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

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)

Thursday, November 20 | 7:00 p.m. | 900 Room

Ice cream sundaes will be served! Join us and bring some friends!

In a time marked by a troubling rise in political violence, how can we, as a campus community, model the kind of civic discourse our society so urgently needs? This campus conversation invites students, faculty, and staff to reflect together on how we can foster a culture of free expression, respectful dialogue, and robust deliberation at Davidson. This event seeks to follow-up on the September joint editorial in The Davidsonian by the presidents of the College Democrats, College Republicans, and College Libertarians that included a multi-part pledge to promote a culture of free expression that rejects political violence. Several Deliberative Citizenship Initiative Fellows have been developing a set of aspirational commitments designed to build on that pledge by articulating specific, community-driven principles to help us navigate the tensions inherent in public discourse today. 

After the Fellows present their initial ideas, attendees will break into small groups to explore how these aspirations might play out in specific campus scenarios. They’ll also be invited to offer their own ideas on how we might develop a shared vision for an inclusive and deliberative culture of civic discourse at Davidson. The goal is not to generate new rules or regulations, but to cultivate a meaningful and authentic grassroots framework for how we engage with one another across differences, an approach that could serve as a model for other campuses across the country. 

By Zak Abdulahi ’27 (DCI Fellow)

Why does economic anxiety seem more divisive than ever? Anxiety and uncertainty regarding the economy have shaped and dominated our conversations recently in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. This trend has been compounded by rising costs and the inequality of economic growth and development. Our perceptions regarding the economy have become increasingly tied to our political beliefs and leanings. We see a pricey carton of eggs and either fully comprehend the complex interplay of inflation, commodity prices, and H5N1 containment germ theory—or we incessantly blame it on whichever politician we already dislike. Despite consistent economic growth, inflation and cost of living concerns have created a large gap between economic reality and perceptions – and public perceptions of the economy has remained consistently negative. 

This raises a key question: Can deliberation cut through partisan framing, misinformation, and economic anxiety? And more importantly—what would our society look like if it did?

How Our Experiences Shape Our Perceptions: Economic perceptions are shaped by a multitude of factors: geography, background, and income level. Rising wealth inequality has exacerbated the differences in lived experiences between the “haves” and “have-nots,” creating a society where economic realities are filtered through vastly different lenses. One person sees a thriving market, tainted with green S&P indexes. Another person sees their grocery bills become less affordable each week through painfully clear lenses. Despite these disparate experiences, it is incredibly important to attempt to create space to bridge these divides. 

Deliberation creates that space. Valuing both data and lived experience, it allows people to share how the economy feels to them, bridging that divide between perception and reality, looking beyond the data to unlock more productive, human centered conversations. 

Deliberation in Action: Davidson College’s Forum on Income Inequality: A powerful example of this approach in action was the November 2024 Deliberative Forum hosted by the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) at Davidson College, where nearly 200 students and community members gathered to ask: “How should Americans respond to income inequality?” The event began with a panel of experts from a range of ideological and professional backgrounds, followed by small-group deliberations focused on listening and understanding—not winning arguments.

Comments from participants in the post-event survey revealed how such structured, respectful economic dialogue—especially when rooted in real experiences—can overcome surface-level disagreements and address deeper economic divides.

• “Deep assessment of a complex problem from multiple perspectives. Outstanding experience.”
• “Participating in the Deliberative Forum on wealth and income inequality helped me learn more information about these topics and also to discover strategies for finding common ground on the topic.”
• “The facilitated small group deliberations are… such a breath of fresh air and source of hope amidst our current polarization and paucity of thoughtful discussions across differences.” 

The Wisdom (and Limits) of Deliberation: Scholarly work supports this idea. A 2024 article by Franz Dietrich and Kai Spiekermann in Economic Theory shows how deliberation can improve group decision-making by reducing common voting failures, such as overcounting popular ideas or ignoring valuable minority perspectives. When done right, deliberation allows us to weigh diverse forms of evidence more fairly and make wiser collective choices.

However, they also caution that deliberation isn’t inherently good—it must be structured, inclusive, and balanced to avoid simply reinforcing dominant narratives. That’s especially important in economic conversations, where loud voices or dominant ideologies can drown out marginalized experiences.

Reclaiming Economic Discourse through Dialogue: If we want to confront economic anxiety, inequality, and barriers to growth head-on, we must first change how we talk about them. That means moving past soundbites and toward spaces that prioritize empathy, curiosity, and real listening. It means holding space for both the data and the day-to-day stress of rising costs. It means deliberating.

When we engage with each other across economic experiences—guided by the principles of deliberative citizenship—we don’t just debate policy. We understand each other better. And in today’s political climate, that may be the most valuable form of progress we can make.

Opinions expressed on the DCI Blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views or positions of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.

By Tehinnah Kitcher ’27 (DCI Fellow)

This past March, I had the opportunity to co-lead a project called “Bridging Perspectives: Empowering Leaders to Connect, Deliberate, and Drive Change Together” alongside senior DCI fellow Atyantika Mookherjee that united the Chidsey Program for Leadership Development and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI).

The Chidsey Leadership Fellows’ Program emphasizes leadership as an intentional and evolving practice, focusing on personal choice, resilience, opportunity, and connection. It views leadership as a journey shaped by decisions, the courage to tackle challenges, the openness to see possibility, and the commitment to build connections. By embracing these pillars, Chidsey Fellows learn to grow as leaders who can positively impact their communities through empathy, responsibility, and collaboration. As both Chidsey and DCI Fellows, Atyantika and I both noticed that together, the DCI and Chidsey provide students with a powerful set of complementary skills: DCI cultivates the ability to navigate complex discussions, while Chidsey emphasizes leading with empathy and purpose.

In our session with the Chidsey Fellows, we gave them an overview of the four facilitation styles and specific techniques to enhance communication and build understanding. We drew from the same frameworks that we learned in our official DCI facilitator training. Each style offered a different way of guiding a conversation and shaping group dynamics. The Chidsey Fellows then had the opportunity to play these roles through a mock deliberation. Afterwards, they reflected on their facilitation styles and skills.

This unique collaboration between DCI and the Chidsey Leadership Program helps to create future leaders who are equipped not only with technical skills but also with a deeper understanding of how to navigate complex, real-world challenges. By integrating DCI’s facilitation skills, which are centered around being attentive, respectful, and open-minded, with Chidsey’s core values, we’re fostering leaders who can engage in constructive, inclusive conversations. Such leaders are more adaptable, open to diverse viewpoints, and skilled at finding common ground, all of which are critical in a rapidly changing and interconnected world.

I am excited to see the DCI continue to collaborate and engage with the campus and broader community. Future collaborations would undoubtedly provide greater insights as to how dialogue and deliberation influence other fields. In a world that is growing more polarized and intolerant, quality deliberation and dialogue are essential. If you are interested in getting connected with the DCI, be sure to join a D Team in the fall or attend one of our forums!

Every year, the DCI’s student fellows all develop and implement their own personal deliberation projects, and they are consistently the highlights of the year for us. After going through intensive training in how to facilitate contentious conversations and then serving as a facilitator of the DCI’s D Teams and Deliberative Forum discussions, the Fellows apply their skills to designing and hosting conversations on topics of personal interest to them. They select their topics and begin developing their project plans in the fall semester, and then revise and implement those plans in the spring semester.

DCI staff provide feedback to the fellows on their ideas and suggest relevant resources throughout the process, but these projects are very much the fellows’ own initiatives. They are responsible for identifying the topic, developing their deliberation guide, recruiting participants, finding a time and space for their discussion, and hosting it themselves. The Fellows very much appreciate this autonomy and independence they have in developing their projects. It enables them to demonstrate the full range of skills they have learned over the course of their year as a Fellow, discover the challenges and pitfalls of designing and implementing these types of conversations, and experience the joy of bringing people together to discuss hard topics and strengthen their own deliberative muscles.

In past years, these projects have generally been small-scale conversations with friends and roommates, or perhaps with a small group of students with a range of viewpoints on the issue at hand. This year, the Fellows truly outdid themselves, organizing creative, complex, and often major programs in collaboration with professors, campus offices, and local government officials. The sections below summarize each of the nine projects that the 2024-25 cohort of Fellows implemented this spring. Their topics included the honor code at Davidson, the legacies of WWII in the Asia Pacific, the Red Line station in Davidson, campus pop-up deliberations, a deliberation workshop organized for the Chidsey Leadership Program, a deliberative forum on historical narratives co-organized with the History Department, a community conversation about race, a video game deliberation, and a campus video dialogue project.

Some fellows worked individually on their projects, while others worked with other Fellows and Senior Fellows to complete their projects. Learn more below from the project summaries below, which were written by the Fellows themselves:

2024-25 Deliberation Projects Summaries

Town of Davidson Red Line Station Community Conversation

Garratt Rothberg ’27 and Zak Abdulahi ’27 hosted a deliberation on urban planning and the development of the Red Line Commuter Rail project in Davidson, specifically addressing local transit issues and the broader development implications for community members, students, and faculty. The deliberation was held on Davidson College’s campus on February 26th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. Attendees included Davidson planning directors, town commissioners, community members, and Davidson College students and faculty.

Participants engaged in a deliberation guided by materials prepared by Garratt and Zak, focusing on station planning proposals, analyzing the benefits and tradeoffs of various station placements, and exploring the potential impacts of the Red Line project on local businesses, connectivity, and traffic. The deliberation featured productive conversation between a diverse group of stakeholders, culminating in participants filling out a feedback survey for the town planners with their thoughts and ideas on the station planning.

The project highlighted the importance of community input in shaping public policy projects. Within this critical setting, deliberation is a valuable tool for finding ideal policy choices that garner widespread support among citizens. 

Chidsey Leadership Program Deliberation Training Workshop

This March Tehinnah Kitcher ’27 and Atyantika Mookherjee ’27 co-led a project called “Bridging Perspectives: Empowering Leaders to Connect, Deliberate, and Drive Change Together” which united the Chidsey Program for Leadership Development and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI).

The Chidsey Leadership Fellows’ Program emphasizes leadership as an intentional and evolving practice, focusing on personal choice, resilience, opportunity, and connection. It views leadership as a journey shaped by decisions, the courage to tackle challenges, the openness to see possibility, and the commitment to build connections. By embracing these pillars, Chidsey Fellows learn to grow as leaders who can positively impact their communities through empathy, responsibility, and collaboration. Tehinnah and Atyantika are both Chidsey and DCI fellows. They began to notice that together, the DCI and Chidsey provide students with a powerful set of complementary skills: DCI cultivates the ability to navigate complex discussions, while Chidsey emphasizes leading with empathy and purpose.

Tehinnah and Atyantika gave the Chidsey Fellows an overview of the four facilitation styles and specific techniques to enhance communication and build understanding. They drew from the same frameworks that they learned in their official DCI facilitator training. Each style offered a different way of guiding a conversation and shaping group dynamics. The Chidsey Fellows got to implement these roles through a mock deliberation. Afterwards, they had a chance to reflect on their facilitation styles and skills.

This unique collaboration between DCI and the Chidsey Leadership Program helps to create future leaders who are equipped not only with technical skills but also with a deep understanding of how to navigate complex, real-world challenges. By integrating DCI’s facilitation skills, which are centered around being attentive, respectful, and open-minded, with Chidsey’s core values, we’re fostering leaders who can engage in constructive, inclusive conversations. Such leaders are more adaptable, open to diverse viewpoints, and skilled at finding common ground, all of which are critical in a rapidly changing and interconnected world.

Tehinnah and Atyantika are excited to see the DCI continue to collaborate and engage with the campus and broader community. Future collaborations would undoubtedly provide greater insights as to how dialogue and deliberation influence other fields. In a world that is growing more polarized and intolerant, quality deliberation and dialogue is essential.

Deliberative Forum on the Power of Historical Narratives and Contested Histories

TBC Takougnadi ’27 organized a forum event titled “The Power of Historical Narratives and Contested Histories,” which was a panel-based deliberative discussion designed to explore the ways historical narratives are constructed, contested, and interpreted in contemporary society. The event focused on how history is told, who gets to tell it, and how differing perspectives shape our understanding of the past and present.

The event was held on April 8, 2025, on the campus of Davidson College, and lasted approximately 120 minutes with the first 45 minutes dedicated to speakers and the last 75 minutes for the table discussions. The event was hosted in a communal space, the New Football Stadium’s Gallery 18, that allowed for both panel presentations and small-group discussions around tables.

The planning process involved collaboration with faculty in the History Department, and the panelists were selected based on their academic backgrounds and relevance to the topic. The speakers were nominated with guidance from the department chair and selected by TBC. The audience included a mix of Davidson College students, faculty, and staff. In total, 34 individuals participated, including the five invited panelists.

The event opened with brief presentations from each panelist, who shared insights into how history can be framed through different lenses political, social, and cultural. These remarks helped set the stage for the deliberation. Following the panel, participants gathered around five tables for small-group discussions facilitated by volunteers. Due to a shortage of official facilitators, several attendees stepped up to lead these conversations, which proved successful and enriching. To name some, key topics of discussion included: The role of historians in shaping public memory, how marginalized voices are often excluded or misrepresented in mainstream narratives, and the impact of historical interpretation on present-day policies and identities.

The event concluded with a collective reflection, during which participants shared final thoughts and reactions informally. Many expressed appreciations for the format and content of the event, especially the opportunity to engage with peers and faculty in meaningful dialogue. Despite some logistical challenges, particularly the late timing of publicity and a lack of assigned facilitators, the event was well received. Participants also enjoyed the provided refreshments, which helped create a welcoming atmosphere.

Overall, the project was a successful effort in fostering thoughtful dialogue on a timely and important subject. It demonstrated the value of collaborative, interdisciplinary events in building civic awareness and critical thinking among members of the campus community.

Campus Conversation on the Honor Code

The Honor Code Campus Conversation was organized by DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener LJ Philips ’25 and DCI Fellows Isabella Neri ’27 and Cavan Klein ’27. My deliberation project (along with co-hosts Isabella Neri and LJ Phillips) was a forum about the honor code. It was held in the Lilly Gallery on Davidson’s campus on March 27, 2025 from 5-6:30pm. The event was targeted towards Davidson students, faculty, and staff with the goal of providing a space for them to talk about the culture of academic integrity at Davidson and evaluate the current state of the Honor Code. There were about 45 total people in attendance including a good mix of students, faculty and staff.

The first 10 minutes were reserved for people to get food, then Tyler Puleo and Mary Gray Speakman, representatives from the Honor Council, took 20 minutes to give a short presentation about the goals and formal procedures of the Honor Council. Then, the deliberation began! Beforehand, the fellows developed a deliberation guide that provided important background information and discussion questions for the participants to deliberate on, including topics such as “What is Academic Integrity,” “Evaluating Our Culture,” and “How to Foster a Culture of Academic Integrity.”

The forum had about 8 tables of deliberation, and by the end of the event, the deliberators had had many good conversations. The discussions generally focused on where Davidson is with the Honor Code, how it can move forward, and what can be implemented or removed to improve the system. The night concluded with each table discussing and writing down comments, concerns, and potential solutions. These comments were then condensed and clarified to be sent to the Honor Council and included in our pathways guide, which was then shared with everyone. You can check them out yourself here.

Pop-Up Deliberation Project

On Davidson College’s 2,000 student campus, quick greetings in passing and brief interactions are common. Fellows Ben Files ’25, Izzy Cevallos ’27, Jane McNeill ’28, and Liam Mann ’27 worked to explore how these small moments could become the foundation for intentional and thoughtful dialogue. Inspired by brief interactions on walks across campus, similar DCI events, and Duke’s mobile “couching” sessions, their pop-up deliberation worked to invite individuals to think more about the why behind their beliefs when answering questions.

Located in the courtyard between E. H. Little Library and Chambers Buildings, the group offered passerbys candy in exchange for answering a question. The questions, cut into slips, ranged from lighter personal reflection (“What’s something everyone should try at least once? What’s a small act of kindness that you think makes a big difference?) to philosophical questions (“Do we have a moral obligation to help strangers in need, even if it comes at a cost to us? Are we defined more by our actions or our intentions?) and political inquiries (“Is there an issue you’ve completely changed your mind on? What is the role of the media in relation to politics, public opinion, and elections?). 

The informal nature encouraged low-stakes participation, and participants would usually receive a follow-up question to better understand why individuals believe what they do. The fellows organizing the project found that when individuals were given the space and time to answer they were far more likely to explain what influences their beliefs. Participants appreciated the informality and demonstrated how low-stakes, informal formats can serve as a powerful entry point into the deliberative process. Stay tuned for some upcoming blog posts that will share more about these “pop-up” conversations…

Video Game Deliberation Project

Owen Brent-Levenstein ’27 wanted to explore how he could apply deliberation strategies to more everyday life contexts, and so he centered his deliberation project around one level of a video game, Bloons TD 6, that he and his friends had been unable to beat. The idea behind it was that arguments over video game strategy were more chaotic and unhealthy than almost any other type of discussion. Often in the heat of the moment, people end up yelling over each other, blaming each other, and often fail to take the time to truly compose themselves and think about what actually went wrong. So, Owen attempted to make a guide that included statistics about the game (such as the amount of money we would have at a given point in the game), and then laid out different strategies with related statistics on the strength of the characters involved. This turned out to be harder than expected, as did hosting the conversation itself. Stay tuned for a blog post from Owen that will discuss in more detail what he learned from this experience.

Campus “Take an Opinion, Leave an Opinion” Video Dialogue Project

DCI Fellow Fatima Mukasa ’28 wanted to use her deliberation project to reach a wide group of people who may not know much about deliberation or the DCI. She called her project, Take an Opinion, Leave an Opinion, and it was inspired by the Tiktok page, “Read a Secret, Leave a Secret.”

Designed to foster open dialogue and critical thinking, the project invited students and faculty to anonymously share their perspectives on thought-provoking topics, which others then read and responded to. These responses were recorded and will be shared online, creating a broader platform for engagement. By encouraging open-mindedness and empathetic communication, the project aims to cultivate a space where diverse viewpoints can be expressed without stigma and aims to strengthen the Davidson community’s ability to navigate complex discussions with curiosity and respect.

She set up a table and camera near the flagpole outside Chambers, the main classroom building on campus, and asked students passing by in between classes to share their perspective on a topic by writing it down on a piece of paper and leaving it on the table. They could also pick up an opinion that was left by someone else and respond to it — on camera for 30-60 seconds. Fatima then compiled these recordings into a short video that we’ve shared below and will also be shared on social media for the broader community to view and engage with. Fatima’s hope is that her project will foster a space where people feel as though they can share their opinions and can engage with other viewpoints, allowing them to be more open-minded, more engaged, and more effective communicators.

The topics that Fatima chose were the same topics being discussed by the DCI’s D Teams, and she hosted her table a week or so after each set of D Team discussions were completed. She and other DCI Fellows included some opinions that D Team participants raised (without attribution) on the table for her visitors to respond to, creating a nice connection between these two DCI programs. Students who were on a D Team could also stop by and share their perspectives that might have come up during their discussions.

Check out Fatima’s three “Take an Opinion, Leave an Opinion” videos here — the topics are the opioid epidemic, lessons learned from COVID, and healthcare reform, the compilations feature the voices of numerous Davidson students…

Legacies of WWII in the Asia Pacific Project

DCI Co-Convener and Senior Fellow Flo Moser ’26 and DCI Fellows Luna Noguchi ’25, Lily Ogawa ’28, and Casey Scheiner ’25 worked together on an extensive project relating to the eight ginkgo trees that were planted on Davidson College’s campus in Spring 2024. Descendants of trees that survived the Hiroshima atomic bombing and donated by Green Legacy Hiroshima, these trees symbolize both the dangers of nuclear weapons and the resilience of humanity and nature.

Following the planting, some students and alumni of Chinese and Korean backgrounds expressed concern that their planting did not sufficiently represent the broader historical context, particularly the suffering caused by Imperial Japan’s invasions across Asia. In response, Dean Shelley Rigger invited the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) to help facilitate a community-wide deliberation on how to contextualize the trees through thoughtful signage and interpretive materials.

With the support and assistance of DCI Faculty Director Graham Bullock, Flo, Luna, Lily, and Casey organized a Deliberative Forum in Spring 2025 that included faculty presentations, survivor testimonials, and facilitated small-group discussions. Student, faculty, staff, and community participants deliberated about the complex legacies of war in the region and submitted written reflections on what should be included on signs and interpretative materials introducing the trees.

From these reflections, the team identified six core themes and drafted content for physical signs and related online resources.. The project seeks to create a reflective, inclusive memorial that acknowledges the universal human cost of war and promotes dialogue across perspectives. Through QR codes on each sign, visitors can access additional materials, and the site will grow over time as the Davidson community continues to reflect on war’s legacy and the enduring pursuit of peace. Click here to read more about the project.

Conversations about Race Project

Alyssa Henke ’25 and Madeline Kleiner ’28 both both wanted to do their deliberation project on something related to the theater, which they both have an interest in. DCI Faculty Director Graham Bullock and Theater Professor James Webb had been talking for some time about collaborating on a project together, and Alyssa and Madeline were excited to help make such a collaboration a reality. They met and agreed that organizing a community conversation following the upcoming performance of the play, Dissonance, on campus would be a great way to connect deliberation with the dramatic arts.

The play, directed by Professor Webb, portrays an extended conversation between two close female friends, one black and one white, that dives deeply into the challenges of race in American society. Often, after seeing the play, audience members are motivated to engage in a similar conversation among their friends, but don’t know if or how that might be possible. Alyssa and Madeline thought it might be helpful to organize a conversation that explored exactly that question — what is necessary for conversations about race to be possible and productive? With the support of Dr. Webb and Dr. Bullock, they developed a deliberation guide that will be used to host and facilitate such a conversation following the fall 2025 performance of the play at Davidson. Stay tuned for information for this community conversation coming soon…

Latvia and NATO Project

Building on her personal interest in the subject, Grace Zagoria ’27 organized a deliberation on the pros and cons of Latvia’s NATO membership with from Latvia and Davidson. In the weeks leading up to the event, she wrote a 20-page guide for the deliberation, while rallying students from Davidson’s Political Science and Russian Studies departments to join. While a last-minute scheduling conflict prevented the Latvian students from joining the discussion, more than twenty Davidson students gathered with Grace and another DCI Fellow (Cavan Klein) to discuss Latvia’s history, Russia’s aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, and the “Don’t Poke the Bear” theory. Among the participants were Davidson students from Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Georgia, who brought both international and post-Soviet perspectives to the discussion. While a large percentage of the group argued more in favor of Latvia’s NATO membership, other deliberators cited concerns about stretching NATO’s borders too far east too soon. Regardless, all participants stayed true to the spirit of DCI’s core tenets of respect and patience, floating questions to other deliberators and expressing their agreements and disagreements along the way.

Owen Brent-Levenstein ’27 (DCI Fellow)

As a kid I understood the difference between Democrats and Republicans as this: Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich, while Democrats take from the rich to give to the poor. With this dichotomy, the choice was obvious. One side was the moral choice, wanting what was best for the world, while the other side was greedy, wanting to keep as much for themselves and exploit others to do so.

However, my experience facilitating a discussion after the DCI Income and Wealth Disparities forum showed how this assumption about people’s morals was not true. 12-year-old me would think that anyone arguing against policies such as redistribution or higher minimum wage were greedy and unsympathetic. In listening to the wide array of arguments across the spectrum of political ideologies, it was clear that this was not the case.

Someone who worked with unions talked about how high minimum wages have incentivized automation, meaning even more people lost jobs. Another member talked about the fear of how higher taxes and inflation can end up devastating the lower and middle class. Whether I agreed with what they said or not, one thing was clear, these views came from a desire to create the best world and economy for the majority of people, a goal that lined up exactly with mine.

This helped show me that finding common end goals can help everyone be more receptive to the other side. The goal can be as specific as wanting higher wages for all and as vague as wanting a better world for the majority of people. When everyone can realize they are working towards the same result, it can bring the group closer together and can turn a heated argument into more of an intellectual disagreement.

When the group can establish a clear end goal, it naturally brings them together. It’s easy to see the other side in a malicious light when you feel like their opinion is so far from your own. It makes it even worse when you feel as if their value system is far different, and doubt whether their morals are in line with your own. Finding a common goal can quell a lot of these doubts and points of tension between groupmates, and in turn rally the group around solving the common goal. It transforms points of heavy contention into a group problem-solving effort, bringing a sense of comradery and commonality to the deliberation.

Finding a common end goal also turns the discussion from more of an emotionally charged event, towards an intellectual disagreement. The more we are able to see that both sides are morally fighting for similar goals, we can focus the discussion on the specifics of how to achieve those goals. This can lessen the emotions that come with the topic that is being deliberated and allow participants to focus more on the logic and reasoning behind the arguments.

Overall, finding a common end goal, no matter how vague it is, can bring the deliberating group together, and turn the deliberation from a tense argument to a constructive problem-solving exercise.

Luna Noguchi ’25 (DCI Fellow)

When I host and facilitate deliberation during DCI D Team sessions, I am very conscious of whether I am including enough diverse perspectives into the conversation as possible. Healthy deliberation is sparked through exploration of individual differences, and they make for a rich understanding of the issue being discussed. Without fostering inclusion, important voices lack a platform to share their experiences, and this can shape harmful norms surrounding the types of perspectives that should be shared. When preparing for a deliberation session, it is important to think about fostering both external and internal inclusion.

One of the most prominent barriers to productive deliberation at Davidson is the issue of exclusion. As a fellow, I see an important aspect of my role as fostering both internal and external inclusion. External inclusion involves dissolving the various physical barriers that prevent individuals from being involved in a D Team or a deliberative forum. Internal inclusion involves conceptual barriers to full participation and engagement in the deliberation process, like power dynamics.

I strive to use the framework set by Carcasson and Sprain to foster both internal and external inclusion in my D teams (1). They designed a cyclical process meant to improve the quality of public engagement in deliberation. The 5 steps are deliberative issue analysis, convening, facilitating deliberative engagement, and action.

During deliberative issue analysis, participants gain a deeper understanding of the topic or issue by learning about it through a thorough deliberation guide that cites research and historical events. The right deliberation guide includes a broad range of voices, is objective, and presents accurate and relevant information to participants. In my role as a fellow, I evaluate drafts of deliberation guides to check for areas where the background information could be presented in a more inclusive way.

Convening involves getting a representative sample to participate in the deliberation event. This is important for having a diverse and rounded group of people whose conclusions can be reflective of the broader whole. Removing barriers to people’s attendance to my D teams is essential. This can involve any planning details which make attending more accessible. For example, D teams which occur on campus are made accessible to many students through advertising, scheduling, and location.

Facilitating deliberative engagement is at the core of my role as a fellow. Through deliberation training, I have a strong understanding of how to frame conversation goals, lay down ground rules, prompt deeper thinking, and draw conclusions among participants. To foster internal inclusion, I introduce excluded perspectives into the conversation and ask questions that diversify participants’ way of thinking about the issue. When my group is on the larger side, I initiate smaller group discussions that may help someone feel more comfortable sharing their experiences.

In reporting the content of the deliberation, one should prioritize accurately capturing the perspectives of participants and the conclusions that were drawn from them. This may involve including important background information on the event, like the host of the event, the issue, the questions, and the people involved. It is important to follow up with participants and leave opportunities for further engagement. Inviting them to share thoughts they refrained from sharing during the event ensures their voices are included.

Ideally, the event would result in an attempt at acting on the issue. It should hinge on the conclusions drawn from the deliberation and represent the collective of diverse perspectives. Taking action on a wicked problem takes multiple trips around the cycle, as it can be very difficult to foster inclusion at this stage without hearing as many voices as possible. It can be helpful to inspire members to create a separate project or initiative that works to address the issue. It is also relevant to discuss methods that members can tackle the issue in their own communities.

Each stage of the cycle should build on themselves by fostering external and internal inclusion. This should promote the norm of listening and inviting diverse perspectives. Ideally, the momentum created by including more voices may contribute to a culture of deliberation in daily democratic engagements. While it is very difficult to reach sufficient inclusion with every event, following the outlined guidelines can be a good start.

Note:

(1) Martín Carcasson and Leah Sprain, “Beyond Problem Solving: Reconceptualizing the Work of Public Deliberation as Deliberative Inquiry,” Communication Theory 26, no. 1 (2015): 41–63.

DCI Fellow Bosisso Charles Takougnadi ’27 (TBC)

Deliberation, to me, is more significant than just well-structured and healthy conversations; it is a true commitment to listening, understanding, inclusivity, and collective growth. During these polarized times, it is often overlooked, but deliberation has become a bridge between entrenched opinions and shared resolutions. Deliberation promotes not only effective and productive discussions but also the following values: attentiveness, listening, and openness. Thus, it challenges us to criticize our assumptions and empathize with perspectives that may at first, look foreign and sometimes create discomfort.

The potential to cultivate community and social resilience is one of the core principles that resonate with me as I navigate the practice of deliberation. Engaging with others’ views not only enriches one’s understanding. Furthermore, it strengthens one’s social fabric by developing trust, creating a sense of belonging as well as spreading knowledge and culture. Deliberation encourages participants to break down complex issues, dig deeper into underlying reasons and values, and collaboratively seek resolutions. Deliberation in that sense embodies a commitment to truth-seeking and a humility that acknowledges that we may not always have the solution, and we may not have all answers, but we are willing to find them together.

Furthermore, deliberation plays a vital role in fostering civic virtues. Deliberation not only encourages but also requires the following qualities: patience, empathy, and open-mindedness that enable a meaningful and effective deliberation. Every participant is should remain patient with the pace of the discussion while they confront biases, which is often a required stage to effective deliberation. They should also practice empathy and respect; indeed, these are essential aspects of democratic societies.

Excellent deliberators must concentrate on the “how” of the conversation, taking part not merely to prove a point of view but to collectively and collaboratively explore opinions and ideas. Its process-oriented nature portrays deliberation as an important skill in this interconnected world.

Reflecting on the deliberation sessions in the DCI D Teams program, it has been inspiring to witness the respect participants hold for each other’s viewpoints, no matter how diverse and different they are. These discussions around hard topics underscore the importance of creating welcoming spaces where people feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, even when they are not fully formed. This encourages vulnerability and honesty, thus easing the breakdown of walls of doubt as well as mistrust.

I believe DCI has made that possible at Davidson College in multiple ways. I am so thankful for the work the DCI has put in to give space for facilitated and respectful discussion around hard topics, as through this opportunity I was able to not only enrich myself but also enhance my skills as a deliberator and a facilitator.

As we continue to practice and refine these skills, I am hopeful that deliberation will not only foster more cohesive communities but also prepare us for the tough conversations ahead. As a student, deliberation as well as discussion about contentious issues will get more complex as we grow in the ‘real’ world where there is even more diversity in all aspects of life, from cultures to ideas. One should be able to continue to engage in the practice of deliberation as well as embody its values.

Last spring, I took my Critical Writing for Dance students to see Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater perform at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta. They were tasked with writing a critical analysis of at least one of the works on the triple bill and all arrived with their notepads and pens in hand. After the first work, they sat in a row (dressed to the nines!) and scribbled out thoughts and first impressions as I had suggested. A nearby audience member, curious to see ten Spelman women furiously writing at the same time, asked what they were doing. One of my students answered, and the audience member responded: “Why? It’s not that deep.”

As the sole faculty member representing the arts in the 2023-24 Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative cohort, I can attest: it is that deep. But both those who study dance and those who teach it in higher education often feel we must prove ourselves, and that burden can be exhausting. Identifying “wicked problems” and controversial topics to deliberate in a Peace and Conflict Studies or a Philosophy class seems like par for the course. Dance is trickier because it tends to be characterized in popular culture as either individual expression / catharsis or pure entertainment, neither of which – on the surface at least – affords much need for deliberation or critical analysis. And people can get defensive when scholarship, texts, research, and writing are introduced into sacred, emotionally charged movement spaces. Let’s not overthink it, I hear, dance is just about releasing and having fun.

Like all art forms, dance can serve as cultural communication, social commentary, public protest, and historical archive, all of which must be viewed through a critical lens. One of my main learning objectives in Critical Writing for Dance has been to simply get students to see dance as something worthy of analysis, to learn to construct a viable, thought-provoking argument and prove it using evidence from the work rather than writing a book report-style account of the event.

When I joined the DeeP cohort last summer, I looked forward to the spring, imagining my Critical Writing for Dance students engaging in rich dialogue about what a dance meant, posing questions addressing its cultural and social impact, and discussing biases and blind spots held by a majority white pool of professional dance and art critics. As I reworked my syllabus to include deliberative components, I incorporated difficult questions like:

• Are BIPOC and/or LGBTQIA+ identifying choreographers obligated to represent and/or address their identity in their work?
• What is Black dance? Is there such a thing? Is that term helpful or harmful?
• Is there anything a writer should, by default, not review? Is bias in criticism inevitable? Is claiming bias useful?

They were good questions, I thought, but in practice some were either too messy or not messy enough. I was challenged by how difficult it was to get students to take different sides on many of the issues and questions I presented. I considered forcing them to take one side or another but that felt too much like a debate, a different form of discourse. One outgoing person would speak up, most others would agree, and the deliberation would start to deflate. But as time went on and I started incorporating small group deliberations moderated by students, the group deliberations became more robust.

For the first deliberation, I had students read the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater mission statement on the company website, attend the show, then deliberate on whether the work exemplified or contradicted their mission statement. My intention was to get the students to think critically about a company that [outside of New York City where the critics have seen it all and speak their minds] is often put on a pedestal. I wanted them to see that arts criticism builds dialogue, enhances integrity, and archives what happened and therefore what we should remember. I asked the students to build arguments around what a company intends versus what it produces. In the end, all agreed that the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater work exemplified the mission statement perfectly. No notes. The deliberation fell flat.

Things progressed a bit with our second deliberation, “What is good writing?” for which the students read a critical analysis of Beyoncé’s “Lemonade” by bell hooks. I was worried I tried to do too much with this deliberation because we were focusing on the idea of “good writing” as a measurable absolute (based on standards and rules created by white men) using a legendary Black feminist writer’s controversial opinion about (arguably) the most beloved pop singer in the world. hooks posited that Beyoncé’s “Lemonade” is “capitalist money-making at its best” and delved into her argument while maintaining the utmost respect for Queen Bey. Even though the students all agreed that the article exemplified “good writing,” they had to confront its controversial content. I think what came out of this deliberation was the understanding that work produced by “untouchable” icons like Alvin Ailey, bell hooks, and Beyoncé is even more interesting when viewed through a critical lens. Critical thinking is good for everyone, viewer and artist alike, and is not the same thing as trashing or trolling. A win!

Oftentimes, the deliberations took left turns, especially when I had the students come up with their own topic and vote on which one they would deliberate. The chosen topic was, Have the comments sections on social media replaced the need for and relevance of traditional long-form arts criticism? I did not expect my class to engage in a deliberation on the validity of my entire course. This was tough for me, but we had a GREAT deliberation on the state of arts criticism in social media and on this issue, students were solidly divided. The reflections were extremely positive, and it had me rethinking assignments for the next time I teach this course, which is always something I welcome.

Another big win came near the end of the semester when I posed the question, “What is Black dance?” During the small group deliberations, I overheard a student say, “I hate this question” then proceed to say all dance is Black dance, a viable argument given the history of dance forms and cultural appropriation in America and on social media. I love it when that which was seen as foundational is called into question, be it my question or… gulp… my entire course. That’s how change comes about. It tells me students are engaging with one another, moving towards productive and respectful discourse, forming arguments that differ from others, and recognizing that opposing opinions on art and the state of arts criticism is how we move forward as a culture.

Even though we spent less time discussing the mechanics of writing, we spent more time constructing, deconstructing, editing, and reworking good arguments. Looking back – and with the looming realization that AI has already replaced the need to teach and learn basic writing skills – developing skills of critical analysis through the deliberative process was the most rewarding and impactful outcome from my time as a member of the DeeP cohort.