Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

DCI Posts

We’re Hiring!

by Leave a Comment

Image of "job opportunity" with DCI logo

The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative is hiring a new Program Coordinator! We are seeking an energetic and hard-working person to join our team and coordinate the implementation of the initiative’s programs. These include our efforts to create opportunities for productive dialogue and deliberation in diverse classroom settings, outside of the classroom, and in the community. 

Responsibilities include organizing the logistics of the Initiative’s meetings, programs, and events; maintaining and updating the initiative’s website and social media presence; and managing the data collected by the DCI about its programs. The position is also responsible for managing and tracking the expenses and budget of the Initiative and working on special projects related to the mission of the DCI.

Visit the Davidson website to learn more about the position and the application process.

Thanksgiving after the Election

by

Thanksgiving images with people talking and Donkey and Elephant in their thoughts, with the word Connect between them.

Every year around Thanksgiving you can find a stream of advice about how to engage with family with different political viewpoints across the dinner table (and the DCI has contributed our fair share). The supply of these missives likely peaks in presidential election years, and the demand for them may be at its highest after our most recent election. Indeed, many Americans feel a deep sense of disconnection from, disillusionment with, and even disgust for those who voted for the candidate they most despise.

These feelings build on a normal and natural desire to step from politics after an election and return to focusing on other important spheres of our lives. Even when elections are not as fraught as they currently are, it is not surprising that we want to escape from the political and re-discover our other passions – whether that be on Netflix, in books, on hikes, or elsewhere.

Whether our candidate won or lost, such escape may be healthy and even critical for us at this point. It can enable us to step back, get perspective, and restore ourselves. It can help us re-focus our energies and return to our interest in politics with a fresh perspective. Because at some point, we must return to it; if we care about our collective life together, if we care about one another and the directions our society follows, then we owe it to ourselves and each other to re-engage in some form or another.

Okay, fine, you say, but do I have to do it at Thanksgiving? Can’t I wait until at least the New Year, or maybe 2026? Perhaps, and everyone must make their own decision on when and how best to re-enter the political conversation. But family gatherings, perhaps ironically, offer a special opportunity for trying out new approaches and different modes of engagement after consequential political events.

How so? By enabling us, first within the space of our closest relations, to re-commit to following the Golden Rule of “loving your neighbor as yourself.” We can ask ourselves, if your candidate had lost (when in fact they won), how would you want those whose candidate had won to treat you at those gatherings? Certainly not by making snide, sarcastic, or acerbically triumphant remarks, but probably also not by just ignoring you or the subject.

Instead, how meaningful would it be to you, if that sister whose candidate won, authentically, earnestly, and sincerely asked you, in a quiet moment after dinner perhaps, “You know, I know we voted differently, and I know how upset you must feel about the outcome. I’m concerned about you – how are you doing?” What if they were truly open to hearing your concerns and just listening – and responding as patiently and respectfully as possible, when asked, “How could you vote for that person?”

And likewise, if your candidate had won (when in fact they lost), how would you like those whose candidate had lost to treat you? Also probably not with biting criticism, doomsday rhetoric, or willful silence. But what if instead, that brother whose candidate lost, said to you, honestly and directly, “You know, I know we voted differently, and I know how happy you must feel about the outcome. But frankly, I’m really struggling with understanding it; maybe you can help me. Why do you think so many people voted the way they did?” What if they were truly open to hearing your analysis and just listening – and asking as respectfully as possible, “And why did you vote for that person?”

There is some asymmetry here – a basic ethic of care and compassion suggests that the victor has a little more moral responsibility to reach out to the vanquished.  But the vanquished also have a duty to treat the victor as a human being as well. Humility, generosity, and curiosity are all important virtues – and deliberative dispositions – to cultivate in these moments.

I was recently invited by a group at Davidson College Presbyterian Church to speak about “Civil Discourse after the Election: Pitfalls and Pathways Moving Forward.” In my talk, I referenced some biblical passages that provide some guidance on why and how to adopt these dispositions. To those who have been victorious, Proverbs 24:17 suggests, “Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice.” To those who have been defeated and feel (or fear) persecution, Matthew 5:43-44 encourages, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Similar advice is offered by many different faith and secular traditions, and they all suggest we should avoid the vices of both conceit and contempt – the habit of thinking ourselves better than others and believing those others to be unequivocally worthless. Instead, we should aim to be both humble and courageous – humble enough to recognize we might be wrong and brave enough to discover when others might be right.

Sounds great in theory, perhaps, but how do we enact these principles in practice? The DCI has developed a Guide to One-on-One Conversations, which maps out a process that you can follow before, during, and after a discussion with someone who you disagree with. Establishing expectations, setting the tone, asking good questions, listening actively, sharing respectfully; these are just a few of the suggestions it includes that may be helpful.

But perhaps the most important thing to remember, as you pass the Thanksgiving sides across the table, is the goal. Given the deep pain, frustration, and division that many of us are feeling, our objective at this point should probably not be to win an argument or persuade one another of the rightness of our side. Instead, we should first focus on re-discovering our common humanity, our common joys and concerns, our love for one another. First seek to heal and to understand; as Sara Copic wrote in her Thanksgiving blog post last year, “By approaching our deep disagreements with curiosity first, we may be able to build the trust needed in order to have the hard conversations we would like to have together.”

Have a restful and restorative Thanksgiving that has its share of escape, rediscovery, and perhaps a small bit of empathetic conversation across our family and political divides.

Real Conversations, Real Impact: Reflections from the SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue

by

It’s rare that we get to witness such a powerful convergence of energy, ideas, and purpose as we did at this year’s SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue. Over the course of two days starting on October 18th, 120 students from across the country came together to engage in conversations that matter, tackling some of today’s most pressing issues. Throughout the dialogue I was in awe of how well our student representatives, Charlotte Juge ’27 and Casey Scheiner ’28, rose to the occasion, engaging in critical discussions with poise and insight. Casey and Charlotte are current DCI Fellows and truly exemplified the caliber of leadership we hope to foster through our Fellows program.

The SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue is designed to bring students together to discuss and address the challenges they encounter on their campuses, from campus protests to DEI initiatives to university policies. By sharing experiences and perspectives with peers from other colleges, students identify common struggles or obstacles and then collaborate to develop practical solutions. The ultimate goal is for participants to return to their respective campuses with a clear action plan to tackle the issues they’ve pinpointed—whether it’s creating more inclusive spaces, improving campus policies, or finding ways to foster productive dialogue around contentious topics. This collaborative approach not only strengthens connections between students across institutions but also empowers them to drive meaningful change on their own campuses.

Photo of student speaking at conference.
Casey Scheiner ’28 speaking at a plenary session during the conference

We are proud to share Charlotte Juge ’27 represented Davidson College on a panel during the first day of the event titled, “My Story to Our Story: The Impact on Students’ Lives.” In this session, students shared their personal political backgrounds and discussed the experiences that have shaped their political identities. Charlotte’s thoughtful contribution highlighted the importance of understanding how individual stories influence broader campus dynamics, especially in today’s politically charged environment. Her perspective not only enriched the panel discussion but also showcased the kind of student leadership that the DCI strives to cultivate. By reflecting on how political beliefs are formed and shaped by personal and collective experiences, Charlotte and her peers sparked a deeper conversation about how universities and colleges can create spaces where students feel heard, respected, and empowered to express their views in constructive ways.

Charlotte Juge ’27 sharing her perspective at the conference

On the second day of the event, students took a hands-on approach to addressing the challenges they had identified on their campuses by workshopping solutions and engaging in stakeholder analysis. In small groups, they brainstormed actionable plans to tackle challenging campus issues. They also identified key stakeholders—such as administrators, faculty members, student organizations, and local community leaders—who could support their efforts. By mapping out these critical contacts, students were able to develop clear strategies for reaching out once they returned to campus, ensuring that they had the necessary resources and support to make meaningful progress in implementing their solutions. This collaborative, strategic approach not only helped students refine their ideas but also gave them the tools to turn their discussions into real-world action.

As staff, it was truly rewarding to be there in support of the DCI Fellows and students from across the country as they worked together to workshop solutions and engage in stakeholder analysis. Watching these students collaborate with peers from diverse institutions was a powerful reminder of the strength that comes from student dialogue. This event provided a unique opportunity for students to exchange ideas, perspectives, and strategies with others facing similar challenges on their campuses, while also learning from different approaches to addressing complex issues. Being part of this process allowed us to witness the students’ growth as leaders, as they not only developed concrete plans for change but also built connections that will support their efforts back on campus. It was inspiring to see them take ownership of the solutions they were creating and to see firsthand how they engaged with the stakeholder process to ensure their efforts could be effective and sustainable.

The SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue was a truly inspiring event, bringing together passionate students from across the country to engage in critical discussions and develop real solutions to challenges on their campuses. It was incredible to see our Charlotte and Casey step up, engaging in difficult conversations with insight and maturity. Their contributions, along with those of their peers, are a powerful reminder of the potential for young leaders to drive change. As these students return to their campuses, we’re excited to see how they turn their collaborative ideas into action. To learn more about the event, check out this article from the University of Delaware that recaps the highlights and impact of the Dialogue.

Innovation within Tradition: Eu-Phi Debate Includes DCI-Supported Audience Deliberations 

by

Group of students sitting around a table discussing

Every four years since at least 2000, the Davidson College Democrats and Republicans have held debates focused on key issues in the presidential election. They have been held between Eu and Phi Halls, two of the oldest buildings on campus, and have built on an even older tradition of debates between the Davidson’s two literary societies, Eumanean Society and Philanthropic Society, that date back to the college’s founding in 1837.

This fall, the College Democrats and College Republicans collaborated with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) to add a new element to the debate experience. In the past, the audience at these debates were generally passive spectators, listening to the arguments made but not having any meaningful way to engage themselves. 

In 2024, however, audience members were given an opportunity to deliberate together about the topics that the debaters covered. In short “deliberative interludes” between each round of debate, DCI-trained facilitators guided conversations at round tables positioned between Eu and Phi Hall, introducing a set of conversation agreements, inviting participants to first share their thoughts with someone sitting next to them, and then to share with the larger group. 

They explored questions like, What insights did you gain from today’s discussion or debate? What arguments or experiences shared today have you thinking differently? What aspects of the conversation would you like to explore further? Which part of the discussion or debate surprised you the most? These lightly-structured conversations provided participants with entry points into the conversation that they could respond to, build on, and explore together. 

Given the hundreds of people who attended the debate (the turnout was incredible!), not everyone was able to join these conversations, and many just chatted informally with their friends during these breaks in the debate. But these interludes allowed everyone – whether they were at a table or not – to consider and discuss the arguments made by the debaters before moving onto the next topic. 

There are certainly tradeoffs associated with this innovation; for example, it took away time from the debaters and for other topics to be debated. But it also made the event more social and broke up the intensity and tension that inevitably comes from discussing challenging topics. Sitting for two hours listening to opposing viewpoints on some of society’s most contentious issues without an opportunity to constructively chime in can be challenging and draining, even for the most committed of us. 

Group of students talking around a table.

The time allotted to the breaks was also limited – only about 10 minutes each – and did not allow for extensive and in-depth exploration of the issues at hand. But they did enable participants to share their initial reflections and connect with one another in ways that they might not do otherwise. As many student participants in the DCI’s programs have reported, they don’t often talk with their classmates about political issues given how sensitive and difficult they are. These breaks provided everyone in attendance a space to engage with one another on these issues, even if it was for a short time, and hopefully increased their interest, capacity, and confidence in diving into deeper conversations in the future, either through the DCI or in other contexts. 

There is still a lot of work to be done to create a more deliberative culture at Davidson and in our larger society, and no one event will accomplish this task. But this debate did advance us towards that goal. It enabled a substantive exchange of ideas through the debate itself and modeled a process by which ordinary people can engage with one another as well. Perhaps just as importantly, it brought together students from across the political spectrum to organize the event together. It was a truly collaborative project between students in the Center for Political Engagement, College Democrats, College Republicans, and the DCI that they all worked hard on to pull off and make successful. 

Students sitting around a table talking.

It will take lots of these types of opportunities (“one conversation at a time”), but taken together, they can help us figure out how to engage with one another more humbly, more courageously, and more constructively. 

To learn more about the event, check out this article published on Davidson’s article. 

The DCI Takes on Income and Wealth Disparities: A Recap

by Leave a Comment

Photo of DCI forum with panelists and participants.

On Tuesday, October 27th at 7:00 PM, members of the Davidson community gathered together on Davidson’s campus to discuss income and wealth disparities. The 164 attendees (76 in person and 88 online) were treated to a meaningful, multifaceted conversation regarding whether or not they pose a problem to society and how, if at all, should they be addressed. Davidson College President Doug Hicks moderated the conversation that included two philosophy scholars, president of a Charlotte-based advocacy organization, and a vice president of a non-profit think tank based in North Carolina. 

These experts included Robyn Lake Hamilton, the CEO of the Urban League of the Central Carolinas, a local leader in the fight to combat inequality. Davidson’s Professor Sean McKeever and University of Richmond’s Jessica Flanigan, professors of philosophy and experts in the study of the phenomenon in question, brought their academic experience to the conversation. Lastly, Brian Balfour, Senior Vice President of the John Locke Foundation, was able to contribute insights from research into economic disparities and their causes and effects. President Hicks kept the conversation among the panelists focused on meaningful exchange of ideas and explorations of the disagreements that further illuminated the issue for those in attendance.

The event was co-sponsored by Davidson College’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, Center for Political Engagement, College Republicans, College Libertarians, College Democrats, Economic Department, Philosophy Department, and Political Science Department. Representatives from each of the student political organizations were present for the deliberative half of the evening.

The innovative and successful “round table” format, where the panelists discussed the issue around a table on a stage surrounded by the audience, once again proved to be the most engaging and accessible way to draw the audience into the conversation being held before them. The conversation was recorded with a 360 degree video camera, called the “Meeting Owl,” that was placed on the table the panelists were sitting at for those participants who joined over Zoom. The recording can be viewed by clicking play on the video icon below. 

After the hour-long discussion came to a close, participants turned to each other to continue the discussion. At tables of 6-8 people that included residents of the community, students, faculty, and alumni, trained DCI facilitators led discussions on the topic,  aided by a deliberation guide designed specifically for this event. The guide offered supplemental materials to the conversation to ensure each participant had necessary background knowledge to engage constructively in their group’s conversations. 

These conversations were not an end but the beginning of a long journey the participants have begun to become more comfortable with the disagreement such a complex issue inspires. Participants were more than willing to engage and came away deeply satisfied with their experience. Julio Ramirez, a Davidson College professor who attended the forum, said that the forum provided a “deep assessment of a complex problem from multiple perspectives” and was an “outstanding experience.” See comments from other participants about their experience below:

  • “Not only are the discussion guides balanced and educational, but the facilitated small group deliberations are also such a breath of fresh air and source of hope amidst our current polarization and paucity of thoughtful discussions across differences.”
  • “In these fractious times, it is not just refreshing but also life-affirming to be able to take part in discussion of tough issues with no easy answers, with people are intent not on “scoring points” but on working together to solve problems. Beats hell out of watching TV or playing video games.”
  • “The Deliberative Forum is exactly the type of civic exercise we need right now to practice healthy discourse and “lean in” to the most important issues that will decide our future as world-citizens. Today’s event put the DCI’s goals into action. The panel and the small-group discussion inspired me to dig deeper into this topic and to find ways to take action.”

Check out the video recording of the panel discussion below as well as the event’s deliberation guide.

DCI-Income-and-Wealth-Disparities-Deliberation-Guide_-Fall-2024