Graham Bullock

A True Capstone Experience: The DCI Fellows’ Personal Deliberation Projects

July 12, 2024 by Graham Bullock

Capstone above a training and discussion

For the past four years, one of the highlights of the DCI’s Fellows Program has been the opportunity for students to develop their own personal deliberation projects. After going through intensive training in how to facilitate contentious conversations and then serving as a facilitator of the DCI’s D Teams and Deliberative Forum discussions, the Fellows apply their skills to designing and hosting conversations on topics of personal interest to them. They select their topics and begin developing their project plans in the fall semester, and then revise and implement those plans in the spring semester.

DCI staff provide feedback to the fellows on their ideas and suggest relevant resources throughout the process, but these projects are very much the fellows’ own initiatives. They are responsible for identifying the topic, developing their deliberation guide, recruiting participants, finding a time and space for their discussion, and hosting it themselves. The Fellows very much appreciate this autonomy and independence they have in developing their projects. It enables them to demonstrate the full range of skills they have learned over the course of their year as a Fellow, discover the challenges and pitfalls of designing and implementing these types of conversations, and experience the joy of bringing people together to discuss hard topics and strengthen their own deliberative muscles.

The sections below summarize each of the seven projects that the 2023-24 cohort of Fellows implemented this spring. Some Fellows worked together while others worked independently; their topics included equitable industrialization, humor, the moral obligation to stay informed and act on international issues, Davidson’s reckoning with its history related to race and slavery, transgender medical policies, repatriation and ownership in art history, and election issues.

For her personal deliberation project, Atyantika Mookherjee ’27 hosted a deliberation on the topic of equitable industrialization. The deliberation focused on the arguments for and against increased aid from developed countries to developing nations to promote sustainable development and what specifically this aid should look like. The deliberation was held via Zoom for 11 participants, all of whom had significant involvement in sustainability and climate action non-profit work. Through thoughtful discussion, participants explored the complexities of increased aid allocation, considering its potential benefits and challenges, and left with a deeper understanding of the importance of targeted aid strategies tailored to the specific contexts of each nation.

In collaboration with Dr. Silvi Toska, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Davidson, Florian Moser ’26 facilitated a deliberation on whether we have a moral obligation to stay informed and act on international crises. The event, which was held in the Commons Annex Dining Room and included lunch, included seven students who had never participated in a DCI event before. The conversation delved into topics such as climate change, critical engagement in media consumption, individual versus collective responsibility for political action, and ways to resolve conflicts between the individual costs and collective benefits of staying informed about international political issues.

Zoe Moseley ’26 and Declan O’Donoghue ’26 focused their deliberation project on humor and what is allowed to be funny, who is allowed to make what jokes, and where are they allowed to be made. To prepare their deliberation guide, Zoe and Declan met with Davidson College faculty, a professional comedian, and a number of student comedians. Specific questions discussed included: Do the standards of appropriateness change when the joke is in writing vs a TV show, movie, TikTok, comedy special, etc? If certain subjects are unsuitable for humor, do these standards change depending on the comic? Questions like these were intended to get to the core of the debate around humor under the larger umbrella of speech and harm. Utilizing the creative freedom afforded to them in developing their project, Zoe and Declan incorporated video clips of stand-up comedians into their deliberation guide. These short clips provided critical examples that fit each subsection they discussed. Eight students attended the deliberation with a wide range of opinions and experiences with humor and included a stand-up comedian. Zoe and Declan are interested in potentially hosting more discussions on this topic and continuing to develop innovative formats for the DCI’s deliberation guides.

Stephen Walker ’26 hosted a deliberation on the question of how Davidson should, if at all, change or continue the steps it has been taking to engage its history with race and slavery. The event was held in Chambers on Wednesday, April 24th from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM. A wide range of groups were invited to conversation, and seven students from different backgrounds participated in the deliberation. LJ Philips ’25, a DCI Senior Fellow and Student Co-Convener, worked with Stephen in designing the deliberation and was a participant as well. The discussion covered the renaming of Chambers and the arguments for and against that decision, and the participants shared which arguments they agreed with and why. The second half of the discussion addressed the statue the college is planning to build to memorialize enslaved/exploited persons and the participants’ feelings about it. The deliberation concluded with the DCI’s standard final reflection section that helped tie the discussion together.

DCI Fellows Arshi Husain ’26, Logan Jain ’26, and Monty Krakovitz ’25 hosted a deliberation on “Transgender Medical Policies in the US.” This deliberation took place on the 17th of April in the Sprinkle Room from 7–9pm. Including the three facilitators, there were 15 participants at the deliberation who were members of several on-campus student organizations: Queers & Allies, Davidson Republicans, Davidson Democrats, Davidson Libertarians, YANASH, and Free Speech Alliance. The Fellows wrote and shared a deliberation guide that included information and background on three different perspectives: 1)Transgender medical treatment should be permitted for all ages, 2) Transgender medical treatment should be restricted for all ages, and 3) Transgender medical treatment should be permitted for adults only. Deliberators had the chance to discuss all three perspectives and the range of arguments for and against each perspective.

Grace Gallagher ’26 organized a deliberation focused on “Repatriation and Ownership in Art History.” Deliberators discussed three case studies: the Benin Bronzes, the Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon, and the looting of the city of Samarra in Iraq. Her discussion was held on April 22nd from 11-12 in the Commons Annex Dining Room. The seven participants who joined the conversation were students with interests in art history and museum studies. Before the discussion, Grace met with several art history professors and staff who work at the Davidson art gallery, who provided her with helpful insights that she was able to incorporate into her deliberation guide that she shared with participants beforehand.

Emre Guvenilir ’25 and Auden White ’26 hosted a deliberation on election issues, and they were joined by Dr. Greg Snyder of the Religious Studies Department and President of Precinct 206 Democrats. The deliberation took place in Chambers for an hour and a half. The eight students who participated included both international students and US citizens and both Democrats and Republicans. Deliberators discussed ways campaign finance could be more fair, including a possible pooling process to allocate funds to more candidates. A possible ‘cap’ like in sports was also suggested and discussed. There was discussion over early voting and mail-in ballots and how to keep voting accessible while also fair, such as having polls open late at night. There was also discussion about giving the option of online voting, and the example of Estonia was shared and discussed. The topic of gerrymandering also came up, and deliberators agreed that those in power would not want to remove the benefits it offers. Nevertheless, it was agreed on the whole that redistricting should be a fairer process, but it was left open as to what exactly the process should look like. Dr. Snyder provided many insights to the discussion in areas he had experience and provided his perspective on these topics, which helped guide the conversation and incorporated ideas from someone who has direct experience in political processes.

A 4th of July Message of Hope: The DCI is Part of an Important and Growing Movement

July 2, 2024 by Graham Bullock

Happy Fourth of July! On this day celebrating American independence, many Americans are no doubt feeling a deep sense of unease about the country’s politics. In a June 2024 Gallup poll, 77% of Americans reported they were dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States. In 2023, 79% of Americans described American politics in negative terms, 65% said they were exhausted by politics, and 61% reported that political conversations with people they disagree with are stressful and frustrating. Only 10% felt hopeful about US politics.

These feelings are reinforced by a constant bombardment of negative stories in the news media and on social media. The images and narratives emerging in the midst of the campus protests that occurred this spring may have been particularly disheartening, regardless of where you fall on the issues involved. So I wanted to share with you some good news that might give you at least a little bit of hope on this 248^th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

This past year, the DCI’s Assistant Director Sara Copic and I participated in a Bridging Differences Community of Practice hosted by UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center. This group included 28 deliberation scholars and practitioners from across the United States who are working earnestly to foster more productive dialogue on their college campuses. They came from large public and private universities, medical colleges, law schools, community colleges, and liberal arts colleges like Davidson.

We met regularly as a large cohort to hear from experts in the field on topics such as the science and practice of listening, the psychology of intergroup processes, and the measurement and evaluation of dialogue outcomes. We were also split into small groups who met separately to discuss our progress on our work, challenges that have come up, and questions we had for one another. My group had representatives from Stanford University, Providence College, the University of Alabama, and California State University East Bay, and it was fascinating to hear about everyone’s different experiences with bridging divides on their campuses.

What I took away from this experience was a sense that a lot of good and smart people are working creatively, thoughtfully, and tirelessly on building connections across social and political differences. Even though you may not see it and it is not the first thing that comes up on your newsfeed, there is a solid and growing community – for example, over 200 campus leaders have participated in the Greater Good Science Center’s Bridging Differences in Higher Education Learning Fellowship since its inception – engaged in this work. From the conversations I participated in as a part of this community, I was deeply impressed by everyone’s commitment to fostering productive conversations on challenging topics, despite the challenges they face.

I also saw even more clearly how the DCI is an important part of this work. As innovative and active as we are, we may often feel that we are swimming alone in a toxic sea of hyper-polarization. But we are in fact connected to an extensive network of efforts with similar goals and methods that is building more deliberative cultures and communities across the country. The movement to engage more productively in political conversation is real and growing, and the DCI – and anyone who has participated in a D Team or Deliberative Forum or been a member of the DeeP Collaborative – is contributing to the growth and dynamism of that movement. As we examine other deliberation programs, this is a point we make frequently to our DCI Fellows, but it is worth reinforcing among our wider community as well.

As an election season that threatens to be one of the most acrimonious and rancorous in recent memory gets underway, the challenges to this work are no doubt significant. But just as the Continental Congress overcame the immeasurable odds against them and came together to sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776 (the reimagined 1776 musical that I saw last year provides a trenchant reminder of their difficulties), so too can we find ways to bridge our differences in the months and years to come.

DCI Co-Organizes Inaugural North Carolina Campus Discourse Leaders Conference

June 28, 2024 by Graham Bullock

Faculty and staff who work on improving public discourse on college campuses can often feel disconnected from similar efforts at other institutions, even those that are very nearby. The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative recently collaborated with several other organizations to organize an opportunity for these public discourse scholars and practitioners to share ideas, practices, and challenges with one another.

On April 5, the DCI, the Program for Public Discourse at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Kernodle Center for Civic Life at Elon University, and the Free Expression and Constructive Dialogue Task Force at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and NC Campus Engagement (a consortium of 41 higher education institutions in North Carolina) partnered to host the inaugural North Carolina Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Over 40 faculty and staff members representing 18 different institutions of higher education from across North Carolina attended the day-long conference. They included participants from state universities (e.g., North Carolina State, Western Carolina University), private universities (e.g., Duke University, Wake Forest University), historically black colleges and universities (e.g., North Carolina Central University, Winston Salem State University), and community colleges (e.g., Wake Tech Community College, Durham Technical Community College) and came from the eastern, western, central, and southern regions of the state.

Hosted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the conference provided an opportunity for participants to share their approaches and challenges that they have experienced at their institutions. They were also able to learn from each other in highly interactive breakout discussions with colleagues at institutions that are both similar to and different from their own.

The conference was structured into four sessions, each beginning with an introductory presentation on a key topic of discourse from the co-organizing partners before opening into round-table discussions. Campus discourse leaders shared the strategies they have been implementing in their own programs, discussed challenges they have been faced with, and offered future points of discussion. Session topics included:

The Context of Public Discourse on College Campuses Today
Strategies for Fostering Robust Discourse in the Classroom
Strategies for Fostering Robust Discourse on Campus and in the Community
Strategies for Connecting and Collaborating across Campuses

The NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference inspired a commitment to ongoing collaboration and support among attendees and organizers, with plans already underway for future events and initiatives aimed at advancing the mission of dialogue and discourse on college campuses statewide.

Participants left the conference with a new network of colleagues from across North Carolina, new opportunities for collaboration on projects related to public discourse, and new ideas to consider and implement back on their campuses.

Special recognition is due to the great team of partners who made this event possible. Kevin Marinelli and Alissa Bouttavong from the UNC-Chapel Hill Program for Public Discourse were amazing hosts who spearheaded the logistics of the conference and worked closely with the co-organizing planning team of Leslie Garvin (NC Campus Engagement), Graham Bullock (Davidson College), Matthew Metzgar (UNC Charlotte), Anne Moore (UNC Charlotte), and Andrew Moffa (Elon University). The team met regularly for nearly a year to organize the conference and is looking forward to following up on its success in the months to come.

Leslie Garvin presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference. — Leslie Garvin from North Carolina Campus Engagement
presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Graham Bullock presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference. — Conference co-organizer Graham Bullock from Davidson College presenting at the
NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Conference host and co-organizer Kevin Marinelli from UNC-Chapel Hill presenting at the
NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Kevin Marinelli presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Matt presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference. — Matt Metzgar from UNC Charlotte presenting at the NC Campus Discourse Leaders Conference.

Commons Conversation Reflection: Discussing Sports Betting with Chris Clunie

June 14, 2024 by Graham Bullock

Poster for Chris Clunie event on sports betting

By Graham Bullock, Stephen Walker ’26, and Emre Guvenilir ’25

The DCI’s final Commons Conversation of the spring semester was hosted by Chris Clunie, Athletics Director and Vice President for Athletics. The topic was “Sports Betting: What are the Issues,” and Mr. Clunie started the conversation by explaining the College’s current rules related to sports betting. In short, employees and students are not allowed to 1) engage in any form of betting on sports competitions in which Davidson College athletes are competing, 2) share nonpublic information about Davidson College athletes that is relevant to sports betting, or 3) attempt to influence the outcome of a sporting event that includes Davidson College athletes.

He also discussed how sports betting can erode the sense of community and trust within the campus community if students place bets on their fellow Davidson student-athletes. Doing so can also ruin relationships between those individuals. When the performance of a team or individual can materially affect a classmate or staff members financial well-being, that places enormous pressure on both the athletes and how they connect with others on campus.

After Mr. Clunie concluded his introduction to the topic, the Commons Conversation’s participants weighed in with their perspectives and questions. Some were in favor of sports betting and not regulating it too rigidly, while others were more skeptical and concerned about its recent rapid growth. Everyone weighed the effects of betting on student-athletes on those specific-athletes themselves, and they benefited from insights from two track team members taking part in the discussion. They considered how the practice might harm them personally, especially considering the fact that they are Division I athletes at a school as small as Davidson.

The participants also considered the benefits for people engaged in betting markets, including generating revenue and pure fun, and the limits of those benefits. Some highlighted how enjoyable sports betting is for a lot of people. Others suggested that betting is largely only experienced by groups of a higher socioeconomic status and emphasized that it can be highly addictive and harmful. They talked about how gambling is different from many other types of addictions in that its effects are less visible and that treatment and recovery resources are generally less available.

Mr. Clunie’s contributions to the conversation gave everyone insight into the rationale of different stakeholders considered by the athletics department as it works to develop betting rules for the college community to abide by that ensure they protect athletes and support the Honor Code. In discussing these rules, the participants emphasized the limits of the ability of the College to regulate the practice and the importance of the ethos of the honor code in ensuring sports betting does not adversely affect athletes, students, and teams.

The participants discussed the honor code more generally and expressed a shared sense of declining reverence for the guidelines in the post-COVID era. They then explored possible solutions to this problem and deliberated about what the administration can and should do to address it. One participant argued that grade inflation is contributing to less concern about the Honor Code, while another stated that they came to Davidson because of it. Circling back to the issue of sports betting, especially on student athletes, participants emphasized that students must point out to one another what is and is not acceptable.

The conversation concluded with some discussion about the practice of sports betting more generally, and how people across the ideological spectrum may take issue with it. We highlighted the ways cultural shifts in society at large can impact college campuses in unpredictable and important ways.

Commons Conversation Reflection: Discussing the First Year Experience with Dean McCrae

June 5, 2024 by Graham Bullock

Commons Conversation flyer with Dean McCrae

By Graham Bullock, Logan Jain ’26, and Grace Gallagher ’26

On Thursday, April 4, Dean of Students Byron McCrae hosted a discussion with students about the first year experience at Davidson as part of the DCI’s ongoing Commons Conversation series. Dean McCrae framed the discussion with some of his initial thoughts and questions and then opened it up for the students to share their impressions related to the first year experience at Davidson.

Students quickly began to ask questions about the goals of first-year programming. Do we want students to make connections and feel at home? Should we focus more on affinity-based programming for different identity groups (e.g., first gen, minority students, etc.)? Or do we want to work on building a broader sense of community and creating groups that include a cross-section of identities?

One theme of the conversation was the schedule and design of freshman orientation. They discussed the tradeoff between having too many required events that exhaust students and giving them a comprehensive enough introduction to life at Davidson – and to each other. Along those lines, the value of class trips also came up – last year the entire first year class went to a Charlotte FC game together.

The question of whether there are important topic areas that are not currently covered during Orientation was also raised, which precipitated a discussion about whether orientation programs should be extended throughout the whole first semester. There was a sense among some of the conversation participants that orientation shouldn’t end on the first day of classes, and that we need to ensure that first year students continue to receive the necessary support and have access to resources to ease the academic and social transition as they need them.

Others argued that there are a lot of resources currently available but students don’t take advantage of them. How do we increase the publicity of these resources? Some suggestions included creating a website with first-year resources (versus the current strategy of a pamphlet/handbook) as well as de-stigmatizing the use of these resources.

The value of the holistic advising program was discussed, and questions were raised about how students are paired with their advisors and what the tradeoffs of having a staff vs. faculty advisor are. Some students reported having advisors who were really helpful, while others reported that they were helpful in some regards but less helpful in others. Some of the students were unaware that advisors had funding to host social events with their advisees; others wondered how first-year students can be convinced that it is worth their time to show up at these and other events hosted for them.

Another general theme was whether the College should continue to work within the current orientation framework or develop new methods to introduce first years to Davidson. One specific idea that came up was to create more Pre-Orientation Programs that build on the experiences of Davidson Outdoors, the International Students Program, the STRIDE Program, and other similar initiatives.

All in all, it was a rich conversation that generated lots of ideas, questions, and areas of both agreement and disagreement. Dean McCrae took lots of notes; it was a great opportunity for him to both share this thoughts on the topic as well as hear directly from students about their perspectives on what worked well for them and what might be improved in the future.