Special Events

The day after the 2024 Presidential election, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI), in collaboration with the Dean of Students Office, the Communication Studies Department, the Political Science Department, and the Center for Political Engagement, hosted an event aimed at helping students process the election results in a constructive and thoughtful way. The goal was simple: to create a welcoming, open space for students to voice their reactions, questions, and hopes and concerns for the future, no matter the outcome of the election.

The event took place in the Union, where around 25 students from across the political spectrum gathered in Room 900 to engage in a conversation about the election results and what the next four years might hold. At one table, the Presidents of the College Republicans and College Democrats — who had worked together to organize the Eu-Phi Debate — engaged in a respectful discussion of the results with each other and other students. At other tables, both American and international students also shared their different perspectives on the election together. As the results were still fresh, emotions were running high, and there was an understandable need to come together to reflect, discuss, and strategize for the future. What made this event wasn’t just the opportunity to talk about politics—it was the semi-structured, deliberative approach to the conversation that allowed students to engage in meaningful dialogue, no matter where they stood politically.

The Process: Creating a Productive Space for Dialogue

To ensure that the event was both inviting and productive, the organizers used a structured approach to facilitate conversation. Each table in the room was dedicated to a specific theme or topic, such as election results, hopes and concerns for the next four years, next steps – what can I do?, and an open discussion table. Facilitators, trained by the DCI, were present at each table with guiding questions and ground rules to keep conversations on track and ensure that everyone’s voice was heard. 

The event was designed to allow participants the freedom to either stay in their current group and continue discussing the topic at their table, or to move to another table and explore a new theme with fresh faces. Some chose to stay, diving deeper into their original conversations, while others embraced the opportunity to engage with different perspectives, expanding their understanding of the broader issues at play.

The idea for the event came out of conversations between Graham Bullock, Associate Professor of Political Science and Faculty Director of the DCI, and Ike Bailey, Professor of the Practice in Communication Studies. Professor Bullock and Professor Bailey both agreed that it would be helpful to provide a space the day after the election for members of the Davidson community to reflect on the results and status of the election, whatever they might be.

At the event, Professor Bailey participated in conversations with the students while Professor Bullock provided guidance and time checks for the participants, ensuring that they were able to engage in ways that were most meaningful to them. More specifically, participants had the option to stay at their current table for each round or explore other topics with new people. This flexibility in format—where participants could both continue conversations or seek new ones—allowed for diverse and dynamic exchanges, reflecting the range of emotions and thoughts people experienced following the election.

Creating Space for Reflection and Action

In the days following any election, particularly a contentious one, it’s common for individuals or groups to feel anxious, fearful, or even hopeless about the state of American democracy. These emotions can be amplified by the divisiveness of modern political discourse, leaving many feeling uncertain about the future. Our event aimed to provide a space for students to both express those feelings as well as explore how they might act on them. The goal wasn’t just to reflect on the election results, but to help participants channel their emotions into constructive conversations about next steps, once they felt ready to do so.

Research on deliberation has shown that such deliberative discussions can strengthen political efficacy, meaning that people feel more empowered to act within the political system (Fishkin, 2009). With this in mind, the event provided participants not only with the opportunity to express their hopes and concerns, but also a space to consider concrete ways to get involved and make a difference in their communities in the aftermath of the election. Whether it was through volunteering, participating in local governance, or engaging in grassroots activism, the conversation enabled participants to turn toward practical steps for fostering the change they want to see in the world. This allowed participants to focus on ways they could contribute to shaping a future they could feel proud of, regardless of their political beliefs.

In many ways, the event echoed the core values of deliberative democracy: a belief in the power of informed, respectful dialogue to create a more engaged, empowered citizenry. Our hope was to help participants leave with a renewed sense of agency—no matter their political leanings or the outcome of the election. 

Building a Stronger Democracy, One Conversation at a Time

The day after the 2024 election, the DCI event succeeded in its goal to create a space for students to engage in thoughtful, reflective, and productive conversation. By offering both a space for thoughtful discussion and clear paths forward for those eager to take action, the event highlighted the importance of staying engaged in civic life—beyond just voting—especially during times of political uncertainty. It reminded us that democracy thrives when we actively participate, discuss, and contribute to shaping the future.

In the days following an election, it is easy to feel disheartened or disconnected from the democratic process. While it is important to give everyone space and time to either celebrate or grieve the results of hard-fought elections, events like this one can also remind us that democracy is not just about casting a vote—it requires us to stay engaged, have difficult conversations, and take steps, however small, to contribute to the well-being of our communities and society. Whether students left the event feeling heard, understood, motivated, or more informed, the most important takeaway was that they had a chance to participate in a meaningful dialogue that reaffirmed their role in shaping the future.

Thank you to all who attended, and we look forward to continuing important conversations about the challenges and opportunities we all face in the months ahead.

Resources

Fishkin, J. (2009). When people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation.Oxford University Press. 

On Friday, August 30th, the DCI kicked off the school year with a burst of energy and enthusiasm! Around 40 people gathered to dive into lively discussions over pizza, connecting with fellow Davidson students, faculty, and staff. The event was a vibrant mix of newcomers to the DCI and seasoned veterans, all eager to mingle and engage.

The celebration took place in the College Union’s 900 Room, where tables engaged in conversation on a diverse array of topics. Our new cohort of DCI Fellows did an exceptional job inviting students, staff, and faculty from the College Union, creating a welcoming atmosphere that encouraged dialogue. Each table was thoughtfully equipped with Conversation Agreements and Deliberative Dispositions to help guide discussions.

Every 15 minutes or so, the DCI Faculty Director, Dr. Graham Bullock took the floor to briefly highlight upcoming DCI events and offer useful deliberation tips. To keep the energy high, we also held a fun raffle— each attendee had a chance to win a coveted DCI T-shirt. The excitement was palpable as names were drawn, and every winner received their prize with a smile, adding a festive touch.

The event proved to be a fantastic start to the school year, providing participants with a meaningful opportunity to connect in new and engaging ways. It highlighted the DCI’s dedication to fostering respectful and thoughtful dialogue in today’s polarized climate. By embodying the DCI spirit of building democracy, one conversation at a time, the event set a wonderful tone for what promises to be an enriching year of DCI programs and events.

Since its inception, the DCI has participated in Davidson’s daylong celebration of student intellectual achievement called the Verna Miller Case (VMC) Symposium. DCI Fellows have presented posters and given presentations on the work of the DCI, and it has been a great opportunity for them to share their work with the Davidson community.

This year we wanted to do something a little more dynamic and interactive to capture the spirit and ethos of the DCI. And so a team of Fellows got together and designed an hour-long event that actively demonstrated the DCI’s key features and contributions to creating a more deliberative culture on and off campus.

It included a mock deliberation on the relationship between free speech and inclusion that highlighted moves that both deliberators and facilitators can make to foster more productive deliberations. The mock deliberation did not shy away from engaging with some of the most contentious aspects of the issue at hand, but tried to demonstrate how we can engage constructively and respectfully with them.

The event also included short summaries by the Fellows about their deliberation projects that they designed on issues important to them personally. It concluded with an opportunity for audience members to deliberate among themselves on a range of different topics.

The event wonderfully displayed the range and depth of deliberation that the Fellows engaged in and the set of skills they learned over the course of the 2023-24 academic year. It nicely complemented the other types of amazing work highlighted by the Symposium that Davidson students engage in on campus, from research in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities to achievements in the performing and visual arts to collaborations with local communities and organizations on pressing social challenges.

In many ways, the DCI brings together these different threads of the liberal arts – rigorous research, creative work, and civic engagement – and applies them to the critical project of fostering constructive conversations across differences on issues that matter deeply to our society.

Check out the video highlights of the DCI’s symposium event below. It features an introduction to the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative by DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener Laegan Smith ’24 followed by a mock deliberation featuring Laegan, Stephen Walker ’26, Emre Guvenilir ’25, Auden White ’26, Mishti Mookherjee ’27, and Arshi Hussain ’26. These and other DCI Fellows then introduce their personal deliberation projects. Check it out – it’s a great way to learn about the incredible work that Davidson students are doing as part of the DCI.

By Graham Bullock, Stephen Walker ’26, and Emre Guvenilir ’25

The DCI’s final Commons Conversation of the spring semester was hosted by Chris Clunie, Athletics Director and Vice President for Athletics. The topic was “Sports Betting: What are the Issues,” and Mr. Clunie started the conversation by explaining the College’s current rules related to sports betting. In short, employees and students are not allowed to 1) engage in any form of betting on sports competitions in which Davidson College athletes are competing, 2) share nonpublic information about Davidson College athletes that is relevant to sports betting, or 3) attempt to influence the outcome of a sporting event that includes Davidson College athletes.

He also discussed how sports betting can erode the sense of community and trust within the campus community if students place bets on their fellow Davidson student-athletes. Doing so can also ruin relationships between those individuals. When the performance of a team or individual can materially affect a classmate or staff members financial well-being, that places enormous pressure on both the athletes and how they connect with others on campus.

After Mr. Clunie concluded his introduction to the topic, the Commons Conversation’s participants weighed in with their perspectives and questions. Some were in favor of sports betting and not regulating it too rigidly, while others were more skeptical and concerned about its recent rapid growth. Everyone weighed the effects of betting on student-athletes on those specific-athletes themselves, and they benefited from insights from two track team members taking part in the discussion. They considered how the practice might harm them personally, especially considering the fact that they are Division I athletes at a school as small as Davidson. 

The participants also considered the benefits for people engaged in betting markets, including generating revenue and pure fun, and the limits of those benefits. Some highlighted how enjoyable sports betting is for a lot of people. Others suggested that betting is largely only experienced by groups of a higher socioeconomic status and emphasized that it can be highly addictive and harmful. They talked about how gambling is different from many other types of addictions in that its effects are less visible and that treatment and recovery resources are generally less available.

Mr. Clunie’s contributions to the conversation gave everyone insight into the rationale of different stakeholders considered by the athletics department as it works to develop betting rules for the college community to abide by that ensure they protect athletes and support the Honor Code. In discussing these rules, the participants emphasized the limits of the ability of the College to regulate the practice and the importance of the ethos of the honor code in ensuring sports betting does not adversely affect athletes, students, and teams. 

The participants discussed the honor code more generally and expressed a shared sense of declining reverence for the guidelines in the post-COVID era. They then explored possible solutions to this problem and deliberated about what the administration can and should do to address it. One participant argued that grade inflation is contributing to less concern about the Honor Code, while another stated that they came to Davidson because of it. Circling back to the issue of sports betting, especially on student athletes, participants emphasized that students must point out to one another what is and is not acceptable.

The conversation concluded with some discussion about the practice of sports betting more generally, and how people across the ideological spectrum may take issue with it. We highlighted the ways cultural shifts in society at large can impact college campuses in unpredictable and important ways. 

By Atyantika Mookherjee ’27

On Friday, March 22nd, a group of Davidson students gathered over lunch to discuss the concept and role of safe spaces with Dr Patricio Boyer. Dr Boyer, Director of the Humanities Program, had interesting ideas about the differing roles of safe spaces. The conversation began with an overview of the DCI’s Conversation Agreements and a round of introductions, allowing students from different majors and class years to share their reasons for interest in the topic and fostering a sense of inclusivity.

Dr Boyer then provided an overview of the topic, presenting his thoughts around how the question of a college being a safe space is a compelling one as it not only is a meeting ground for students, but also a place for faculty and staff to express their thoughts. He then opened the conversation up to the students. What followed was an engaging conversation that touched on trigger warnings, the type of media present in the classroom, and the difference between safe and brave places on college campuses.

It was incredibly interesting seeing students grapple with the question of if the classroom ought to be a safe space and the tug between content that requires a trigger warning and a comprehensive education. While – like most conversations at the DCI – there may be no easy answer, the experience was a rewarding one for all involved as we each walked away with new perspectives, more questions, and the skills to bring about productive conversations.