• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

  • The Initiative
    • Programs
      • Deliberation Across the Curriculum
      • Deliberation on Campus
      • Deliberation in the Community
      • Research on Deliberation
    • Motivations
      • Why Deliberative Citizenship?
      • Why Davidson? Why Now?
    • Who’s Involved?
      • DCI Fellows Cohorts
        • 2025-2026 Fellows
        • 2024-2025 Fellows
        • 2023-2024 Fellows
        • 2022-2023 Fellows
        • 2021-2022 Fellows
        • 2020-2021 Fellows
      • DeeP Collaborative Cohorts
        • 2024-2025 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
        • 2023-2024 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
      • Advisory Council
    • History
      • What Sparked the Initiative?
    • Key Deliberative Dispositions
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • Annual Report
  • Get Involved!
    • Participate in a Forum
    • Join a D Team
    • Become a Fellow
    • Take Courses
    • Get Training
    • Come to Guest Lectures
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
      • 250th Anniversary Deliberative Forum Series on American Values
    • Past Events
  • Connections
    • The Deliberative Citizen: The DCI’s Monthly Newsletter
    • Efforts on Campus
    • Efforts in the Community
    • Efforts Elsewhere
    • Readings and Resources
      • DCI-Published Guides
      • DCI Guide to One-on-One Conversations
      • How to Disagree
      • Demonstration of Facilitation Styles
      • Deliberative Pedagogy Mini-Course
    • How We Can Help: DCI’s LET’S DELIBERATE! Partnership Opportunities
    • DCI in the News
  • DCI Blog Posts
    • Recent Blog Posts
    • All Blog Posts

Fellow Posts

Deliberating about the Purpose of College: Is It for Me or for Us?

July 7, 2026 by Mohamed Mustafa

By Mohamed Mostafa ’26 (DCI Fellow)

As a senior, I have found that some of the most meaningful conversations I’ve had about the future did not happen in classrooms or career workshops but with friends trying together to make sense of what comes next.

In one of those conversations, a friend told me plainly that he did not see a social responsibility tied to his career choice. For him, the goal was stability: a well-paying job to support his family. He wasn’t dismissive of social impact or contribution but rather that those considerations came second, if at all. What struck me was not the position itself, but how often I had heard it before.

Across conversations with classmates, a pattern began to be obvious. Many of us had entered college with language about making a difference, contributing to society, or pursuing meaningful careers. Yet as senior year approached, those ideas often became harder to prioritize. Conversations shifted toward job security, salaries, and the pressure to “figure it out.” The question was no longer just what we cared about, but what felt safe and financially rewarding.

In many ways, this shift is understandable. College is often framed as an investment and something we pursue to secure our futures, justify its cost, and create stability for ourselves and our families. For some students, especially those navigating financial pressures or immigration constraints, choosing a stable and predictable path is not simply a preference but a responsibility. In this light, prioritizing individual success can reflect responsibility and obligation rather than self-interest alone.

Yet, this framing feels incomplete.

At Davidson, we are reminded that education is not only about personal advancement, but about preparing students “for lives of leadership and service.” Implicit in that vision is the idea that our choices, especially those related to our careers, are not neutral. They shape not only our own lives, but also the communities and systems we become part of.

This is where the tension becomes more difficult to ignore. If college is both a private good and a public one, therefore the decisions we make are not simply about what we can achieve, but about how we choose to contribute. Yet in practice, the structures surrounding us (recruiting cycles, prestige hierarchies, and cultural expectations) often reward paths that are relatively safe, stable, and individually beneficial. In that environment, it becomes easier to measure success by outcomes we can point to, rather than impact that is harder to quantify.

Still, the conversations I’ve had suggest that this is an unresolved question. When friends speak about choosing more secure paths, they often do so with a quiet awareness of what may be left out of the conversation. And when others pursue work more explicitly oriented toward service or impact, they usually do so with an understanding of the risks involved. Neither path is arbitrary. Both are shaped by values, constraints, and competing responsibilities.

What feels missing is not clarity, but space to deliberate about these tradeoffs more openly. Too often, decisions are made under pressure, guided by urgency rather than reflection. We compare outcomes without fully understanding the motivations behind them. We assume that certain paths are more responsible than others, without asking responsible to whom?

Deliberation offers a way to approach these questions differently. It does not resolve the tension between personal success and social impact, but it allows us to examine it more honestly and understand where each position is coming from. It asks us to consider not only what we want, but what we owe to our families, to our communities, and to the society we are part of.

One concrete example of creating such space at Davidson was the Values and Vocations Forum, a dialogue program Coralyn Cairns ’29 and I helped organize in partnership with the Matthews Center for Career Development, Center for Student Diversity and Inclusion. This 90-minute interactive session brought together students, staff, and faculty to reflect on how personal values like impact, integrity, and non-compromise areas intersect with career choices amid real-world tradeoffs, such as organizational missions, business practices, and ethical complexities. Through structured activities including individual reflections, pair-shares, and small-group case studies on scenarios like working for education tech firms or defense companies with mixed impacts, participants engaged in honest, non-prescriptive deliberation that revealed shared tensions between stability, personal beliefs, and societal contribution. This event fostered the exploration of “for me or for us” that has felt missing in other similar conversations.

As I prepare to leave Davidson College, I find myself thinking less about finding The Answer and more about asking better questions. What does it mean to live a life of service in practical terms? How do we balance stability with contribution? And perhaps most importantly, what are we willing to prioritize when those goals come into conflict?

While I have come to better understand how attractive stability and individual success are, I am also left with the sense that an education like this asks something more of us. Not necessarily that we reject personal ambition, but that we position it within a broader sense of responsibility. That we remain attentive to the impact of our choices, even when they are difficult to measure or pursue.

If college has prepared us for anything, it may not be certainty about what comes next, but a deeper awareness of the stakes involved in our decisions. In that sense, the question is not simply whether college is for ourselves or for something larger. It is whether we are willing to carry both and to act with intention when they pull us in different directions.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

Deliberation in the Humanities

May 4, 2026 by Coralyn Cairns

By Coralyn Cairns ’29 (DCI Fellow)

As both a DCI fellow and a “Humester” (the name for students in the Humanities program at Davidson), I have found a lot of overlap between the two settings in terms of deliberation. The Humanities program at Davidson was established in 1962, and while it has evolved over the years since, it nonetheless represents the core values of a liberal arts education—critical, interdisciplinary thought with an emphasis on humane instincts. Although the DCI has had a much shorter tenure at Davidson, it has gained remarkable traction in the larger Davidson community and will now go on to spread deliberative initiatives to 100 colleges and universities over the next four years. I attribute this massive success to the liberal arts environment at Davidson and the interdisciplinary support deliberation receives here. The DCI is not just about changing how we engage in civic conversation. Similarly, the Humanities program is not just about exposure to Humanities fields. Rather, they both center around building dialogues and a mindfulness of how we interact with the world around us.

 Before beginning the Humanities program at Davidson (also referred to as Humes if you’re cool), students embark on a pre-orientation trip called Sapere Aude. Sapere Aude is Latin for “dare to know.” You may read this and think the name is a bit cheesy or nerdy, but if I have learned anything in the DCI and Humes, it is that knowing takes bravery. After all,knowing implies a level of thought a bit deeper than simply hearing and believing. Last semester, DCI fellows learned about something called “cognitive hygiene.” This term denotes the action of deliberating and listening to opinions that you disagree with in order to better understand why you support your opinion. Deliberation, in this sense, is like a stone that whets your blade of beliefs. If you know something, it is because you have weighed other possibilities and still come to the conclusion that this something is true. Therefore, knowing requires the strength and bravery to really listen to the opposition. It is not for the light-hearted, yet, I promise, everyone can do it.

The DCI and Humes are not only conceptually grounded in the same principles, but they also are structurally very similar. The DCI held four forums and four rounds of D-teams, or deliberative teams, this year. Participants attend the forums led by expert panelists and then follow-up these forums with their own discussion in D-teams, facilitated by fellows. Similarly, Humes holds two types of classes: plenary and section. During plenary, all students listen to faculty lectures on various topics with some dialogue between students and faculty, but it is mainly led by professors. Section, then, is a smaller group of students with only one faculty member facilitating. This more intimate gathering allows for students to drive dialogue. These parallel structures both foster cognitive hygiene in that participants are exposed to a variety of new ideas, and then they are asked to develop their own opinions in a safe space.

Being a DCI fellow and Humester this year has taught me that learning is not simply about absorbing information; learning is the art of discernment, of teaching yourself how to exist in and contribute to a world that is full of contradictions. Although not discussed in this blog, there are many differences between the programs, yet, at the heart of both is the liberal arts call for thoughtful students who will go on to be deliberative leaders in their communities.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

Introducing the Davidson Deliberates Radio Show and Podcast

March 12, 2026 by Graham Bullock

Davidson Deliberates cartoon image with four students sitting around a table talking to microphones.

Ezra Minard ’28 (DCI Fellow)

Davidson Deliberates is a new podcast and radio show dedicated to exemplifying the DCI’s deliberative spirit while offering members of the Davidson community a space to thoughtfully engage with contentious issues. The show, which airs from 1 pm to 2 pwm on Tuesdays on the Davidson student radio station (WALT 1610), aims to be a platform for examining challenging questions as close to home as campus and Davidson politics and as global as foreign affairs. At its core, the podcast is both a forum for serious discussion and an introduction to the DCI itself, highlighting its mission and events while also modeling good argument and deliberation.

The topics of deliberation have ranged from the low-stakes yet controversial “is a hotdog a sandwich?” question (see the February 3rd Episode below) to examinations of the benefits, shortcomings, and potential reforms to contemporary American society safety nets, such as Social Security (See the February 21st Episode below). The first pilot episode was hosted by DCI Fellows Grace Zagoria ’27 and Zach Abdulahi ’27 last spring, and then Zak and I continued the series this past fall as Grace is studying abroad this year. With Zak off campus as well this spring, DCI Fellow Bolling Lewis ’28 has stepped up to co-host the show with me this spring.

Rather than following a traditional question-and-answer interview format, Davidson Deliberates is more interested in the genuine exchange of ideas. Bolling and I have and will continue to alternate between modeling deliberation in conversation with one another and serving as facilitators whenever we host guests. Also, we perform the role of the devil’s advocate when necessary to promote productive dialogue. Intellectual diversity is paramount to the show’s purpose, as reflected by our desire to bring differing perspectives and experiences to the WALT studio table. By doing so, we hope to encourage open and rigorous participation from any and all groups that may be interested in participating in productive dialogue.

Questions surrounding the issue of platforming inevitably arise from this work. As I argue in my recent blog post, “The Case Against Denunciation,” condemnation often hardens opposition to one’s position, producing the very resistance that persuasion seeks to overcome. Persuasion, on the other hand, better preserves the possibility of changing minds because it invites its interlocutor to engage in good faith. Furthermore, I argue that deplatforming rarely prohibits conversation from occurring, but instead relocates those conversions to spaces where they are less likely to be challenged, thereby encouraging echo chambers.

Davidson Deliberates functions as a location where those conversations are not only allowed but encouraged and sought out. Finally, I do not assert that there is not a time nor a place for denunciation or for deplatforming. In fact, these practices may be justified in certain circumstances. But, here, in this moment marked by polarization and cynicism against good faith conversation, Davidson Deliberates seeks to meet the need for productive dialogue.

Check out some of our shows below…

“Davidson Deliberates” Radio Show and Podcast (Feb. 3, 2026 Episode)

“Davidson Deliberates” Radio Show and Podcast (Feb. 21, 2026 Episode)

Filed Under: Announcements, Blog Posts, Fellow Posts

The Case Against Denunciation

March 4, 2026 by Ezra Minard

By Ezra Minard ’28 (DCI Fellow)

Denunciation and persuasion are two common tools in the rhetorician’s repertoire. Both seek to affect change. Both recognize the inherent self-interestedness of any interlocutor. However, they are far from equal. Denunciation is easy, instinctive, and emotionally satisfying. Persuasion, by contrast, is difficult, uncomfortable, demanding, and frustratingly the far less common of the two. It is the path less traveled, one which requires patience, humility, and tact. Persuasion is preferable to denunciation because it engages others without hardening opposition or undermining dialogue through condemnation.

Denunciation operates by attacking motive and appealing to guilt and shame. It signals moral superiority and implies that the other’s beliefs place them beneath serious engagement. It is more comfortable to regard oneself as morally superior to an opponent than to consider the possibility of being wrong, which is exactly the disposition which civil discourse requires. Predictably, denunciation invites reciprocal denunciation. Rather than expanding dialogue, it constricts it by hardening opposition and dividing people among in-groups and out-groups. Do denouncers reasonably expect those they criticize to join them condemning themselves? More often, the denounced feel attacked and become less willing to listen as a result. While denunciation may project a belief in one’s own moral superiority, it undermines fruitful deliberation.

Contemporary debates about the platforming issue illustrate this tension. Some defend exclusion (and denunciation by extension) as a means to prevent the popularization of harmful ideas. They might view exclusion as an instrument of the court of public opinion, and I agree that there are circumstances in which conversation refusal or avoidance is not only justified, but perhaps necessary. Similarly, no one has a moral obligation to engage with anyone in any conversation and the freedom of association is an overlooked but essential right under the First Amendment. But consider the maxim: “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Do denunciation and exclusion inadvertently popularize certain views by making them appear edgy or off-limits? If so, deplatforming could be a tragic mistake. And where do those “off-limits” conversations move ?

Conversations rarely disappear when suppressed. Instead, they often relocate into more ideologically homogenous spaces. Such insulation intensifies partisanship and deters deliberative dialogue, especially between those who are most diametrically opposed and subsequently, most in need of deliberation. If a democracy relies on productive dialogue between disagreeing parties, then ideological sectionalism compromises it.

I do not mean to suggest that there is neither a time nor a place for denunciation or for choosing not to platform someone. Conversation is only one tool among many for affecting political change. Protest is another. Our current political moment, however, feels oversaturated with denunciation and greatly in need of dialogue. The architecture of the internet feeds on rage, fear, panic, and character assassination, as they generate more online traffic than empathy, humility, and moderation. Dialogue is simply less cinematic. It does not trend as denunciation does.

Additionally, online spaces provide anonymity that weakens accountability. The social costs of harsh rhetoric decline in the absence of face-to-face settings. While online privacy is essential, its utilization in the dialogue sphere encourages caricatures, condemnation, and condescension as one is less prone to regard their interlocutor’s humanity on X (Twitter), for example.

A more effective alternative to denunciation is persuasion, which logically appeals to one’s interlocutor’s self-interest. Rather than trying to compel belief through shame, persuasion invites the interlocutor to agree, if she finds it aligned with her self-interest. Treating an interlocutor as a moral equal, even despite disagreement, does not necessarily concede moral complicity but instead recognizes shared humanity and seeks positive transformation.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

Personality-Based Regimes and the Crisis of Democratic Discourse in the 21st Century

February 25, 2026 by Aditya Phogat

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

“A democracy dies not only when tanks roll out, it dies when institutions cave in. When constitutional functionaries become partisan puppets. When media becomes a megaphone, not a mirror. When courts begin to delay what they dare not deny. When dissent is sedition, protest is provocation and every question is branded ‘anti-national’–then you know that the Republic is on a ventilator.”[1] -Abhishek Singhvi

The global order of the 21st century in which we live today is marked by the rise of personality-based regimes and their replacement of institutional ones. The ordinary business of the democratic state is no longer dictated by institutions and norms established by general practice of the law, but rather by the demands of both popular leaders and unelected dictators. What are the implications of the supersession of the system by individualistic leaders in the social, economic, and political spheres of life for the prospects of democratic processes, and specifically deliberative discourse? That is the question that this blog post will examine.

It would be apt to begin with an almost-empirical assertion that strong individualistic officers who weaken state institutions for some agenda ultimately cause great damage to the prospects of democracy in their countries. This is something that is very evident in the cases such as post-Cold War Russia, India, and Venezuela. The “cult of personality” leaders may also be seen today in my own country with Prime Minister Modi, who not long ago removed the credibility of the Election Commission of India, a historically apolitical body, by changing the appointment procedure of its commissioners for  his own benefit.[2]  As a matter of fact, one of the more egregious violations of the principles of democracy also happened in India in the 1970s when the-then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, “packed” the Supreme Court, disemboweled administrative structures, and had a State of Emergency declared soon after her election as a member of parliament was voided by the Allahabad High Court.[3] What soon followed after was one of the darkest periods in the legal and political history of the Republic of India that was marked by the unconstitutional withdrawal of fundamental rights and the corruption of democratic discourse throughout the country. After all, one of the more prolific slogans propagated by the government back then was “Work more, talk less!”[4]

What these examples indicate is that individual-based regimes are antithetical to the desire of a people to govern themselves. This is the very reason why the establishment of such governance coincides with the era of global democratic backsliding. Building off of this phenomenon, when such despotism is disguised under a popular mandate in a democracy, all hope for deliberative discourse is lost, for the leader in this scenario is equated to the state and any opposition posed to either them or their ideas is equivalent to an act of treason. As a result, the backsliding accelerates, and independent state watchdogs, human rights organizations, professors, and students are disarmed by punitive force. In this scenario, political leaders who are democratically elected consolidate power and declare any dissenting opinions to be “against the spirit of the nation.” Behind such leaders also stand electorates that support their populist attitudes and aid and abet this overall process. Despots are able to sustain this support by maintaining control over the narrative through social media and by removing deliberation from the national setting. Consequently, what we see at the end of the day is an environment wherein strongmen monopolize the public sphere for their personal benefit and push people into a seemingly cultural conflict against the “foreign” values of constitutional liberalism and democracy.

The reasons as to why such a global crisis festers in a world such as ours may be many, but an extremely critical factor is us forgetting that deliberation is both a fundamental right and duty when considering the interaction of a single citizen with the state mechanism. Citizens must remember that exercising their duty of dissent and differing with a leader who possesses the ability to literally exercise the power of life and death against both them and their fellow citizens is the most critical charge they have as members of the body politic of their country. In this regard, deliberative discourse–which is founded upon the principles of reasoning, agreement, and disagreement–is both an end and a means vis-a-vis democracy. An extension of  this principle, which involves citizens working together to reach reflective, sharable policy conclusions which are then taken under advisement by the  government for implementation, is termed as deliberative democracy and can be used by the political system to preserve its foundational values.[5]

The global order of the 21st century is a war against mindless violence and unwarranted tyranny. The freedom and greater good of the masses are on the losing side of this conflict. Our liberty to think differently and still be able to come to a mutually-acceptable conclusion is at risk here today. It is in the supreme interest of people worldwide to assert their rights in a cooperative fashion and not an adversarial one: as a result, it is the duty of civilization itself to preserve this possibility for its present and its future.


[1] ‘Won’t Allow India to Become Nation of One Voice, One Party, One Ideology: Abhishek Singhvi – The Economic Times’. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/wont-not-allow-india-to-become-nation-of-one-voice-one-party-one-ideology-abhishek-singhvi/articleshow/123059927.cms?from=mdr (November 8, 2025).

[2] ‘Appointing Election Commissioners: The Government Must Not Control the Watchdog’. 2023. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/appointing-election-commissioners-the-government-must-not-control-the-watchdog-8917864/ (November 8, 2025).

[3] ‘The Emergency 50 Years on | Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict Unseated PM Indira Gandhi, She Struck Back at Nation’. 2025. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/long-reads/the-emergency-50-years-on-echoes-from-courtroom-no-24-verdict-unseated-pm-indira-gandhi-she-struck-back-at-nation-10061483/ (November 8, 2025).

[4]July 6, Forty Years Ago: Talk Less, Work More’. 2015. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/july-6-forty-years-ago-talk-less-work-more/ (November 8, 2025).

[5] Layman, Daniel. 2016. ‘Robust Deliberative Democracy’. Critical Review 28(3–4): 494–516. doi:10.1080/08913811.2016.1264161.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 32
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

Blog Post Categories

  • Announcements
  • Blog Posts
  • DCI Posts
  • Events
  • Faculty Posts
  • Fellow Posts
Image of a compass superimposed by the text "Deliberative Citizenship Initiative" and "Davidson College." Clicking on this image leads to the Initiative page.

Recent DCI Blog Posts

  • We Tried to Fix Jubilee’s “Middle Ground” – Here’s How It Went
  • A Case for Deliberation in the Natural Sciences
  • Welcoming New Staff to the DCI and DCN
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn



Copyright © 2026 · Infinity Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in