Fellow Posts

For the past four years, one of the highlights of the DCI’s Fellows Program has been the opportunity for students to develop their own personal deliberation projects. After going through intensive training in how to facilitate contentious conversations and then serving as a facilitator of the DCI’s D Teams and Deliberative Forum discussions, the Fellows apply their skills to designing and hosting conversations on topics of personal interest to them. They select their topics and begin developing their project plans in the fall semester, and then revise and implement those plans in the spring semester.

DCI staff provide feedback to the fellows on their ideas and suggest relevant resources throughout the process, but these projects are very much the fellows’ own initiatives. They are responsible for identifying the topic, developing their deliberation guide, recruiting participants, finding a time and space for their discussion, and hosting it themselves. The Fellows very much appreciate this autonomy and independence they have in developing their projects. It enables them to demonstrate the full range of skills they have learned over the course of their year as a Fellow, discover the challenges and pitfalls of designing and implementing these types of conversations, and experience the joy of bringing people together to discuss hard topics and strengthen their own deliberative muscles.

The sections below summarize each of the seven projects that the 2023-24 cohort of Fellows implemented this spring. Some Fellows worked together while others worked independently; their topics included equitable industrialization, humor, the moral obligation to stay informed and act on international issues, Davidson’s reckoning with its history related to race and slavery, transgender medical policies, repatriation and ownership in art history, and election issues.

For her personal deliberation project, Atyantika Mookherjee ’27 hosted a deliberation on the topic of equitable industrialization. The deliberation focused on the arguments for and against increased aid from developed countries to developing nations to promote sustainable development and what specifically this aid should look like. The deliberation was held via Zoom for 11 participants, all of whom had significant involvement in sustainability and climate action non-profit work. Through thoughtful discussion, participants explored the complexities of increased aid allocation, considering its potential benefits and challenges, and left with a deeper understanding of the importance of targeted aid strategies tailored to the specific contexts of each nation.

In collaboration with Dr. Silvi Toska, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Davidson, Florian Moser ’26 facilitated a deliberation on whether we have a moral obligation to stay informed and act on international crises. The event, which was held in the Commons Annex Dining Room and included lunch, included seven students who had never participated in a DCI event before. The conversation delved into topics such as climate change, critical engagement in media consumption, individual versus collective responsibility for political action, and ways to resolve conflicts between the individual costs and collective benefits of staying informed about international political issues.

Zoe Moseley ’26 and Declan O’Donoghue ’26 focused their deliberation project on humor and what is allowed to be funny, who is allowed to make what jokes, and where are they allowed to be made. To prepare their deliberation guide, Zoe and Declan met with Davidson College faculty, a professional comedian, and a number of student comedians. Specific questions discussed included: Do the standards of appropriateness change when the joke is in writing vs a TV show, movie, TikTok, comedy special, etc? If certain subjects are unsuitable for humor, do these standards change depending on the comic? Questions like these were intended to get to the core of the debate around humor under the larger umbrella of speech and harm. Utilizing the creative freedom afforded to them in developing their project, Zoe and Declan incorporated video clips of stand-up comedians into their deliberation guide. These short clips provided critical examples that fit each subsection they discussed. Eight students attended the deliberation with a wide range of opinions and experiences with humor and included a stand-up comedian. Zoe and Declan are interested in potentially hosting more discussions on this topic and continuing to develop innovative formats for the DCI’s deliberation guides.

Stephen Walker ’26 hosted a deliberation on the question of how Davidson should, if at all, change or continue the steps it has been taking to engage its history with race and slavery. The event was held in Chambers on Wednesday, April 24th from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM. A wide range of groups were invited to conversation, and seven students from different backgrounds participated in the deliberation. LJ Philips ’25, a DCI Senior Fellow and Student Co-Convener, worked with Stephen in designing the deliberation and was a participant as well. The discussion covered the renaming of Chambers and the arguments for and against that decision, and the participants shared which arguments they agreed with and why. The second half of the discussion addressed the statue the college is planning to build to memorialize enslaved/exploited persons and the participants’ feelings about it. The deliberation concluded with the DCI’s standard final reflection section that helped tie the discussion together.

DCI Fellows Arshi Husain ’26, Logan Jain ’26, and Monty Krakovitz ’25 hosted a deliberation on “Transgender Medical Policies in the US.” This deliberation took place on the 17th of April in the Sprinkle Room from 7–9pm. Including the three facilitators, there were 15 participants at the deliberation who were members of several on-campus student organizations: Queers & Allies, Davidson Republicans, Davidson Democrats, Davidson Libertarians, YANASH, and Free Speech Alliance. The Fellows wrote and shared a deliberation guide that included information and background on three different perspectives: 1)Transgender medical treatment should be permitted for all ages, 2) Transgender medical treatment should be restricted for all ages, and 3) Transgender medical treatment should be permitted for adults only. Deliberators had the chance to discuss all three perspectives and the range of arguments for and against each perspective.

Grace Gallagher ’26 organized a deliberation focused on “Repatriation and Ownership in Art History.” Deliberators discussed three case studies: the Benin Bronzes, the Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon, and the looting of the city of Samarra in Iraq. Her discussion was held on April 22nd from 11-12 in the Commons Annex Dining Room. The seven participants who joined the conversation were students with interests in art history and museum studies. Before the discussion, Grace met with several art history professors and staff who work at the Davidson art gallery, who provided her with helpful insights that she was able to incorporate into her deliberation guide that she shared with participants beforehand.

Emre Guvenilir ’25 and Auden White ’26 hosted a deliberation on election issues, and they were joined by Dr. Greg Snyder of the Religious Studies Department and President of Precinct 206 Democrats. The deliberation took place in Chambers for an hour and a half. The eight students who participated included both international students and US citizens and both Democrats and Republicans. Deliberators discussed ways campaign finance could be more fair, including a possible pooling process to allocate funds to more candidates. A possible ‘cap’ like in sports was also suggested and discussed. There was discussion over early voting and mail-in ballots and how to keep voting accessible while also fair, such as having polls open late at night. There was also discussion about giving the option of online voting, and the example of Estonia was shared and discussed. The  topic of gerrymandering also came up, and deliberators agreed that those in power would not want to remove the benefits it offers. Nevertheless, it was agreed on the whole that redistricting should be a fairer process, but it was left open as to what exactly the process should look like. Dr. Snyder provided many insights to the discussion in areas he had experience and provided his perspective on these topics, which helped guide the conversation and incorporated ideas from someone who has direct experience in political processes.

By Graham Bullock, Stephen Walker ’26, and Emre Guvenilir ’25

The DCI’s final Commons Conversation of the spring semester was hosted by Chris Clunie, Athletics Director and Vice President for Athletics. The topic was “Sports Betting: What are the Issues,” and Mr. Clunie started the conversation by explaining the College’s current rules related to sports betting. In short, employees and students are not allowed to 1) engage in any form of betting on sports competitions in which Davidson College athletes are competing, 2) share nonpublic information about Davidson College athletes that is relevant to sports betting, or 3) attempt to influence the outcome of a sporting event that includes Davidson College athletes.

He also discussed how sports betting can erode the sense of community and trust within the campus community if students place bets on their fellow Davidson student-athletes. Doing so can also ruin relationships between those individuals. When the performance of a team or individual can materially affect a classmate or staff members financial well-being, that places enormous pressure on both the athletes and how they connect with others on campus.

After Mr. Clunie concluded his introduction to the topic, the Commons Conversation’s participants weighed in with their perspectives and questions. Some were in favor of sports betting and not regulating it too rigidly, while others were more skeptical and concerned about its recent rapid growth. Everyone weighed the effects of betting on student-athletes on those specific-athletes themselves, and they benefited from insights from two track team members taking part in the discussion. They considered how the practice might harm them personally, especially considering the fact that they are Division I athletes at a school as small as Davidson. 

The participants also considered the benefits for people engaged in betting markets, including generating revenue and pure fun, and the limits of those benefits. Some highlighted how enjoyable sports betting is for a lot of people. Others suggested that betting is largely only experienced by groups of a higher socioeconomic status and emphasized that it can be highly addictive and harmful. They talked about how gambling is different from many other types of addictions in that its effects are less visible and that treatment and recovery resources are generally less available.

Mr. Clunie’s contributions to the conversation gave everyone insight into the rationale of different stakeholders considered by the athletics department as it works to develop betting rules for the college community to abide by that ensure they protect athletes and support the Honor Code. In discussing these rules, the participants emphasized the limits of the ability of the College to regulate the practice and the importance of the ethos of the honor code in ensuring sports betting does not adversely affect athletes, students, and teams. 

The participants discussed the honor code more generally and expressed a shared sense of declining reverence for the guidelines in the post-COVID era. They then explored possible solutions to this problem and deliberated about what the administration can and should do to address it. One participant argued that grade inflation is contributing to less concern about the Honor Code, while another stated that they came to Davidson because of it. Circling back to the issue of sports betting, especially on student athletes, participants emphasized that students must point out to one another what is and is not acceptable.

The conversation concluded with some discussion about the practice of sports betting more generally, and how people across the ideological spectrum may take issue with it. We highlighted the ways cultural shifts in society at large can impact college campuses in unpredictable and important ways. 

By Declan O’Donoghue ’26

Deliberation is a unique concept. Although it exists in many facets of our lives and we often partake in it without even realizing it, deliberation can be rare in our consumption of popular media. The rise of music television and social media has introduced many new forms of entertainment to the public, yet much of this media is either fictional or not typically categorized under deliberation. In my view, mass media may be responsible for some stagnation in public deliberation. Fortunately, there is still hope for intentional conversations on often contentious issues, especially on media platforms like YouTube. Unlike many others, this site still allows for profitable long-form content. Media companies have taken advantage of this opportunity to create more critical content than what is typically posted on apps like Facebook or Instagram.

Jubilee Media is one company that, in recent years, has made a significant impact on both YouTube and the world of deliberation with its series addressing contentious social issues and showcasing diverse groups of people. Officially, Jubilee’s mission statement is to ‘bridge people together and inspire love through compelling stories, create shareable, human-centric videos that create connection, challenge assumptions, and touch the soul, and ultimately to inspire people to live deeper.’ While this sounds quite serious, they also produce playful videos like ’20 vs 1′ speed dating, which garners millions of views. However, some content has shifted toward more serious topics. A series titled ‘Spectrum’ brings together groups of people with shared identities—from teenage mothers to Muslims—and asks them a series of questions, which they rate on a spectrum from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ These types of questions are similar to those a trained facilitator might ask in a deliberation. Here, because the group participants all have lived experiences, Jubilee can simplify their format. After taking their mark on the spectrum, participants have the opportunity to defend their position without crosstalk, before the conversation opens up to the group, just like in a DCI deliberation. Yet, with a mid-length runtime of around 20 minutes, Jubilee’s ‘Spectrum’ series fails to delve too deeply into any one topic.

Although Jubilee features a variety of video formats with elements of deliberation, their ‘Middle Ground’ series most closely aligns with the DCI style of deliberation that I have been trained to facilitate. The format is essentially as follows: A group of 6-8 people, who presumably hold contrasting worldviews or identities, come together. Popular matchups include scientists versus flat earthers, police versus criminals, or even unique twists like former liberals versus former conservatives. The participants are generally presented with a series of serious prompts, such as ‘Criminals who commit violent felonies don’t deserve certain legal rights. Step forward if you agree.’ All participants from either side who agree with the statement step forward into the spotlight, sit down, and then deliberate on the concept. After some time, those who disagree step forward and join the discussion.

Jubilee has created an impressive platform that brings new perspectives and fosters deliberation across the internet, the format of their ‘Middle Ground‘ videos still has room for improvement. One major criticism relates to their selection of participants: they sometimes fail to include any voices that truly represent the middle ground, missing an opportunity for more comprehensive deliberation. This is occasionally justifiable, especially in scenarios where few individuals represent a moderate viewpoint between extremes, such as between flat-earthers and mainstream scientists. However, in episodes like ‘liberal teachers vs. conservative parents,’ including both fringe and more center-aligned voices could enrich the discussion, allowing for a broader spectrum of opinions and a fuller exploration of the issues at hand.

Most importantly, Jubilee’s ‘Middle Ground’ series lacks a serious facilitator, which significantly hinders the videos from becoming exemplary models of deliberation. Currently, the producer, acting as a voice behind the scenes, reads out the prompts and occasionally steps in to manage the group. This absence of dedicated facilitation often leads to tense interactions among participants and permits some to make harmful, sweeping generalizations. Moreover, time is rarely distributed equitably among participants. Without effective facilitation, some individuals dominate the conversation, turning their participation into a spectacle that is then perpetuated online. While this approach might attract views, it risks alienating viewers and driving wedges between different audience segments, ultimately detracting from the potential for meaningful dialogue and understanding.

These discussions can be fruitful and build genuine connections between participants. Additionally, Jubilee has changed their format, likely sacrificing profit to make these videos more effective as deliberations. Videos initially fell within the YouTube AdSense sweet spot of 8-12 minutes, featuring catchy clips and more clickbait interactions. They have since transitioned to longer-format videos, which are more costly and less favored by the YouTube algorithm. Now, videos can reach up to 90 minutes after editing, similar to the length of most DCI deliberations. These longer videos allow participants to dive much deeper into deliberation than before, and viewers have continued to watch. Some longer videos have even surpassed 25 million views.

All in all, Jubilee’s ‘Middle Ground’ video format has pioneered deliberation in a socially valuable and highly educational manner. The success of their content paves the way for other creators to do the same while still profiting. Regardless, they could certainly benefit from acquiring a trained facilitator for their deliberations.

Image above from Podtail.

By Logan Jain ’26

We hate silence. We play music while driving, turn the TV volume up when no one is in the room, and often whistle, sing, or even talk to ourselves while alone. But perhaps the silence that we hate the most occurs in social settings. The eerie silence that can consume a room full of people when no one knows what to say next. We find ourselves scrambling to break the silence, saying the first thing that comes to mind. Often, this manifests itself in a snide remark along the lines of “this is awkward.” The words we use to describe this silence (awkward, uncomfortable, etc.) demonstrate our inability, as a society, to embrace silence and the many positives that it allows for.

As a DCI facilitator, one of the first skills I had to learn was managing silence. Too much of it can stymie the flow of a deliberation and leave participants struggling to come up with meaningful contributions. Conversely, too little can turn a deliberation into a break-neck sprint, with participants unable to gather their thoughts and remain patient. But with the right balance, silence can enhance a deliberative experience for all participants without feeling “awkward” or “uncomfortable.”

Before I delve into the myriad ways that I believe silence can aid deliberation, I want to discuss my own relationship with silence. While not a Quaker myself, I spent all but 2 years of my K-12 education at Quaker institutions. Once a week, I would gather with the rest of my classmates in a large, chapel-like building (called a Meeting House) and sit in silence for an hour. This practice, known as Meeting for Worship, invites participants who feel moved to speak to do so by standing up and sharing their thoughts with the rest of the Meeting. In some Meetings, people share their thoughts every few minutes. In others, the silence remains unpenetrated for the duration of Worship. While my younger self was frequently annoyed and bored by having to sit in silence for such a long time, I believe that Meeting for Worship taught me the reflective and calming powers of silence.

I now want to posit what I see as the three main, although certainly not exhaustive, benefits that silence can provide to a deliberation. First, silence allows people to gather their thoughts. High-quality discourse relies on thoughtful opinions and contributions, and silence allows people to form their remarks appropriately. One of the central tenets of deliberation is the emphasis placed on listening to others, and so the only time in which one can devote all of their mental energy to their own contributions to the deliberation occurs during moments of silence. Additionally, by having a few extra seconds to develop their thoughts, participants are more likely to adhere to both the conversation agreements and deliberative dispositions, two foundational elements of the DCI’s deliberative practices.

Secondly, silence plays an important role in actively listening to and acknowledging the contributions of others. My 3rd-grade teacher would equate the vocal sharing of a thought in Meeting for Worship to dropping a stone onto a still lake. After the thought is shared, appropriate time must be given for the water ripples to cease and the lake to become still again before someone else stands up and shares. While deliberation has a different cadence, the sentiment holds. A brief (less than five seconds) moment of silence after a participant shares their thoughts gives the appropriate gravity to what was just said and allows other participants the opportunity to absorb the information or opinion that was shared.

Lastly, and most importantly, silence provides a natural space for reflective thought and an emotional pause if needed. Many of the topics that are deliberated on can be emotional for participants, particularly those with issue-specific experiences or identities. Little moments of silence throughout a deliberation allow participants to reflect on the conversation and what others have shared, while also providing an avenue to diffuse some of the emotional fervent that might build up throughout a deliberation.

While my education in silence was arduous at such a young age, I now understand just how critical it is to a successful deliberative enterprise. Next time you find yourself in one of those “awkward” moments of silence, I encourage you to lean into it. Use it to reflect on what others have shared, to collect your thoughts, or even to just take some deep breaths. Silence enables more intelligent, thoughtful, and impactful discourse — let’s work to embrace and destigmatize it.