Fellow Posts

By DCI Fellows Saeran Dewar ‘28 and Oliver Genovese ‘28

The “Middle Ground” Model

Jubilee’s Middle Ground series has garnered millions of views online. Jubilee is a digital media company that brings people from various backgrounds together to film content to post online, generally with the ethos of encouraging empathy in uncomfortable situations. Middle Ground, one of their most viral formats, has three people on two sides of a controversial issue step forward to a circle of chairs if they agree with a given statement, with the disagreers eventually joining the circle to discuss.

You may have seen this video they did on Trump supporters vs immigrants on the immigration issue. On their website, Jubilee writes, “Middle Ground explores whether two different groups of people, opposed in their beliefs, can come together empathetically and find middle ground.” However, we noticed that the structure of the conversation itself is not conducive to participants engaging empathetically or finding the middle ground featured in the title of the series.

We thought it would be a great idea to bring the same concept to Davidson to promote more robust deliberation within the Middle Ground model. In our case, we chose to have a deliberative dialogue on immigration. Some problems that we noticed, though, with typical Jubilee Middle Ground videos are that participants often do not engage with each other respectfully, instead making hasty generalizations and assuming ill intentions on the part of their opponents.

In order to create a more robust conversation that aligns with the DCI’s deliberative principles, we selected participants from across the political spectrum who are generally politically active on campus. By doing so, we were able to facilitate a better conversation that did not put any participants at a disadvantage. We will not reveal our deliberators’ identity in order to maintain their anonymity, only referring to them by their preferred ideological labels. 

What We Changed

To address the flaws we saw in the original Jubilee format, we implemented several changes to make the process more deliberative. First, we read DCI’s Conversation Agreements at the beginning of the discussion. While this was a minor change, clearly stating expectations at the outset so participants knew what kind of engagement was expected of them, and what they could expect from others, helped set the tone for the event. Agreements such as “assume the best – and not the worst – about the intentions and values of others” as well as “avoid speaking in absolutes” are often absent from Jubilee discussions.

Second, we implemented a beginning section with a chance for introductions and casual conversation. They got to share a bit of background about themselves and engage in small talk before the real substance of the discussion began. Entering a deliberation where you know you are going to encounter vastly different opinions than your own can be intimidating, but seeing non-politicized sides of people helped deliberators humanize each other beforehand.

Additionally, Davidson being a small environment, the deliberators had already mostly interacted with each other on some level and were not strangers. We thought putting strangers in a room together who know nothing about each other could hinder their inclinations to be charitable to one another.

Also, Saeran served as a facilitator throughout the discussion. Many Jubilee videos lack a facilitator, meaning that all participants have to engage in a dog fight for airtime. As facilitator, Saeran posed questions to the group, chose when to invite disagreers into the circle and invited those who had not spoken in a while into the conversation, keeping participation as even as possible and making sure everyone was heard.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the discussion was held in a private space and was not filmed. Because participants were able to engage in the deliberation in a more low-stakes fashion, they were more likely to agree to participate as well as be candid with their contributions and fearlessly engage with others’ perspectives as well.

How It Went

Although he was not originally supposed to participate as a deliberator, due to unforeseen circumstances causing one participant being unable to attend, Oliver ended up joining the Jubilee discussion. The discussion from the start involved both sides crossing partisan lines, including a neo-conservative and a liberal student, both disagreeing with the statement that all Americans are immigrants.

While the six deliberators crossed party lines numerous times to agree with the other side on a statement, a key party-line disagreement came with the following statement: “Having a massive influx of immigrants into the United States erodes American culture.” The conservative students argued over the threat of non-Western cultures, such as non-Christian beliefs, eroding the culture of the United States. On the other hand, liberal students argued that the “melting pot” nature of American culture and the diversity within it is a key strength of the United States, and thus all cultures should be welcomed.

The conservatives emphasized specific rules associated with Islam that they believed could undermine American democracy, such as a woman’s testimony in court accounting for only half of a man’s. Some conservative students emphasized the Christian founding of the US and that an influx of other cultures would disrupt the nation. The liberal students argued that those choosing to come to the US do so because they want to improve their lived circumstances and thereby contribute positively to the US. The disagreement over the statement ended with both sides accepting that there were differences in opinion on the impact of welcoming non-Western cultures on American values and society.

Overall, the deliberation itself was more respectful and engaging than those in Jubilee Middle Ground videos online. At times in Jubilee videos, participants are more apprehensive and seem to only listen to get their point out and respond, but in our deliberation project, the participants seemed to listen thoughtfully and find points of agreement. Not only did the participants seem to actively listen, but due to their knowledge about current political events, the arguments were mostly fact-based, which helped foster a more robust dialogue that revolved around the argument itself rather than attacking other people’s character.

Reflection

If we were to run another mock Jubilee discussion, we would want to allow more time for the event. Realistically, it is difficult to ask student volunteers to devote more than an hour and a half of their time on any given day, but at least two hours would make a big difference for the depth of discussion deliberators are able to have and the disagreements they are able to dig into. Saeran had to cut off a fascinating conversation on the question of the erosion of American culture due to time constraints, but she would’ve loved to see that discussion go on longer.

Additionally, the diversity of viewpoints represented on the right-leaning side was not exactly mirrored on the left-leaning side, which was slightly more homogenous. We could not have precisely anticipated each participant’s precise political leanings beforehand, but more viewpoint diversity on the left might have made for a more enriching experience.

Overall, the process of planning our mock Jubilee “Middle Ground” was a great experience, and hearing the deliberators engage with each other head-on was fascinating and incredibly encouraging to see them deliberate so thoughtfully, respectfully, and boldly.

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

In anticipation of the beginning of the Deliberative Citizenship Network, which will support over 100 universities in their development of deliberative programs on campus, the DCI took its show on the road this spring to UNC Charlotte. In Professor Jon Overton’s 60 student sociology course on Polarization and Social Conflict in America, Dr. Bullock, Co-Convener Stephen Walker, Fellow Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat, and I presented on what the DCI is, the kinds of conversations we host, and how students can apply our deliberative dispositions and conversation agreements in their own discussions. With deep background knowledge from the class they were taking, the students were well-equipped to understand the importance of conversations like the ones the DCI hosts for bridging divides in a deeply polarized society.

After we spoke to the class for about 20 minutes, we launched into the deliberation. Our topic was one that students with various degrees of political knowledge could all get invested in, given its universal importance to members of our generation: economic mobility and the American Dream. Professor Overton selected this guide from the early years of the DCI, and it held up remarkably well as an issue of consistent concern for the students in the class. With the four of us from the DCI as well as Professor Overton’s two graduate student TAs facilitating, students brought various perspectives to the table, agreeing on affordability and economic opportunity as major issues of our time, but disagreeing on how to solve or even diagnose the problems. For instance, when we discussed the housing crisis, some deliberators contended it was an issue of insufficient supply, while others felt it boiled down to excessive corporate ownership of a sufficient housing supply. This then informed how they approached solutions, with the former group advocating more for policies to incentivize greater housing development and the latter group pushing to deconsolidate large companies’ property ownership.

All in all, both the presentation and the deliberation were major successes. The students were engaged and interested in our presentation, seeming to crave a deliberative outlet where they could express their thoughts. In the deliberation, they made my job easy, participating eagerly and asking thoughtful follow-up questions of one another. As we prepare to share the DCI’s approach next year through the DCN, the experience at UNC Charlotte was a terrific reminder of the number of campuses around the country rich with enthusiasm to deliberate on our nation’s biggest issues.

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

The idea of deliberative democracy is something that can be sustained only when there are people willing to commit themselves to the cause of responsible citizenship. To be courageous enough to speak, to listen to what one’s peers have to say, and critically engage with such “theses” and “antitheses” is the foundation of a sustainable community, and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative appears to be in a continuous quest to cultivate such a culture of valour.

My time with the DCI has so far permitted me to explore the idea of deliberative discourse and apply it here at Davidson College through our D Teams that attempt to bring students, faculty, and community members from across the socio-political spectrum together at a single platform as equals to discuss some of the most polarizing issues the United States faces today. To be certain, the DCI’s work to foster a deliberative atmosphere in our community has certainly led to positive outcomes. Co-inhabitants of this ecosystem are less likely to engage in adversarial conflict with a zero-sum, “warrior” mindset, are more open to receiving ideas that differ vastly from their own, and most importantly, are willing to refuse to believe the worst of their fellow human beings. 

Seeing the persistence of such a mechanism here at Davidson is in startling contrast to the ugly political adversariality and ad hominemism that pervades the national system of governance here in the United States and on the global stage at large. One therefore might be forgiven for wondering if the DCI is able to prevail in a bubble of a small town where both the walls of its buildings and the polite Southern manners of its inhabitants haven’t changed all that much. Is the principle of deliberative citizenship able to operate exceptionally at Davidson because of the exceptional circumstances it is placed in? This is a question that stung me more times than I can count during my time with the DCI.

That is, until it stung less after our excursion at Duke University.

This past spring the DCI was invited to cover facilitation skills in Duke’s POLSCI 112L, Devil’s Advocate: Exploring Pluralism, Free Inquiry, and Belonging. Offering a crash course on deliberative citizenship to a hundred-odd students in an hour followed by a mock deliberation on social safety nets in a second hour certainly was a challenging task, but it also had a significant set of rewarding results. I saw students cycle through the roles of deliberator, disruptor, and facilitator as they discussed pressing problems with genuine commitment to the fundamental principle underlying deliberative discourse – critical engagement with diverse perspectives with an open mind and a set of alert ears. 

During the deliberative exercise that followed their training, I served as the facilitator for a dozen engineering students from different social and even national settings. The topic of social safety nets required them to enter into the politico-economic realm, and it was heartening to see them talk about sensitive issues without fear of judgement in an environment where their equality as individuals and the acceptance of their experiences was guaranteed in our deliberations. My discussions with individual members of my D Team allowed me to see their earnest hopefulness for the possibility of a deliberative environment on the Duke campus and in their own communities and affirmed my own trust in the principles of deliberative discourse. 

Yes, it will take effort. Yes, it will take determination. Yes, it will take a great deal of courage to get out of our own communities to bring about positive change in others. At the end of the day, however, all of it counts as we strengthen our belief that words are a better alternative to violence and attempt to institutionalize it in environments that desperately need it. For me, deliberative citizenship is not sourced from our exceptional circumstances, but rather from the will to get the job done. All we need is that will and the means to perpetuate it across communities. once we have the will and the way, we will start bringing change to the ugliness that currently plagues our public sphere.

By Bolling Lewis ’28 (DCI Fellow)

On February 12th, I, along with six fellow DCI members, packed into a rented Jeep Wagoneer and set out on a daunting goal of bringing deliberation to Duke University. We had been invited to introduce our approach to facilitating constructive deliberations on challenging topics to a university class exploring the challenges and opportunities of pluralism in modern society. Students in the class would be hosting small group discussions at Duke following an upcoming expert roundtable on justice and the rule of law, and we were tasked with putting on an interactive class workshop on how best to organize and facilitate their deliberations.    

Since the inception of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative in 2020, the task of including as many people as possible in the conversation has centered around engaging a small two-thousand-person liberal arts campus. Word of mouth, deliberative forums, and inclusion of dialogue in course materials have all been successful ways to hear new perspectives and experiences from the Davidson community. Yet, such effective methods can be rendered useless in a different environment. Duke, in many ways, is the exact opposite of Davidson, with an almost 18,000-person student body, an emphasis on research, and little exposure to formal deliberation. All the signs pointed  to a big question: were the successes we’ve had at Davidson transferrable to other campuses and contexts? 

Huddled in the car for our two-hour journey to Durham, we reviewed our plan for the visit. We collectively stressed the importance of emphasizing deliberative dispositions and the realistic challenges of facilitating conversations at another campus. With Professor Bullock, head of the DCI program and our faculty leader for the trip, at the wheel, we discussed the size disparity between the average Davidson and Duke classroom. We realized that we should be prepared for students who may not be as well versed in small-group conversations, given their significantly larger class sizes. With this in mind, we mapped out how we would introduce the principles and practices of deliberative dialogue in a context very different from our own. 

Upon arrival, we quickly headed towards the academic buildings and were guided through a maze of hallways to finally arrive at our lecture hall. Once again, the stark contrast between Davidson and Duke was glaring when we arrived in our room. The class seated roughly a hundred students, tightly packed together, in a room roughly three times the size of any Chambers classroom. Still, despite the differences, the Duke students seemed quite receptive to the idea of deliberation. They asked questions and engaged with the practice prompts. Furthermore, they listened attentively to the dispositions we presented in the lecture hall, and after about sixty minutes of presentations (we each presented a different dimension of effective facilitation), we split into breakout groups based on career aspirations to put the ideas into practice.

My breakout session featured mainly pre-law students. The discussion, which centered around welfare, social security, and liberty, went exceptionally well. Despite the fact that no one in the conversation had participated in a structured deliberation before, they all jumped in to provide insights and perspectives about the topics. Some students integrated law-based arguments, while others focused on personal anecdotes. To me, it appeared as if the Duke students were naturals who had simply not had the opportunity to engage in an organized deliberative dialogue. They often wrestled with difficult ideas, including social security reform and efficient government spending, acknowledging that they could not solve everything today, but that the discussion of the issue was an important step forward. There were undoubtedly awkward moments, or periods of silence that created discomfort, but by the end, the conversation felt both casual and purposeful.

When the conversation wrapped up, I joined the reception dinner and discovered that many other DCI Fellows had similar experiences. In spite of the surface-level differences, the Duke students quickly picked up deliberation. Every conversation had its ups and downs, but the core concept of sharing viewpoints in a safe space to listen and learn from others was successfully passed along. On the car ride back to Davidson, we all took turns reflecting on the afternoon at Duke; one of my main takeaways I expressed was how easily a different community picked up the unique skill of deliberation. Personally, it gave me another reason to believe in the DCI mission. In just two hours, another institution fully embraced some of the hardest skills in modern society: listening to others, expressing one’s own beliefs, and disagreeing respectfully.