• 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

Why Argue?

November 1, 2023 by Monty Krakovitz

DCI Fellow Monty Krakovitz facilitating a deliberation

Monty Krakovitz ’25 (DCI Fellow)

As part of the deliberative training for the DCI Fellows, we were asked to read a section from the book written by Scott Akin and Robert Talisse titled “Why We Argue (And How We Should).” The book shows the importance of political deliberation from the perspective of Aristotle . The authors present the view of Aristotle that “man is a political animal” and that what we believe or do in the privacy of our own home affects society at large.

When Aristotle makes this claim, he doesn’t necessarily mean politics in terms of voting. He conceives of politics as how individuals relate to one another to form communities. From the moment that each of us are brought into this world, we are defined by our relationships to others. The newborn is not an isolated individual, but is someone’s son or daughter who relies on his or her mother and father for support. Likewise, the new mother is also not an isolated individual, but has obligations to her child. The term “political animal” means nearly everyone has duties and relationships with others, who also have relationships with others, connecting everyone together to form the society at large.

The authors also give an example of private beliefs affecting others as well. For example, a person, let’s call her Nancy, schedules a picnic at the park with the false view that the weather is sunny when it is clearly raining, and proceeds to invite her family from out of town to the picnic. The family does not know that it is raining at the park because they are coming from a distance. After being falsely told that the weather is perfect, they all drive in to find out that the weather is not, in fact, perfect but is pouring rain. The family has now wasted their day because the person who scheduled the picnic held the false belief that the weather is nice. Nancy’s false belief about the weather led her to act on that belief, which in turn inconvenienced her family in a large way.

This example displays a relatively low-cost error considering that no one was harmed, but the same principle can be applied to  other circumstances where the consequence of holding false beliefs is much higher. The truth is that ideas have consequences. When a man holds a false belief, he is likely to act in accordance with that false belief, leading to bad behavior that affects others in his community.

This semester, one of the D Team deliberations will be on abortion which is a topic ripe for discussion. The D Team will get down to the root of people’s beliefs in order to discover why citizens hold the views that they do. It is clear that a person’s views on this moral, political, and ultimately religious issue affects their actions. From the Pro-Life perspective, holding a false moral view on abortion directly affects the unborn child whose life is now endangered by the mother’s false view on the sanctity of life. From the Pro-Choice perspective, the false view that abortion is a moral evil leads citizen to vote in a way that infringes on the mother’s bodily autonomy.

This is why deliberation is vital: our private views do matter, and they matter deeply. In some cases, a false opinion can lead to minor inconveniences. In others, a false opinion can lead to the death of an unborn child or the loss of a women’s bodily autonomy. That is why it is important to argue: it helps avoid the high cost of error and aids in answering the big questions facing our society today.

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Events, Fellow Posts Tagged With: D Teams, deliberation, discourse, facilitation

DCI’s Fall 2023 Deliberative Forum Recap & Recording: The Challenge for Democracy

October 26, 2023 by Sara Copic

On Thursday, October 19, the DCI hosted its 9th public Deliberative Forum, The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy Around the World?  For this event, we partnered with Davidson’s own Political Science Department and featured speakers with different global areas of specialization. Professors Bes Ceka, Shelley Rigger, and Ken Menkhaus presented their own views about democracy promotion and defense and focused on Europe, Asia, and Africa (respectively). We invite you to watch the recording of our panel below!

The Challenge for Democracy: To What Extent Should the U.S. and Other Democratic Nations Defend and Promote Democracy

panel

Our Deliberative Forum didn’t end with the panel. After the panel discussion, 96 participants engaged with one another in small-group deliberations facilitated by the DCI’s Fellows, Senior Fellows, and others who have gone through our Deliberation Facilitator Training Program, including a few Davidson faculty members. We had a total of 18 small groups deliberating about the topic both online and in-person, drawing on our Deliberation Guide written for the event and engaging with one another on the forum’s central question.

Check out some photos and the short video of these discussions below.

Want to make sure you don’t miss our next forum? Follow us on your favorite social media site and subscribe below for DCI updates!

Panel at DCI Forum
The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and Political Science Department Event – The Challenge for Democracy

Filed Under: Announcements, Events, Fellow Posts Tagged With: deliberation, democracy, facilitation

The Explorer Mindset: Can It Be a Possibility?

July 17, 2023 by Divin Dushimimana

Image of the painting Wanderer of the Sea Fog

Divin Dushimimana ‘26 (DCI Fellow)

We’re in a world with many polarizing ideas. At some point it feels like it’s one idea against all other ideas and their owners do everything in their capacity to transmit their ideas. Without going too far from where our present location, let’s start with the US and the country’s political systems. We mostly have Republicans vs Democrats. These political ideologies differ in many ways, starting with their perspective on taxes to minimum wage to healthcare policy to the military and to many other things in the country. Statistics show that the number of Americans in each party with a negative view of the other party has doubled since 19941https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/. It’s as if members of one political party wants to convert people in the other party to their beliefs.

By zooming out, we can see that the western political and economic ideology of democracy and capitalism has been fighting head-to-head with the political and economic ideologies of socialism and communism for a long time. Having been present in a conversation between an American and a Chinese that encapsulated this conflict, it’s hard for me to envision a situation where an explorer-mindset as a deliberative disposition can be applicable in a normal conversation. In this conversation about capitalism and communism that I witnessed, it was about one person proving why one of the systems is better than the other.  Now that I think about it, neither were looking for a common ground in the debate, and I feel like this is how many conversations are in this world.

When looking back to my primary school memories, I reminisce about debates we used to have like fire vs water, food vs water, or even who is better between mother and father. As I remember, none of us in these conversations were ready to apply the explorer-mindset to understand where other people’s opinions originate. As we grow up, this character trait – a stubborn commitment to our currently held beliefs, right or wrong – gets ingrained in us and we become resistant to accepting and learning from other people’s perspectives. When I look back, I think polarization is a concept that we were taught since we were young and we grow up to apply it in our daily lives.

That’s why the explorer mindset is a concept I had never seen applied by anyone before reading and learning about the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. My conversations were so debate-focused before joining DCI. Ever since I learned about this concept, I’ve been trying to put it into practice because I realized it’s a way to practice intellectual humility by understanding that there could be multiple truths to a certain topic. Conversations should shift from being focused on persuading another person of your perspective or opinion to finding common ground and actually learning why people think the way they think. This is because people’s backgrounds and experiences do really influence their opinions on certain topics.

However, with little exposure to this concept, it’s unlikely that people are going to put it into practice or that the number of people willing to practice intellectual humility will increase. Instead, we see the number of people without intellectual humility increase day by the day and this is a concerning trend. Unless DCI and other similar initiatives become accessible to more students, people, and institutions around the world, the explorer-mindset is unlikely to spread widely, despite our desperate need for it amidst today’s hyper-polarization. For this reason, I hope that more of us will join the DCI and participate in its activities, so we can all explore different perspectives together, in our search of solutions to our common problems.  

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Fellow Posts

Emotional Readiness vs. Community Relevance? The Difficulty of Selecting Topics for Deliberation

June 21, 2023 by Laegan Smith

two heads with questions and ideas.

By Laegan Smith ’24 (DCI Fellow)

When I completed the training to become a facilitator for deliberation, one of the first things we discussed was how to select topics for deliberation. That seemed easy enough to me at first—surely you can just choose any topic and talk about it—but I soon found that there are a lot of questions that must first be asked to determine if a topic will make for a productive conversation.

For example, what issues are people interested in talking about? Will participants have enough background knowledge to deliberate about the issue? Is it possible to gather people with diverse viewpoints and opinions to deliberate? Can participants have disagreements about the issue? Are participants emotionally ready to deliberate about the issue? All these questions are used to determine whether a topic can be considered timely and “ripe” for discussion for a group.

These questions have come up again and again as the DCI has organized and hosted deliberations throughout this year. During our initial training, we were tasked with coming up with some possible deliberation topics for Davidson College and my fellow trainees and I disagreed on whether some topics could be considered “ripe” for discussion or not. I felt like the topic one of my peers suggested was too sensitive and emotionally charged to deliberate given the recent events surrounding it in the news, while my peer argued that that was the exact reason it would be a good topic for deliberation. While I was more focused on the question of emotional readiness, he was focused on the question of community interest. I realized then how subjective choosing a “ripe” topic is.

These questions came up for me again at the deliberative forum on Schools and Parents: Who Should Teach our Kids about Race, Gender, and Sexuality? that the DCI hosted last semester. After the event, I spoke to some of my peers who disagreed that the event should have been held to gauge why they didn’t want to participate. The overwhelming answer that I received was, “I refuse to deliberate about something so personal to me.” That resonated with me: though I did not feel the same way about that particular event, I felt that that was absolutely a valid reason not to partake in a deliberation. The other feedback I received was that the deliberation shouldn’t have even been held—that it was too personal and sensitive of a topic to deliberate at all.

The next week, another one of the DCI Fellows and I shared our thoughts on this issue during our weekly Commons Conversations. We and some other students discussed not only what topics we felt were timely for deliberation, but also what topics we felt should and shouldn’t be deliberated given the feedback from the forum. It was difficult to draw the line between uncomfortable topics that might hit too close to home for some people and topics that are inherently unsuitable for deliberation due to their sensitivity.

My initial reaction was that there definitely are topics that are too sensitive to be deliberated. However, the conversation raised some important questions: if topics that are too sensitive aren’t deliberated, how will we ever understand other perspectives on those topics? How will we be able to explain our point of view to someone who disagrees? How can we as a society move forward on the most personal of topics if we do not discuss them?

I don’t know the answers to these questions and I’m still not sure where the line should be drawn—it’s incredibly subjective. I’ve learned from these experiences how difficult it is to select a topic for deliberation and how impossible it is to please everyone when doing so. Ultimately, I think it’s up to the organizer of a deliberation to gauge the emotional readiness of the community it serves and up to the participant to decide whether they personally are emotionally ready to attend, and it’s okay if the answer is no.

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Fellow Posts

The Benefits of Deliberation in Sports and Daily Life

June 1, 2023 by Peyton Carter

Davidson Women's Basketball Team huddled for a breakdown.

By Peyton Carter ’23 (DCI Fellow)

This semester for the DCI, a lot of focus and time has been spent on figuring out what each of us fellows will do for our personal Deliberation Projects. The goal of these Deliberation Projects is to “enable Fellows to organize, host, and facilitate a deliberative event that connects to their personal interests…and builds Fellows’ capacity to conduct deliberative activities after they have completed the DCI Fellowship program.” After hearing this objective, it did not take long for me to figure out what personal interest I wanted to connect the DCI with – sports.

Sports, specifically basketball, have been a major part of my life from the age of 6 up until now at 22 years old. I have been on plenty of different teams with different coaches through these years, which has resulted in me experiencing a lot of different team dynamics. When I sat down to think about how deliberation and these past basketball team experiences could connect, it seemed clear. Teams get into heated debates and arguments all the time.

It is only natural when you have a large group of people giving their best competitive efforts to work toward a common goal that not everyone will agree on how it should be done. Tensions are bound to arise, and disagreements break out. My idea was that if deliberation is something that becomes incorporated into sports and teams, it would help to resolve many issues that tend to fester both on and off the court (or the field) for the duration of a season.

Ultimately, I decided to go to different sports teams on Davidson’s campus and speak to them about what deliberation is, and how it can be used on their teams to create a respectful environment where issues can be talked about in a respectful manner and resolved, instead of just letting them linger and fester. This decision, however, has also made me think about the benefits of deliberation in all areas of life, beyond sports, and beyond only D Teams and Deliberative Forums.

Deliberation can be used on so many occasions. If we think about it, we probably deliberate every day, although perhaps not always that productively. It may just be a small conversation in passing or a 10-minute “battle” on what the greatest television show of all time is. Just like people, deliberation comes in all shapes and sizes. My hope after completing the plan for my project is that people all over will begin to learn what it means to deliberate, and deliberate well, when it is appropriate. In our world today, much conversation that involves two people on opposing sides produces a disagreement, which then results in an unproductive argument.

People tend to value the positives and respectfulness of deliberation in their daily lives more and more often now than ever before. In our last DCI forum about social media and how we should be dealing with it, the members of my deliberation group during the second part of the event echoed these sentiments. In our group, there were two students, including myself, and three adults who each had children around my age.

As we were wrapping up our discussion, they told me and the other student how special this conversation was and how grateful they were to be there. Above all, they were just happy and relieved to be able to disagree with someone about a topic and not break out into a fight with them, but instead have just a simple conversation. No one was trying to win or make sure that they had the last and loudest word. They each said they miss when they used to be able to do this all the time with people many years ago, but not any longer – until coming to the forum and deliberating with us, together.

Filed Under: Blog Posts, Fellow Posts Tagged With: D Teams, facilitation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 19
  • Page 20
  • Page 21
  • Page 22
  • Page 23
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 33
  • 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

  • Making Conversation: A First Step to Understanding
  • The Costs of Changing Your Mind, and How to Overcome Them
  • ​Middle Schoolers: The Ones Who Taught Me the Most About Facilitation
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn



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