Fellow Posts

LeBron James or Michael Jordan? College football or NFL? Summer or Winter Olympics? Tarheels or the Wolf Pack? Spirited debate topics like these are just as integral to sports fandom as tailgating on a Saturday or filling out a March Madness bracket. Yet, though widely revered as a fun topic of idle chatter, sports are viewed as a less intellectual subject for truly stimulating conversation than politics, science, philosophy, or any other academic discipline. However, in my experience, sports talk is underrated as an effective model for constructive deliberation. 

Before I delve into the substance of what makes sports a valuable domain for deliberation, it’s important to understand that sports are inherently valuable because they provide a space where disagreement is not only acceptable, but welcomed because of its lower stakes nature that features less villainization of opposing viewpoints. It can be scary to challenge someone’s staunchly held view on a hot button issue like abortion due to the inherent vitriol that surrounds such a topic. On the other hand, when talking about sports, disagreement easily elicits laughs, kinship, and new ways of approaching sports analysis, which can serve as a valuable “appetizer” to test out deliberation before diving into more contentious themes. While I’ve never felt comfortable walking up to a stranger and starting an immigration debate, I’ve made many random friendships simply by asking who’s their greatest baseball player of all time.  

Sports don’t just allow us to deliberate more – they also help us deliberate better. In politics, deliberation can be so challenging when both sides come in with very different conceptualizations of the facts, and thus different conclusions. For example, someone who watches MSNBC coverage of Hurricane Helene relief efforts will have a different understanding of their efficacy than a Fox News viewer. In sports, a level of universal objectivity exists: everyone who watched the Super Bowl saw the exact same game. Everyone agrees that Michael Phelps has won 23 gold medals.  

Working from an agreed-upon set of facts makes deliberation easier. Instead of having to get bogged down in how many gold medals Michael Phelps has won, people can cut straight to debating its implications for his legacy or how it compares with Usain Bolt’s achievements. Meanwhile, political deliberators often must spend far more time establishing their agreement on factual details than delving into the implications of those details. More time on meaning equals more time achieving goals of deliberation like mutual understanding. 

Sports also provide a crucial source of unity that invites future deliberation. Democrats and Republicans are more hesitant than ever to engage with one another; however, sports provide a universal topic to discuss. After establishing a shared interest in a particular sports league (If no common sports interest exists, other points of cultural overlap like music and television can be an effective substitute as well), I can easily befriend someone, even amidst differing political beliefs. Once we’ve formed that trust and kinship, it becomes far easier to engage on a more controversial topic. With these norms of civility, respect, and thoughtfulness that we initially establish through sports talk, we can apply this model to a hot-button issue.  

Nonetheless, there exists no easy answer for the question of how to apply the lessons of sports talk to more contentious deliberations. We can’t snap our fingers and make immigration comfortable to talk about or the economy easy to summarize objectively. Still, by applying some practices that we subconsciously practice during our sports conversations—searching for a set of facts to agree upon, recognizing the humanity of the other deliberators, and not being afraid to disagree—we can move towards stronger conversations in the sphere of political deliberation.  

“Harvard is the best university in the United States.”

“Derek Jeter was a great baseball player.”

These words echoed through the Davidson College Philanthropic Hall while a crowd of DCI Fellows adjusted their chairs and focused their attention on their guest speaker of the day: Associate Professor of Philosophy Dan Layman. 

As part of the Fellows’ weekly meeting, we typically dive into topics related to public discourse and deliberative citizenship. This week Dr. Layman introduced two key types of respect for us to consider: appraisal respect and recognition respect.

So, what are these concepts, and what do they have to do with Harvard University and a former shortstop for the New York Yankees?

First, let’s talk about appraisal respect, which is rooted in admiration for someone’s prowess and ability. We’ll take the case of Derek Jeter, and the quote from above. Saying Jeter was a great baseball player is a form of appraisal respect: the speaker is taking the shortstop’s accomplishments – 5 World Series Titles, 14 All-Star Selections, 5 Gold Gloves, and the list goes on – and assessing them based on their apparent value. For this speaker, Jeter’s accomplishments are impressive enough to designate him as a ‘great’ player. The speaker, then, judges the skills and abilities Jeter has demonstrated on the field as things worth celebrating. 

The same thought process applies to the Harvard case. The speaker – after some thought, we’d presume – comes to the conclusion that Harvard is the best university in the U.S. Their exact reasoning here we may not know – it could have something to do with the University having the biggest endowment in the world, its having produced 8 U.S. presidents, or its close association with more than 160 Nobel laureates – but, regardless, the speaker is affording the same type of high regard for the University’s achievements as the previous one did with respect to Derek Jeter. 

Both of these examples are forms of appraisal respect if the speaker is basing them on specific reasons or criteria that justify their appraisal. Such claims do not have to be about institutions or professional athletes; they could also be about ordinary people. One could say “Martina is a good person” and that could also qualify as appraisal respect. If someone asked the speaker to explain their reasoning, they could explain their statement with a response like, “Well, Martina carried my groceries up the stairs for me last week, and then she lent Oskars a textbook for math class, so she meets my criteria for being a good person.” The underlying point is that, especially in deliberative contexts, a speaker should be able to formulate grounds for their appraisals and be ready to share those with others when prompted. 

Here’s the caveat, though. 

What if the speaker were to instead say “Martina is a horrible person. Truly, the absolute worst?”

In that case, it would be pretty clear that the speaker doesn’t have a huge amount of appraisal respect for Martina. But that doesn’t mean they have zero respect for Martina.

That’s where recognition respect – or the notion of respecting another being because, like us, they are another being – comes into play. 

Recognition respect suggests that even if the speaker thinks Martina is a horrible person, they shouldn’t go around and treat her disrespectfully. This is because we recognize Martina as a fellow human being and must afford her a decent amount of consideration, despite whatever failings she may have.

Let’s say Martina is walking down the hall with a slew of books in her arms. There’s a heavy door about to slam in her face, and instead of assisting her, you let it close on her. In the process, she drops all of her things to the floor. 

If she’s gathering her books from the ground and says, “Hey! Why did you let that door slam on me?” and in response you shrug and tell her it is because she hasn’t yet earned your respect, then you’d come out of the situation looking like a complete jerk. Why? Because you haven’t shown the proper degree of recognition respect to Martina. 

Martina actually didn’t need to earn your respect in order for you to hold the door open for her: your recognition that Martina, like you, is another being who deserves consideration –  regardless of how you assess her words or her actions – should be sufficient for you to do so. 

Simple enough, right?

So, what does this have to do with DCI?

Here’s what I’d say: given that D Teams are filled with participants and facilitators who don’t know each other, the idea of appraisal respect may be less relevant in this context. After all, can you truly appraise someone if you met them just minutes ago? Should we judge them on the few words they say as they introduce themselves and share their thoughts on the topic that they may or may not have had a lot of time to think about?

Nevertheless, even if we know nothing about someone’s character, or their achievements, or their background, we do know that this person – like ourselves – is a free and sentient being whose reasons and judgments merit our recognition and, consequently, our fair and careful consideration. 

And, in the context of DCI, such recognition respect is crucially important, and it is why egalitarianism is one of the key deliberative dispositions it encourages participants to adapt. In our meetings we explore some very sensitive subjects – topics that can range from immigration law to reproductive rights – and many participants have perspectives that differ vastly from their counterparts. Even still, the notion of approaching your fellow deliberators with respect and maintaining this consideration – including when the discussion gets heated – is a cornerstone of DCI, and it’s what helps keep difficult conversations going. 

Like many high schoolers, I faced the daunting task of choosing a college to spend my next four years at just sixteen. The COVID-19 pandemic gave me time to fully dive into the process, starting with a spreadsheet of 160 schools and attending numerous virtual calls. While I don’t remember many specifics from those calls, I realized that I wanted a college where open, honest conversation and the exchange of challenging ideas could thrive.

As I narrowed down my list, I began to focus more on the importance of campus dialogue—something that wasn’t often discussed on tours. Caught up in the allure of prestige, majors, and quirky traditions, I nearly lost sight of what truly mattered to me: the freedom of open discourse.

When deciding between two schools for early decision, I asked both their representatives the same question: “How open is this campus to discussion?” The first responded dismissively, almost shocked by the question, revealing a closed mindset that became evident during my campus visit.

The second school’s representative, however, paused and thoughtfully explained how the campus encourages diverse thought processes, ideas, backgrounds, and life experiences in order to provoke deeper discussions and challenge each student’s preconceived notions. After that conversation, I knew without hesitation that Davidson College was my first choice.

In October 2022, I reached out to the Faculty Director of Davidson’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and received a reply from Professor Graham Bullock. He wrote, “This is very much the focus of Davidson’s DCI, which is committed to creating spaces for students, faculty, staff, alums, and the broader community to engage with the difficult issues facing our society and community.” Little did I know that two years later, I would become part of this initiative, fully committed to its mission.

My first year at Davidson came with challenges. As an 18-year-old entering a new environment with people from vastly different backgrounds, I had to navigate new perspectives. Growing up in debate, I was used to open conversations, but class discussions required a balance between sharing ideas and being comfortable doing so. Although I was used to challenging my thoughts and perspectives, I sometimes felt that there was only one narrative allowed in discussions. While I understand we often have strongly-held views about particular issues that come up in the classroom, in my opinion, class discussions should not be a form of debate in which there are winners and losers; in fact, that mentality makes us all losers. Instead, there should be an openness to listen, disagree, agree, or potentially change your mind; however, if we go into a space closed off to being challenged, it creates a divisive classroom setting.  

During the 2023-2024 school year, Davidson faced key issues like campus protests, police violence, and free speech. One moment stood out: in the midst of the Middle East conflict, a professor paused the scheduled lesson to create space for discussion. For that class of 30 students, the opportunity to reflect and challenge assumptions solidified what I believe college should be—a place to learn, engage, and grow together. 

When I shared this experience with friends at other schools, they were shocked we had space for such a discussion. Some didn’t even know what was happening on their own campuses and, when they tried to find space to process, faced hostility. Their frustration made me question what a college education should offer and what students should consider when choosing a school.

Reflecting on my time at Davidson, I’m incredibly grateful for the unique opportunity to engage in meaningful deliberation, both through the DCI and in the classroom. Being here is about more than just academic learning; it’s about personal discovery—understanding what I truly value and believe. College should provide a space where we can challenge, reinforce, and reshape our beliefs, and that kind of growth is essential not just for our minds, but for our souls.

As a tour guide, I always end my tours by explaining why I chose Davidson: its commitment to deliberation and its respect for diverse perspectives. This is what sets Davidson apart for me—an institution that fosters learning through dialogue while creating safe spaces for growth.

To current and future students, faculty, and staff, I urge you to embrace this commitment to deliberation. Having difficult conversations isn’t easy, but it’s a vital part of growth. The ability to articulate our thoughts, engage with others, and remain open to change is a lifelong skill that I believe we should all strive to nurture.

By Grace Gallagher ’26

This spring, the DCI hosted our semester D Teams on a series of education-based topics. Our first meeting focused on Public Schools and School Vouchers, our second meeting on Grades and Standardized Tests, and our third meeting on College Admissions (Affirmative Action, Athlete Admissions, and Legacy Admissions).

As a facilitator, I thoroughly enjoyed my group’s meetings this semester. Each of the three discussions were related and connected to the other meetings, but not so much that they were repetitive. The cohesive topics make the D Team members more confident in their opinions because they developed them throughout three related meetings, leading them to trust each other and open up or be vulnerable. The group members had experience talking to each other and could build on the relationships they had already established.

Additionally, when focusing on education, everyone in my group had the opportunity to share both informative comments and comments reflecting on their personal experiences. My group was comprised of half students and half alums or parents, all of whom provided interesting viewpoints and perspectives. The students could share recent reflections from their grade school, high school, and college experiences, whereas the parents and alums could relate them to their experiences from the past. Additionally, parents and alums could share reflections and points of view from either a parent or career perspective.

Before this spring semester, I had only ever been a part of D Teams in person, both as a facilitator last fall and a deliberator in the Fall of 2022. I went into this experience wishing that my D Team was in-person because of the relationships you can build when actually being in the room with the other deliberators. I was amazed to see what Zoom deliberations can provide in a different way. Having my deliberation on Zoom allowed for people all over to join, providing different perspectives, stories, and experiences. Additionally, being on Zoom allowed my group to have people working in education from different areas who could learn from both their shared experiences and their differences in education, depending on the region. This was valuable to watch as a facilitator as it fostered discussions in directions I had yet to see while facilitating in person.