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.