Fellow Posts

Beyond Elitists and Deplorables: Deliberating with One Another as People

May 12, 2023 by Peter Beck

By Peter Beck ’26 (DCI Fellow)

Former Senior Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway is infamous among Democrats, in part, for referring to “alternative facts” during a cable television interview. At the time, Democrats cited Conway’s comment as affirmation that then-President Trump and his retinue lived in a separate reality, where the truth lies beyond their comprehension or, at the very least, acknowledgment. The comment was a convenient way for Democrats to attack Republican policies on climate, racism, the pandemic, and a host of others.

Trump supporters, on the other hand, took advantage of a poor comment made by the Democratic nominee for President and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to portray Democrats as out-of-touch elitists. Clinton referred to Trump supporters as “deplorables,” which GOP supporters jumped on as an opportunity to cast Secretary Clinton and Democrats as snobs who believe only morally-corrupt people support Trump. To this day, some ardent Republicans call themselves and each other “deplorables” as a term of endearment.

“Alternative facts” and the “deplorables” comment impacted our political discourse and have continued to survive past the Trump presidency, indicating the comments’ weight reveals more significance than 24-hour partisan squabbles on the news. Republicans and Democrats both believe in their visions as best for the country’s future; some say those visions are separated more than at any time in history–as if Republicans and Democrats lived in two different worlds. Polarization is so severe that debates usually concentrate not on policy but on disputing another person’s intellect and grasp of reality–a stark contrast from Alexis de Tocqueville’s American ideal: “Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science.”

As a DCI facilitator, I have to admit that I cringe a little whenever someone pulls out their phone or computer during deliberations to search for a fact on the internet. It is almost always from a place of curiosity rather than wanting to prove a point against someone else’s argument. Still, scenarios of an “alternative facts” versus “deplorables” debate play through my mind. Not only does the internet have a lot of dubious sources of information, but often a person can find a source verifying their precise claim without ever looking into other perspectives.

However, it seems unreasonable to ask participants to stop introducing outside facts. Unlike partisan attacks on an opponent’s character and background, D Team topics focus almost exclusively on policy. D Team participants can bring in only so much background knowledge for any subject. I am fortunate as a facilitator that so many D Team participants have experience and understanding of the topics we discuss. I am hosting two D Teams this semester focusing on climate, and each member of these teams has an intimate and passionate connection they could contribute to the conversation (although this could also be a sign of the worsening effects of climate change).

I believe D Teams are at their best when these interactions occur: one person shares a meaningful, previously unknown perspective from their experience that the rest of the group did not consider. However, I still struggle with addressing two difficult priorities: the need for facts in productive conversations while preventing facts manipulated to fit certain narratives. The degrees of separation between perspectives highlight how divided we are into separate political camps. Ultimately, we need to work toward a political discourse that agrees on a list of common principles and facts that overcomes labels. Demonizing each other as elitist or dumb does nothing to address the problems we face, many of which we agree on.

My hope for D Team members is to use the deliberative space to understand and hear one another, above all else. Perhaps, this personal approach will allow us to overcome the partisan gap little by little and avoid devolving into narratives accusing each other of clinging to “alternative facts” or thinking all of your opponents are “Antifa communists.”

The Forgotten Value of Intellectual Discomfort

May 2, 2023 by Anthony Toumazatos

By Anthony J. Toumazatos ’25 (DCI Fellow)

I was recently posed the question: “Why do you think the DCI’s role on campus is so important today”? It was a seemingly straightforward question that floated through the sneakily warm winter air but pierced towards the heart of our mission.

I took a moment to collect my thoughts. There was much to say, but I ultimately landed on the fact that we foster an environment where one can feel safe feeling uncomfortable. I acknowledge that this initially sounds paradoxical, but this phenomenon is as important in society and college campuses as ever right now.

Today, as a whole, we are uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. The complex issues that our society inevitably must confront are avoided in general discourse and in our supposed hubs of advancement. It is a general trend that the people we converse with or the information we digest are increasingly from sources that share our political orientation. People are hesitant or even fear to express their opinion on certain topics out of a concern about being judged as immoral by their peers.

To truly understand the critical importance of being uncomfortable in our discourse, we can turn our heads back to our nation’s past. A shining example that comes to mind is Frederick Douglass’s speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” In the speech, Douglass decries the hypocrisy of venerating our nation’s freedom when the peculiar institution of slavery plows on. It was addressed to a crowd of white citizens, and to whom Douglass asked poignantly, “What have I, or those I represent, have to do with your national independence?”

Through interactions like this one, which made many people quite uncomfortable, we were able to undeniably better our country. This is one of countless examples that one can draw upon. So keeping in mind how much good and social progress has come from intellectual discomfort, it is paramount that we do not turn our back on it.

In our small corner of the world, the DCI is doing this work. We confront difficult issues, and encourage students, alumni, and community members alike to do so as well. In our deliberations, we foster an environment where participants can feel comfortable sharing their views, and can guarantee that ideas are grappled with in a respectful manner.

The great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The DCI serves as a valuable intermediary that promotes the exchange of ideas in an effective manner. That is why we are so important today.

Photo credit: Chesapeake Bay Program Creative Commons License

The Importance of Age Diversity in Deliberation

April 28, 2023 by LJ Phillips

LJ Phillips ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Job 12:12 of the Bible, says, “Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in the length of days.” This is certainly a truth that all of us can relate to. You can learn a lot from the people who have come before. You can also learn from the generation behind you as well. Age brings wisdom while youth brings new and refreshed ideas. These conclusions are why I think age diversity is crucial in having productive deliberations.

In my D Team last semester, I noticed the deliberators’ openness, knowledge, and respect for their peers. Although all those aspects of the D-Team were important, the one that stood out to me was the age diversity and distribution. The different age groups really brought new perspectives and knowledge about the topics that many of the participants were unaware of beforehand.

Many alumni from Davidson ranging from 30 to almost 80 years old made the deliberations flow and more engaging. They made the students feel comfortable but also intrigued in learning aspects they would have never known if someone who had more experience with the topic had not told them. Also, it was beneficial for the students’ forebearers to hear about how the next and current generations feel about certain issues.

People of an older age in deliberations bring nuance and history to topics that students and other younger members would not know the details about because they didn’t live during that time period. Instead of having an outside view of the situation due to age, they have a direct experience with whatever the discussion is about. This sentiment can be shared with younger people as well in the discussion. They provide new insights into topics that they are more accustomed to than their older peers (such as social media).

I think a good example of the influence age diversity has on our interactions would be the conversations we have with family members and colleagues. Even though you might not have the same love and respect for someone in your D Team as you have for your grandmother, the insight you can gain from them is extremely valuable.

We take for granted how important it is for different generations to interact, especially in a time like today when the generations are more disconnected from one another than ever before. Deliberations that are more diverse in nature have a positive impact on the discussion. Age plays a pivotal role when it comes to diversity in spaces like D Teams. It is more useful to acknowledge the differences in experiences and wisdom to come to a solution to any contentious issue.

I encourage elders to speak about their experiences and teach the youth, and I encourage young students and adults to help their predecessors with new ideas foreign to them and share their experiences as well. No matter if you are 40, 21, or 68, you have significance and can bring valuable contributions to any deliberations, so do not be afraid to convey your thoughts – we will all appreciate them.

Polarization and Deliberation on College Campuses

April 24, 2023 by Miles Charles

By Miles Charles ’25 (DCI Fellow)

College campuses are often microcosms of society at large, with students from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences coming together in one place. However, these diverse communities are not immune to the challenges of polarization and division that are currently plaguing our society. Whether it’s disagreements over politics, social issues, or campus policies, tensions can run high on college campuses. But there is hope: deliberation can be a powerful tool for bringing together a divided college campus.

Deliberation involves the careful consideration and discussion of issues, with an emphasis on active listening, respectful communication, and a willingness to engage with others in good faith. When applied to the context of a college campus, Davidson College for example, deliberation opens the opportunity to foster a deeper sense of community past simply being a wildcat and promote a culture of constructive dialogue.

One way to incorporate deliberation on a college campus, as DCI has done at Davidson, is through the implementation of deliberative groups and forums. These groups are facilitated and led by trained Davidson Students to better encourage student participation. As a student facilitator, I have seen and experienced firsthand how student led deliberations create a space in which all voices are heard and respected, regardless of political affiliation, background, or personal beliefs.

Another innovative approach is to incorporate deliberation into the curriculum itself. Various colleges and universities have already begun to do so, incorporating courses on topics such as civil discourse, conflict resolution, and intergroup dialogue. Within the Davidson context, deliberation is being incorporated in courses across the curriculum by faculty participants in the DCI’s Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative. Expanding these efforts will expose students to different perspectives and teach them skills needed to engage in productive class discussions, dialogues, and promote a more inclusive community.

Deliberation can also be effective in addressing specific issues or conflicts on a college campus. For example, as a student, a controversial issue is the limited number of parking spots on campus. By employing the deliberative process, the various stakeholders such as administration, students, employees, visitors, and more can be brought together to engage in constructive dialogue. This can help to identify common ground and find solutions that are acceptable to all parties involved.

In order for deliberation to be effective, it is important to create a culture that values respectful communication and open-mindedness. This can be achieved through workshops, trainings, and other educational initiatives that teach students and staff the skills necessary to engage in productive dialogue. It is also important to ensure that all voices are represented and that everyone feels comfortable participating in the process.

In conclusion, deliberation is a powerful tool for bringing together a divided college campus. By creating spaces for respectful and constructive dialogue, incorporating deliberative approaches into the curriculum, and addressing specific issues through a deliberative process, colleges and universities can foster a more inclusive and welcoming campus community.

*Photo above is from students participating in a deliberation designed and facilitated by students in a course on ethics and policymaking in the fall of 2021. Over a dozen such deliberation-involved courses have been taught by faculty participants in the DCI’s Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative.

Building Coalitions Through Deliberation

April 18, 2023 by Daniel Lee

Painting of Rodney King with quote "Can't we all just get along?" and "Born on April 2, 1965."

Daniel Lee ’26 (DCI Fellow)

April 30th, 1992. Fire blazed through the streets of Koreatown and South Central in Los Angeles. Korean Americans frantically ran about, attempting without much success to prevent looters from stealing from vandalized buildings. The police were nowhere to be seen—the people were on their own, helpless except for a few handguns and the presence of one another.

March 3rd, 1991. Rodney King, a Black construction worker, enjoyed a few drinks with his friends and drove down Interstate 210. A few officers noticed him speeding and pursued his vehicle. Determined to avoid being convicted and thus violating parole for a previous robbery, King led the police on a high-speed chase through Los Angeles. He was eventually arrested and beaten mercilessly by a swarm of officers.

The act of police brutality was recorded and distributed through the media, enraging Black communities. When King’s case was taken to court, the resulting verdict only furthered the brewing anger by favoring the position of the white officers. Infuriated, Blacks violently protested in the streets of Koreatown and South Central, destroying and burning property. The police dared not intervene, leaving residents to fend for themselves. Ultimately, an estimated 2,300 privately-owned businesses run by Korean Americans were harmed, measuring up to approximately $400 million in damages.

On its face, the 1992 LA Riots tell a story of police brutality and white supremacy. But in close examination, it also tells a story of the dysfunctional relationship between Black and Korean American communities. Cultural misunderstanding and prejudice directed at one another create unnecessary division among marginalized communities and make it difficult to develop meaningful coalitions to fight against greater structural problems. Often, this dysfunctional dynamic arises from differences in cultural etiquettes (e.g., norms surrounding eye contact and merchant-customer interaction) and faulty stereotypes that instill unreasonable fear and hatred in people’s minds. Without this unfortunate misperception, it seems unlikely that the 1992 LA Riots would have manifested in the way they did.

In this light, it is my sincere hope to break down existing cultural misunderstandings and work towards building productive coalitions between the AAPI community and other marginalized communities. Instead of being held at an impasse over our differences, we must work hand-in-hand to fight against the greater evil—structural racism and prejudice that weigh down our communities. This starts with intentional education that dissolves toxic stereotypes and respectful deliberations that allow communities to find common ground and see each other in a truer light.

Through the skills and life experiences I develop as a DCI Fellow, I hope to use deliberation to lead successful coalition-building between marginalized communities. The empowerment of future generations to create a more perfect society founded upon values of justice and inclusion starts with everyday conversations grounded in intellectual humility and genuine respect. Instead of being in conflict with each other, I dream of people from all different cultures and backgrounds standing together, hope dancing with our every heartbeat as we march on toward a brighter future.

Image by Cass Anaya used under Creative Commons License