Casey Scheiner

By Bolling Lewis ‘28, Casey Scheiner ‘28, and Katie Jung ‘28 (DCI Fellows)

This July, we (Bolling Lewis ‘28, Casey Scheiner ‘28, and Katie Jung ‘28) had the opportunity to moderate conversations at the NextGen Roundtable: Decision 2026. Sponsored by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab, the Hoover Institution, the Close Up Foundation, and Generation Lab, the event brought 400 first-time voters ages 18-20 representing all 50 states to Washington D.C. to discuss some of the most pressing issues ahead of the midterm elections this fall.

As all three of us juniors were headed abroad for fall semester, we entered summer thinking we might not put our facilitator caps back on until January 2027. But in June when we opened an email from Dr. Bullock promoting an opportunity to moderate conversations with young voters (with a trip to Washington, D.C. included!), we jumped at the chance to facilitate again. We reached out and interviewed with CloseUp Senior Advisor Blake Kohn and before we knew it, we were in a hotel ballroom in Arlington, Virginia, getting ready for the NextGen Roundtable to get underway.

Due to the compressed nature of the program itself, the training process was more condensed than the DCI’s full two day boot camp. But in one afternoon, CloseUp’s staff gave new moderators a crash course while also sharpening our skills as more experienced facilitators. As with the DCI’s approach, it started with a presentation explaining both the philosophical underpinnings and practical techniques behind our roles. Then, we moved into a hands-on mock deliberation where we rotated in the moderator chair while being presented with “disruptor” situations. The mock deliberation doubled as a great way to get to know our fellow moderators for the week and engage with the subject matter we’d be discussing.

The next day, we returned to do what we came to Washington D.C. to do: facilitate! Like DCI’s programs, the deliberation aimed to empower a variety of voices (quiet and loud, liberal and conservative) and build shared understanding of the topic at hand. There was a similar amount of structure, with prepared questions/proposals to guide the conversation but also room for deliberators to drive the discussion in new directions. Still, the CloseUp approach featured a few key distinctions from the DCI model.

First, participants would read a deliberation guide establishing a common factual understanding of the issue. Then, a group of about 10-12 participants would join one of us for a 90 minute deliberation assessing multiple policy proposals related to the issue. We would spend the final few minutes formulating questions for a panel of experts on the subject before walking to the ballroom together to hear the experts share their insights and answer our questions. This format marked an inversion of the DCI approach we were accustomed to, where participants would deliberate after listening to an expert panel. 

Our role as moderators also looked slightly different from our role as DCI facilitators. An important component of the NextGen Roundtable was the poll that participants would take before and after to help researchers gauge young people’s sentiments on hot-button issues. As a result, our duties were more limited to keeping the poll results methodologically sound and preventing differences in facilitator styles from skewing the results. This made our job “easier” in the sense of having few obligations besides asking routine follow-up questions about the policy proposals, but it left us less empowered to take the conversation in other directions by introducing alternative perspectives or probing disagreements more deeply.

It was enriching to hear first-time voters’ thoughtful opinions on many weighty issues. Our three deliberations covered the economic and social implications of AI, US immigration & foreign policy, and democratic and electoral reforms. Coming from vastly different backgrounds, the participants exemplified the mosaic of different perspectives within our generation. Crucially, they were consistently enthusiastic participants and thoughtful listeners, contributing to genuinely productive conversations.

Even having discussed these topics at the Thanksgiving dinner table, the Chidsey dormitory lounge, and many a DCI deliberation, we all gained valuable insights from this experience. Casey observed that regardless of their political leaning or career interests, the students shared a certain anxiety regarding the disruptive potential of AI. Bolling noticed that there was an array of immigration views stemming from the diverse geographic locations in the conversations. Katie noted that despite disagreements and differing viewpoints, there was a shared consensus that staying politically informed and engaged was essential.

The NextGen Roundtable was an amazing opportunity for us to take our facilitation skills on the road and work with young participants of different geographic, social, and political backgrounds. More than anything, the experience confirmed to us that young people are excited to grapple with political issues together. As the DCI continues to place deliberation opportunities for young people at the center of its agenda, we were reminded in Washington D.C. of our generation’s powerful response to this opportunity to hear and be heard.

By Casey Scheiner ’28 (DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener)

In anticipation of the beginning of the Deliberative Citizenship Network, which will support over 100 universities in their development of deliberative programs on campus, the DCI took its show on the road this spring to UNC Charlotte. In Professor Jon Overton’s 60 student sociology course on Polarization and Social Conflict in America, Dr. Bullock, Co-Convener Stephen Walker, Fellow Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat, and I presented on what the DCI is, the kinds of conversations we host, and how students can apply our deliberative dispositions and conversation agreements in their own discussions. With deep background knowledge from the class they were taking, the students were well-equipped to understand the importance of conversations like the ones the DCI hosts for bridging divides in a deeply polarized society.

After we spoke to the class for about 20 minutes, we launched into the deliberation. Our topic was one that students with various degrees of political knowledge could all get invested in, given its universal importance to members of our generation: economic mobility and the American Dream. Professor Overton selected this guide from the early years of the DCI, and it held up remarkably well as an issue of consistent concern for the students in the class. With the four of us from the DCI as well as Professor Overton’s two graduate student TAs facilitating, students brought various perspectives to the table, agreeing on affordability and economic opportunity as major issues of our time, but disagreeing on how to solve or even diagnose the problems. For instance, when we discussed the housing crisis, some deliberators contended it was an issue of insufficient supply, while others felt it boiled down to excessive corporate ownership of a sufficient housing supply. This then informed how they approached solutions, with the former group advocating more for policies to incentivize greater housing development and the latter group pushing to deconsolidate large companies’ property ownership.

All in all, both the presentation and the deliberation were major successes. The students were engaged and interested in our presentation, seeming to crave a deliberative outlet where they could express their thoughts. In the deliberation, they made my job easy, participating eagerly and asking thoughtful follow-up questions of one another. As we prepare to share the DCI’s approach next year through the DCN, the experience at UNC Charlotte was a terrific reminder of the number of campuses around the country rich with enthusiasm to deliberate on our nation’s biggest issues.

Casey Scheiner ’28 (DCI Fellow)

For one of the first times in American history, the hallowed practice of deliberation is under attack. For years, conservatives have clung to the First Amendment as its source of authority to oppose a homogeneous liberal narrative from emerging on college campuses, companies, and the government. However, today, enjoying majorities in both houses of Congress, control of the Oval Office, and a sympathetic majority in the Supreme Court, Republicans have gone after one of the fundamental rights defining our country for over two centuries: free speech.

Free speech is a bedrock of all of the deliberations hosted by the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. At the DCI’s Forums and D Teams, deliberators have a space they can enter where they can share their views without fear of retribution. In fact, understanding diverse perspectives is a key part of the mission of this organization. Tragically, in its first months in office, the current administration has not practiced such a reverence for the heterogeneity of viewpoints that have previously defined American politics.

The Trump administration has wasted no time decimating our right to deliberate. Its primary tool? The immigration system. While the (attempted) deportation of Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestine activist, has drawn the most media attention, one does not have to publicly espouse politically sacrilegious viewpoints themself to draw consequences from ICE. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown researcher, was detained in pursuit of deportation for the crime of marriage to a pro-Palestine activist. While DCI participants could freely deliberate on their views of Israel-Palestine campus protests and espouse any viewpoint, American permanent residents like Khalil and Suri could be deported for their position (even if indirectly caused by marriage) on the same issue.

However, Middle Eastern politics aren’t the only area of the world fraught with political landmines if one dares to challenge the administration’s orthodoxy. After immigration officials searched a French scientist’s devices upon his arrival in Houston for a research conference and discovered messages criticizing President Trump’s cuts to scientific research, they forbid his entry to the country, citing a fear of terrorism. While the Trump administration alleges that this action pertained to other information found on the phone, the French government maintains the grounds for his removal revolved around his dissident speech. Indeed, the bar for reprehensible conduct is even lower than highly public deliberation expressing heterodox views—just deliberating with friends and disagreeing with US policy, as this scientist did, is now grounds for expulsion from the country.

Even the world of TV and culture is not exempt from such an onslaught. In July, CBS cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert days after its eponymous host criticized CBS owner Paramount for its settlement with the Trump administration as it sought executive approval for a merger. In September, Disney suspended Jimmy Kimmel, another late night television host, following criticisms of his characterization of Charlie Kirk’s murderer and concerns that his planned remarks would further inflame the situation. The suspension came shortly after Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, threatened punitive action against Disney if they did not take disciplinary action against Kimmel. When our most high-profile late-night talk show hosts cannot speak freely without facing retribution at the behest of the federal government, ordinary citizens doubt their ability to deliberate without fear.

Regardless of one’s position on the war in Gaza, US funding of science, or Paramount’s merger, this renunciation of deliberation as a core element of American political culture should be disturbing to everyone. An attack on free expression is an attack on the foundation of authentic deliberation. Be it pineapple on pizza or the ethics of abortion, everyone has an opinion that does not conform with the majority view. In a world without pluralist tolerance, the saying “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” often attributed to Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria manifests itself. Seeing as few political outlooks align perfectly with that of the “approved” government stance, most worldviews will at some point fall in the crosshairs of a retributive administration. Without free deliberation, we all are left with two unappealing options: stay silent on any dissenting viewpoints or face potentially life-changing punitive consequences.

Worse yet, these assaults on free speech betray the logic preached by conservatives for years. Though conservatives have (often correctly) lamented the prevalence of “cancel culture” on the left, the Trump administration now seeks to cancel those who do not submit to its orthodoxy. Though conservatives have successfully campaigned for the end of racial affirmative action in college admissions, the Trump administration now pressures universities to functionally practice affirmative action for conservative professors. Though conservatives have previously decried Democratic administrations’ weaponization of the IRS against dissident groups, the Trump administration has influenced the IRS to audit high-profile critics and review Harvard’s tax-exempt status. As many Republicans recognized during the years when they were in the minority, freedom of speech is largely a mechanism to protect those out of power. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Trump does not appear keen on respecting his foes’ liberties.

So, how do we resist the end of American deliberation? The answer is not that different from the Trump administration’s strategy of “flooding the zone.” One political dissident will go to prison; one million will cause a revolution. This “revolutionary” action is nothing disturbing or foreign to Americans—not violence or even disobedience, but simple conversation. As notable law firms and universities capitulate to financial incentives to be silent, individuals must express their constitutional right to free expression.

Daring to say one disagrees with the government is a tradition of American culture preceding any of us. Today is not the day to abandon that brand of criticism—whether you concur with 1% or 99% of this administration’s agenda. Be it on a social media account with one million followers, a DCI forum with a dozen companions, or a text chain with a friend, our comfort with dissent defines our position as the leader of the free world. Fear of retribution for such unassuming critiques only transpires under an authoritarian political climate that Americans should only be reading about in world history textbooks.

To avoid that reality becoming a defining chapter of our own history, it is time to assertively claim our right to deliberate. It doesn’t matter whether or not you echo the views of the government, your university, or any other important institution, so long as you do deliberate. Go respectively disagree with your uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Go to a town hall and tell your representative how you feel about the government. Go explain your perspective and listen to the perspective of those who feel differently about a particular policy. Go celebrate and claim your constitutionally enshrined ability to deliberate.

Opinions expressed on the DCI Blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views or positions of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.