This is a question we have all heard ourselves asked at least once in our lives, perhaps not very long ago. Given the recent events, many of us will have tried to confront our friends and classmates in search of firm truth– to find common ground on divisive topics.

People in a minoritised community, and I would argue in any community, don’t necessarily share the same views on any given issue. There are “differences within differences”. We should not assume the views of a group of people on the basis of identity, if we want to encourage a culture of disagreeing well. Furthermore, why are we assuming that other people cannot relate to a certain set of feelings and experiences? A set of virtues around communication: using a language that is not reductive and that does not cut short the ‘other.’ The clipart collection here is diverse and suits various themes. I've used it for my science fair project, and the diagrams and icons were just what I needed. It would be helpful to have a search filter for different file formats, like SVG and JPEG." In his first intervention, Owolade pointed out how “we don’t speak about diversity with enough diversity.”The clipart here has been invaluable for my special education class. The clear and relatable images aid in communication and understanding. It would be helpful to have a feature allowing teachers to request specific clipart tailored to special education needs." Here at UCL, the Students' Union actively promotes freedom of speech, working towards fostering inclusive debates on a wide array of topics. As highlighted by our Union Affairs Officer, more than 1,500 guest speakers spanning the entire political spectrum visit campus each year invited by our student groups. Therefore, to support healthy disagreement, initiatives like the Impartial Chair Programme are in place to ensure that discussions are always welcoming to diverse perspectives.

But Impartial Chairs will not be present in every moment of our lives. During any discussion, I believe it is crucial to bear in mind the three golden rules given by the UCL Provost:

VPEE Student Journalist, Giovanna Cantarin, shares her reflections of attending the first UCL Disagreeing Well event: Disagreeing Well in Higher Education. "But whose side are you on?" Indeed, I believe every situation has many sides; often, the difficult thing is to see them all. “The danger of acronyms”

Spence explained that the alternative to disagreeing well is that either we start shouting at one another or that we self-centre and simply don't talk. Epistemic humility: accepting that we can be wrong and asking ourselves why other reasonable human beings think what they think. Disagreement, as stated by Owolade during the event, is the inevitable “consequence of living in a free society.”Listen, and actually do it. Listening to appreciate and understand another point of view, without thinking about what we are going to say next. Reality is very different, full of contrasts and nuances: a massive chiaroscuro, and there are no simple answers to complex issues. “The role of universities as a forum for open discourse in an increasingly polarized world” This labelling and dividing are at the root of intolerance and disrespect in any sphere of life, not only in higher education. Probably, as Owolade suggests, the only way out this vicious circle is really to understand that we have a “shared fundamental humanity.”