Chrissy Scaglione CAS 138T Dr.

Freymiller Deliberation Evaluation/Reflection Political theorist and author Benjamin Barber claimed that at the heart of strong democracy is talk, and thin democracy, on the other hand, is merely the hedonistic speech of bargaining (Gastil 89). However, this talk is not simply an exchange of preconceived ideas among members until a consensus is reached. The key to an effective deliberation overall is to have this talk be open, whereby opinions can change over the course of the discussion, and new thoughts and suggestions may be brought up to invoke more critical thinking among the participants. In my small groups Civic Issues Forum, we generally followed the basic format for an effective deliberation that we had read about in Chapter 6 of Rhetoric and Civic Life. We wondered out loud, but at the same time acted as reflective listeners to try to build off of one anothers ideas. Though there were definite awkward moments of silence throughout the deliberation, and times where the conversation lacked flow, it remained a very open and engaging process to problem solving, which is the key to effective deliberation. For this deliberation to be though-provoking and compelling, it is first necessary that all participants come prepared with sufficient knowledge on the issue of higher education to begin with. During the personal stakes segment of the deliberation, every participant described how their own personal experiences with higher education formed a foundation and

perspective from which they could build upon. For example, Sophia, who was born in China, discussed that attending school in Hong Kong when she was young led her to reach the conclusion that we should not be modeling our system of higher education after Chinas (as Option 1 suggested). Our diverse backgrounds brought a variety of past experiences to light that were able to enhance the overall discussion. However, I believe it would have also been more beneficial if my fellow group members and I had brought in more outside information to fuel further discussion, and put less pressure on the moderators to generate new ideas for the group to ponder. In doing so, we would have widened our information base and the conversation may have taken new directions to enhance the quality of the deliberation overall. As honors students at Penn State, I expected us all to have very similar backgrounds growing up, but this turned out not to be the case. We were born and raised in different states, as well as different countries, and it has shaped who we are today. I was then surprised, therefore, that our group was able to agree for the most part on the values that should be prioritized when discussing the future of higher education. We affirmed that money does not necessarily translate into success, and that attending college is a privilege. The common values that we share allowed us to understand where each of our perspectives were coming from, even when we didnt agree with one another on the details, or solutions proposed. In emphasizing the values we hold in common throughout the deliberation, we were able to reach a general consensus regarding the general approach to improving higher education that we thought was most effective, despite disagreement on the specific solution(s) to be taken.

I believe that the deliberation could have been enhanced by brainstorming and introducing a wider range of possible solutions to the issues with higher education. At times it seemed that our conversation was restricted, as we chose to focus on the specific plans laid out in the Shaping our Future issue guide. Participants did bring in information that supported aspects of certain plans, but did not come with new ideas altogether. None of the three options seemed perfect to our group, and yet we acted as though we had to choose one by the end of the deliberation. Again, this is where it would have been helpful to bring in different opinions on the matter of higher education from outside sources. This would allow for the deliberation to take new directions, and our discussion of possible solutions would not have been so narrow. Before we began the deliberation, I had initially expected that each group member would either be in favor or against each option, and in a way, the discussion would turn into a debate, with students arguing for one side or the other. But it was pleasantly surprising that most students recognized both the benefits and shortcomings to each solution proposed. Personally, I was even able to recognize the limitations to my own way of thinking; I originally suggested that scholarships should be focused towards lower-income students, to encourage them to seek higher education. However, Anisa described that this solution would place more of an emphasis on income, rather than merit, and I was then able to realize that intelligent and deserving students might be set aside. Our group created a concise pros and cons list to each issue discussed, that helped determine if the trade-offs outweighed the potential benefits of a particular solution.

Our discussion group found it a challenge to make a decision by the end, as we were generally able to agree on what policies should not be carried out, yet found difficulties in consolidating our common beliefs into an approach for improving higher education. We specifically stated that Option one was too extreme, Option two should be dealt with before students attend college, and Option three would be difficult to implement because of all the potential trade-offs. It seemed as though no group member wanted to advocate for a particular solution, because we had spent a great deal of time exhausting all possible trade-offs. However, we should have recognized that no solution is perfect, and focused on an approach that was a blend of multiple options. I believe it would have been more effective if the group had set aside time to come together in the end to try and make the best possible decision. The set-up for the deliberation was very open, giving any group member the opportunity to take the floor, and yet everyone decided it would be best to raise their hand before speaking. I see this as a sign of respect toward the moderators leading the discussion, and it gives them the authority to decide whose turn it is to speak next. Fortunately, each group member participated enough that the discussion was balanced, and every student was given the opportunity to speak their mind. There wasnt a participant that was too domineering, and in fact, there were several lulls in the conversation where no one raised their hand to speak. Perhaps it would have helped the conversation flow more easily if each member of the group prepared a few bulleted talking points ahead of time, even though it would be difficult to predict which direction the conversation would take. Yet, students would refer to the talking points during these awkward moments, and it would put less stress on the moderator to guide

the discussion. If the students were to facilitate their own dialogue, then the deliberation would perhaps be more engaging, and less of a question-and-answer session with the moderator. Throughout the deliberation, everyone seemed to assume that there was unspoken mutual comprehension amongst the group, and each participant spoke plainly with their ideas so that there was little room for misinterpretation. The recorders chose to write down what they believed to be the central point that each speaker was trying to make, but it still wouldnt have hurt for the recorder to ask for more clarification before writing the ideas on the chalkboard, to ensure that nothing was misconstrued. However, students would often use the phrase I agree/disagree with that statement or going off of that point to make it clear that they understood what the previous speaker was trying to say. Through mutual comprehension amongst participants, the deliberation was able to effectively progress, rather than remain stagnant. The idea of ensuring that each participant remains open-minded and takes the time to consider one anothers perspectives is essential to a successful deliberation. Our group acted as reflective listeners in the discussion, in which we would take into account each point that was made, whether we disagreed or not. For example, when discussing the first option that emphasizes preparing students to be leaders in innovation, I supported the notion that colleges should encourage students to take more science and math courses. I figured that this might motivate students to choose a career in these fields, and they might end up with a practical career in the end. Alison disagreed in saying that no one should force students to take classes and follow a career path that they are not interested in. Although I meant that students would

still ultimately be able to choose the career they desire, Alison made me realize that I was biased as a biology major, and that students shouldnt waste their time taking classes that they have no interest in. This consideration of opposing viewpoints occurred several times throughout the deliberation, and our group was still able to reflect off of one anothers statements, despite any disagreement. Respect among participants is crucial to ensuring that everyone is comfortable voicing their opinion, and no deliberation could truly be considered effective without it. When disagreements arose, there was no hostility or personal attacks on group members, as we often see in online discussion forums. No one talked above anyone else, or cut another participant off mid-sentence. We had learned in elementary school that raising your hand and allowing for the teacher to call on you demonstrated a respect for the teacher. Although this was not necessary in this deliberation, we still raised our hands to show respect for the moderator and other participants. No one seemed to make judgments when members offered their own personal experiences as support for their opinions. This respectful manner of conversation is a key feature of deliberation, because although many just assume that respect will be a given in such a forum, this is often not the case in real-world deliberations. Our group was able to engage in a relatively high degree of deliberative conversation, by addressing the nine criteria of deliberation in some shape or form. The participants were especially proficient in weighing the pros and cons to each potential solution and maintaining a high level of respect for one another. On the other hand, we had difficulty identifying a broader range of solutions, despite our diverse backgrounds and experiences. Although no definitive

decision was made at the end, the ideas that surfaced throughout the deliberation were thought-provoking and certainly gave me a transformed perspective on the issue of higher education. It has also taught me that this face-to-face kind of deliberation is extremely effective in giving people the opportunity to consider a variety of perspectives that may not match their own. Online forums seem to make deliberation more difficult to achieve, as people are quick to hide behind the computer screen and make nasty comments. I believe that students can truly benefit from engaging in more deliberative conversation and perhaps Civic Issues Forums should be integrated into course curriculum at both the high school and college level.

References Gastil, John. Rhetoric & Civic Life. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print.