By DCI Fellows Saeran Dewar ‘28 and Oliver Genovese ‘28
The “Middle Ground” Model
Jubilee’s Middle Ground series has garnered millions of views online. Jubilee is a digital media company that brings people from various backgrounds together to film content to post online, generally with the ethos of encouraging empathy in uncomfortable situations. Middle Ground, one of their most viral formats, has three people on two sides of a controversial issue step forward to a circle of chairs if they agree with a given statement, with the disagreers eventually joining the circle to discuss.
You may have seen this video they did on Trump supporters vs immigrants on the immigration issue. On their website, Jubilee writes, “Middle Ground explores whether two different groups of people, opposed in their beliefs, can come together empathetically and find middle ground.” However, we noticed that the structure of the conversation itself is not conducive to participants engaging empathetically or finding the middle ground featured in the title of the series.
We thought it would be a great idea to bring the same concept to Davidson to promote more robust deliberation within the Middle Ground model. In our case, we chose to have a deliberative dialogue on immigration. Some problems that we noticed, though, with typical Jubilee Middle Ground videos are that participants often do not engage with each other respectfully, instead making hasty generalizations and assuming ill intentions on the part of their opponents.
In order to create a more robust conversation that aligns with the DCI’s deliberative principles, we selected participants from across the political spectrum who are generally politically active on campus. By doing so, we were able to facilitate a better conversation that did not put any participants at a disadvantage. We will not reveal our deliberators’ identity in order to maintain their anonymity, only referring to them by their preferred ideological labels.
What We Changed
To address the flaws we saw in the original Jubilee format, we implemented several changes to make the process more deliberative. First, we read DCI’s Conversation Agreements at the beginning of the discussion. While this was a minor change, clearly stating expectations at the outset so participants knew what kind of engagement was expected of them, and what they could expect from others, helped set the tone for the event. Agreements such as “assume the best – and not the worst – about the intentions and values of others” as well as “avoid speaking in absolutes” are often absent from Jubilee discussions.
Second, we implemented a beginning section with a chance for introductions and casual conversation. They got to share a bit of background about themselves and engage in small talk before the real substance of the discussion began. Entering a deliberation where you know you are going to encounter vastly different opinions than your own can be intimidating, but seeing non-politicized sides of people helped deliberators humanize each other beforehand.
Additionally, Davidson being a small environment, the deliberators had already mostly interacted with each other on some level and were not strangers. We thought putting strangers in a room together who know nothing about each other could hinder their inclinations to be charitable to one another.
Also, Saeran served as a facilitator throughout the discussion. Many Jubilee videos lack a facilitator, meaning that all participants have to engage in a dog fight for airtime. As facilitator, Saeran posed questions to the group, chose when to invite disagreers into the circle and invited those who had not spoken in a while into the conversation, keeping participation as even as possible and making sure everyone was heard.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the discussion was held in a private space and was not filmed. Because participants were able to engage in the deliberation in a more low-stakes fashion, they were more likely to agree to participate as well as be candid with their contributions and fearlessly engage with others’ perspectives as well.
How It Went
Although he was not originally supposed to participate as a deliberator, due to unforeseen circumstances causing one participant being unable to attend, Oliver ended up joining the Jubilee discussion. The discussion from the start involved both sides crossing partisan lines, including a neo-conservative and a liberal student, both disagreeing with the statement that all Americans are immigrants.
While the six deliberators crossed party lines numerous times to agree with the other side on a statement, a key party-line disagreement came with the following statement: “Having a massive influx of immigrants into the United States erodes American culture.” The conservative students argued over the threat of non-Western cultures, such as non-Christian beliefs, eroding the culture of the United States. On the other hand, liberal students argued that the “melting pot” nature of American culture and the diversity within it is a key strength of the United States, and thus all cultures should be welcomed.
The conservatives emphasized specific rules associated with Islam that they believed could undermine American democracy, such as a woman’s testimony in court accounting for only half of a man’s. Some conservative students emphasized the Christian founding of the US and that an influx of other cultures would disrupt the nation. The liberal students argued that those choosing to come to the US do so because they want to improve their lived circumstances and thereby contribute positively to the US. The disagreement over the statement ended with both sides accepting that there were differences in opinion on the impact of welcoming non-Western cultures on American values and society.
Overall, the deliberation itself was more respectful and engaging than those in Jubilee Middle Ground videos online. At times in Jubilee videos, participants are more apprehensive and seem to only listen to get their point out and respond, but in our deliberation project, the participants seemed to listen thoughtfully and find points of agreement. Not only did the participants seem to actively listen, but due to their knowledge about current political events, the arguments were mostly fact-based, which helped foster a more robust dialogue that revolved around the argument itself rather than attacking other people’s character.
Reflection
If we were to run another mock Jubilee discussion, we would want to allow more time for the event. Realistically, it is difficult to ask student volunteers to devote more than an hour and a half of their time on any given day, but at least two hours would make a big difference for the depth of discussion deliberators are able to have and the disagreements they are able to dig into. Saeran had to cut off a fascinating conversation on the question of the erosion of American culture due to time constraints, but she would’ve loved to see that discussion go on longer.
Additionally, the diversity of viewpoints represented on the right-leaning side was not exactly mirrored on the left-leaning side, which was slightly more homogenous. We could not have precisely anticipated each participant’s precise political leanings beforehand, but more viewpoint diversity on the left might have made for a more enriching experience.
Overall, the process of planning our mock Jubilee “Middle Ground” was a great experience, and hearing the deliberators engage with each other head-on was fascinating and incredibly encouraging to see them deliberate so thoughtfully, respectfully, and boldly.
