Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Blog Posts

“This was Fantastic:” Nearly 170 Attend DCI Guns in America Deliberative Forum

by

DCI Deliberative Forum photo.

“I’m so very grateful for Davidson’s DCI initiative that provides a thoughtful, meaningful, and challenging (in all the good ways a functioning democracy requires that) opportunity to engage with fellow citizens.“

DCI Guns in America Deliberative Forum Participant

On Tuesday, April 2, nearly 170 people – 94 online on Zoom and 69 in-person at Davidson College’s Lilly Family Gallery (a record number for a DCI Forum) – gathered to deliberate about one of the most contentious and challenging topics in American politics, and they did so authentically, respectfully, and thoughtfully. The topic – Guns in America: How Should We Balance Concerns about Gun Rights and Gun Risks? – was first discussed by a panel of experts and advocates who came from a wide range of backgrounds and expressed a wide range of perspectives.

They included Shannon Klug, a Former Air Force Colonel who has worked with Moms Demand Action, Be SMART, and Everytown’s Veterans Advisory Council), Philip Smith, the President of the National African Americans Gun Association, Ray Nothstine, a former Second Amendment Research Fellow at the John Locke Foundation, and Dominic Erdozain, a Research Fellow at Emory University and author of One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts our History and Threatens our Democracy. Their discussion was moderated by Dan Aldridge, Professor of History, Chair of Africana Studies, and a former DCI Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Fellow, while Graham Bullock, Faculty Director of the DCI and Associate Professor of Political Science, served as the event’s MC.

Photo of panelists and organizers standing together.
From Left: Ray Nothstine, Philip Smith, Shannon Klug, Dominic Erdozain, Dan Aldridge, and Graham Bullock

 The event was co-sponsored by Davidson College’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, Center for Political Engagement, College Democrats, College Libertarians, College Republicans, and Political Science Department. Representatives from each of the student political organizations asked questions of the panelists during the event, building on Dr. Aldridge’s facilitation of the discussion.

Instead of being lined up in a row of chairs, the panelists were seated around a roundtable on a stage, which enabled them to talk to each other more easily. A 360 degree video camera (a “Meeting Owl”) was placed in the center of the table, which enabled the conversation to be streamed live to participants who joined over Zoom. The video stream, which is available to view below, was also projected on a screen behind the panelists so people attending in-person could see who was speaking in case their direct view was blocked. This was the first time the DCI used this format, and it was widely praised as a helpful and engaging innovation.

The panel discussion set the stage for an in-depth hour-long opportunity for audience members to explore the issues associated with guns in America among themselves. They broke up into small groups of 6-8 people who included Davidson students, faculty, staff, community members, and alums. Each discussion was facilitated by a trained DCI facilitator, most of whom were DCI student fellows but also included several faculty and community members. They introduced a series of discussion questions shared in a Deliberation Guide that was distributed to participants both before and at the event. The guide also provided some background information and a summary of different viewpoints on the topic so everyone had access to a baseline of knowledge going into the discussion.

The short video below provides some short clips of these discussions as well as a window into how the panelists’ roundtable deliberation was setup in the room.

These were not easy discussions and participants explored both their areas of disagreement and agreement. But they did so with kindness, curiosity, and courage, and were generally very satisfied with the experience; 82% were either satisfied or very satisfied with their small group discussion, and 98% reported they are likely or highly likely to participate in another Deliberative Forum in the future. Check out some of their comments about the event below:

  • “We live in such angry times, where every controversial topic becomes a zero sum game that is impossible to win. I’m so very grateful for Davidson’s DCI initiative that provides a thoughtful, meaningful, and challenging (in all the good ways a functioning democracy requires that) opportunity to engage with fellow citizens. It is empowering to know you have a lot to contribute to the greater understanding of critical issues, and crucially important to be reminded that you also have a lot to learn from others.”
  • “We can all learn and open our minds to others in this type of format. The guided breakout sessions gave me reason to look at my own views and rethink some of my positions. In addition, the Deliberation Guide given out is most helpful in discerning my thoughts on this topic and learning of other resources. I encourage anyone who has even made up their mind about gun laws to attend the next forum. What we do together makes a difference.”
  • “I wanted to attend the DCI forum on guns to hear from experts and fellow citizens on how we can all work together to address gun safety in America. It was refreshing to be in a room full of people who all seemed to be there for the right reasons and were all open-minded to hearing different perspectives. The work being done by the DCI is important and I believe all citizens should challenge themselves to participate in these types of programs.”
  • “Far exceeded my expectations to hear a wide variety of opinions in a balanced and logical way.”
  • “The range of views (rather than simply two opposite views) on the panel was fabulous.”
  • “This was fantastic – THANK YOU to everyone who worked so hard to provide a balanced, informative space. [Our facilitator] did an excellent job in facilitating our discussion. Loved connecting with all the other alums in my group. And am very appreciative of the well sourced materials that I may revisit more deeply on my own time.”

Our hope is that events like this forum contribute to greater understanding of different perspectives on the issues that divide us and create the foundation for sustained progress on them in the future.

Walking the Talk – Is Widespread Deliberation Feasible?

by

Citizens Assembly in Ireland.

Photo credit: Citizens’ Assembly of Ireland

By Atyantika Mookherjee ’27

At the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, our D Teams, Deliberative Forums, and events aim to bring together a multitude of individuals to discuss conscientious topics to promote tolerance. In these deliberations, there is an emphasis on the importance of thoughtful exchange of ideas, diverse perspectives, and rational discourse to reach well-considered decisions. Nonetheless, while at Davidson and other college campuses, such an initiative is an active method to foster civic engagement, the question arises: is widespread deliberation truly feasible at the national level in modern societies?

At its core, widespread deliberation requires active participation from a broad spectrum of society. It entails creating platforms where individuals from diverse backgrounds can come together to discuss issues, share insights, and collaboratively seek solutions. However, one of the primary challenges to widespread deliberation is the issue of accessibility. Structural barriers such as socioeconomic disparities, geographic distance, and technological limitations can hinder broad participation. Not everyone has equal access to platforms for deliberation. Bridging these accessibility gaps requires proactive efforts to ensure that marginalized communities, including those with limited resources or marginalized voices, have avenues to participate meaningfully in deliberative processes.

Moreover, ensuring inclusivity within deliberative spaces is paramount for their effectiveness. Diversity of perspectives, experiences, and identities enriches discussions and leads to more comprehensive decision-making outcomes. However, achieving true inclusivity entails overcoming biases, discrimination, and power imbalances that can marginalize certain groups within society. Furthermore, the success of widespread deliberation depends on the willingness of individuals to engage in constructive dialogue. In an era marked by polarization, echo chambers, and information silos, fostering a culture of open-mindedness, empathy, and critical thinking is essential. People must be willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, challenge their assumptions, and engage in civil discourse even amidst disagreement.

Despite these challenges, there are promising examples of widespread deliberation being implemented in various contexts around the world. The Citizens’ Assembly initiative in Ireland, established in 2016, engages randomly selected citizens to deliberate on key societal issues. Notably, it played a crucial role in recommending abortion law reforms. Through informed deliberation, it successfully fostered inclusive decision-making and contributed to shaping public policy in Ireland, modeling an example of how deliberation is viable at the national level. Similarly, consensus conferences and participatory budgeting are initiatives that have the potential for inclusive decision-making processes that incorporate deliberative principles.

Technology further offers new opportunities to expand the reach of deliberative processes. Online platforms, social media, and digital tools can facilitate broader participation, enable diverse voices to be heard, and promote transparency in decision-making. However, it is crucial to address algorithmic biases and privacy concerns to ensure that technological innovations in deliberation uphold democratic values and principles.

Therefore, while the idea of widespread deliberation may seem daunting, it is not inherently unattainable. By addressing challenges related to accessibility, inclusivity, and civic culture, societies can move closer to realizing the vision of deliberative democracy. Embracing deliberation as a foundational principle of governance holds the promise of fostering informed societal discourse and advancing collective well-being.

Commons Conversation Reflection: Discussing Safe Spaces with Dr. Boyer

by

11×17-CC-w-Patricio-Boyer-FINAL-1

By Atyantika Mookherjee ’27

On Friday, March 22nd, a group of Davidson students gathered over lunch to discuss the concept and role of safe spaces with Dr Patricio Boyer. Dr Boyer, Director of the Humanities Program, had interesting ideas about the differing roles of safe spaces. The conversation began with an overview of the DCI’s Conversation Agreements and a round of introductions, allowing students from different majors and class years to share their reasons for interest in the topic and fostering a sense of inclusivity.

Dr Boyer then provided an overview of the topic, presenting his thoughts around how the question of a college being a safe space is a compelling one as it not only is a meeting ground for students, but also a place for faculty and staff to express their thoughts. He then opened the conversation up to the students. What followed was an engaging conversation that touched on trigger warnings, the type of media present in the classroom, and the difference between safe and brave places on college campuses.

It was incredibly interesting seeing students grapple with the question of if the classroom ought to be a safe space and the tug between content that requires a trigger warning and a comprehensive education. While – like most conversations at the DCI – there may be no easy answer, the experience was a rewarding one for all involved as we each walked away with new perspectives, more questions, and the skills to bring about productive conversations.

Refresh Your Feed & Your Perspective

by

A balance scale sitting on a table.

Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Fellow)

When we go to restaurants, some of us like steaks, some prefer salads, and some opt for the pasta. News consumption, for most of us, is the same way. We may know people who stick to their BBC, but we may also have friends who prefer the more politically aligned publications such as Jacobin magazine or The American Conservative. But unlike our ways of developing taste and preference for certain culinary consumption habits–trying different items on the menu, comparing calories, examining ingredients–we often do not, or cannot, hold our news sources to the same level of scrutiny.

Social media algorithms, influential people in our lives, and personal biases may lead us to consume one news source or one-sided sources excessively, leading us to neglect the alternative options and miss out on the variety of flavors of coverage on the same events and topics that are out there. We feel confident in our food preferences because we try different options and determine what best suits our personal tastes. With news, we often stick with what we know or what supports our opinions and appears in our search and social media feeds: we have no clue what other options are available to us. Our frequently misguided, or surface-level evaluations of our news sources, pose threats to our abilities to identify media biases and to gain accurate views of perspectives news sources can distort to serve an ulterior agenda.

In our most recent DCI fellows’ cohort meeting, with help from Jayme Sponsel and Davidson’s E.H. Little Library resource website, we evaluated and discussed methods of combating this dilemma, empowering us to diversify our media tastes in order to improve resource awareness and understandings of the varieties of resources and their respective values. As a part of our discussion, we had the opportunity to evaluate our own news feeds and learn about valuable resources designed to inform us on their biases, offering a variety of perspectives to utilize in bolstering our news consumption.

Two resources that allowed me to both identify the biases in sources I did not anticipate and offered a variety of perspective sources I had not been exposed to before were the Interactive Media Bias Chart and AllSides.com. The chart and AllSides offer a trove of sources along with reliable information on their accuracy and political biases. Immediately, the resources offered analyses of news outlets which made me more aware of even slight bias which may influence reporting. These new resources have allowed me to look for a certain left or right tilt in the sources I consume, and also to understand how much of my newsfeed comes from one side’s perspective versus the others.

That’s not the only takeaway from these sources. With this new awareness I can add the variety my information feed, for whatever reason, was lacking. Without the awareness of other options, I would have never made the alterations to my feed this resource has allowed me to begin making. I now subscribe to more newsletters and follow more social media accounts from resources I disagree with. I may be upset by the content they produce, even incensed by the more opposing stories from the side I don’t align with. But that’s a good thing.

Before, only consuming news more aligned with my views because of the ways social media and influences in my life have led me to gravitate towards these sources, I had an extremely simplistic view of other sides and their views. The new variety populating my feed has offered me a far deeper understanding of different perspectives, being that they come from people who actually hold those views rather than those who either seek to discredit or hold implicit biases against them.

Balancing your feed with both an accurate and balanced array of perspective media allows you to be informed in ways only viewing your “side’s” content could never achieve. Much like knowing what you prefer and why at a restaurant, because of your experience and knowledge of other items on the menu, you cannot have fully formed opinions or clear connection to a perspective until you have sought out other perspectives, especially conflicting ones.

Until you have taken the time to listen to and understand the other side, whether through conversation with people or news consumption, you never really know where you stand on an issue. You only think you know because people and sources you generally agree with tell you that a certain stance is the “correct” one. Only after you can compare different arguments can you truly reason through an issue and choose a side, much like you only know what to order at a restaurant after you peruse the menu and compare items. Weighing arguments and an array of information allows us to fully deliberate internally on an issue and understand which stance most closely supports our core values.

Who knows? Balancing your feed may even lead to forming new perspectives and opinions you would never expect to hold. The best foodies like to scan every page of the menu when they eat out, and because of this they are always sure of what they want. And now I can say I share their confidence in my political perspectives due to my new news awareness and motivation to balance my newsfeed because I have accessed arguments from a variety of sources, been exposed to different opinions, and subsequently undergone the deliberative consideration necessary to determine which stances to take based on what sides align with my values.

We don’t have to switch sides or only consume news from one type of source. But taking the steps to understand perspectives from across the spectrum allows us to form insights at a deeper level than otherwise possible. At the very least, a balanced news feed allows one to gain confidence in their own views, thanks to taking the steps to sample the alternatives. You can’t be sure you disagree with someone or a political stance until you truly know what they believe.

Perspectives and Pitfalls: Deliberative Democracy Through a Nietzschean Lens

by

A round table of politicians with a surrounding audience.

Shahin Ahmadi ’24 (DCI Fellow)

In the realm of political philosophy, deliberative democracy has long been hailed as a beacon of reason and good collective decision-making. It posits that rational deliberation among citizens can lead to better, more just decisions. However, when we turn to Friedrich Nietzsche’s unconventional and often controversial philosophy, as laid out in works such as Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, we are met with a provocative critique that challenges some of the foundational principles of deliberative democracy, and in doing so, forces us to confront and contend with some of the challenges of this framework.

One of Nietzsche’s primary critiques is that deliberative democracy may operate under the illusion of rationality. Deliberation presupposes that, through reasoned argument and debate, a group of citizens can arrive at a rational consensus. Nietzsche, however, would argue that such rationality is a façade. His philosophy is grounded in perspectivism, the notion that all knowledge is influenced by individual perspectives and biases. In this light, deliberation may merely serve as a platform for the expression of various wills to power, often masquerading as objective reason.

On top of his skepticism of the alleged rationality of the deliberative practice, Nietzsche’s concern with the manipulation of discourse and language emerges as another point of contention. His critique specifically targets how language and discourse can be wielded as instruments of power, shaping public opinion not through the merit of ideas but through persuasive rhetoric and emotional appeal. In a deliberative democracy, where persuasive argumentation is paramount, the potential for manipulation and the undue influence of eloquent speakers skilled in rhetoric should not be dismissed. This Nietzschean cynicism impels us to question whether the deliberative discourse is truly as bona fide and impartial as it purports to be.

Deliberative democracy’s penchant for consensus and majority rule also comes under Nietzschean scrutiny. Nietzsche coined the term “herd morality” to describe the conventional values and beliefs that emerge from mass culture and democracy. He believed that such morality stifled the greatness of individuals who dared to transcend societal norms. Deliberative democracy, by emphasizing consensus and accommodation, may unwittingly perpetuate this herd morality, suppressing the strength and uniqueness of those who dare to stand outside the mainstream.

A related issue Nietzsche raises is the problem of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ This concept challenges the presumption that majority rule inherently equates to just outcomes. Nietzsche would argue that a decision supported by the majority does not guarantee its moral or ethical superiority. Instead, it risks marginalizing minority voices and perspectives, potentially leading to a conformity that suppresses necessary dissent and diversity. In this way, a majority vote can exert a form of tyranny, prioritizing popularity over principle. Therefore, deliberative democracy, while striving for inclusivity, may inadvertently amplify the dominance of majority opinions, stifling the autonomy and authenticity of minority voices.

Under the Nietzschean lens, deliberative democracy is filled with complexities and inherent paradoxes. Nietzsche’s hammer of philosophical critique, though controversial, forces us to reexamine our assumptions about rational discourse, consensus, and the pursuit of justice, and to contend with the underlying power dynamics and individual desires that shape our political systems. While the deliberative framework offers a hopeful vision of rationality and collective decision-making, Nietzsche prompts us to face the uncomfortable truths about human nature that will inevitably cause the ideal to fall short in practice.

In the end, as we grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to embrace the tension between deliberative democracy’s ideals and Nietzsche’s critiques. Echoing the sentiments from insights like those in Samantha Maldonado’s “Inclusion Around the Cycle,” we should strive for a practical and continuous improvement in representing diverse perspectives while acknowledging the impossibility of perfection in public discourse. This outlook necessitates recognizing and valuing the cyclical nature of deliberation, where each iteration of public engagement is not a failure to reach an unattainable ideal but a step towards a more inclusive, reflective, and dynamic democratic process. By doing so, we aim to strike a balance between the aspirational ideals of deliberative democracy and the pragmatic realism of Nietzschean philosophy.