Fellow Posts

Chase Thomas ‘29 (DCI Fellow)

It had been 40 days since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and yet I found myself in a Zoom room of people who hadn’t ever heard his name. On October 20, I led a deliberation surrounding the implications of Charlie Kirk’s death with the Global Futures Group.

Composed of doctors, social workers, businessmen, mechanical engineers, academics, housing advocates, and others over the age of 60, the Global Futures Group meets twice a month via Zoom to discuss the most pressing challenges facing humanity.

Inspired by The Millennium Project’s 15 Global Challenges, we discuss everything from the harms of artificial intelligence to the psychological impacts of political violence.

Towards the end of the deliberation, a participant declared he had questions specifically for me. I sat up straight and fiddled with my notes. One by one, each question punched me in the stomach. “Why are the youth resonating with these values? How could they believe all of this? Do your friends believe this?”

I was suddenly tasked with representing my entire generation. I threw up words until I realized the impossibility of providing a satisfactory answer to his questions. For weeks after the deliberation, I ruminated over his questions and my deficient response. I was caught up on one word: “resonating.” The word slipped from his lips as if it gestured toward something inherent and collective, an established commonality among those orbiting my age.

In A Nuts and Bolts Guide from the Public Conversations Project, Maggie Herzig and Laura Chasin emphasize the challenging dynamic of “The Isolate” in deliberations: “When someone has a different viewpoint than the rest, it makes that person both particularly valuable for the diversity they can bring and particularly vulnerable to feeling on the spot” (86).

Not only did I immediately feel this sense of heightened vulnerability during the deliberation, but I also realized that I felt trapped. Speaking for oneself frees the deliberator. On the other hand, speaking for or defending a “group” decreases nuance in the deliberation because the focus shifts to bigger divides, preventing the group from engaging with smaller points of difference.

As a deliberator-turned-facilitator, I ask what should I do if one aspect of an individual’s worldview is different from all the others present in the conversation?

Herzig and Chasin suggest the following:

1. Check in with the individual during a break, privately
2. Share observations with the entire group and say why this pattern concerns you
3. After a few meetings, the facilitator can ask the group to consider the pros and cons of recruiting another member or two whose views are more similar to those of the isolate
4. Make a suggestion or ask the participants about how the conversation may need to shift if the group is to achieve their purposes (This rests on the assumption that the group’s purposes were discussed and defined at the start, and that the facilitator told the group that everyone must speak for themselves)

You may ask, why should I speak for myself?

Herzig and Chasin posit that individuals potentially speak for others if they belong to a less individualistic society or have experienced systemic patterns of oppression and feel as though they have not been seen by others as individuals (10). However, collective group identity does have value; it is sometimes very important to focus on overall trends to identify systemic issues in order to foster social change and implement improvements for the betterment of certain communities. This “we” can also provide a sense of belonging, shared purpose, and psychological safety. Furthermore, deliberators may speak for others to increase perceived legitimacy, objectivity, or support for their case.

The goal of inclusion in deliberation is not blindness to the point of ignorance. Because society assigns meaning to constructs like race and gender, people’s life views are shaped by these categories to a certain extent, creating diverse, often unequal, experiences of the world. John Rawls’ famous veil of ignorance, as part of his theory of justice, proposed that participants should blind themselves to their own self-interests to be unaware of their standpoint. While his thought experiment is an important

democratic and egalitarian vision, it begins at the ideal instead of working towards it. We tell individuals in deliberation that they have an equal status in the deliberation, which does relate to Rawls’ ideals. However, it is important to achieve a balance between assuming equality in deliberation and working towards achieving equality in the world through deliberation.

Furthermore, as a facilitator, one can ensure that minority or absent perspectives are included in a deliberation by conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and using the discussion guide.

On the other hand, it is crucial to speak for yourself to fight intra-group bias. You can have a different perspective than someone who looks like you, dresses like you, or wears the same political label as you. This is why it is consistently stressed in deliberative settings to avoid general, sweeping statements. Like intra-group bias, essentialism also posits that there are certain traits tied to categories humans have constructed, such as gender, race, religion, and political ideology. Therefore, speaking for yourself in deliberative contexts prevents prejudice, black-and-white thinking, and polarization. While speaking for (or with) others can bring justice into the conversation, so can your own individual perspective. You need to bring your unique lived experiences to the table, cultivating autonomy, trust, and introspection.

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.