Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Blog Posts

In the Midst of the Midterms: Timely D Team Deliberations about Electoral Reform

by

map of 2020 us election

By Peter Beck ’25 (DCI Fellow)

With the highly anticipated November 2022 elections being held this fall, our D Team discussions on electoral accessibility, integrity and reform have been highly relevant to current events. People closely watched the 2022 Midterm elections for a plethora of reasons, but especially for its status as the first set of national elections since the January 6th Insurrection. Democracy and the response to the attack on the Capitol were, in many ways, on the ballot. Indeed, there were a host of candidates running for state and federal office who continue to deny the results of the 2020 Presidential Election (shown in the image above). According to a New York Times-Siena College poll, over seventy percent of voters believe American democracy to be at risk.

Like many other Americans, the efficacy and integrity of election administration are close to my heart. I believe in a patriotic duty to participate in our democracy by casting a vote. Beyond voting, enlisting in the military, serving on a jury, and paying taxes, there are several other ways in which citizens can involve themselves with supporting our nation’s governance. Another such mechanism for people to participate and ensure the success of our democracy is by volunteering for local election offices.

Amidst the Presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials expected a record-breaking sum of mail-in ballots for the November 2020 elections. With this in mind, my friend (Mills Jordan, a fellow member of the Davidson Class of 2025) and I recruited over forty high school students to help the Charleston Election Commission process mail-in ballots. 

Spanning six different high schools, students took time off from school and worked three arduous days sorting nearly a hundred thousand envelopes and ballots. This involved navigating health and safety concerns as well as arcane and ambiguous election laws. For the first time in Charleston County history, the sum of votes cast by mail surpassed the number of in-person voters. Miraculously, the team of students and I completed sorting ballots on Election Day before in-person polling places closed.

Election officials across the country also struggled to keep up while facing a flood of mail-in ballots. Areas with higher populations and underwhelming resources could not possibly count all of the votes before the end of election night. This led to the proliferation of conspiracy theories, threats, and even attacks on election officials. These false accusations of election manipulation were essential in creating the climate that led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

This context and the current political atmosphere made elections all the more important as a topic for D Team discussion. In our past two sessions, my D Team came together from different backgrounds and ideologies to share their concerns about American democracy. Every participant agreed about the importance of the present moment. We had a robust conversation discussing and coming up with solutions to increase election transparency and accessibility, like expanding peoples’ ability to vote by mail.

Initially, I expected our conversation not to produce many changes of heart, given the fact-based approaches to election integrity. Seeing whether a person believes in the validity of the 2020 election is pretty straightforward. However, I found my D Team participants to be especially responsive and compassionate towards the experiences of their peers. Our country’s current election laws, largely left up to the states, allowed for a conversation that incorporated a diversity of experiences and methods for voting. People’s individual stories were accepted and informed the group’s understanding of voting in the United States.

Residents of different states could compare the methods of how they vote and what they felt most comfortable with. This was an extremely useful exchange of ideas when considering which voting reforms to implement. My D Team deliberation led to a helpful, even necessary, broadening of perspectives on how to improve our electoral process and preserve our democracy.

First Words and First Steps: Introductions, Identities, and Deliberation

by

nametags

By Mae Corley ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Without knowing about the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I took Dr. Bullock’s American Politics class last spring. An important component of our class was participation in Deliberation Teams hosted by DCI. With the intention to learn about deliberative democracy, I joined my first group on a Sunday afternoon.  

As usual, our D Team group began with introductions. We were called to express several points of our identity that might have influenced how we think or what we believe. As always, I stressed my hometown, Seattle, as the primary contributor to my opinions and beliefs. Coming to Davidson, I was reaching outside of my comfort zone in, perhaps, more ways than I realized. Not only does the state of North Carolina lean in a different direction politically, but there are many unspoken social norms and behaviors that I have found to be different and foreign to me. 

In some sense, I miss the Pacific Northwest. It is beautiful, comfortable, and breeds its own type of person. Yet, I came to Davidson to find people unlike myself who could shape me into a well-rounded, liberal-arts-inspired adult. I wanted to be introduced to others who don’t share a similar identity produced from a Seattle upbringing.  

While, obviously, there is much more to a D Team than introductions, I still find myself fascinated by how each person in the conversation chooses to introduce themselves. When I was a participant last year, I liked to reference each other person’s introduction when I heard their opinions and thoughts during our deliberation. How did the identity factors they chose to share correspond with the opinions they hold and what they could bring to the discussion? What did they choose to focus on when they spoke and added to our deliberation? Conversely, as a facilitator this year, how can I understand each person who has chosen to participate in my deliberation? What ultimately brought them to the discussion?  

Deliberative democracy fundamentally calls for citizens to engage in discussions to understand each other, see other sides of issues, and gather a holistic perspective. While sharing identities may seem like one of the simpler parts of a D Team discussion, I believe it is the most important. Deliberative dialogue encourages participants to recognize the identities and perspectives inside of the conversation, as well as those left out and missing. By understanding the perspectives, opinions, and identities of each person in a D Team, we can create a productive deliberation in a small, intimate setting. 

Through my experience as a participant and a facilitator, I have interacted with many people – most of them connected through Davidson somehow – who offer countless different experiences, identities, and perspectives. I have been excited to find where people find agreement and disagreement and how that can relate to their identities. Deliberation is important to me because I can understand my past – a Seattle upbringing fueled by the outdoors, rainy winters, and Pacific Northwest attitudes – as it can relate to my present.  

Now, as a facilitator and participant of deliberative dialogues, I can see where my opinion, perspectives, and ideas originate from. I have also learned to appreciate where others are coming from, heard new ideas, and formed connections with people very different from myself. I believe that conversations with people different than you are essential, and, as always, they start with those easily overlooked but critically important introductions. 

Photo above is by Travis Wise and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Hot-Button Issues in Three Acts: Promoting Deliberation in a Social and Political Philosophy Course

by

Introductory Slide for Erik Anderson and DeeP Collaborative Blog Series.

The 2021-22 cohort of the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of 15 faculty from Davidson College and five other Associated Colleges of the South institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. Throughout the 2021-22 academic year, these faculty, who come from a wide array of disciplines, studied and discussed different deliberative pedagogy methods, shared their ideas and questions with one another, and worked to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.

I warned students in my PHL 310 class at Furman University this spring that we were going to be covering some dark material. We began with an overview of liberalism. I used Michael Freeden’s Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction along with primary texts from Locke, Kant, Mill, and Rawls to define the liberal tradition—with all of its internal differences and complexities—as a philosophical paradigm that puts the dignity of the human person at its center.

We then examined a series of challenges to liberalism. We looked at Jonathan Livingstone Smith’s On Inhumanity: Dehumanization and How to Resist It, which questions whether there is a philosophical justification for human dignity and implicitly challenges liberalism as being overly optimistic about human evil. We read Kate Manne’s Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, which defends a pessimistic account of the prevalence of misogyny and liberalism’s failure to address it. We explored Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Anti-Racist, which criticizes the “color blind” approaches to racial equality typical of some forms of liberalism. We read Jennifer M. Silva’s We’re Still Here: Pain and Politics in the Heart of America, a sociological account that depicts the rage, despair, and hopelessness of many working-class Americans, who seem to be disempowered by liberal individualism.

I intentionally planned the course to raise a number of “hot button” issues. Philosophers are lucky in that their standard approach to teaching – raising provocative questions and having students debate answers to them – already approximates democratic deliberation to some degree. But participating in the Deliberative Pedagogy Seminar encouraged me to add formal activities aimed at promoting deliberation. I devoted three 75-minute class sessions to deliberation exercises.

The first was a “fishbowl” activity. This activity involved dividing the class into two groups. The first group sat in a circle on the floor, while the second group sat at their desks in circle around them. I had the group in the inner circle deliberate about a particular issue. (The issue had to do with whether the idea of “natural human rights” was still tenable and what we ought to do to prevent horrors like genocide.) Once the first group had deliberated for a while, the students in the second group were allowed to ask clarifying questions and offer observations about the inner group’s deliberation. I then had the groups switch places and repeat the activity. Afterward, students reported that sitting close together on the floor in a “fishbowl” created a sense of intimacy and trust that made it easier for them to share their thoughts with others.

The second deliberation activity I did is called “take a position.” Using masking tape, I placed a line down the middle of the classroom. If students stood on one side of the line, that indicated that they agreed with a statement. If they stood on the other side, that indicated that they disagreed. I then read a series of controversial statements such as: “A big factor keeping poor people down in the U.S. is their over-reliance on government assistance,” “We have an obligation to help the oppressed—as long as they are not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or xenophobic,” and “The political system in the U.S. is largely deaf to the concerns of working-class Americans.” After each statement, I asked a selection of students why they ended up on the side of the line they did and why they disagreed with some of their fellow students. Students sometimes managed to persuade each other to switch sides!

The last deliberation activity I did is called “four corners.” I divided the class into four groups. In each of the four corners of the room, I taped a question to the wall addressed to the book we were reading (Kate Manne’s Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny). Questions included whether Manne was too pessimistic about the pervasiveness and intractability of misogyny, whether she inadvertently slighted the value of caring work, whether she was correct in her claim that misogyny was to blame for the election of Donald Trump, and whether she was right to claim that young Americans were more prone to misogyny than they might care to admit. The student groups rotated from corner to corner, spending about ten minutes discussing the question at each one. Before asking the groups to move to the next corner, I would go around the room and have each group summarize their discussion – including any disagreements that arose. After each group had visited each corner, we discussed the issues raised by each question as an entire class.

Each of these three activities was useful at promoting deliberation among the students. I cannot say that I fully incorporated deliberation into the class this semester, at least not in the way I envision in my course plan. This was primarily because the material for the course was entirely new to me, and it would have been too time-consuming to completely revamp my teaching methodology. But the baby steps I took did encourage students to deliberate in a more focused way than the more “freewheeling” approach I have taken in the past. I also noticed that these more structured activities enabled some of the quieter students to feel comfortable participating. I look forward to increasing the amount of deliberative theory, pedagogy, and activities in future versions of PHL 310.

Discovering Public Happiness in Deliberation

by

key to happiness stock image.

           

By Daniel Lee ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Happiness is a timeless virtue that colors the human condition. It is powerful, bringing light into the darkness and hope to the meek. Our fondest memories are often accompanied by this emotion, which comes back alive in reminiscence and nostalgia. And perhaps it is the presence of happiness itself—whether large or small—that allows us to march on past the burdens of a broken world.

There are, arguably, two distinct forms of happiness: private and public. Private happiness is found within the comfort of one’s private life, without interaction with other individuals. For example, one might achieve private happiness through the independent indulgence of food, entertainment, or physical activity. The duration of happiness created out of these activities tends to be short and temporary, leaving individuals unsatisfied in the aftermath.

Public happiness, on the other hand, is found exclusively by interacting with other individuals. The etymology of “happiness” is critical in understanding this phenomenon. The word originates from happ (Old Norse for chance or luck) and -ness (the state of being). Together, it signifies the state of being encompassed by chance and luck. So how does this apply to the creation of public happiness, and how does one go about bringing it to life?

The answer to that question can be found in the art of public discourse and deliberation. When individuals gather to hold a genuine conversation, void of preconceived scripts or narratives, the potential and possibility of the conversation are limitless, led by the force of spontaneity and chance. The contribution of one individual’s ideas will prompt others to react and contribute their own thoughts by chance, leading to the creation of something new. More often than not, this creation of something new is the birth of public happiness, brought forth into existence out of meaningful and exciting interactions between people.

This pursuit of public happiness is what I believe to be at the core of the DCI’s mission. In a world plagued by the impasse of ideological polarization and serious mental health crises, we need to work actively to bring back the virtue of public happiness into our communities. Whether the DCI deliberation model is implemented in local coffee shops or at large academic conferences, each step is crucial in ensuring a path forward. Without this important work, I am afraid that future generations of humanity may forgo ever experiencing public happiness altogether.

Although the present circumstances may seem dim, hope dances with my every heartbeat because of the meaningful interactions I have experienced through DCI this semester. Working with the DCI Fellows, D Team participants, and Dr. Bullock has helped restore my faith in our ability to move past the self-centered narrative and rather pursue great conversations created out of a bridge of respect and humility. And yes, much work is still left to be done. However, insofar as the possibility exists, the pursuit of public happiness is worth the struggle toward a better and healthier democracy.

Deliberation at Davidson: What’s the Point?

by

Bonner Scholars deliberating at Davidson College Lilly Gallery.

By Ahtziri Gonsalez (DCI Fellow)

Over the past few years, I have noticed that students are very vocal about bringing attention to issues in their communities. We have conversations about current issues, discuss different opinions, and help educate one another through platforms like Instagram or even the infamous YikYak. Still, when it comes to sitting down to have a conversation about different issues outside of a classroom or with people that you are not that close to, not a lot of people tend to participate. Does this matter?

Deliberation can be a word often associated with confrontation or arguments. Still, it can also be thought of as reflecting or just being open to listening to other points of view. At Davidson, getting caught up in conversations with people who feel the same way about specific issues is easy. While these conversations are essential, it is also important to remember that others might not react the same to things you might think are today’s societal norms.

Even if you have a conversation with someone who you know has completely different opinions about something you feel passionate about, shutting them out entirely and immediately forming a negative image of the person is less productive than having a conversation with them. If you sit down and talk, you might understand how they came to form their opinions while they get to hear why you believe certain things.

However, these conversations can only be productive if there is a mutual level of respect and understanding. Without these dispositions, it can be difficult to not jump to conclusions or into unproductive and accusatory argument. When this happens, it can be feel like you are arguing with the person and all of what you think they believe rather than engaging with the specific topic and question that you are actually talking about. as arguing with a person about what they think instead of arguing against the idea itself.

These conversations are very difficult to have, especially when it comes to a topic you feel strongly about. Yet, acknowledging the steps that you are taking to be able to have productive conversations still counts for something! Being open-minded is a challenging but essential skill, and practicing this in the classroom, by reading articles with views different from yours, or by attending events like the ones hosted by DCI can help broaden your understanding of various subjects.

You can also learn more about why it is so important to be able to deliberate while keeping in mind that it is not your job to educate others and that you can’t force someone to change their views. What matters is that you took the time to discuss your experiences while listening to the experiences of others and discovering how they came to think about different issues in particular ways.