Evan Savage

3-19-14
CAS 138T
Online Deliberation
Last month, I was given the opportunity to participate in an online deliberation. Initially, I
thought the exchange would be like any other website forum: harsh outbreaks with one another,
providing irrelevant information, and maybe even mother-related slurs. Thankfully, everyone adhered to
the guidelines, and it resulted in a productive discussion. What does productive mean in this case? In
terms of the deliberation, a productive outcome is achieved if every individual who participates comes
out with a greater understanding of the subject matter, and they have enough of a basis to make a
confident choice of how to solve any given deliberative topic. I had a relatively productive experience,
and I feel that my peers did as well.
I chose to participate in the class-wide General Education debate with my classmates. The forum
posed three different options for General Education reform: expanding the current boundaries of
general education to provide even more choices, offering different viewpoints on a certain matter to
lead to successful career decisions, and providing classes that will equip students with the skills they will
need to thrive in the economy. Options one and two seemed to simply offer a reduction or expansion
respectively of the scope of General Education courses, while option three posed itself as a serious
overhaul of the current policy. For each option, I pitched in and offered my thoughts.
On option one, my main concern was taking even more time away from ones major area of
study. Yes, it is definitely important to become more acquainted with the world around you, but that
can happen naturally, outside of the classroom. Jon brought up a fair point that undergraduate degrees
do not exactly provide an individual with a solid expertise in a field one-hundred percent of the time (1).
He felt that people could still broaden their horizons during undergrad studies and still be on the right
track. His insight along with asking for my reaction was a great point in the deliberative process. Daniella
completely agreed with me which did not move the deliberation along very much at all (2). My
experience with option one had some high and low points, but it was a good start.
I had no strong initial opinion of option two, so I was questioning others responses to see how
they felt about the subject. Niko voiced his opinion that general education classes are mainly just a
regurgitation of facts (3). I questioned him since that might not be the case for everyone. Some students
can get a lot out of their gen eds and make a deeper connection. It is mainly based on the individual.
Laura mostly agreed with my comment, but she also offered some insight into both ends of the
spectrum. I would describe this portion as semi-productive because I became much more informed
through the process, but I never really settled on a solution to the problem. Not many others really
seemed to find a solution or favor this option either.
As I mentioned previously, option three came off as a significant overhaul of the current policy.
My response on this forum did not generate much discussion other than Jon (4). Again, like Daniella on
one, he mainly agreed with my ideas and rephrased them. It did not cause me to want to keep
discussing the topic. Maybe if a different perspective was offered, we may have carried on longer, but
neither of us really had a reason, too. I already felt pretty strongly about the option, and Jon only
reinforced my thinking. Option three was probably the least productive point of the deliberation for me.
Deliberating through a computer screen is vastly different than in person. On a computer,
anyone can speak up and be heard. You do not have to perfectly articulate your stance right away, and
shyness does not refrain anyone from giving their two cents. This can be a good or a bad thing. I much
preferred the in-class deliberation because the internet forum is mainly devoid of emotion. Extreme
emotions can be conveyed through a computer like hatred or affection, but it is hard to reach everything
in between. Participants varying intonation and inflection can carry a message sometimes that the
computer cannot. I may not have had an extremely productive experience, but I definitely walked away
with some skills to use for my next shot at an online deliberation. I will question more possibly
controversial stances and provide sufficient information wherever I can. Hopefully, I can keep the
mother-related slurs to a minimum as well.
Screenshots:
(1) (2)















(3) (4)