Events

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.

By Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener)

This Fall, Deliberative Citizenship Initiative Fellows Saeran Daewar ‘28 and Oliver Genovese ’28 and Senior Fellows Casey Scheiner ‘28 and Stephen Walker ‘26 worked with the guidance of DCI Director Graham Bullock and Professor Ike Baliey to host a Campus Conversation entitled “Civic Discourse in the Wake of Political Violence: How Can We Foster the Campus Culture We Want to Have?” on Thursday, November 20th.

The event builds on the work that they have been doing together this semester as they’ve thought about how Davidson can best respond to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and rising political violence in general. The work was motivated by the interest from students in following up on an opinion-editorial in The Davidsonian, in which the large political organizations on Davidson’s campus came together to condemn all forms of political violence.

Student participants, many of whom represented political organizations and student publications on campus, were treated to snacks and ice cream in the 900 Room of the College Union as the student fellows discussed the pertinent issues and the task of moving forward from it as a campus community.

The fellows began the presentation by walking attendees through relevant background details concerning free expression and campus discourse at Davidson, so all participants had some context before entering into the conversation portion of the event. This included strategies for maintaining a healthy political culture and past work to determine how that is best done at Davidson.

The Fellows also introduced themselves and their work to produce a list of aspirational commitments meant to bring community groups together around a set of community standards for engaging in public discourse. These standards were framed as rooted in the spirit of students’ shared decision to attend Davidson and agree to uphold an Honor Code and the college’s statement of purpose at all times.

Specific core components of the aspirational commitments document included a commitment to free expression and open debate, the inherent worth and dignity of all people, and organizing opportunities for respectful engagement across the political spectrum. The fellows then discussed a selection of passages from the College Constitution pertaining to free expression and rights of students, as well as the different terms at the heart of the commitment and the process by which students determine definitions for those terms.

The commitments document was designed to serve as a framework to start a conversation between participants, who were encouraged to discuss what they liked and thought should be added or changed in the document itself. The goal is to create a document truly shaped by the community it is designed to represent.

The participants were then asked to discuss the following questions to determine what their priorities were and how they would amend, if at all, the commitments document:

• How can we foster civic discourse in the wake of political violence?
• What should civic discourse look like on campus?
• What value(s) or aspirational commitment(s) are most important to you in the context of civil discourse?

After sharing with other participants seated next to them and writing out their answers on a whiteboard, students shared their answers with the full group so everybody could see what their views on the three questions were.

The conversation then transitioned to several rounds of scenarios related to controversial expressions of speech. Participants were asked to discuss hypothetical situations and rank them on a scale ranging from 5 for maximum allowance to 1 for the least permissible forms of expression. Students were asked to contemplate the scenarios and discuss what specific facts influenced their ratings.

Then, students were asked to share with the full group before moving on to another round of hypotheticals. Each one was designed to demonstrate the nuance of a particular situation and the importance of a variety of relevant factors in determining whether a certain behavior was acceptable or not. It pointed towards the value of a document like the set of aspirational commitments that can serve as a point of reference in the future.

Such determinations are difficult, and the attending students showed careful consideration for the specifics of the document, the scenarios, and the issue of political violence at large. Being able to practice their analytical skills while contributing to a community document was a meaningful experience for the presenting fellows and participants in the audience. The conversations also provided important insights that will inform future revisions of the aspirational commitments document as it is further developed. Stay tuned for more updates coming soon!

By Casey Scheiner ’28 (DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener)

A group of ten European leaders, ranging from a member of the Croatian Parliament to an Austrian democracy advocate, paid the DCI a visit on Wednesday, August 20. As part of their tour of the United States with the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program, they spent a couple of days in Charlotte, where International House Special Projects Coordinator and Davidson alum Olivia Norten ‘25 brought the leaders to Davidson. On campus at the Cunningham Theater Center, Dr. Bullock and I led them in a deliberation on defensive democracy.

During the deliberation, I was in my usual spot as the facilitator moderating the discussion. However, this was uncharted territory for me: as a news junkie and DCI deliberation guide writer, I was accustomed to having a strong base of knowledge on the topic that would allow me to support deliberators’ thoughts with relevant factual insights. In this deliberation, I found myself by far the least versed member of the conversation in the inner workings of European politics and the defense of democracy across the Atlantic.

This made the experience all the more enriching for me, allowing me to learn so much from my deliberators, who were actively shaping the future of European democracy. Asking follow-up questions and calmly moving us from one section to the next, I did my best to play my usual role of the even-keeled facilitator, but I was awestruck by the sheer amount of knowledge, experience, and capacity to change the world in one room.

Insights from the delegation provided important reminders on things showing up in my own life, trivial and consequential. On the seemingly most mundane side, the leaders’ utter joy and fascination at seeing the pomp and circumstance surrounding Davidson freshman move-in that day let me appreciate the smaller things I don’t always recognize as a Davidsonian and American accustomed to certain things.

And on the promotion and defense of democracy, one of the defining issues of our time, the variety of different perspectives and solutions with which they approached the issue gave me hope that democracy does not require coalescence around a single correct solution, but rather a commitment to wrestle openly and honestly with its challenges.

It also reminded me that deliberation is not just an exercise for curious Davidson students, staff, and community members. It is equally, if not even more important, for leaders like these participants in the International Visitor Leadership Program who are the future (and, in many cases, the present) of European democracy to both embrace their differences and strive to find common ground in deliberative settings in ways that can solve the problems dominating our headlines.