Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

deliberation

“Safe Spaces: Benefits & Drawbacks” A Commons Conversation with Patricio Boyer

by Leave a Comment

11×17-CC-w-Patricio-Boyer-FINAL-1

Next Friday, the DCI is continuing our Spring 2024 Commons Conversations program with special guest, Professor Patricio Boyer! Davidson students, join us Friday, March 22nd at 11:15 AM in the Annex at Vail Commons for a conversation about safe spaces. The topic of discussion will be: Safe Spaces: Benefits and Drawbacks. Seats are limited, so register on WildcatSync today!

Commons Conversations is a series of deliberative chats over lunch at Vail Commons and is open to all Davidson students. We have invited five faculty and staff members to host these conversations on topics relevant to their academic or professional expertise. At each session, these conversation hosts will briefly introduce the topic of conversation and share a few of their own insights on it. Students joining the lunch will then have an opportunity to discuss the topic with one another and the host in a conversation guided by our DCI Fellows, who are trained deliberation facilitators.

We hope to see you there!

Bridging Divides and Overcoming Polarization: The Power of Deliberative Practice

by

People of different races holding hands in a circle

Flo Moser ’26 (DCI Fellow)

On Friday, January 19, the Deliberative Citizenship organized a Semester Kickoff Party to start the semester by engaging in deliberative practice. In addition to the table with the pizzas and drinks, many tables were assigned to different subject areas. For example, there were tables on international topics, economics, American politics, technology, etc. On each table, there were cards with conversation topics, which were then discussed by the participants under the guidance of the deliberative facilitators. For instance, one card from the economics table asked whether the minimum wage should be lower or higher. Usually, topics like this are said to polarize and divide society. On this day, however, they brought people together.

In today’s increasingly polarized society, finding common ground and fostering understanding between opposing viewpoints has become a formidable challenge. The social media echo chambers and the divisive rhetoric in public discourse often lead to a widening gap between individuals and groups. However, there is a powerful tool that has the potential to mend these fractures and build bridges of understanding: deliberative practice.

Polarization in society arises from the deepening divisions between individuals with differing opinions, values, and beliefs. This phenomenon is fueled by a need for more meaningful communication and a growing unwillingness to engage with perspectives that differ from our own. In such an environment, breaking down these barriers and creating spaces for constructive dialogue is crucial.

Deliberative practice involves intentionally and thoughtfully discussing issues among individuals with diverse perspectives. It goes beyond mere debate, emphasizing active listening, respectful engagement, and a commitment to finding common ground. This process encourages participants to examine their beliefs and critically understand the nuances of opposing viewpoints.

One of the critical elements of deliberative practice is the art of listening. In a society where people are often quick to express their opinions without truly hearing others, fostering a culture of active listening is transformative. When individuals are willing to listen, they open themselves to understanding the motivations, fears, and aspirations underlying diverse perspectives. This empathetic approach is a cornerstone of overcoming polarization.

Deliberation practice taps into a fundamental human desire—the urge to be part of the solution. Many people are growing weary of the toxic environment created by polarization and yearn for constructive ways to contribute to positive change. Deliberation provides an avenue for individuals to actively engage in shaping solutions rather than perpetuating the cycle of division.

One of the main drivers of polarization is confirmation bias—the tendency to seek out information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. Deliberative practices encourage participants to confront and challenge their biases by exposing them to alternative viewpoints. This process helps individuals move beyond their comfort zones and fosters a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.

In a world marked by polarization, deliberation emerges as a powerful antidote. By promoting active listening, a commitment to understanding diverse perspectives, and a shared sense of responsibility for solutions, deliberation can bridge divides and cultivate a culture of unity. As the many participants at the DCI Kickoff Party showed, people are willing to listen to others’ opinions, even on the most polarized topics, because they strive to be part of the solution. This urge we have to be part of the solution, combined with a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue, can create a more harmonious and inclusive society. As we embrace deliberation, we take a significant step towards healing the fractures in our communities and building a future grounded in understanding and collaboration.

DCI Spring Semester Kickoff Party

A Deliberative Forum on Guns in America

by

Join us for an opportunity to learn about and discuss one of the most challenging topics in American politics

Gun-Forum-Final-11×17-1

Can we talk about one of the most contentious and challenging topics in American politics? One that touches on some of our most basic concerns and aspirations about life in a free society? The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, Center for Political Engagement, and Political Science Department believe we can and we must at least try to do so, with as much compassion, curiosity, and courage as possible, and in the hope that we will come to a greater understanding and create the foundation for sustained progress on this issue.

We therefore cordially invite you to join us for a Deliberative Forum on Guns in America: How Should We Balance Concerns about Gun Rights and Gun Risks? It is being held on Tuesday, April 2 from 7 pm to 9 pm in the Lilly Gallery and online. Sign up to attend the forum through this link — we have extended the deadline from March 28 to March 31. Virtual and in-person registration options are available. We hope you can join us!

  • The Forum will begin with a panel of advocates and experts with different views on this topic who will explore their areas of agreement and disagreement about the costs and benefits of different approaches to gun rights, gun regulations, and gun violence. 
  • Panelists include Shannon Klug (Former Air Force Colonel with Moms Demand Action, Be SMART, and Everytown Veterans Advisory Council), Philip Smith (President of the National African Americans Gun Association), Ray Nothstine (Future of Freedom Fellow and Senior Editor at a non-profit focusing on state level policy and former Second Amendment Research Fellow at the John Locke Foundation), and Dominic Erdozain (Research Fellow at Emory University and author of One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts our History and Threatens our Democracy). Learn more about them in their bios below.
  • The panel will be moderated by Dan Aldridge, Professor of History, Chair of Africana Studies, and a former DCI Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Fellow. 
  • Following the panel discussion, both online and in-person forum attendees will have the opportunity to deliberate about the topic among themselves, guided by the DCI’s trained facilitators.

Panelist Bios

Shannon Klug works with Moms Demand Action, a part of Everytown for Gun Safety, and is the Charlotte Co-Lead for Be SMART, an organization that advocates for secure gun storage to save children’s lives. She is also a gun owner and retired Air Force Colonel, and she is a member of the Everytown Veterans Advisory Council. Klug has written numerous op-eds in the Charlotte Observer, Stars and Stripes, and elsewhere about the importance of reducing gun violence and improving gun safety.

Philip Smith, a graduate of the University of California at Davis, is the president and founder of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA). The National African American Gun Association is an organization that promotes gun ownership rights among African Americans in the United States. Founded in 2015, it has over 34,000 members (60% of whom are African American women), more than 75 chapters in the United States, and has grown significantly in reaction to black deaths. 

Ray Nothstine is a Future of Freedom Fellow and senior editor and writer for a non-profit focusing on state-level policy. He previously worked as opinion editor at Carolina Journal and as a Second Amendment research fellow at the John Locke Foundation. Nothstine served for over seven years as managing editor of Religion & Liberty, a publication of the Acton Institute. He has written numerous articles advocating for gun rights and fewer gun regulations in The Carolina Journal, Salisbury Post, The Anson Record, and elsewhere. 

Dominic Erdozain is a writer and historian with a passion for bringing the past into dialogue with the present. A graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, he is currently a Research Fellow at Emory University. In his book, One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts our History and Threatens our Democracy, published by Random House in 2024, Erdozain places America’s gun problem in a broader philosophical and historical context and argues that we have wrongly ceded the big-picture argument on guns.

Moderator Bio

Dr. Dan Aldridge will serve as the moderator of the panel. Dr. Aldridge is Professor of History and Chair of Africana Studies at Davidson College. He has also participated as a Faculty Fellow in the DCI’s Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative. Dr. Aldridge has served as a public defender in Los Angeles and written extensively about the history of the African American civil rights movement. He received his PhD from Emory University, his JD from Northwestern University, and his BA from Michigan State University.

Register Here by March 28

Deliberating GOATs

by

Deliberating-GOATs-3.12.2024

Davidson students, want to discuss the Greatest Of All Time athletes, actors, and movies, but fear the conversation will deteriorate into chaos and conflict? Enjoy chatting about the best places to eat, study, and hangout on campus, but haven’t had the chance to do so recently? 

Then look no further than the second annual Deliberating GOATS 900 Room @ Nine event! It is hosted by the student fellows of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) who will be facilitating respectful and engaging discussions about your favorite GOAT categories. 

It will be like a mashup of trivia night, late-night discussions with friends over random topics, and DCI forums and small group discussions. This is a fun, low-key opportunity to find common ground with your classmates and decide who and what truly are the GOATs. You can enjoy your discussions over Ice Cream Sundaes and popcorn, and the 900 Room Bar will also be open to serve ages 21+. And there is an added bonus: prizes – Stanley tumblers and beer steins – will also be given away! 

We hope to see you at the 900 Room on March 12 from 9-10 pm (the Tuesday after Spring Break). Everyone is welcome but seats are limited so come on time to join the fun. Make sure to bring all your skills of deliberation and ideas about GOATs!

When Deliberation Fails

by

Game paws collected on one side with one outlier

Emre Guvenilir ’25 (DCI Fellow)

As a trained deliberation facilitator, my role is often central to the success or detriment of a deliberation. The skills I employ as well as the framework set up by the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) allow deliberators to navigate the difficult topics chosen. Two of these frameworks are the conversation agreements and deliberative dispositions, which set the expectations for those who enter in a deliberation to adhere to. These standards allow all participants and the facilitator to feel comfortable and welcome in the environment.

Our deliberative dispositions include ideas like egalitarianism, which is a commitment to the involvement of each participant. They also include the empathy, which asks deliberators to “treat remarks made by others with openness and compassion, and approach disagreements with generosity and good will.” But do these frameworks always ensure that a deliberation goes well? While at a glance these seem obvious, it can be difficult to adhere to every disposition when someone feels that a vital part of their identity is at stake in the conversation.

For a deliberation to be successful, both deliberators and the facilitator must feel welcome and engaged. Such success does not always mean that ideas have been transcended and the participants have found a new way to view an issue. Rather, success could mean that the facilitator has enabled the deliberators to carefully listen to another perspective that challenged their views, even if these views did not change.

Sometimes we do not achieve such success in our deliberations, and the challenge is to figure out how we can do better next time. I recently facilitated a deliberation where the topic was important to all the deliberators, yet at the end I felt I had failed as a facilitator because, from my view, we had not been able to maintain our deliberative dispositions or our conversation agreements. Surprisingly, it wasn’t because the conversation was rife with immense disagreement. A consensus had formed in the group, and I pointed it out to the deliberators. Part of the facilitator’s job is to introduce views that have not been expressed in the conversation, and to do so in a way that makes clear those views are not necessarily their own, but views that many hold just as closely as the participants hold their views.

This is where I believe the deliberation failed. I did not succeed in enabling the deliberators to productively engage with perspectives different from their own. When addressing these views that were not represented in the group, the deliberators oriented their responses towards me rather than amongst themselves. Because they believed those views were at odds with their fundamental beliefs, the deliberation became agitated and a clear tension arose in the conversation.

What could I have done differently? Looking back on this experience now, I would have paused the deliberation and created a “half time” where everyone can get up and move around, get some water, and detach from the tension rather than attempting to power through it when we were no longer holding ourselves to the conversation agreements.

Although it can be difficult to do so in the moment, taking a break can allow each participant and the facilitator to reflect and come back with a new start. Returning from a break, I could have asked more questions about the why. What makes these issues so important to you, personally? I believe that if I had done a better job at asking questions and guiding the conversation, the deliberation might have turned a corner. The pessimistic part of me wants to say, “No, that deliberation was never going to succeed in the environment it was in.” But if I am going to become a better facilitator, and become more open-minded myself, I cannot listen to the pessimist. To walk away from a deliberation without reflecting and trying to improve undermines the exact reason we deliberate in the first place: to reflect on our own stances and ways, and to refine those skills, those beliefs, and all the things that can help make us more complete and better human beings.