a “how to talk across difference” book that offers simplistic prescriptions or abstract theories.  Rather, Inazu invites us to live in the tension between clarity and ambiguity, confidence and uncertainty.  He urges us to move beyond merely tolerating others to truly seeing them, even in the midst of disagreement.

The book is a delight, and law professors should especially appreciate it.  It captures how our classrooms serve not just as places for legal instruction but as laboratories of democratic engagement, personal development, and the practice of empathy.  His chapters illustrate how teaching can simultaneously clarify and complicate our understanding of justice and community.

One of the most moving elements of the book is Inazu’s willingness to show his vulnerability.  He doesn’t write from a lofty moral perch.  He writes from the everyday reality that most of us inhabit.  He tries to be open to others while navigating his own doubts and convictions.  Feeling empathy often is hard.

Shared Perspectives

Though not formally part of the dispute resolution field, Inazu shares our core values including respectful dialogue and a commitment to helping people make informed choices in the midst of conflict.

As dispute resolution experts, we often talk about good decision-making, recognition of interests, and the emotional dynamics of conflict.  Inazu’s work offers a parallel vocabulary grounded in pluralism, trust, and relational responsibility.  He explores the role of institutions, faith, identity, and moral tension in ways that deepen our understanding of what it means to navigate conflict well.

His previous books, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference, Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly, and Uncommon Ground: Living Faithfully in a World of Difference, reflect his long-standing commitment to pluralism.

He writes a Substack newsletter, Some Assembly Required.  A recent post features a video and transcript of the inaugural Pluralism Lecture at Duke University, “Pluralism, Particularity, and Possibility.”

Law professors, dispute resolution professionals, and anyone interested in the civic and relational dimensions of disagreement should read Learning to Disagree.  It reminds us that many people outside the traditional boundaries of our field pursue our shared purposes.

People like John Inazu remind us that dispute resolution is not just a profession or an academic discipline.  It is a way of being in the world.