In an age of seemingly unprecedented polarisation, it may seem odd to launch a class that encourages students to disagree. When societal tensions are already rife, why expose more cleavages and fuel additional divides?
That’s not how we see it.
In our experience, the problem on university campuses isn’t so much the prevalence of disagreement, but the near-absence of it.
For the most part, students aren’t stridently attacking each other, which we’re grateful for. But nor do they feel able to engage in difficult conversations in the classroom, especially when they hold views that might be outside the perceived mainstream.
At University College London (UCL), this is why we set up a new course, “Disagreeing Well”, which teaches students how to engage in tough conversations with civility and acumen.
The course was made possible by a Signature Course Fellowship at the Institute for Ethics and the Common Good at the University of Notre Dame.
Quiet, not crisis
Some may question whether universities are poised to tackle a problem like how to disagree well on contentious topics. Higher education, including in the UK, is often framed as being characterised by progressive groupthink and echo chambers that reify and reflect left-leaning ideals and values.
Yet for all the talk over restrictions of free speech, data don’t show there’s a free speech “crisis”. In 2024, over 86 per cent of students in England said they overall feel free to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs on campus.
But over a third of students report holding back their views on specific contentious issues like politics, race, and gender identity. Indeed, according to a small-scale study we conducted at UCL in collaboration with student researchers, more than 40 per cent of students have reservations about expressing opinions on campus.
There are many motivations for students “self-censoring”. Some report simply feeling shy or not knowing enough about a given topic to engage in a debate. Others fear being called out or cancelled for being on the “wrong side” of an issue.
To their credit, many of our students are motivated less by concern for themselves and more by worry about offending others. The data show that the primary motivator for students withholding their opinion is not wanting to get into an argument.
This culture of care and attention to others’ feelings is something to welcome on university campuses. But a default to conflict avoidance risks conflating intellectual disagreement with personal harm or insult.
Out of practice
We think students struggle to take part in difficult conversations because of the lack of opportunity and practice. While over 80 per cent of our students see viewpoint diversity on campus as important, only one in three feel they are regularly exposed to a variety of opinions.
That’s an invitation for us as academics to do better by our students.
Encouragingly, a strong majority of our students want more opportunities for constructive engagement with diverse viewpoints, and are seeking skill sets for disagreeing better – in the classroom, on campus, and in their personal and professional lives. That’s why we decided to launch our class on Disagreeing Well.
Inside the class
While UCL has been running a Disagreeing Well initiative for several years, led by Provost Michael Spence, the programme to date has focused on initiatives outside the classroom. In addition to hosting public events, the campaign has created a resource hub that includes a digital platform, a series of skills videos for students, and a new podcast series co-created with the students’ union.
We decided to fill the pedagogical gap by developing an elective class where students can learn how their opinions – and those of others – form, recognise cognitive biases and logical fallacies, develop better communication and listening skills, and most of all, gain supported practice in discussing contentious issues.
We didn’t shy away from tough issues. Our syllabus includes two-hour sessions on hot-button topics including euthanasia, affirmative action, abortion, and trans athletes. But the point isn’t to just turn our students loose in a powder keg. A healthy part of our module focused on ways to structure conversations that help us understand each other better, sharpen our minds, and grapple with diverse beliefs.
Beyond top-down
Universities are increasingly aware of the need for initiatives that help students to disagree well. But most of these efforts are top-down, designed and implemented by administrations.
In the US, for example, universities have been building new schools of civic life that ostensibly broaden the range of viewpoints represented. High-profile examples include the University of North Carolina’s School of Civic Life and Leadership, the University of Florida’s Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education, and NYU’s Berkley Institute for Civil Discourse and Civic Solutions. In total, according to Heterodox Academy, nearly 50 civic centres now exist at schools across America.
Efforts in the UK have been slower to take root. But our class points to an alternative model – less bureaucratic and less top-down – that still exposes students to a plurality of perspectives. Our class offers a blueprint for how instructors across a range of disciplinary backgrounds can develop full classes on disagreeing well or integrate such principles into existing modules.
The results were encouraging. The share of students who “strongly agreed” that they had a “good understanding” of disagreeing well – a capstone measure of their grasp of the course material – rose more than fourfold over the course of the term, from 12 per cent to 57 per cent.
While our focus is on the university classroom, there’s clearly an increasing need for Disagreeing Well skill sets in the public sphere, as well. So we welcome members of the public to access our class resources, and to take our interactive quiz to identify their disagreement style and gain tips on how to disagree better.
The aim of Disagreeing Well isn’t to force consensus, nor is it to muzzle protest or other forms of activism. The aim is to encourage personal curiosity and intellectual rigour, even – or rather, especially – when we disagree.
