Deliberation Dinners
Furrowed brows, hesitation, mouths hanging open
It’s peak summer here in the Upper Midwest: humid, sunny, and the lakes are full from plenty of rain.
This issue of the newsletter was written by our intern Teresa Nelson. I (Carrie) asked her to reflect about her experience with the Deliberation Dinners, a pilot program here at UW-Madison designed to give undergrads a place to practice having good conversations about controversial issues.
In this newsletter:
Icebreaker: rainy day
Philosophy of Education: Thinking About the Deliberation Dinners, with Teresa Nelson and Harry Brighouse
Student Post: Teresa’s Reflection
Clerihew Corner: On our recent grad
News & Events: Where Are They Now?
Icebreaker
What’s your favorite rainy day activity?
Thinking About the Deliberation Dinners
by Teresa Nelson
Last year, I got to participate in the launch of the Deliberation Dinners. Developed by The Discussion Project, and supported by the Office of the Chancellor, the Deliberation Dinners is a discussion-based program for undergrads. Conceived of and led by Diana Hess, who recently stepped down after 9 years as Dean of the School of Education, the pilot program, which included 120 students seated in groups of ten, met monthly over dinner for the academic year, and each table had a faculty facilitator.
Here's what the Deliberation Dinners website says about the program:
The purpose of the Deliberation Dinners is to provide students the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions with other students about important public issues in a setting that exposes them to multiple and competing ideas.
The Deliberation Dinners will use a particular form of discussion called deliberation. Discussion writ large is focused inquiry through speaking and listening that is purposeful, broadly collaborative, and leads to deeper understanding through analysis of different perspectives. And deliberation is a discussion that answers the question, “What shall we do?” — without requiring or seeking consensus.
The Deliberation Dinners had a profound impact on how I think about important political topics. Controversial issues can be so hard to talk about, especially with the people we are most comfortable around. This is a problem: how are we supposed to learn about something if it’s taboo to talk about? is taboo to talk about?
To explore this question further, I talked with my philosophy professor Harry Brighouse. Harry helped develop and facilitate the Deliberation Dinners, and during the Dinners, his role was to circulate, observing conversations and helping with lulls.
I tracked Harry down in his office. After climbing the four flights of concrete stairs, I was met with a familiar sight: Harry, seated, surrounded by an overwhelming amount of books, thank you letters from past students, and classic movie posters. Harry’s office has a way of putting one at ease in spite of the business of it all. A good atmosphere for a chat.
Teresa Nelson: Were you nervous about getting a bunch of students together from all different backgrounds and having them talk about controversial issues? Especially given that the students were selected for political diversity?
Harry Brighouse: Not at all. I completely trusted that the students would be cooperative with one another, and would reason and be civil. In large groups, people don’t want to talk. It could be that one to two students dominate the discussion, and that can throw off the entire mood or environment of the classroom. In smaller groups, people are very willing to listen to one another. I never get to choose the political makeup of my classes, and sometimes I have politically heterogeneous makeups of classes. I’ve never felt that there would have been a problem. And I felt that if there was, I could handle it well.
Teresa: Tell us about an issue that stands out in your mind that went in an unexpected way.
Harry: With marijuana legalization, the topic of the second dinner, I had anticipated a lot of agreement. There was more disagreement than I had anticipated. I was worried that this one in particular wouldn’t go well, because I thought most everyone would be in favor of it. I was surprised by how rich and deep the discussions were that I heard. I was really impressed that people were able to seriously entertain the side that they opposed and think through the thing that they disagreed with.
Teresa: Were there other issues?
Harry: Two things. There were tables where, at the beginning, one or two people didn’t get that the aim was deliberation, not debate. One student said of her table that there were students who had done a lot of debate, and they thought the point was to argue, which is not the same thing as deliberating.
Teresa: What’s the difference between debate and deliberation?
Harry: There are two purposes of deliberation. One, to come to a better understanding of the thing you are discussing, and get closer to the truth about it. The second: to come to a better understanding of the ideas of the people at the table around you. You don’t win a deliberation. That’s not the point.
Teresa: What is the point?
Harry: To provide students with an experience of discussing and deliberating about difficult topics, knowing that they are with people that will disagree with them right from the beginning. Helping them to learn how to do it, how to enjoy doing it, and how to do it in a way that fully engages with people you disagree with. You can teach a class well, but you can’t guarantee that there will be political disagreement or diversity in a classroom.
Teresa: Do you think it was successful? How did you measure that?
Harry: There is an evaluation team working on an evaluation right now. I think they were successful, and I think that floating from table to table helped me to reach this conclusion because I was able to see the tones of different arguments and see that the students were really enjoying doing it. I think that most students would say it was an intellectually valuable use of their time. A number of students said, casually, that they don’t get this [type of discussion] in class enough.
Teresa: Tell me about developing the readings.
Harry: Something I learned was that custom-made background readings can be a very powerful pedagogical tool. This isn’t what we do in teaching currently. We tend to give students primary sources, which were not written for pedagogical purposes, but to pursue a debate. Of course, students should read some things like that. But I thought that the first couple of readings [at the Deliberation Dinners] were filled with a bunch of key things that we wanted the students to know. We have a bunch of things we want them to think about, and we are priming them with arguments. But also, we want to display a way of thinking about the arguments that encourages even-handed thinking. The goal is to give them enough resources to scaffold their own deliberative thinking that is independently theirs. I think we should be doing more of this in teaching.
Teresa: What did you learn from listening to student conversations?
Harry: I was really struck by watching people really think while they were talking. Furrowed brows, hesitation, mouths hanging open. But I was mostly struck by the fact that people were thinking properly. And by that, I mean that they didn’t feel like they had to have everything exactly right in order to say it. In classes, there are usually people who are apprehensive. Quite quickly, at most of those tables, the idea that you were going to be judged for what you say was pretty well undermined. I don’t know how you measure that, or whether the evaluation team was looking for it, but I was impressed that it happened early on.
[This interview has been edited for length and clarity.]
Teresa’s Reflection
Deliberation is a learnable skill: one I’m grateful to have learned as a college student.
After the final Deliberation Dinners, I realized that these issues are a lot more complicated than I’d thought. We actually disagree a lot less than we think we do. I am better able to appreciate the moral arguments on all sides of an issue, and I see that it’s unreasonable to expect to agree with someone on every aspect of an argument. Before, I thought it was a sign of intelligence to have a finalized stance on political issues, and that without one, I would risk appearing uninformed. Now, after these dinners, I think it is acceptable to have a malleable opinion, and to lend an open mind to opposing viewpoints. I’d even say it's wise.
I know I will draw on this experience in future classroom discussions, club meetings, and maybe even family Thanksgivings.
Surviving a Deliberation Dinner—A Guide from a Seasoned Participant
Show up.
You’ve done all the pre-work. Pored over the background readings, forgone your homework for the night, and made the trek to Union South. You’re now seated at the table, having finished one serving of the surprisingly good tofu, and considering going for seconds.
Feel a little apprehensive.
Remember you are here to discuss the morality and legality of abortion with eight other college students. Take a breath. Okay. You’ve been going to these Deliberation Dinners since last semester, and nothing catastrophic has happened yet. At first, you were worried it would be like family Thanksgiving, where the discussion of controversial topics led to threats to “pull the car around” before pumpkin pie. You think: maybe there’s nothing to worry about. Even in the previous deliberation about gun laws, everyone managed to keep their heads. This is probably thanks to the little blue half-sheet, jam-packed with norms you are about to review.
Review The Norms.
You overlook the fact that it feels a little kindergarten-esque. Resist the urge to assume that you are already, of course, a perfect follower of the norms, which are:
Be curious and present
Listen attentively
Aim for shared participation
Presume positive intentions
Pay attention to self and others
Chatham House Rule
Chatham House Rule, which sounds like it's been borrowed from Harry Potter, intrigues you. The official version: Comments are controversial, so avoid using names when recounting ideas. The informal version: Don't be a gossipy bitch. You wish your classrooms upheld the Chatham House Rule to encourage more students to participate.
Make a mental note to listen more.
Remind yourself to “Aim for shared participation.” This one can be the most difficult for you, a verbal thinker. You thrive on peppering conversations with your ideas as soon as they come to you. Here, you need to reel that in a bit, and leave room for the more reserved speakers, those who wait until they’re sure nobody else is speaking to share what they’ve been turning over in their mind.
Wait for someone to break the ice.
Notice that the other students are also treating this discussion carefully. They’re quiet, eyes wandering towards the ceiling, jaws clenched. The gears are turning.
Unclench your shoulders. Laugh.
At your table, a student is adamant: “No one should ever be able to tell a woman what to do with her body, or have an opinion on it. I mean, why would anyone do that?” Someone else retorts mischievously: “So are you saying that I, as a woman, could just go over and clock someone, and nobody can have an opinion on it?” The tension is broken, and the table laughs.
This week, you’re surprised when you agree with one of the more outspoken students at your table. Based on past deliberation dinners, you assumed you would disagree with everything that came out of his mouth. But this time, you find yourself nodding as he thinks out loud.
Realize that your predictions about where people might stand in their beliefs were completely wrong. These issues are complicated, and are certainly not as black-and-white as they seemed.
Reflect.
You have survived, and have learned a lot. Notice that the deliberation never felt like an argument; nobody was trying to win. You realize that this has been really nice, and you definitely couldn't just strike up these types of conversations with your friends. You bid everyone goodbye, and notice inside jokes bouncing off one another, smiles all around, and people walking out together. You sling your backpack on, and wonder if there’s any of that tofu left…
Clerihew Corner
by Teresa, dedicated to our graduating team member Anna
She is compassionate and warm, intelligent and direct
People think we’re sisters: one misconception I don’t like to correct
She can command everyone’s attention with a few words, and is barrels of fun
To know her is to love her: the marvelous Ms. Anna Nelson
News & Events
Our Interns: Where are they now?
Anna just graduated and was awarded the prestigious Dean’s Prize
Genesis co-founded a slow fashion student org
Teresa just joined the PIVOT Lab (Preventing Interpersonal Violence and Overcoming Trauma) at UW
Trinity is starting law school
Kellen just finished his master’s in Media Studies
Natnael is in medical school, pursuing a Path of Distinction in Bioethics
Grace is a middle studies teacher in Oakland, California
Avra is working with startups and venture capitalists in Charlotte, North Carolina
Hannah is risk consulting in New York City
Keep in touch, and happy summer,
CEE