Making room for difference

We support staff and students to engage constructively with controversial topics, recognising differences in experience, perspective, and belief.

Why this matters

A core purpose of a university is to advance knowledge through critical inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and open debate. This includes the freedom to explore contested and controversial ideas, while recognising the importance of intellectual rigour, dignity, and mutual respect.

A diverse academic community will contain deeply held, sometimes conflicting views, and engagement with them is part of learning, teaching, research, and public debate. Academic freedom, lawful freedom of expression, and equality, diversity, and inclusion are all important to these activities. 

The challenge is to support rigorous and inclusive discussion without shielding each other from difficult ideas or assuming that disagreement must be resolved. This calls for attention both to the freedom to explore ideas and to how members of the community engage with one another.

Staff writing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

Disagreement is not failure

Engagement with controversial ideas can be demanding. Discomfort or offence, on their own, do not determine whether lawful speech or academic activity is inappropriate. Equally, the protection of expression does not remove the importance of dignity, mutual respect, and reducing barriers to participation. The aim is to improve the quality of engagement across differences, not to require consensus on every question.

What we did

The EDI Workstream collaboratively developed a Living Framework for discussing controversial topics.

Discussing Controversial Topics: A Living Framework

This resource for both staff and students supports constructive academic engagement across differing perspectives, including:

  • Principles for dialogue: Four aspirational principles invite reflection on integrity, curiosity, thoughtful participation, personal attacks and abuse, and openness to others.
  • Guidance across settings: The Framework considers lectures, seminars, public events, student societies, protest, shared spaces, and online exchanges, recognising that the context shapes how dialogue can be supported.
  • An invitation to dialogue: Supporting concepts and practical prompts encourage members of the community to reflect on the quality of debate, revisit assumptions, and consider how different people can contribute meaningfully.

The Framework recognises that experiences of power, marginalisation, and discrimination can affect how people encounter controversy and whether they feel able to contribute.

A Living Framework with Four Aspirational Principles

The Living Framework puts forward four principles and supporting concepts as starting points for reflection and discussion.

1. Integrity and curiosity

“We aim to show integrity, honesty, and curiosity in the pursuit of knowledge and mutual understanding”

Engage with evidence and reasons, acknowledge when we may be mistaken, and remain alert to misinformation and polarisation.

2. Thoughtful participation

“We aim to be thoughtful in our interactions, recognising diverse social hierarchies, and ensuring that all members of our community can contribute confidently and responsibly to discussion and debate”

Recognise inequalities, differences in power, and the experience of discrimination as factors that can shape participation.

3. Challenging personal attacks

“We aim to respect the rights of others and to challenge personal attacks and abuse”

Engage with the substance of arguments rather than attacking people; avoid stereotypes and challenge harassment or intimidation.

4. Openness and compassion

“We aim to listen with openness and compassion, so that we can really hear each other’s view”

Listen with openness and compassion, seeking to understand how others' perspectives have been shaped by their experiences, while recognising the importance of evidence and scholarly expertise when considering different viewpoints.

Dialogue takes place in different contexts

The Framework recognises that the setting, purpose, and relationships involved in a discussion shape how people can participate. It offers examples rather than a single formula.

1. Teaching

Lectures can involve unequal power relationships; educators should encourage independent inquiry rather than prescribe conclusions. Seminars can use active listening, open questions, and structured formats to enable disagreement and participation.

2. Events, societies, and protest

Event organisers should consider purpose, format, lawful participation, and proportionate arrangements. Student societies can model constructive engagement. Peaceful protest is legitimate, while intimidation and preventing others from speaking are not.

3. Shared spaces and meetings

Controversial discussions can arise in common rooms, corridors, meetings, and social settings. The time, place, and manner of discussion matter, particularly when people have not chosen to participate.

4. Online discussion

Social media can amplify perspectives but also accelerate polarisation and backlash. The Framework encourages thoughtful engagement online. Where individuals act in a University-related capacity, or their University role is engaged, relevant policies and contractual or professional responsibilities need to be considered alongside academic freedom and freedom of expression.

Across these different contexts, the Framework makes an important distinction: respecting people and listening openly to their views does not require accepting every argument as equally persuasive. Evidence and scholarly expertise remain important when assessing the claims being made.

Student looking at a laptop on a hill looking down on the city

What difference is this intended to make?

The purpose is not to remove controversy from University life. It is to support a culture in which staff and students can engage with difficult questions openly and seriously, while recognising how discussions are experienced by others.

  • More constructive engagement with controversy: Provide a practical reference point for approaching sensitive questions: examining evidence, articulating reasons, listening carefully, and challenging ideas without resorting to personal attacks or attributing bad faith too readily.
  • Meaningful participation across differences: Help staff and students recognise barriers to participation, including power imbalances and experiences of marginalisation, and consider approaches that allow more members of the University community to contribute confidently.

Institutional ownership going forward

  • Senior lead: University EDI Lead.
  • Established structures: University EDI Committee and Schools.
  • Supporting activity: dialogue, staff development, and continued engagement with the staff and student community.

Useful links

EDI Workstream: Terms of Reference

Resource for use in teaching and learning environment:

Our story: 2023-2026

This article was published on