Graham Bullock

Davidson in Reverse was initially conceived of as a group project in Professor Bailey’s “Debate & Deliberation” course. It was designed to get students to examine difficult issues from a variety of perspectives. By encouraging students to take on an issue from the opposite side of their preferred view or perspective, the project helped them to resist the temptation of conducting a superficial review of the thinking of those with whom they have passionate disagreements.

Students quickly got on board with the assignment during class sessions and worked with two Davidson residents, Paul Wetenhall and Andrew Shepard, to explore their chosen topic of “anti-Whiteness” and “wokeness” and whether they are hurting or helping America. They co-organized a public “Davidson in Reverse” debate that was held at 7 p.m. on Oct. 28 in the 900 Room of the Davidson Student Union. The debate included the two conservative/libertarian-leaning community members and two liberal/progressive leaning students from the class.

The “reverse” dynamic involved the debate participants arguing for the side that they disagree with; the two students argued against “woke” diversity policies while the two residents argued for the policies. Professor Dan Aldridge offered an expert analysis of the debate after it concluded, and the panelists took questions from the audience as well.

The event included food and was co-sponsored by the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. It was less about trying to change minds than showcasing the ability to argue in good faith by making an opponent’s best case, as well as the importance of examining important-contentious issues through a 360-degree lens before coming to a definitive judgment.

On February 11, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) at Davidson College hosted its 21st Deliberative Forum featuring a roundtable of experts with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. As part of the American Values Deliberative Forum Series co-hosted with Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill, the Expert Roundtable invited participants to wrestle with a foundational American tension: Are the ideals of liberty and the general welfare compatible, and what role should social safety nets play in balancing them?

Held in the 900 Room with an audience of over 100 people and streamed to more than 150 online participants (including a watch party of over 50 people at Duke University), the event brought together Davidson students, staff, faculty, alumni, and members of the broader public (including a group of local high school students) to listen to a wide-ranging discussion grounded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s Preamble. Together, those founding documents affirm both the protection of liberty and the promotion of the general welfare, commitments that have often complemented one another, but just as often clashed in practice.

The panel reflected that complexity.

Romina Boccia (Cato Institute), Christopher Freiman (West Virginia University), Lisa Gennetian (Duke University), and Joshua Preiss (UNC Chapel Hill) offered sharply contrasting perspectives on the sustainability and moral foundations of America’s social safety net. Associate Professor of Philosophy Dan Layman moderated the discussion, encouraging exploration of both areas of disagreement and agreement.

The evening opened with reflections on liberty itself. Preiss drew on republican political philosophy, arguing that freedom is not merely the absence of interference but protection from domination, whether by a monarch, an employer, or economic insecurity. From this perspective, some degree of social provision may reinforce liberty by reducing dependence and vulnerability.

Freiman, by contrast, emphasized a strong moral presumption against violating individual rights, including property rights. While he allowed that rights can sometimes be overridden for sufficiently large public benefits, he argued that the burden of justification must remain high.

Gennetian approached the issue as an economist focused on trade-offs rather than absolutes. She framed liberty and general welfare as goals that require careful balancing through policy design, asking how programs affect incentives, economic participation, and long-term outcomes, particularly for families and children.

Boccia focused squarely on fiscal sustainability, arguing that major entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are on an unsustainable trajectory that threatens long-term prosperity and democratic stability. In her view, broad interpretations of the “general welfare” clause have expanded federal power beyond its intended limits and weakened local, community-based forms of support.

If the panel agreed on anything, it was that the questions are difficult – and urgent.

Much of the conversation turned to demographic change and the structure of federal spending. Panelists noted that aging populations and slower workforce growth are reshaping the fiscal landscape. A striking statistic highlighted during the discussion: within the next decade, interest on the debt alongside Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could consume the entirety of federal tax revenues, raising difficult questions about the nation’s priorities today and in the future.

But the conversation did not remain at the level of budget projections. It returned repeatedly to deeper philosophical disagreements about what security requires.

Does economic security underpin freedom? Or do expansive safety nets undermine the very growth and autonomy that sustain liberty? Should reform focus on redistribution (through programs like Social Security, Medicare, or a Universal Basic Income) or on restructuring markets to generate inclusive growth and meaningful work?

On this last point, Preiss argued for a “full employment” orientation to economic policy, emphasizing the importance of social and economic inclusion. Gennetian underscored the importance of health and early childhood investments as foundational to long-term security. Freiman questioned whether broad redistribution is the most effective path and raised concerns about growth and incentives. Boccia advocated structural reform to impose budget constraints and restore fiscal balance, particularly in healthcare spending.

The discussion also expanded to contemporary challenges. Audience questions explored artificial intelligence and automation, the possibility of universal healthcare, and whether wealth redistribution contributes to a healthy democracy. Panelists disagreed on many points but shared a willingness to engage each other’s assumptions and ideas.

That spirit of engagement was a theme throughout the evening.

Chris Marsicano, Director of the Institute for Public Good, announced at the outset of the program that the DCI recently received a nearly $4 million federal grant to expand its model of deliberative programming to 100 college campuses nationwide over the next four years. The award reflects what Davidson has been building since 2020: a culture of civil discourse that predates the recent national surge of interest in free expression initiatives.

As Marsicano put it, “There is no true college or university education without free expression, without the ability to debate, to talk through tough issues, to come to some level of agreement or disagreement, and to do so with respect.”

The forum modeled that commitment. The panelists did not avoid disagreement; they leaned into it. They debated the meaning of property rights, the design of social insurance, the trade-offs between growth and redistribution, and the role of government versus community institutions. Yet the tone remained intellectually serious and collegial.

In her closing remarks, Boccia encouraged participants, when they hear something they disagree with, “don’t get furious, get curious.” That sentiment captured the evening’s purpose. The goal was not to resolve centuries-old tensions between liberty and general welfare in ninety minutes. It was to create space where those tensions could be examined honestly and rigorously.

As DCI Faculty Director Graham Bullock stated in introducing the event, “Our goal for these forums is to model respectful discourse across differences on contentious and challenging topics – and to create spaces for listening, sharing, and coming up with new ideas together.”

The DCI will continue to create such spaces – for example, through its upcoming D Team meetings and a campus-wide Community Conversation on Feb. 25 (7 pm in the 900 Room) – that give students, faculty, staff, and community members the opportunity to deliberate together. They will be able to test arguments, challenge assumptions, and consider how enduring values like liberty and general welfare should shape public policy generally and social safety nets specifically. Likewise, other institutions like Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill will be hosting their own conversations following the Roundtable — watch out for news about opportunities to deliberate near you!

As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, events like this Roundtable remind us that democracy is not sustained by slogans alone. It requires citizens willing to listen, to disagree, and to think carefully about the principles that govern us.

On February 11, everyone who joined the event at Davidson, Duke, UNC, and elsewhere did exactly that.

Check out the video recording of the Expert Roundtable below:

You can find below the Issue Guide developed by the DCI and shared with audience members in advance of the event.

DCI-Liberty-and-General-Welfare-Issue-Guide

And below is the poster for the event…

Expert-Roundtable-on-Liberty-General-Welfare-and-Social-Safety-Nets

Bonus Photo: And even after a night of good but intensive argument on stage, the panelists were able to hang out together at a local bar, King Canary, after the event, showing it is indeed possible to strongly disagree with one another while still being able to have a drink afterwards.