By DCI Fellows Saeran Dewar ‘28 and Oliver Genovese ‘28

The “Middle Ground” Model

Jubilee’s Middle Ground series has garnered millions of views online. Jubilee is a digital media company that brings people from various backgrounds together to film content to post online, generally with the ethos of encouraging empathy in uncomfortable situations. Middle Ground, one of their most viral formats, has three people on two sides of a controversial issue step forward to a circle of chairs if they agree with a given statement, with the disagreers eventually joining the circle to discuss.

You may have seen this video they did on Trump supporters vs immigrants on the immigration issue. On their website, Jubilee writes, “Middle Ground explores whether two different groups of people, opposed in their beliefs, can come together empathetically and find middle ground.” However, we noticed that the structure of the conversation itself is not conducive to participants engaging empathetically or finding the middle ground featured in the title of the series.

We thought it would be a great idea to bring the same concept to Davidson to promote more robust deliberation within the Middle Ground model. In our case, we chose to have a deliberative dialogue on immigration. Some problems that we noticed, though, with typical Jubilee Middle Ground videos are that participants often do not engage with each other respectfully, instead making hasty generalizations and assuming ill intentions on the part of their opponents.

In order to create a more robust conversation that aligns with the DCI’s deliberative principles, we selected participants from across the political spectrum who are generally politically active on campus. By doing so, we were able to facilitate a better conversation that did not put any participants at a disadvantage. We will not reveal our deliberators’ identity in order to maintain their anonymity, only referring to them by their preferred ideological labels. 

What We Changed

To address the flaws we saw in the original Jubilee format, we implemented several changes to make the process more deliberative. First, we read DCI’s Conversation Agreements at the beginning of the discussion. While this was a minor change, clearly stating expectations at the outset so participants knew what kind of engagement was expected of them, and what they could expect from others, helped set the tone for the event. Agreements such as “assume the best – and not the worst – about the intentions and values of others” as well as “avoid speaking in absolutes” are often absent from Jubilee discussions.

Second, we implemented a beginning section with a chance for introductions and casual conversation. They got to share a bit of background about themselves and engage in small talk before the real substance of the discussion began. Entering a deliberation where you know you are going to encounter vastly different opinions than your own can be intimidating, but seeing non-politicized sides of people helped deliberators humanize each other beforehand.

Additionally, Davidson being a small environment, the deliberators had already mostly interacted with each other on some level and were not strangers. We thought putting strangers in a room together who know nothing about each other could hinder their inclinations to be charitable to one another.

Also, Saeran served as a facilitator throughout the discussion. Many Jubilee videos lack a facilitator, meaning that all participants have to engage in a dog fight for airtime. As facilitator, Saeran posed questions to the group, chose when to invite disagreers into the circle and invited those who had not spoken in a while into the conversation, keeping participation as even as possible and making sure everyone was heard.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the discussion was held in a private space and was not filmed. Because participants were able to engage in the deliberation in a more low-stakes fashion, they were more likely to agree to participate as well as be candid with their contributions and fearlessly engage with others’ perspectives as well.

How It Went

Although he was not originally supposed to participate as a deliberator, due to unforeseen circumstances causing one participant being unable to attend, Oliver ended up joining the Jubilee discussion. The discussion from the start involved both sides crossing partisan lines, including a neo-conservative and a liberal student, both disagreeing with the statement that all Americans are immigrants.

While the six deliberators crossed party lines numerous times to agree with the other side on a statement, a key party-line disagreement came with the following statement: “Having a massive influx of immigrants into the United States erodes American culture.” The conservative students argued over the threat of non-Western cultures, such as non-Christian beliefs, eroding the culture of the United States. On the other hand, liberal students argued that the “melting pot” nature of American culture and the diversity within it is a key strength of the United States, and thus all cultures should be welcomed.

The conservatives emphasized specific rules associated with Islam that they believed could undermine American democracy, such as a woman’s testimony in court accounting for only half of a man’s. Some conservative students emphasized the Christian founding of the US and that an influx of other cultures would disrupt the nation. The liberal students argued that those choosing to come to the US do so because they want to improve their lived circumstances and thereby contribute positively to the US. The disagreement over the statement ended with both sides accepting that there were differences in opinion on the impact of welcoming non-Western cultures on American values and society.

Overall, the deliberation itself was more respectful and engaging than those in Jubilee Middle Ground videos online. At times in Jubilee videos, participants are more apprehensive and seem to only listen to get their point out and respond, but in our deliberation project, the participants seemed to listen thoughtfully and find points of agreement. Not only did the participants seem to actively listen, but due to their knowledge about current political events, the arguments were mostly fact-based, which helped foster a more robust dialogue that revolved around the argument itself rather than attacking other people’s character.

Reflection

If we were to run another mock Jubilee discussion, we would want to allow more time for the event. Realistically, it is difficult to ask student volunteers to devote more than an hour and a half of their time on any given day, but at least two hours would make a big difference for the depth of discussion deliberators are able to have and the disagreements they are able to dig into. Saeran had to cut off a fascinating conversation on the question of the erosion of American culture due to time constraints, but she would’ve loved to see that discussion go on longer.

Additionally, the diversity of viewpoints represented on the right-leaning side was not exactly mirrored on the left-leaning side, which was slightly more homogenous. We could not have precisely anticipated each participant’s precise political leanings beforehand, but more viewpoint diversity on the left might have made for a more enriching experience.

Overall, the process of planning our mock Jubilee “Middle Ground” was a great experience, and hearing the deliberators engage with each other head-on was fascinating and incredibly encouraging to see them deliberate so thoughtfully, respectfully, and boldly.

As we begin implementing our federal FIPSE grant to assist 100 higher education institutions in developing their own civil discourse programs, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and Deliberative Citizenship Network (DCN) are delighted to welcome three new staff members to our growing team.

Anne-Marie Moehring joins us as Program Director for the DCI and DCN. She will serve as the programs’ chief operational leader, coordinate our work with DCN partner institutions and support the implementation of our interconnected training, deliberation, and outreach programs. Anne-Marie brings extensive experience in strategic communications, change management, and the administration of federally and state-funded initiatives.

David Callaway will serve as Assistant Director for Training Programs. David will lead the design and delivery of training experiences that equip faculty, staff, students, and community members to facilitate productive dialogue and deliberation. He brings more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of public policy, education, pluralism, religious freedom, and civic engagement.

Bob Ritchie is our new Assistant Director for Civil Discourse Programs. Bob will coordinate DCI programs hosted at Davidson that partner institutions in the Deliberative Citizenship Network will be able to join. These include the DCI Fellows Program, Deliberative Forums, D Teams, and guest speaker events. His background combines higher education teaching, civic engagement, public sector leadership, and extensive federal and local public service.

We are thrilled to have Anne-Marie, David, and Bob on board as we expand opportunities for productive engagement across differences at Davidson and throughout the growing Deliberative Citizenship Network. Please join us in welcoming them!

Thank you to those of you who shared topics ideas for our Deliberative Forums and D Teams next year. We have organized the 60(!) topics that were submitted into 15 broad themes and questions, and we would love your feedback on which ones you find most interesting and compelling for our 2026-27 programs. If you complete this short survey by next Wednesday (May 20), we’ll take your responses into account as we decide on what topics to cover in the coming academic year.

2026-27 DCI Topics Survey

Thanks in advance for your input!

Each year, the DCI selects 15-20 students to serve as Deliberative Citizenship Fellows. These fellows spend the year playing a leadership role in the initiative. They immerse themselves in deliberative theory and methods, help choose the issues for the year’s focus, facilitate robust deliberations on those issues, and reflect on and document their experiences as sponsors of these discussions.

Applications for the 2026-27 Fellowship Program are now open. All Davidson students are welcome to apply. To submit your application, please complete the ‘Deliberative Citizenship Initiative – Fellows Application’ form on WildcatSync. The priority application deadline is May 11. Applications will remain open and new submissions accepted on a rolling basis until all positions have been filled by qualified candidates. To learn more and apply for this opportunity, check out the short videos about the program that features several of the DCI’s past fellows and the Fellows Job Description below.

20265-26 Fellows Share Their Thoughts on the DCI Fellows Program

2024-25 Fellows Share Their Thoughts on the DCI Fellows Program

2023-24 Fellows Share Their Thoughts on the DCI Fellows Program

The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) at Davidson College is expanding, and we’re hiring three key team members to help lead this next phase of growth.

Based in the D.G. and Harriet Wall Martin Institute for Public Good, the DCI works to foster thoughtful, constructive engagement across differences through dialogue, deliberation, and civic learning. With the launch of the Deliberative Citizenship Network (DCN), a new national initiative supporting 100 colleges and universities across the country, this is an exciting moment to join a dynamic and mission-driven team.

We are currently hiring for three positions:

• Program Director – This role serves as the chief operational leader for the DCI and DCN, overseeing network implementation, grant management, program operations, evaluation processes, and strategic coordination across partner institutions nationwide.
• Assistant Director for Civil Discourse Programs – This position focuses on designing and implementing deliberation-based programming, including deliberative forums, small group discussions, speaker events, and other initiatives that bring diverse perspectives into meaningful conversation.
• Assistant Director for Training Programs – This role leads the development and delivery of training programs that equip faculty, staff, students, and community members with the skills to facilitate respectful engagement across differences and embed more deliberation into courses and campus life.

Together, these roles will help advance Davidson’s national leadership in civil discourse, deliberative pedagogy, and advancing the public good. All positions are part of a multi-year, grant-funded initiative aimed at building capacity for meaningful deliberation across higher education.

If you are passionate about fostering open inquiry, bridging differences, and creating a more deliberative culture, we encourage you to apply.

Learn more and apply at davidson.edu/jobs (click on Academic Support Roles).

On April 1, 2026, Graham Bullock, Faculty Director of the DCI and PI/Project Director of the Deliberative Citizenship Network (DCN) hosted an informational webinar about the DCN. He discussed the motivations for creating both the DCI and DCN, the meaning of deliberative citizenship, and the experience of the DCI over the past six years. He also walked through the design of the DCN, what participating institutions will receive as DCN members, and the application process to join the network. Dr. Bullock also addressed a wide range of questions that came in from audience members who joined the webinar.

If you are interested in learning more about the DCN, please check out the recording of the webinar below. We welcome all accredited higher education institutions to apply, including liberal arts colleges, public and private universities, community colleges, minority-serving institutions, religiously affiliated institutions, tribal colleges, and military academies. Institutions do not need to have existing civil discourse programs in order to apply. The DCN is designed to support both institutions that are launching new initiatives and those seeking to expand existing work.

Questions about the application process may be directed to Graham Bullock at grbullock@davidson.edu or dci@davidson.edu.

Colleges and universities play a vital role in preparing students to engage thoughtfully with complex ideas and with people who hold different perspectives. Yet many campuses today are searching for ways to better support meaningful dialogue across differences. The Deliberative Citizenship Network (DCN) is a new national initiative designed to help meet that need.

Led by the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) and housed within the Martin Institute for Public Good at Davidson College, the DCN will support a diverse cohort of institutions as they build or expand campus programs focused on civil discourse and deliberative learning. Participating institutions will receive training, resources, and first-year funding to support faculty development, student leadership, and public-facing dialogue initiatives, while joining a national community of peers working to strengthen these efforts across higher education. The network is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE).

We invite institutions of higher education across the United States to apply to join the DCN. The full invitation, which outlines the program, expectations, and timeline, is available below. You can also learn more about the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative, a core component of the network’s faculty development work, at the link below.

Applications to be a member of the first cohort of institutions are due April 13, 2026. We encourage you to share this opportunity with colleagues who may be interested in advancing civil discourse and deliberative learning on their campuses. An informational webinar and Q&A session was held April 1 for anyone who would like to learn more about the DCN (click this link to watch a recording of the webinar).

If you are ready to RSVP to attend the DCI’s Watch Party in Davidson’s Hance Auditorium, please click here. If you would like to register to join the event either online or in person at Duke University, click here.

As the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence approaches, the American Values Deliberative Forum Series continues with its fourth and final Expert Roundtable hosted by Duke University. This roundtable discussion brings together four leading voices to grapple with the principles of justice and the rule of law, core American values that often complement each other but that also have exposed deep tensions during moments of national change. 

This public event follows roundtables hosted by Davidson College and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, co-organizers of the deliberative forum series that engages with the foundational ideals of our republic. The panel will consider the role that justice and rule of law have played in shaping the nation’s founding and the significance of these values as we think about our society today and the society that we hope to see in the future.

Through dialogue grounded in history and informed by current policy challenges, especially as they relate to constitutional rights and judicial interpretation of cases related to justice and the rule of law, this featured panelists will model thoughtful deliberation about how best to uphold and balance these enduring commitments in an ever-changing democracy.

“Justice and the Rule of Law: The Case of Constitutional Rights and Judicial Interpretation”
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 from 6:00-7:30pm
Location: Penn Pavilion, Duke University

Featured Panelists:

Rev. Dr. Benjamin Chavis, Jr., 2026 Senior Fellow for Divinity and Interdisciplinary Studies, Duke Divinity School

Jeanette Doran, I. Beverly Lake, Jr. Chair in Constitutional Studies and Senior Counsel, John Locke Foundation

Professor Thavolia Glymph, Peabody Family Distinguished Professor of History; Professor of Gender, Sexuality, & Feminist Studies, Duke University

John Hood, President of the John William Pope Foundation

Duke Law School Dean Kerry Abrams will moderate the roundtable conversation.

All members of the Duke University, Davidson College, UNC-Chapel Hill communities, alumni, and the general public are invited to attend this special event. The event is free, but registration is required. For questions, please contact Carolyn Mackman at carolyn.mackman@duke.edu.

To attend virtually or in person at Duke, please register here. Davidson College students, faculty, staff, and community members are invited to join a Watch Party in Hance Auditorium — we’ll have beverages and a popcorn bar to enjoy as we listen to the roundtable deliberate. Please RSVP for the watch party here; it is optional but helpful to us as we plan the event. Hope you can join us, or enjoy the event virtually or in person!

Ezra Minard ’28 (DCI Fellow)

Davidson Deliberates is a new podcast and radio show dedicated to exemplifying the DCI’s deliberative spirit while offering members of the Davidson community a space to thoughtfully engage with contentious issues. The show, which airs from 1 pm to 2 pwm on Tuesdays on the Davidson student radio station (WALT 1610), aims to be a platform for examining challenging questions as close to home as campus and Davidson politics and as global as foreign affairs. At its core, the podcast is both a forum for serious discussion and an introduction to the DCI itself, highlighting its mission and events while also modeling good argument and deliberation.

The topics of deliberation have ranged from the low-stakes yet controversial “is a hotdog a sandwich?” question (see the February 3rd Episode below) to examinations of the benefits, shortcomings, and potential reforms to contemporary American society safety nets, such as Social Security (See the February 21st Episode below). The first pilot episode was hosted by DCI Fellows Grace Zagoria ’27 and Zach Abdulahi ’27 last spring, and then Zak and I continued the series this past fall as Grace is studying abroad this year. With Zak off campus as well this spring, DCI Fellow Bolling Lewis ’28 has stepped up to co-host the show with me this spring.

Rather than following a traditional question-and-answer interview format, Davidson Deliberates is more interested in the genuine exchange of ideas. Bolling and I have and will continue to alternate between modeling deliberation in conversation with one another and serving as facilitators whenever we host guests. Also, we perform the role of the devil’s advocate when necessary to promote productive dialogue. Intellectual diversity is paramount to the show’s purpose, as reflected by our desire to bring differing perspectives and experiences to the WALT studio table. By doing so, we hope to encourage open and rigorous participation from any and all groups that may be interested in participating in productive dialogue.

Questions surrounding the issue of platforming inevitably arise from this work. As I argue in my recent blog post, “The Case Against Denunciation,” condemnation often hardens opposition to one’s position, producing the very resistance that persuasion seeks to overcome. Persuasion, on the other hand, better preserves the possibility of changing minds because it invites its interlocutor to engage in good faith. Furthermore, I argue that deplatforming rarely prohibits conversation from occurring, but instead relocates those conversions to spaces where they are less likely to be challenged, thereby encouraging echo chambers.

Davidson Deliberates functions as a location where those conversations are not only allowed but encouraged and sought out. Finally, I do not assert that there is not a time nor a place for denunciation or for deplatforming. In fact, these practices may be justified in certain circumstances. But, here, in this moment marked by polarization and cynicism against good faith conversation, Davidson Deliberates seeks to meet the need for productive dialogue.

Check out some of our shows below…

“Davidson Deliberates” Radio Show and Podcast (Feb. 3, 2026 Episode)

“Davidson Deliberates” Radio Show and Podcast (Feb. 21, 2026 Episode)

By Graham Bullock (DCI Faculty Director)

On November 13–14, 2025, I had the opportunity to participate in a Leadership Symposium on Civil Discourse: Conversations in the Classroom, Quad, and Community, hosted by Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill and the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) in partnership with Emory University.

Dr. Merrill, CIC’s Senior Director for Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects, used the  symposium to bring together faculty members and higher education leaders from across the country to share ideas and strategies for strengthening civil discourse on our campuses. The gathering, held in Emory’s Student Center, focused on how institutions can foster thoughtful dialogue in classrooms, co-curricular programming, and the broader campus community.

I was honored to have the opportunity to co-lead Session III, “Civil Discourse Co-Curriculars,” with Daryl Lowe, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs at Spelman College. Our session explored how colleges can build meaningful opportunities outside the classroom that equip students to engage across difference with curiosity, respect, and intellectual rigor.

The symposium featured an impressive range of institutions and perspectives. Participants and session leaders represented colleges and universities including Emory University, Spelman College, Trinity University, Dickinson College, Hartwick College, Agnes Scott College, Oglethorpe University, Dalton State College, The University of the South, Carnegie Mellon University, Presbyterian College, The College of Wooster, Goshen College, and the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire.

Throughout the two days, discussions emphasized practical approaches to navigating disagreement, supporting faculty and student development, and embedding civil discourse into the fabric of campus life. I was grateful for the chance to share insights from Davidson’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative and to learn from colleagues who are leading innovative programs in dialogue, free expression, and student engagement at their institutions. At a moment when many in higher education feel under siege from multiple fronts, the symposium offered a powerful reminder that colleges and universities remain vital spaces for rigorous inquiry, principled disagreement, and meaningful community-building. I look forward to continuing the conversations that we started in Atlanta and following up on the great ideas we discussed together. The more we can share, the more we can make our own work better.