Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

The DCI Blog

Taking Our Last Breath: Teaching a Deliberative Sociology Course at a Dying College

by Leave a Comment

Photo and text introducing Yingling Liu.

When I first saw the flyer about Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I immediately knew that it was something I wanted to learn more about and get involved with. At that time, the college I was working for had just gotten out of the ICU: it had successfully secured funding from the state to keep its doors open, after years of financial distress. As a sociologist with a law background, I am dedicated to teaching and learning how to “productively engage with one another on difficult and contentious issues facing our community and society” (DCI website).

Every semester, I teach an introductory level course in sociology – Sociology 101. This is a required course for all sociology major students and a popular class in the core curriculum. Even with a short amount of time into my career as a professor (about 3 years now), I have found that the SO101 class is the hardest course to teach. One of the reasons is that the difference in background and life experience of individuals can have so much impact on their perspectives and opinions that students and educators have difficulty engaging in meaningful and productive conversations on almost any given topic. Especially as an international scholar, a woman, and a racial minority at a small liberal arts institution, I often felt pushback in the classroom: “… a Chinese is teaching Marx…”; “… she cannot get over her personal experiences…”; “a woman is teaching Feminist theory”; “too liberal…”; “a brainwashing class” (these are selected quotes from course evaluations).

Although I can’t completely change how students view me, I know there is room for me to be a better professor who can teach those controversial topics in a more productive fashion. Thus, I joined the DCI’s 2023-2024 faculty fellows program — the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative — and decided to construct the SO101 course in spring 2024 as a deliberative course.

Based on the original framework of this course, I modified and added three components: 1) I revised the grading rubric of the Interview Project and put more emphasis on the deliberation section in the final paper; 2) I added a Townhall Meeting Activity with a full deliberation session in class; and 3) I took advantage of having a TA in the classroom to provide additional feedback to students’ deliberation performance, such as in-class discussions.

What wasn’t in my plan was that in March 2024, during spring break, my college announced that it will close its doors permanently at the end of the spring term because it failed to get the money from the state (yes, it was a chaotic story of how we should have gotten the money but eventually didn’t). The college has been suffering from financial instability for over a decade. Still, this abrupt news over spring break hurt the morale on the entire campus, and it forced many faculty members, including me, to adjust our lesson plans to accommodate everyone’s needs.

I wanted to make sure that the course represented a feasible time demand for the students (given the fact that they have to deal with transferring, campus visits, decision making, and the stress associated with this news) while still ensuring the class would provide a meaningful learning experience for everyone. I therefore reduced the workload by requiring students to finish one of the two big remaining assignments (not closely related to deliberation) instead of doing both. And I had to be flexible with the attendance policy as many students had to miss class to do campus visits or taking mental breaks. Because of that, I decided to not do The Circle activity, which had been scheduled on the week after spring break.

I also extended the deadline of the final paper of the Interview Project (which was due the week after spring break). For the Interview Project, each student was required to pick a topic and interview someone who disagrees with them on this topic. This project was scheduled over five weeks, starting with dedicated class time on the rubric and brainstorming, followed by a literature review assignment, interview guide assignment, the actual interview (over spring break), and the final deliberation paper.

To my surprise, given everything else going on, students did well on their deliberation papers (they submitted it two weeks after the closure announcement). They were able to compare different perspectives on the controversial topic, synthesize the relationship between different ideas, investigate how people’s personal experiences shape their opinions, and find the common ground between them. Students especially emphasized the value of listening to one another’s story, and how that experience helped them develop empathy and compassion. From their reflections, students overall enjoyed the experience of the project, even while at the beginning some found it uncomfortable to discuss controversial topics with someone who disagrees with them.

The Townhall Meeting activity took place two weeks before the last day of class. I was so concerned about students’ participation that I decided to use a class period (a week before the activity) to prepare for this activity. My TA and I compiled a reading list, including the history of affirmative action and opinions from multiple perspectives. We created roles that would participate in this meeting: university admission staff, high school senior students, parents, residents in the community, college students, college professors, news reporter, and state legislators.

In the prep class, each student drew a role, independently developed the characteristics of the role, then prepared for making their statement based on the role. Students were given information about the procedure of the Townhall Meeting at the prep class as well. By the time we hosted the Townhall, students have already spent the entire class period (80 minutes) and an entire week preparing for their opening statement and questions.

On the day of activity, we set-up the classroom tables in a circle, which emphasized that everyone had an equal right to have their voices heard. My TA served as the moderator while I was taking notes and grading students on their 1) knowledge of the topic; 2) portrayal of their role; and 3) participation in the deliberation. A quarter of the class were absent, yet they prerecorded their statements to be played at the Townhall. My TA started the activity with some brief opening remarks, then played all the videos and let everyone in class give their opening statement. Then, the activity went into the cross-examination phase.

I was concerned that there would be dead silence because nobody was motivated to debate, with everything else going on. Again, to my surprise, students were eager to talk, express their opinions, and “play” their roles. My TA was busy pointing to people to speak as there were lots of hands raised. At the end, I found out that almost half of the students drew a role that they disagree with. They said that was an interesting yet rewarding experience to speak from the opposite side.

Overall, I think my deliberation course went well; or more precisely, better than I expected. If I were to do it again, I would spend a bit more time talking about deliberation pedagogy with my students, discuss more readings about deliberation, and watch a few videos of deliberation. I recognize that in most cases I won’t be able to have a TA in class, which will demand more time from me to prepare for the class activities and grade the low stake deliberatve discussions in class.

As I am concluding my deliberation course, my college – a small liberal art institution in the deep south of the United States – is winding down after 168 years of operation. Yet the debate and politics about liberal art education, private institutions and public funding will not end. With a bitter feeling and watery eyes, I must move forward.

Yingling Liu submitted this blog post at the end of the Spring 2024 semester while she was still at Birmingham-Southern College. She started an Assistant Professor of Sociology position at North Central College in the fall of 2024.

The Deliberative Facilitator: The Importance of Asking Good Questions 

by

This was the moment: After all the training, mock deliberations, and facilitations within the Fellows group, it was finally time to conduct my own D-Team. I had reviewed my facilitator’s guide and toolkit before arriving to make sure I was fully prepared. 

About an hour into the meeting, there was a lull in the conversation, so I chose to ask a prompting question that would hopefully encourage more discussion. As I thought about what to say, though, I realized that one thing I hadn’t really thought about was how to ask a question neutrally without accidentally saying something that would show a preference for either side. Though I did eventually find something to say that was down the middle of the discussion, it led me to think about how the wording of questions can influence a discussion.

This topic doesn’t just apply to DCI’s deliberative teams or forums; we see the challenge of neutrally asking questions everywhere, from court cases to presidential debates. The problem with asking questions with a bias is that it can put people on the defensive, close down the conversation, or cause someone to go on the attack. When it feels like the facilitator is favoring one perspective over another, it can also leave participants feeling shut out of the conversation, which is the opposite of what a good deliberation should do. 

It can also escalate a conversation from a discussion to a debate when it feels like the moderator is purposely trying to challenge your principles or values. For example, on the topic of the DCI’s forum on economic inequality, a question beginning with the statement, “If we all agree that equal opportunity is a good place to start… ” may shut some out of the discussion when not all members of the group have agreed on that assumption.

In addition to furthering a discussion, questions can also be used to understand participants’ beliefs. Because an important part of deliberation, in addition to being a neutral ground to discuss ideas, is to listen to other people’s perspectives and what motivates their values, asking questions of participants to hear more of their opinion is very important as well.  If a participant expresses a viewpoint that has yet been unsaid in the group, the facilitator should not be afraid to ask about why they hold this view, as long as they do so in a non-confrontational and non-targeting way. 

Another important way questions can be used by a facilitator is to bring out perspectives that are not included at the table. Sometimes D -Teams can hold more homogeneous viewpoints. In these cases, asking a question from someone else’s perspective can help to broaden the group’s area of discussion. To prevent the participants from believing that this is the facilitator’s viewpoint, the facilitator should always make sure to clarify when they are playing “devil’s advocate” or choosing to bring a new idea into the deliberation.

As a new facilitator, I’ve realized that there are many skills I’ve developed as I’ve gained more experience, such as when to step into a conversation or when to leave the floor more open. Additionally, I’ve been figuring out how to ask questions that are unbiased while still guiding the group farther into a discussion. Despite starting this post with a situation that may not apply to everyone, learning how to further a conversation with a neutral tone could be helpful in lots of different contexts. For example, when dealing with an argument with a friend, learning how to say what you want without attacking their thoughts could be very important to preserving that relationship. In addition, as deliberation becomes more and more important and hopefully widespread, the ability to ask unbiased questions can help moderators everywhere keep their conversations on track, framed in a neutral manner, and moving forward towards greater mutual understanding.

Adding Deliberation to a Behavioral Economics Course: A Journal

by

It’s the day before classes start and I am feeling some odd combination of prepared and nervous. I feel as though I had excellent training for what I am proposing to do and yet I am also worried that it’s not going to work out. A lot of planning went into the course but I also allowed for some flexibility. So I am curious to see how this works out. I wanted this blog to be a kind of journal of my experience so will check back in at different points in the semester.

Week 1 into Week 2: I am working on getting members of the class to talk with me and each other. Not surprisingly there are a fair number of students reluctant to speak. I have been tossing out lots of subjects while covering the chapters of the course text assigned and it seems to be giving the students more confidence and a feel for each other.

Midterm: The class has loosened up quite a bit. I accomplished this by scatter-shot discussions during class of the different course topics, which is easy with behavioral economics. The first full-class deliberation went really well. 

Due to the size of the class I divided it into two groups and the first group was scheduled to present and everyone had a written assignment deliverable designed to provide background. The speakers did a good job and there was great interaction both among those speaking and the other students not scheduled to speak. The second group will do their session toward the end of March.

I think it was a good idea to divide the group (15 students each in 50-minute sessions) and one other strategy that I thought was effective was to ask each speaker to state their first name at the start of the presentation. That way students could address each other by name. It also contributed to the listening part of the deliberation assessment. Students could make notes of points raised and refer to them with the speaker’s name. 

The same type of exercise was repeated about 2/3 through the semester and even the reluctant students were engaged and participating. Some of that was the choice of topic; it was something that everyone could find information on and have an opinion about.

The final session of the course will be the extended time period allotted for final exams and everyone is expected to share the research they did for the final paper of the course. I am optimistic that it will be a good session, but that will be my next check-in.

Week before the Final: It’s the week before the final and I am working on preparing students for the final deliberation. I have shown a video so they can see what it should look like and am going through the steps of preparation for the next few classes that we have left. I decided to check in before the final because I am feeling more optimistic about the energy around this in the class. Students seem more engaged and interested in having the conversation. What I can say at this point is that the journey has been up and down and I am interested in seeing how it ends. More later.

The Final: The final exam session was allocated to the final deliberation to allow ample time for everyone in this relatively large class to participate. Students had prepared for this by researching an area related to the overall topic, which I hope will result in good information on a number of aspects of the topic to be included in the group work.

The final session turned out to be successful. The participation was broad-based, and students engaged with each other. The group arrived at a consensus and my overall feeling was that students felt heard and felt that they had learned from each other. This was evidenced in the reflections students turned in at the end of the session.

So how to summarize? This has been a journey with its ups and downs and those were mostly my lack of confidence in the process and practice. As I grew more familiar with facilitating a deliberation the more the students responded and it become self-reinforcing. For anyone reading this I would say keep moving through the steps and learn along the way. I don’t feel as though this is an end but rather a beginning and I move forward to continue to foster deliberation in my classes with more assurance.

When Can We Change our Mind? The “Flip-Flopping” Phenomenon

by

The American political arena is full of questions post election of Donald Trump. What will Trump’s second term look like? How will American foreign policy shift? How could pollsters be so wrong – can we trust them anymore? Why did the Democrats, and Kamala Harris, come up short?  

A majority of the recent political buzz pertains to the last question: how did the Democrats fail so miserably? There is a lot of finger pointing going on, in attempts to explain the Democrats’ failure. Was it the inability to capture the Latino male vote, or the lack of open primaries, or even the lack of time Kamala had to prepare and properly campaign? Democratic voters may have been disillusioned by the dramatic shift in positions – also known as flip-flopping – that the party took this election cycle. Harris, keen to win over battleground states, walked back on several issues such as fracking and immigration in hopes of gaining support from moderate Republicans. This may have undermined her support among her base while not being sufficiently persuasive to swing voters. But critiques of flip-flopping are ubiquitous across the political spectrum. During Harris’ campaign, Trump lambasted her indecisiveness, which some might view as hypocritical considering Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance also changed their positions on particular issues as well.  

The left’s frustration (many young democrats feel their opinions were disregarded by the Harris campaign) with some of Kamala’s new policies is understandable. A shift towards matching any “flip-flopping” with hostility, though, is not positive for America or its democracy.  

Things have not always been this way, though. In a 2016 journal article titled, “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq” by Sarah E. Croco, a professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, we gain crucial insights into why some “flips” are reacted to so negatively. Essentially, voters succumb to confirmation bias when deciding to support a flip or not. Croco states, “Citizens are rarely put off by a leader’s change of heart provided the politician’s switch moves him closer to their preferred policy” (253). In our case, if Kamala started with positions leaning center-right, and shifted her stances to be left-leaning, she would have seen an increase in support from Democrats, and they would therefore disregard her flip-flopping.  

Further, Croco claims that in the 2004 presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry, and the 2012 election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, there were high levels of flip-flopping among the candidates (referencing Kerry and Romney), but this had little effect on election day. In Kerry’s case, although he flip-flopped his position on US involvement in the War in Iraq, anti-war voters still would have preferred him to Bush (253). Additionally, Kerry only flip-flopped on one issue. Serial flip-floppers may fare even worse, as they are perceived as less credible when they flip on multiple positions. Further, serial flippers are even more prone to criticism than a politician who flips on just one issue (Croco, 255). In Kamala’s case, this “serial flip-flopping” may have been key to her demise.  

Croco’s article points out the stigma against flip-flopping, but does not provide any way to combat it. The DCI provides the foundation for combating anti-flip-flopping mindsets from the ground up. Through D Teams or forum events, the DCI makes a space for respectful, open minded conversation across partisan lines. One purpose of these discussions is for people to broaden their perspective on a certain issue, like DEI or campus protests (both of which were D Team topics for this semester), and maybe even change their opinions on an issue as a result of hearing another perspective.  

Should we not extend this sentiment to politicians? Politically-motivated serial flip-floppers may receive less sympathy from the public eye, but thoughtful single issue flippers should certainly be given more leeway. Just like us, they too can change their mind. The onus is on we the people, and our political leaders, to not propagate indiscriminate anti-flipping rhetoric, as anyone can – and should be allowed to – change their mind.   

Citations

Croco, Sarah. 2016. “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12 (3). 

Thanksgiving after the Election

by

Thanksgiving images with people talking and Donkey and Elephant in their thoughts, with the word Connect between them.

Every year around Thanksgiving you can find a stream of advice about how to engage with family with different political viewpoints across the dinner table (and the DCI has contributed our fair share). The supply of these missives likely peaks in presidential election years, and the demand for them may be at its highest after our most recent election. Indeed, many Americans feel a deep sense of disconnection from, disillusionment with, and even disgust for those who voted for the candidate they most despise.

These feelings build on a normal and natural desire to step from politics after an election and return to focusing on other important spheres of our lives. Even when elections are not as fraught as they currently are, it is not surprising that we want to escape from the political and re-discover our other passions – whether that be on Netflix, in books, on hikes, or elsewhere.

Whether our candidate won or lost, such escape may be healthy and even critical for us at this point. It can enable us to step back, get perspective, and restore ourselves. It can help us re-focus our energies and return to our interest in politics with a fresh perspective. Because at some point, we must return to it; if we care about our collective life together, if we care about one another and the directions our society follows, then we owe it to ourselves and each other to re-engage in some form or another.

Okay, fine, you say, but do I have to do it at Thanksgiving? Can’t I wait until at least the New Year, or maybe 2026? Perhaps, and everyone must make their own decision on when and how best to re-enter the political conversation. But family gatherings, perhaps ironically, offer a special opportunity for trying out new approaches and different modes of engagement after consequential political events.

How so? By enabling us, first within the space of our closest relations, to re-commit to following the Golden Rule of “loving your neighbor as yourself.” We can ask ourselves, if your candidate had lost (when in fact they won), how would you want those whose candidate had won to treat you at those gatherings? Certainly not by making snide, sarcastic, or acerbically triumphant remarks, but probably also not by just ignoring you or the subject.

Instead, how meaningful would it be to you, if that sister whose candidate won, authentically, earnestly, and sincerely asked you, in a quiet moment after dinner perhaps, “You know, I know we voted differently, and I know how upset you must feel about the outcome. I’m concerned about you – how are you doing?” What if they were truly open to hearing your concerns and just listening – and responding as patiently and respectfully as possible, when asked, “How could you vote for that person?”

And likewise, if your candidate had won (when in fact they lost), how would you like those whose candidate had lost to treat you? Also probably not with biting criticism, doomsday rhetoric, or willful silence. But what if instead, that brother whose candidate lost, said to you, honestly and directly, “You know, I know we voted differently, and I know how happy you must feel about the outcome. But frankly, I’m really struggling with understanding it; maybe you can help me. Why do you think so many people voted the way they did?” What if they were truly open to hearing your analysis and just listening – and asking as respectfully as possible, “And why did you vote for that person?”

There is some asymmetry here – a basic ethic of care and compassion suggests that the victor has a little more moral responsibility to reach out to the vanquished.  But the vanquished also have a duty to treat the victor as a human being as well. Humility, generosity, and curiosity are all important virtues – and deliberative dispositions – to cultivate in these moments.

I was recently invited by a group at Davidson College Presbyterian Church to speak about “Civil Discourse after the Election: Pitfalls and Pathways Moving Forward.” In my talk, I referenced some biblical passages that provide some guidance on why and how to adopt these dispositions. To those who have been victorious, Proverbs 24:17 suggests, “Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice.” To those who have been defeated and feel (or fear) persecution, Matthew 5:43-44 encourages, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Similar advice is offered by many different faith and secular traditions, and they all suggest we should avoid the vices of both conceit and contempt – the habit of thinking ourselves better than others and believing those others to be unequivocally worthless. Instead, we should aim to be both humble and courageous – humble enough to recognize we might be wrong and brave enough to discover when others might be right.

Sounds great in theory, perhaps, but how do we enact these principles in practice? The DCI has developed a Guide to One-on-One Conversations, which maps out a process that you can follow before, during, and after a discussion with someone who you disagree with. Establishing expectations, setting the tone, asking good questions, listening actively, sharing respectfully; these are just a few of the suggestions it includes that may be helpful.

But perhaps the most important thing to remember, as you pass the Thanksgiving sides across the table, is the goal. Given the deep pain, frustration, and division that many of us are feeling, our objective at this point should probably not be to win an argument or persuade one another of the rightness of our side. Instead, we should first focus on re-discovering our common humanity, our common joys and concerns, our love for one another. First seek to heal and to understand; as Sara Copic wrote in her Thanksgiving blog post last year, “By approaching our deep disagreements with curiosity first, we may be able to build the trust needed in order to have the hard conversations we would like to have together.”

Have a restful and restorative Thanksgiving that has its share of escape, rediscovery, and perhaps a small bit of empathetic conversation across our family and political divides.