Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

D Teams

Accessibility As a Priority: A Perspective From the DCI  

by

Inclusive colorful image of human silhouettes

Zoe Moseley ’26

At a Deliberative Citizenship Fellows meeting in November, we discussed an article published by Colorado State University’s Center for Public Deliberation titled, “Inclusion Around the Cycle.” This reading aligned well with what I was doing at Davidson that week, helping the Davidson Disability Alliance lead a conversation about event accessibility with student organizations. The argument the reading was trying to refute was that all deliberations are necessarily and equally exclusionary. Power dynamics and certain people speaking more, or more freely than others, are two examples of ways deliberations may not be completely inclusive.

“Inclusion Around the Cycle” started by discussing two types of exclusion, external and internal. External exclusion was described as the fact that some voices will not be present for the event.  Internal exclusion, however, is the idea that non-dominant voices may be overlooked during the event. The article emphasizes that strategies to reach sufficient inclusion are entirely possible, especially when implemented before, during, and after events.

I would say the idea that not every voice at a deliberation could be present or heard felt very disappointing throughout working with the DCI. However, I did not know how to fix it. As someone who works towards access and inclusion on campus, I was confused about why I could not think of feasible ways to bring this perspective to the DCI. I was therefore excited to read, “Deliberative practitioners should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good in public processes” (Maldonado, 6).

The article opened my eyes to the opportunity that deliberation presents us with on the subject of inclusivity, which is improving every time. I was surprised I had not viewed it this way before, as this was advice I gave to student organization leaders regarding accessibility. To me, accessibility, making resources available to all people, is the key to inclusion. During the meeting, we stressed that full accessibility is almost impossible since disability and need vary drastically. The article said the same thing about inclusion: “It is important to note that there is no way to ensure complete inclusivity” (Maldonado, 6).

The article touched on inclusivity efforts I realized the DCI was already making, such as offering almost all events via Zoom, training facilitators to make sure every voice gets a chance to speak, and asking for constant feedback. I tried to emphasize more minor things within my D Team when it came to inclusion, such as continuously asking if everyone could hear me, ensuring that when participants arrived, the heavy door was propped open, and zooming one participant in when they were ill. By making it clear that we care about access, I hope participants feel more comfortable to show ways we can improve. After reading this article, I have ideas for more efforts I can make next semester, taking to heart the idea of improving each time. For example, I’d like to ask participants throughout the semester if there are aspects of our meeting that may improve inclusivity and incorporate their ideas on the matter.

I am curious to see what those who argue that deliberations are not inclusive would say to Maldonado’s argument that while it is impossible to create a “perfectly inclusive forum,” we should nonetheless strive for sufficient inclusion. I appreciate the optimism of the Center for Public Deliberation on this front and hope other deliberative organizations put inclusion at the forefront of their discussion. I believe that the values of deliberation align well with the idea of inclusivity: respecting every voice, discussing differences, and assuming the best intentions.

Spring 2024 D Teams

by

D-Teams-Spring-2024-8.5×11

This spring the DCI is excited to host its eighth round of D Teams! The focus of the teams’ discussions will be on the three topics of major public concern related to education. Read more below to learn more — Registration for Spring 2024 D Teams is open from January 11th until January 25th, 2024 (Know you want to sign up? Register here.).

What are D Teams?

D Teams are small teams of about 6-10 people that meet three times per semester in order to discuss contentious topics in productive ways, and to pave the way toward catalyzing creative solutions to difficult problems in the public sphere. D Teams may meet in person or virtually.

A few things make the D Team experience unique compared to other discussions about controversial topics. First, D Team discussions are facilitated by a DCI Fellow who has been trained in the kind of facilitation that leads to good discussions. Second, D Team participants get access to deliberation guides designed specifically for each topic that they discuss. And third, D Teams provide an opportunity to connect meaningfully with others beyond one’s immediate social or professional circle. You can learn more about the background and structure of this program here.

It was my first DCI experience, and I was not sure quite what to expect. I was one of 2 non-students on our team, and part of the draw to participate was to hear and learn from current students how they think and feel about such a difficult, complex, politically-charged topic. It was an enlightening and encouraging experience; I came away more hopeful, and impressed by the DCI initiative.

—D Team Participant

What are the topics of discussion for Spring 2024?

The Spring 2024 topics all relate, in one way or another, to the concept of education. D Teams will deliberate about public education and school vouchers, grades and standardized tests, and college admissions.

Education is something we all value to some extent, and yet we disagree about what kinds of education policies should be implemented. We disagree about the purpose of public education, about how to measure the effectiveness of our educational system, and who ought to be admitted to particular educational institutions. And the way we answer these questions depends on our ideas about the general aim of an education, the difference between public and private education, and perhaps even broader questions about justice, equality, and freedom.

In spring 2024, we will therefore be investigating education and its relationship with other values, while paying attention to the particular details each issue below presents. Spring D Team members will have the opportunity to discuss the following questions:

(1) Public Education and School Vouchers: When should parents be granted vouchers to pay for private schools, if ever?

This discussion will first focus on the purpose and function of public education: Why do taxpayer dollars go to support public schools? What are the motivations and expectations associated with this support? Then we will turn to the more specific topic of school vouchers, which enable students to use public money to attend private schools. The use of such vouchers has become increasingly common in recent years, and North Carolina recently expanded their use to allow a broader range of families to make use of them. D Teams will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of vouchers, who they may most benefit and most harm, and under what conditions they should be supported or resisted.  

(2) Grades and Standardized Tests: How should student learning and excellence be assessed and measured, if at all?

Public and private school advocates share a common challenge – identifying to what extent educational institutions are accomplishing the goals they are designed to achieve. Grades and standardized tests are the most common means to measure student and school performance. In this discussion, participants will explore the strengths and limitations of both types of metrics, and they will discuss whether and in what contexts they are most useful and appropriate. They will also deliberate about what assessment policies students, teachers, parents, and policymakers should advocate for in both K-12 and higher education settings. This conversation will both build on the previous discussion about school vouchers and flow into the next one on college admissions.

(3) College Admissions: How should American colleges and universities make admissions decisions in the future?

In the summer of 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision has led colleges and universities across the United States to reconsider how they will determine who is eligible for admission to their institutions. What new or different criteria should they use or weight more strongly given the Court’s prohibition against using race as a factor in admissions? D Teams will address this question by first discussing what the goals of admissions processes should be and then by deliberating about different strategies to achieve those goals. 

Why did we choose these topics?

The DCI solicited feedback on potential topics that were suggested by the DCI Fellows and former D Team participants via a survey that was shared within the Davidson community and the DCI’s online community — our blog and newsletter subscribers and Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter followers. These topics were among the top choices that our survey respondents were interested in discussing, and they are all timely in their own ways. Finally, although the topics are substantively different, they all present an opportunity to engage with pressing public debate about education in America.

I was very grateful to have this kind of opportunity to have these conversations in a context where I knew I shared something with all other participants even though we are in many different stages and paths in life.

—D Team Participant

How do I sign up?

Registration for spring 2024 D Teams is open from January 11th to 25th, 2024. Sign up today and help us build a better democracy, one conversation at a time.

How Empathic Intelligence Can Improve Our Discourse: Reflecting on Christy Vines’s Visit to Davidson

by

Christy Vines Fall 2023 Empathic Intelligence in the Classroom Workshop

Grace Gallagher ’26 (DCI Fellow)

This fall semester, the DCI brought Christy Vines to campus for our Fall Speaker Series. She led a workshop, screening of her film, Dialogue Lab: America, and a campus lecture to share her various thoughts and experiences about empathic intelligence with the Davidson community.

Before hearing her speak, I did not know anything about Empathic Intelligence (EI), but her events taught me a lot about it and provided me with a new perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to her thoughts, and I have found several applications of her points to our work with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.

First, she stressed the importance of being “effective” rather than being “right” in conversations with others. I have noticed through my D Teams, the forums that we have had, and through DCI Fellows meetings and discussions, that adopting this mindset makes deliberating much more productive and rewarding. Many of our most contentious topics in the world are topics with varying perspectives and without a “correct” answer, or without an answer we can all agree on. For example, one of our D Team meetings was about abortion. When individuals disagree about the ethics of abortion, the most productive action that can be taken is explaining to others where your opinion comes from and why you believe what you believe to make sure that others understand different perspectives. Abortion is an issue in our society that lacks agreement, making these conversations especially beneficial.

Another point that Christy Vines discussed was the idea that you do not need to change someone’s opinion very much at all in order to have a significant impact. She used the metaphor of a gauge that moves someone 5 degrees in the moment, such as in the direction of a large ship. At first this does not seem like much of a change, but that 5 degrees will keep them going in a new direction for a long time and cause them to end up in a very different place. Simply expressing where your opinion comes from can potentially provide someone with that 5 degree gauge rotation that informs, challenges, and orients them towards a different perspective.

In my opinion, these two points seem incredibly important and beneficial to think about when discussing contentious topics with others. However, these ideas are both much easier to talk about and understand than to utilize when deliberating. When deliberating about a topic that is important to you, I believe that it can sometimes be really difficult to follow the deliberative dispositions and agreements because your emotions can overtake what you are saying, but these ideas can help individuals to refocus their points more effectively.

I have had the opportunity to participate in DCI deliberations from the perspective of both a deliberator and a facilitator. Last Fall, before I became a DCI Fellow, I was a deliberator in the D Team series on elections, focusing on election security, fairness, and accessibility. As a deliberator, I experienced some of my deliberations having very cohesive opinions and others with opposing views, especially regarding recent elections. This year, I am a DCI Fellow, and I have experienced both of these different scenarios as a facilitator. As a deliberator, it is much harder to comprehend if others are gaining any value from your points and whether they are believing you are wrong or truly trying to understand your view. As a facilitator, I believe it is much easier to recognize when someone’s point is being effective and engaging others into their view. This is apparent when participants begin to let their guards down, connect with others further, and realize new ideas. 

Why Argue?

by

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.

The Benefits of Deliberation in Sports and Daily Life

by

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.