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.

By Garratt Rothberg ’27

Garratt Rothberg ‘27, along with the Center for Political Engagement, hosted a speaker event and deliberation on media bias, misinformation, and media literacy. The event began with a presentation by Isaac Saul, the founder of Tangle News, who spoke about his experience founding a news organization dedicated to unbiased and balanced reporting in a media landscape rife with highly politicized news outlets. 

Following Isaac’s talk, the audience of students and community members took part in an interactive Menti poll on topics such as their personal media consumption habits and their confidence in navigating media bias. Through Menti, participants saw each other’s selections to each question in real time, allowing them to get a sense of how news consumption attitudes differed throughout the crowd. Many of the results from the Menti poll sparked surprise among the audience, leading them into a deliberation on the generational divides in views towards media polarization. 

While the group discussed their own news habits and encounters with misinformation, Isaac answered questions and provided additional background knowledge from his career as a news editor. After the event, Garratt compiled the results of the Menti poll to create an infographic displaying key findings from the poll, which will be posted on social media pages and distributed around campus.

The discussion emphasized the importance of nonpartisan news sources, as well as the challenges towards democracy that a highly politicized media presents. Deliberation allowed audience members of different generations to better understand each other’s views and habits, demonstrating that deliberation is a critical tool in building a sense of mutual understanding among diverse groups.

By Casey Scheiner ’28 (DCI Senior Fellow and Co-Convener)

In anticipation of the beginning of the Deliberative Citizenship Network, which will support over 100 universities in their development of deliberative programs on campus, the DCI took its show on the road this spring to UNC Charlotte. In Professor Jon Overton’s 60 student sociology course on Polarization and Social Conflict in America, Dr. Bullock, Co-Convener Stephen Walker, Fellow Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat, and I presented on what the DCI is, the kinds of conversations we host, and how students can apply our deliberative dispositions and conversation agreements in their own discussions. With deep background knowledge from the class they were taking, the students were well-equipped to understand the importance of conversations like the ones the DCI hosts for bridging divides in a deeply polarized society.

After we spoke to the class for about 20 minutes, we launched into the deliberation. Our topic was one that students with various degrees of political knowledge could all get invested in, given its universal importance to members of our generation: economic mobility and the American Dream. Professor Overton selected this guide from the early years of the DCI, and it held up remarkably well as an issue of consistent concern for the students in the class. With the four of us from the DCI as well as Professor Overton’s two graduate student TAs facilitating, students brought various perspectives to the table, agreeing on affordability and economic opportunity as major issues of our time, but disagreeing on how to solve or even diagnose the problems. For instance, when we discussed the housing crisis, some deliberators contended it was an issue of insufficient supply, while others felt it boiled down to excessive corporate ownership of a sufficient housing supply. This then informed how they approached solutions, with the former group advocating more for policies to incentivize greater housing development and the latter group pushing to deconsolidate large companies’ property ownership.

All in all, both the presentation and the deliberation were major successes. The students were engaged and interested in our presentation, seeming to crave a deliberative outlet where they could express their thoughts. In the deliberation, they made my job easy, participating eagerly and asking thoughtful follow-up questions of one another. As we prepare to share the DCI’s approach next year through the DCN, the experience at UNC Charlotte was a terrific reminder of the number of campuses around the country rich with enthusiasm to deliberate on our nation’s biggest issues.

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

The idea of deliberative democracy is something that can be sustained only when there are people willing to commit themselves to the cause of responsible citizenship. To be courageous enough to speak, to listen to what one’s peers have to say, and critically engage with such “theses” and “antitheses” is the foundation of a sustainable community, and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative appears to be in a continuous quest to cultivate such a culture of valour.

My time with the DCI has so far permitted me to explore the idea of deliberative discourse and apply it here at Davidson College through our D Teams that attempt to bring students, faculty, and community members from across the socio-political spectrum together at a single platform as equals to discuss some of the most polarizing issues the United States faces today. To be certain, the DCI’s work to foster a deliberative atmosphere in our community has certainly led to positive outcomes. Co-inhabitants of this ecosystem are less likely to engage in adversarial conflict with a zero-sum, “warrior” mindset, are more open to receiving ideas that differ vastly from their own, and most importantly, are willing to refuse to believe the worst of their fellow human beings. 

Seeing the persistence of such a mechanism here at Davidson is in startling contrast to the ugly political adversariality and ad hominemism that pervades the national system of governance here in the United States and on the global stage at large. One therefore might be forgiven for wondering if the DCI is able to prevail in a bubble of a small town where both the walls of its buildings and the polite Southern manners of its inhabitants haven’t changed all that much. Is the principle of deliberative citizenship able to operate exceptionally at Davidson because of the exceptional circumstances it is placed in? This is a question that stung me more times than I can count during my time with the DCI.

That is, until it stung less after our excursion at Duke University.

This past spring the DCI was invited to cover facilitation skills in Duke’s POLSCI 112L, Devil’s Advocate: Exploring Pluralism, Free Inquiry, and Belonging. Offering a crash course on deliberative citizenship to a hundred-odd students in an hour followed by a mock deliberation on social safety nets in a second hour certainly was a challenging task, but it also had a significant set of rewarding results. I saw students cycle through the roles of deliberator, disruptor, and facilitator as they discussed pressing problems with genuine commitment to the fundamental principle underlying deliberative discourse – critical engagement with diverse perspectives with an open mind and a set of alert ears. 

During the deliberative exercise that followed their training, I served as the facilitator for a dozen engineering students from different social and even national settings. The topic of social safety nets required them to enter into the politico-economic realm, and it was heartening to see them talk about sensitive issues without fear of judgement in an environment where their equality as individuals and the acceptance of their experiences was guaranteed in our deliberations. My discussions with individual members of my D Team allowed me to see their earnest hopefulness for the possibility of a deliberative environment on the Duke campus and in their own communities and affirmed my own trust in the principles of deliberative discourse. 

Yes, it will take effort. Yes, it will take determination. Yes, it will take a great deal of courage to get out of our own communities to bring about positive change in others. At the end of the day, however, all of it counts as we strengthen our belief that words are a better alternative to violence and attempt to institutionalize it in environments that desperately need it. For me, deliberative citizenship is not sourced from our exceptional circumstances, but rather from the will to get the job done. All we need is that will and the means to perpetuate it across communities. once we have the will and the way, we will start bringing change to the ugliness that currently plagues our public sphere.

By Bolling Lewis ’28 (DCI Fellow)

On February 12th, I, along with six fellow DCI members, packed into a rented Jeep Wagoneer and set out on a daunting goal of bringing deliberation to Duke University. We had been invited to introduce our approach to facilitating constructive deliberations on challenging topics to a university class exploring the challenges and opportunities of pluralism in modern society. Students in the class would be hosting small group discussions at Duke following an upcoming expert roundtable on justice and the rule of law, and we were tasked with putting on an interactive class workshop on how best to organize and facilitate their deliberations.    

Since the inception of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative in 2020, the task of including as many people as possible in the conversation has centered around engaging a small two-thousand-person liberal arts campus. Word of mouth, deliberative forums, and inclusion of dialogue in course materials have all been successful ways to hear new perspectives and experiences from the Davidson community. Yet, such effective methods can be rendered useless in a different environment. Duke, in many ways, is the exact opposite of Davidson, with an almost 18,000-person student body, an emphasis on research, and little exposure to formal deliberation. All the signs pointed  to a big question: were the successes we’ve had at Davidson transferrable to other campuses and contexts? 

Huddled in the car for our two-hour journey to Durham, we reviewed our plan for the visit. We collectively stressed the importance of emphasizing deliberative dispositions and the realistic challenges of facilitating conversations at another campus. With Professor Bullock, head of the DCI program and our faculty leader for the trip, at the wheel, we discussed the size disparity between the average Davidson and Duke classroom. We realized that we should be prepared for students who may not be as well versed in small-group conversations, given their significantly larger class sizes. With this in mind, we mapped out how we would introduce the principles and practices of deliberative dialogue in a context very different from our own. 

Upon arrival, we quickly headed towards the academic buildings and were guided through a maze of hallways to finally arrive at our lecture hall. Once again, the stark contrast between Davidson and Duke was glaring when we arrived in our room. The class seated roughly a hundred students, tightly packed together, in a room roughly three times the size of any Chambers classroom. Still, despite the differences, the Duke students seemed quite receptive to the idea of deliberation. They asked questions and engaged with the practice prompts. Furthermore, they listened attentively to the dispositions we presented in the lecture hall, and after about sixty minutes of presentations (we each presented a different dimension of effective facilitation), we split into breakout groups based on career aspirations to put the ideas into practice.

My breakout session featured mainly pre-law students. The discussion, which centered around welfare, social security, and liberty, went exceptionally well. Despite the fact that no one in the conversation had participated in a structured deliberation before, they all jumped in to provide insights and perspectives about the topics. Some students integrated law-based arguments, while others focused on personal anecdotes. To me, it appeared as if the Duke students were naturals who had simply not had the opportunity to engage in an organized deliberative dialogue. They often wrestled with difficult ideas, including social security reform and efficient government spending, acknowledging that they could not solve everything today, but that the discussion of the issue was an important step forward. There were undoubtedly awkward moments, or periods of silence that created discomfort, but by the end, the conversation felt both casual and purposeful.

When the conversation wrapped up, I joined the reception dinner and discovered that many other DCI Fellows had similar experiences. In spite of the surface-level differences, the Duke students quickly picked up deliberation. Every conversation had its ups and downs, but the core concept of sharing viewpoints in a safe space to listen and learn from others was successfully passed along. On the car ride back to Davidson, we all took turns reflecting on the afternoon at Duke; one of my main takeaways I expressed was how easily a different community picked up the unique skill of deliberation. Personally, it gave me another reason to believe in the DCI mission. In just two hours, another institution fully embraced some of the hardest skills in modern society: listening to others, expressing one’s own beliefs, and disagreeing respectfully.

By Mohamed Mostafa ’26 (DCI Fellow)

As a senior, I have found that some of the most meaningful conversations I’ve had about the future did not happen in classrooms or career workshops but with friends trying together to make sense of what comes next.

In one of those conversations, a friend told me plainly that he did not see a social responsibility tied to his career choice. For him, the goal was stability: a well-paying job to support his family. He wasn’t dismissive of social impact or contribution but rather that those considerations came second, if at all. What struck me was not the position itself, but how often I had heard it before.

Across conversations with classmates, a pattern began to be obvious. Many of us had entered college with language about making a difference, contributing to society, or pursuing meaningful careers. Yet as senior year approached, those ideas often became harder to prioritize. Conversations shifted toward job security, salaries, and the pressure to “figure it out.” The question was no longer just what we cared about, but what felt safe and financially rewarding.

In many ways, this shift is understandable. College is often framed as an investment and something we pursue to secure our futures, justify its cost, and create stability for ourselves and our families. For some students, especially those navigating financial pressures or immigration constraints, choosing a stable and predictable path is not simply a preference but a responsibility. In this light, prioritizing individual success can reflect responsibility and obligation rather than self-interest alone.

Yet, this framing feels incomplete.

At Davidson, we are reminded that education is not only about personal advancement, but about preparing students “for lives of leadership and service.” Implicit in that vision is the idea that our choices, especially those related to our careers, are not neutral. They shape not only our own lives, but also the communities and systems we become part of.

This is where the tension becomes more difficult to ignore. If college is both a private good and a public one, therefore the decisions we make are not simply about what we can achieve, but about how we choose to contribute. Yet in practice, the structures surrounding us (recruiting cycles, prestige hierarchies, and cultural expectations) often reward paths that are relatively safe, stable, and individually beneficial. In that environment, it becomes easier to measure success by outcomes we can point to, rather than impact that is harder to quantify.

Still, the conversations I’ve had suggest that this is an unresolved question. When friends speak about choosing more secure paths, they often do so with a quiet awareness of what may be left out of the conversation. And when others pursue work more explicitly oriented toward service or impact, they usually do so with an understanding of the risks involved. Neither path is arbitrary. Both are shaped by values, constraints, and competing responsibilities.

What feels missing is not clarity, but space to deliberate about these tradeoffs more openly. Too often, decisions are made under pressure, guided by urgency rather than reflection. We compare outcomes without fully understanding the motivations behind them. We assume that certain paths are more responsible than others, without asking responsible to whom?

Deliberation offers a way to approach these questions differently. It does not resolve the tension between personal success and social impact, but it allows us to examine it more honestly and understand where each position is coming from. It asks us to consider not only what we want, but what we owe to our families, to our communities, and to the society we are part of.

One concrete example of creating such space at Davidson was the Values and Vocations Forum, a dialogue program Coralyn Cairns ’29 and I helped organize in partnership with the Matthews Center for Career Development, Center for Student Diversity and Inclusion. This 90-minute interactive session brought together students, staff, and faculty to reflect on how personal values like impact, integrity, and non-compromise areas intersect with career choices amid real-world tradeoffs, such as organizational missions, business practices, and ethical complexities. Through structured activities including individual reflections, pair-shares, and small-group case studies on scenarios like working for education tech firms or defense companies with mixed impacts, participants engaged in honest, non-prescriptive deliberation that revealed shared tensions between stability, personal beliefs, and societal contribution. This event fostered the exploration of “for me or for us” that has felt missing in other similar conversations.

As I prepare to leave Davidson College, I find myself thinking less about finding The Answer and more about asking better questions. What does it mean to live a life of service in practical terms? How do we balance stability with contribution? And perhaps most importantly, what are we willing to prioritize when those goals come into conflict?

While I have come to better understand how attractive stability and individual success are, I am also left with the sense that an education like this asks something more of us. Not necessarily that we reject personal ambition, but that we position it within a broader sense of responsibility. That we remain attentive to the impact of our choices, even when they are difficult to measure or pursue.

If college has prepared us for anything, it may not be certainty about what comes next, but a deeper awareness of the stakes involved in our decisions. In that sense, the question is not simply whether college is for ourselves or for something larger. It is whether we are willing to carry both and to act with intention when they pull us in different directions.

By Coralyn Cairns ’29 (DCI Fellow)

As both a DCI fellow and a “Humester” (the name for students in the Humanities program at Davidson), I have found a lot of overlap between the two settings in terms of deliberation. The Humanities program at Davidson was established in 1962, and while it has evolved over the years since, it nonetheless represents the core values of a liberal arts education—critical, interdisciplinary thought with an emphasis on humane instincts. Although the DCI has had a much shorter tenure at Davidson, it has gained remarkable traction in the larger Davidson community and will now go on to spread deliberative initiatives to 100 colleges and universities over the next four years. I attribute this massive success to the liberal arts environment at Davidson and the interdisciplinary support deliberation receives here. The DCI is not just about changing how we engage in civic conversation. Similarly, the Humanities program is not just about exposure to Humanities fields. Rather, they both center around building dialogues and a mindfulness of how we interact with the world around us.

 Before beginning the Humanities program at Davidson (also referred to as Humes if you’re cool), students embark on a pre-orientation trip called Sapere Aude. Sapere Aude is Latin for “dare to know.” You may read this and think the name is a bit cheesy or nerdy, but if I have learned anything in the DCI and Humes, it is that knowing takes bravery. After all,knowing implies a level of thought a bit deeper than simply hearing and believing. Last semester, DCI fellows learned about something called “cognitive hygiene.” This term denotes the action of deliberating and listening to opinions that you disagree with in order to better understand why you support your opinion. Deliberation, in this sense, is like a stone that whets your blade of beliefs. If you know something, it is because you have weighed other possibilities and still come to the conclusion that this something is true. Therefore, knowing requires the strength and bravery to really listen to the opposition. It is not for the light-hearted, yet, I promise, everyone can do it.

The DCI and Humes are not only conceptually grounded in the same principles, but they also are structurally very similar. The DCI held four forums and four rounds of D-teams, or deliberative teams, this year. Participants attend the forums led by expert panelists and then follow-up these forums with their own discussion in D-teams, facilitated by fellows. Similarly, Humes holds two types of classes: plenary and section. During plenary, all students listen to faculty lectures on various topics with some dialogue between students and faculty, but it is mainly led by professors. Section, then, is a smaller group of students with only one faculty member facilitating. This more intimate gathering allows for students to drive dialogue. These parallel structures both foster cognitive hygiene in that participants are exposed to a variety of new ideas, and then they are asked to develop their own opinions in a safe space.

Being a DCI fellow and Humester this year has taught me that learning is not simply about absorbing information; learning is the art of discernment, of teaching yourself how to exist in and contribute to a world that is full of contradictions. Although not discussed in this blog, there are many differences between the programs, yet, at the heart of both is the liberal arts call for thoughtful students who will go on to be deliberative leaders in their communities.

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 Ezra Minard ’28 (DCI Fellow)

Denunciation and persuasion are two common tools in the rhetorician’s repertoire. Both seek to affect change. Both recognize the inherent self-interestedness of any interlocutor. However, they are far from equal. Denunciation is easy, instinctive, and emotionally satisfying. Persuasion, by contrast, is difficult, uncomfortable, demanding, and frustratingly the far less common of the two. It is the path less traveled, one which requires patience, humility, and tact. Persuasion is preferable to denunciation because it engages others without hardening opposition or undermining dialogue through condemnation.

Denunciation operates by attacking motive and appealing to guilt and shame. It signals moral superiority and implies that the other’s beliefs place them beneath serious engagement. It is more comfortable to regard oneself as morally superior to an opponent than to consider the possibility of being wrong, which is exactly the disposition which civil discourse requires. Predictably, denunciation invites reciprocal denunciation. Rather than expanding dialogue, it constricts it by hardening opposition and dividing people among in-groups and out-groups. Do denouncers reasonably expect those they criticize to join them condemning themselves? More often, the denounced feel attacked and become less willing to listen as a result. While denunciation may project a belief in one’s own moral superiority, it undermines fruitful deliberation.

Contemporary debates about the platforming issue illustrate this tension. Some defend exclusion (and denunciation by extension) as a means to prevent the popularization of harmful ideas. They might view exclusion as an instrument of the court of public opinion, and I agree that there are circumstances in which conversation refusal or avoidance is not only justified, but perhaps necessary. Similarly, no one has a moral obligation to engage with anyone in any conversation and the freedom of association is an overlooked but essential right under the First Amendment. But consider the maxim: “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Do denunciation and exclusion inadvertently popularize certain views by making them appear edgy or off-limits? If so, deplatforming could be a tragic mistake. And where do those “off-limits” conversations move ?

Conversations rarely disappear when suppressed. Instead, they often relocate into more ideologically homogenous spaces. Such insulation intensifies partisanship and deters deliberative dialogue, especially between those who are most diametrically opposed and subsequently, most in need of deliberation. If a democracy relies on productive dialogue between disagreeing parties, then ideological sectionalism compromises it.

I do not mean to suggest that there is neither a time nor a place for denunciation or for choosing not to platform someone. Conversation is only one tool among many for affecting political change. Protest is another. Our current political moment, however, feels oversaturated with denunciation and greatly in need of dialogue. The architecture of the internet feeds on rage, fear, panic, and character assassination, as they generate more online traffic than empathy, humility, and moderation. Dialogue is simply less cinematic. It does not trend as denunciation does.

Additionally, online spaces provide anonymity that weakens accountability. The social costs of harsh rhetoric decline in the absence of face-to-face settings. While online privacy is essential, its utilization in the dialogue sphere encourages caricatures, condemnation, and condescension as one is less prone to regard their interlocutor’s humanity on X (Twitter), for example.

A more effective alternative to denunciation is persuasion, which logically appeals to one’s interlocutor’s self-interest. Rather than trying to compel belief through shame, persuasion invites the interlocutor to agree, if she finds it aligned with her self-interest. Treating an interlocutor as a moral equal, even despite disagreement, does not necessarily concede moral complicity but instead recognizes shared humanity and seeks positive transformation.

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

“A democracy dies not only when tanks roll out, it dies when institutions cave in. When constitutional functionaries become partisan puppets. When media becomes a megaphone, not a mirror. When courts begin to delay what they dare not deny. When dissent is sedition, protest is provocation and every question is branded ‘anti-national’–then you know that the Republic is on a ventilator.”^[1] -Abhishek Singhvi

The global order of the 21st century in which we live today is marked by the rise of personality-based regimes and their replacement of institutional ones. The ordinary business of the democratic state is no longer dictated by institutions and norms established by general practice of the law, but rather by the demands of both popular leaders and unelected dictators. What are the implications of the supersession of the system by individualistic leaders in the social, economic, and political spheres of life for the prospects of democratic processes, and specifically deliberative discourse? That is the question that this blog post will examine.

It would be apt to begin with an almost-empirical assertion that strong individualistic officers who weaken state institutions for some agenda ultimately cause great damage to the prospects of democracy in their countries. This is something that is very evident in the cases such as post-Cold War Russia, India, and Venezuela. The “cult of personality” leaders may also be seen today in my own country with Prime Minister Modi, who not long ago removed the credibility of the Election Commission of India, a historically apolitical body, by changing the appointment procedure of its commissioners for  his own benefit.^[2]  As a matter of fact, one of the more egregious violations of the principles of democracy also happened in India in the 1970s when the-then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, “packed” the Supreme Court, disemboweled administrative structures, and had a State of Emergency declared soon after her election as a member of parliament was voided by the Allahabad High Court.^[3] What soon followed after was one of the darkest periods in the legal and political history of the Republic of India that was marked by the unconstitutional withdrawal of fundamental rights and the corruption of democratic discourse throughout the country. After all, one of the more prolific slogans propagated by the government back then was “Work more, talk less!”^[4]

What these examples indicate is that individual-based regimes are antithetical to the desire of a people to govern themselves. This is the very reason why the establishment of such governance coincides with the era of global democratic backsliding. Building off of this phenomenon, when such despotism is disguised under a popular mandate in a democracy, all hope for deliberative discourse is lost, for the leader in this scenario is equated to the state and any opposition posed to either them or their ideas is equivalent to an act of treason. As a result, the backsliding accelerates, and independent state watchdogs, human rights organizations, professors, and students are disarmed by punitive force. In this scenario, political leaders who are democratically elected consolidate power and declare any dissenting opinions to be “against the spirit of the nation.” Behind such leaders also stand electorates that support their populist attitudes and aid and abet this overall process. Despots are able to sustain this support by maintaining control over the narrative through social media and by removing deliberation from the national setting. Consequently, what we see at the end of the day is an environment wherein strongmen monopolize the public sphere for their personal benefit and push people into a seemingly cultural conflict against the “foreign” values of constitutional liberalism and democracy.

The reasons as to why such a global crisis festers in a world such as ours may be many, but an extremely critical factor is us forgetting that deliberation is both a fundamental right and duty when considering the interaction of a single citizen with the state mechanism. Citizens must remember that exercising their duty of dissent and differing with a leader who possesses the ability to literally exercise the power of life and death against both them and their fellow citizens is the most critical charge they have as members of the body politic of their country. In this regard, deliberative discourse–which is founded upon the principles of reasoning, agreement, and disagreement–is both an end and a means vis-a-vis democracy. An extension of  this principle, which involves citizens working together to reach reflective, sharable policy conclusions which are then taken under advisement by the  government for implementation, is termed as deliberative democracy and can be used by the political system to preserve its foundational values.^[5]

The global order of the 21st century is a war against mindless violence and unwarranted tyranny. The freedom and greater good of the masses are on the losing side of this conflict. Our liberty to think differently and still be able to come to a mutually-acceptable conclusion is at risk here today. It is in the supreme interest of people worldwide to assert their rights in a cooperative fashion and not an adversarial one: as a result, it is the duty of civilization itself to preserve this possibility for its present and its future.

^[1] ‘Won’t Allow India to Become Nation of One Voice, One Party, One Ideology: Abhishek Singhvi – The Economic Times’. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/wont-not-allow-india-to-become-nation-of-one-voice-one-party-one-ideology-abhishek-singhvi/articleshow/123059927.cms?from=mdr (November 8, 2025).

^[2] ‘Appointing Election Commissioners: The Government Must Not Control the Watchdog’. 2023. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/appointing-election-commissioners-the-government-must-not-control-the-watchdog-8917864/ (November 8, 2025).

^[3] ‘The Emergency 50 Years on | Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict Unseated PM Indira Gandhi, She Struck Back at Nation’. 2025. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/long-reads/the-emergency-50-years-on-echoes-from-courtroom-no-24-verdict-unseated-pm-indira-gandhi-she-struck-back-at-nation-10061483/ (November 8, 2025).

^[4]July 6, Forty Years Ago: Talk Less, Work More’. 2015. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/july-6-forty-years-ago-talk-less-work-more/ (November 8, 2025).

^[5] Layman, Daniel. 2016. ‘Robust Deliberative Democracy’. Critical Review 28(3–4): 494–516. doi:10.1080/08913811.2016.1264161.