Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Fellow Posts

The DCI Fellows Program – Check out the New Video about this Opportunity Not To Be Missed!

by Leave a Comment

Picture of DCI Fellows.

Each year, the DCI selects 12-15 students to serve as Deliberative Citizenship Fellows.  These fellows spend the year playing a leadership role in the initiative.  They immerse themselves in deliberative theory and methods, help choose the issues for the year’s focus, facilitate robust deliberations on those issues, and reflect on and document their experiences as sponsors of these discussions.

Applications for the 2024-25 Fellowship Program are now open. All Davidson students are welcome to apply. To submit your application, please complete the ‘Deliberative Citizenship Initiative – Fellows Application’ form on WildcatSync. The priority application deadline is May 30. Applications will remain open and new submissions accepted on a rolling basis until July 31 or once all positions have been filled by qualified candidates. To learn more and apply for this opportunity, check out the short video about the program that features several of the DCI’s 2023-24 Fellows and the additional information below.

Fellows-2024-25-Flyer



DCI-Fellows-2024-25-Job-Description

To apply, click on the link below:

Deliberating in Delaware: My time at the SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue

by

Arshi and Stephen at conference

By Arshiya (Arshi) Husain ‘26

This March, I had the opportunity to attend the SNF Ithaca National Student Dialogue at the University of Delaware. Another DCI Fellow, Stephen Walker, and I represented Davidson College amongst a group of over 100 participants from around the country. I interacted with students from various institutions and academic backgrounds: University of Missouri, Howard University, and University of Pennsylvania, to name a few.

The SNF Ithaca Initiative brings together a diverse group of college students to engage in dialogue and learn how to respectfully and effectively engage in discourse in an increasingly polarized world.

When I first stepped foot on the University of Delaware’s campus, I was met with the buzzing energy of folks in buttoned blazers ready for a weekend of meaningful deliberation. The first person I introduced myself to informed me that her ambition in life is to be able to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth. Others told me they were interested in pursuing careers in environmental protection policy or human rights legislation.

Over the course of two days, I worked in small groups to evaluate the issue of free speech (or the lack thereof) on college campuses around the nation and whether free speech serves as an impediment to DE&I. One case we looked at closely was Liz Magill’s resignation from her presidency at the University of Pennsylvania in 2022. This particular case is centered around the pressure faced by academic institutions to address issues such as antisemitism while effectively upholding principles of free speech. Magill’s resignation, however, highlights a broader, national challenge of colleges trying to navigate freedom of expression in an increasingly politically charged climate.

This experience reinforced the importance of the work that the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) does here at Davidson. Many colleges, I realized, lack similar initiatives and increasingly struggle with getting young folks engaged in essential discourse. While there is work yet to be done, the DCI brings Davidson one step closer to allowing for healthy dialogue on campus and helps foster a community where people can be comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations.

Photo of Arshi and Stephen enjoying some down-time at the University of Delaware’s Hen Zone after a full day of small group discussions and plenaries that were part of the third annual “National Student Dialogue,” hosted by The Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Ithaca Initiative.

I further had the opportunity to sit in on various panel discussions of educators involved in administrative, deliberative, and DE&I work on their respective campuses. One panelist emphasized on the intertwined nature of DE&I and free speech—”you can’t have DEI without free speech,” she said. Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, both fundamentally and by definition, has to be inclusive of all perspectives and schools of thought. I realized that the societal default has become such that we tend to think of free speech in a context where it is harming marginalized communities.

It is high time that we reframe the way we look at this issue. We must use free speech as a tool to understand the thought processes of our neighbors and communities better—rather than as a weapon to wield in times of divisiveness. I recognize now that those who claim that DE&I and free speech can’t coexist are merely setting up a false dichotomy when, in reality, it is not an either-or situation.

In college settings, especially, it is imperative that students feel empowered to engage in civil discourse on a regular basis. I believe this is a necessary step in creating tolerant as well as diverse communities.

Walking the Talk – Is Widespread Deliberation Feasible?

by

Citizens Assembly in Ireland.

Photo credit: Citizens’ Assembly of Ireland

By Atyantika Mookherjee ’27

At the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, our D Teams, Deliberative Forums, and events aim to bring together a multitude of individuals to discuss conscientious topics to promote tolerance. In these deliberations, there is an emphasis on the importance of thoughtful exchange of ideas, diverse perspectives, and rational discourse to reach well-considered decisions. Nonetheless, while at Davidson and other college campuses, such an initiative is an active method to foster civic engagement, the question arises: is widespread deliberation truly feasible at the national level in modern societies?

At its core, widespread deliberation requires active participation from a broad spectrum of society. It entails creating platforms where individuals from diverse backgrounds can come together to discuss issues, share insights, and collaboratively seek solutions. However, one of the primary challenges to widespread deliberation is the issue of accessibility. Structural barriers such as socioeconomic disparities, geographic distance, and technological limitations can hinder broad participation. Not everyone has equal access to platforms for deliberation. Bridging these accessibility gaps requires proactive efforts to ensure that marginalized communities, including those with limited resources or marginalized voices, have avenues to participate meaningfully in deliberative processes.

Moreover, ensuring inclusivity within deliberative spaces is paramount for their effectiveness. Diversity of perspectives, experiences, and identities enriches discussions and leads to more comprehensive decision-making outcomes. However, achieving true inclusivity entails overcoming biases, discrimination, and power imbalances that can marginalize certain groups within society. Furthermore, the success of widespread deliberation depends on the willingness of individuals to engage in constructive dialogue. In an era marked by polarization, echo chambers, and information silos, fostering a culture of open-mindedness, empathy, and critical thinking is essential. People must be willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, challenge their assumptions, and engage in civil discourse even amidst disagreement.

Despite these challenges, there are promising examples of widespread deliberation being implemented in various contexts around the world. The Citizens’ Assembly initiative in Ireland, established in 2016, engages randomly selected citizens to deliberate on key societal issues. Notably, it played a crucial role in recommending abortion law reforms. Through informed deliberation, it successfully fostered inclusive decision-making and contributed to shaping public policy in Ireland, modeling an example of how deliberation is viable at the national level. Similarly, consensus conferences and participatory budgeting are initiatives that have the potential for inclusive decision-making processes that incorporate deliberative principles.

Technology further offers new opportunities to expand the reach of deliberative processes. Online platforms, social media, and digital tools can facilitate broader participation, enable diverse voices to be heard, and promote transparency in decision-making. However, it is crucial to address algorithmic biases and privacy concerns to ensure that technological innovations in deliberation uphold democratic values and principles.

Therefore, while the idea of widespread deliberation may seem daunting, it is not inherently unattainable. By addressing challenges related to accessibility, inclusivity, and civic culture, societies can move closer to realizing the vision of deliberative democracy. Embracing deliberation as a foundational principle of governance holds the promise of fostering informed societal discourse and advancing collective well-being.

Refresh Your Feed & Your Perspective

by

A balance scale sitting on a table.

Stephen Walker ’26 (DCI Fellow)

When we go to restaurants, some of us like steaks, some prefer salads, and some opt for the pasta. News consumption, for most of us, is the same way. We may know people who stick to their BBC, but we may also have friends who prefer the more politically aligned publications such as Jacobin magazine or The American Conservative. But unlike our ways of developing taste and preference for certain culinary consumption habits–trying different items on the menu, comparing calories, examining ingredients–we often do not, or cannot, hold our news sources to the same level of scrutiny.

Social media algorithms, influential people in our lives, and personal biases may lead us to consume one news source or one-sided sources excessively, leading us to neglect the alternative options and miss out on the variety of flavors of coverage on the same events and topics that are out there. We feel confident in our food preferences because we try different options and determine what best suits our personal tastes. With news, we often stick with what we know or what supports our opinions and appears in our search and social media feeds: we have no clue what other options are available to us. Our frequently misguided, or surface-level evaluations of our news sources, pose threats to our abilities to identify media biases and to gain accurate views of perspectives news sources can distort to serve an ulterior agenda.

In our most recent DCI fellows’ cohort meeting, with help from Jayme Sponsel and Davidson’s E.H. Little Library resource website, we evaluated and discussed methods of combating this dilemma, empowering us to diversify our media tastes in order to improve resource awareness and understandings of the varieties of resources and their respective values. As a part of our discussion, we had the opportunity to evaluate our own news feeds and learn about valuable resources designed to inform us on their biases, offering a variety of perspectives to utilize in bolstering our news consumption.

Two resources that allowed me to both identify the biases in sources I did not anticipate and offered a variety of perspective sources I had not been exposed to before were the Interactive Media Bias Chart and AllSides.com. The chart and AllSides offer a trove of sources along with reliable information on their accuracy and political biases. Immediately, the resources offered analyses of news outlets which made me more aware of even slight bias which may influence reporting. These new resources have allowed me to look for a certain left or right tilt in the sources I consume, and also to understand how much of my newsfeed comes from one side’s perspective versus the others.

That’s not the only takeaway from these sources. With this new awareness I can add the variety my information feed, for whatever reason, was lacking. Without the awareness of other options, I would have never made the alterations to my feed this resource has allowed me to begin making. I now subscribe to more newsletters and follow more social media accounts from resources I disagree with. I may be upset by the content they produce, even incensed by the more opposing stories from the side I don’t align with. But that’s a good thing.

Before, only consuming news more aligned with my views because of the ways social media and influences in my life have led me to gravitate towards these sources, I had an extremely simplistic view of other sides and their views. The new variety populating my feed has offered me a far deeper understanding of different perspectives, being that they come from people who actually hold those views rather than those who either seek to discredit or hold implicit biases against them.

Balancing your feed with both an accurate and balanced array of perspective media allows you to be informed in ways only viewing your “side’s” content could never achieve. Much like knowing what you prefer and why at a restaurant, because of your experience and knowledge of other items on the menu, you cannot have fully formed opinions or clear connection to a perspective until you have sought out other perspectives, especially conflicting ones.

Until you have taken the time to listen to and understand the other side, whether through conversation with people or news consumption, you never really know where you stand on an issue. You only think you know because people and sources you generally agree with tell you that a certain stance is the “correct” one. Only after you can compare different arguments can you truly reason through an issue and choose a side, much like you only know what to order at a restaurant after you peruse the menu and compare items. Weighing arguments and an array of information allows us to fully deliberate internally on an issue and understand which stance most closely supports our core values.

Who knows? Balancing your feed may even lead to forming new perspectives and opinions you would never expect to hold. The best foodies like to scan every page of the menu when they eat out, and because of this they are always sure of what they want. And now I can say I share their confidence in my political perspectives due to my new news awareness and motivation to balance my newsfeed because I have accessed arguments from a variety of sources, been exposed to different opinions, and subsequently undergone the deliberative consideration necessary to determine which stances to take based on what sides align with my values.

We don’t have to switch sides or only consume news from one type of source. But taking the steps to understand perspectives from across the spectrum allows us to form insights at a deeper level than otherwise possible. At the very least, a balanced news feed allows one to gain confidence in their own views, thanks to taking the steps to sample the alternatives. You can’t be sure you disagree with someone or a political stance until you truly know what they believe.

Perspectives and Pitfalls: Deliberative Democracy Through a Nietzschean Lens

by

A round table of politicians with a surrounding audience.

Shahin Ahmadi ’24 (DCI Fellow)

In the realm of political philosophy, deliberative democracy has long been hailed as a beacon of reason and good collective decision-making. It posits that rational deliberation among citizens can lead to better, more just decisions. However, when we turn to Friedrich Nietzsche’s unconventional and often controversial philosophy, as laid out in works such as Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, we are met with a provocative critique that challenges some of the foundational principles of deliberative democracy, and in doing so, forces us to confront and contend with some of the challenges of this framework.

One of Nietzsche’s primary critiques is that deliberative democracy may operate under the illusion of rationality. Deliberation presupposes that, through reasoned argument and debate, a group of citizens can arrive at a rational consensus. Nietzsche, however, would argue that such rationality is a façade. His philosophy is grounded in perspectivism, the notion that all knowledge is influenced by individual perspectives and biases. In this light, deliberation may merely serve as a platform for the expression of various wills to power, often masquerading as objective reason.

On top of his skepticism of the alleged rationality of the deliberative practice, Nietzsche’s concern with the manipulation of discourse and language emerges as another point of contention. His critique specifically targets how language and discourse can be wielded as instruments of power, shaping public opinion not through the merit of ideas but through persuasive rhetoric and emotional appeal. In a deliberative democracy, where persuasive argumentation is paramount, the potential for manipulation and the undue influence of eloquent speakers skilled in rhetoric should not be dismissed. This Nietzschean cynicism impels us to question whether the deliberative discourse is truly as bona fide and impartial as it purports to be.

Deliberative democracy’s penchant for consensus and majority rule also comes under Nietzschean scrutiny. Nietzsche coined the term “herd morality” to describe the conventional values and beliefs that emerge from mass culture and democracy. He believed that such morality stifled the greatness of individuals who dared to transcend societal norms. Deliberative democracy, by emphasizing consensus and accommodation, may unwittingly perpetuate this herd morality, suppressing the strength and uniqueness of those who dare to stand outside the mainstream.

A related issue Nietzsche raises is the problem of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ This concept challenges the presumption that majority rule inherently equates to just outcomes. Nietzsche would argue that a decision supported by the majority does not guarantee its moral or ethical superiority. Instead, it risks marginalizing minority voices and perspectives, potentially leading to a conformity that suppresses necessary dissent and diversity. In this way, a majority vote can exert a form of tyranny, prioritizing popularity over principle. Therefore, deliberative democracy, while striving for inclusivity, may inadvertently amplify the dominance of majority opinions, stifling the autonomy and authenticity of minority voices.

Under the Nietzschean lens, deliberative democracy is filled with complexities and inherent paradoxes. Nietzsche’s hammer of philosophical critique, though controversial, forces us to reexamine our assumptions about rational discourse, consensus, and the pursuit of justice, and to contend with the underlying power dynamics and individual desires that shape our political systems. While the deliberative framework offers a hopeful vision of rationality and collective decision-making, Nietzsche prompts us to face the uncomfortable truths about human nature that will inevitably cause the ideal to fall short in practice.

In the end, as we grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to embrace the tension between deliberative democracy’s ideals and Nietzsche’s critiques. Echoing the sentiments from insights like those in Samantha Maldonado’s “Inclusion Around the Cycle,” we should strive for a practical and continuous improvement in representing diverse perspectives while acknowledging the impossibility of perfection in public discourse. This outlook necessitates recognizing and valuing the cyclical nature of deliberation, where each iteration of public engagement is not a failure to reach an unattainable ideal but a step towards a more inclusive, reflective, and dynamic democratic process. By doing so, we aim to strike a balance between the aspirational ideals of deliberative democracy and the pragmatic realism of Nietzschean philosophy.