Cribas 1

Emily Cribas
CAS 138T
March 19, 2014
Class Deliberation Reflection
Introduction:
German philosopher Jrgen Habeas described the ideal speech situation as one in
which two or more persons could infinitely question one anothers beliefs about the
world until each perspective had been fully scrutinized, leaving only a set of valid
statements on which to base ones conclusions about an issue.
1
Although this is not
possible, we can achieve something close to this: an effective deliberative conversation.
My class and I attempted to have a deliberative conversation about shaping our
future. Specifically, how should higher education help us create the society we want?
Three options were offered to come up with an answer. The first involves focusing on
staying competitive in the economy. The second says higher education should help us
work together and repair an ailing society. Finally, the third option involves providing a
fair chance for access to this higher education.
2

Whether we had an effective deliberation or not shall be judged based upon the
nine features of deliberative conversation outlined in Figure 6.1 in Rhetoric & Civic Life.
1

Analysis:
1. Create a solid information base
The issue forum given to all of us prior to the discussion helped give us all the same
point of reference, which was helpful and central to the effectiveness of the discourse.
The fact that all of us had this information given to us, both written on the forum and
Cribas 2
spoken by the moderators, provided a common information base from which all of us
could formulate ideas. We all knew the nature of each option, including the pros and cons
of it as well as the trade-offs we need to consider. Unfortunately, all of the data given to
us by the forum and by the moderators was strictly quantitative. Our lack of expertise in
certain areas may have made the deliberation less effective, because we cannot be sure
that our ideas are financially feasible, for example. In retrospect, I think if we had done
more in-depth research prior to the discourse, we could have contributed more tangible
ideas and the deliberation could have been more productive.
2. Prioritize the key values at stake
Throughout each days discourse, different values were brought up, and I think we
did an excellent job of expressing them, but with 10-12 people of different majors, there
was bound to be conflict. Although we didnt prioritize as effectively as we could have,
we did come to several agreements on what we believe is best for our country and its
citizens. For example, despite the fact that I was a STEM major and everyone else in my
group was in the college of liberal arts, we all agreed on the value of science and
engineering in our society, coming to a consensus that we, as a society, need a revival of
love for exploration (in regards to space and science). Despite this, however, many
agreed that the humanities are also vital to society and that losing the top spot for science
is not the end all be all. Basically, they agreed while I silently disagreed, that while we
may not be number one in science and technology, being number one in the humanities
could compensate for that. I think the fact that I had the only dissenting opinion on this
deterred me from speaking, when in reality, I should have spoken to provide a more
dynamic discussion. Largely, we had two distinct values, but failed to prioritize, and this
Cribas 3
led to an unrealistic desire to have our cake and eat it too. If we came to the conclusion
that one of these needs to be sacrificed, we could have come up with a real solution.
3. Identify a broad range of solutions
Ironically, the fact that we had so many values was actually beneficial here. We
brainstormed a wide array of solutions to cater to each of these values. When discussing
option two, for example, we saw how colleges could step in and teach us morals by
building up to higher and higher levels of morality, but we also saw how universities
may be opinionated, and so we saw how being involved in student organizations such as
Fresh START and THON can help us strengthen values like integrity and respect in and
of themselves. In the middle, we also saw encouraging more study abroad as an option as
well to encourage diversity, a swapping of cultural views that help us learn to live and
work with another culture. Overall, each solution covered very different extents of how
involved higher education should be when repairing an ailing society, and so I believe we
excelled in this particular criterion.
4. Weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions.
Overall, I dont think we weighed trade-offs of each solution as heavily as we should
have, and this could have been improved by creating a better quantity to quality ratio.
That is to say, we should have come up with fewer ideas that were analyzed in further
depth. Again, we excelled in coming up with solutions but fell short in seeing what
comes with implementing them. For example, we came up with solutions such as
examining the input vs. output of colleges to determine how much aid should be
provided to students to make higher education more fair, but we had no way of putting
this plan into action and no specifics. While we did see the value in this, we also saw how
Cribas 4
prescribing these courses may not be helpful to many majors and may be too costly for
some. For the most part, our analysis of these solutions we brainstormed was too
superficial to be useful.
5. Make the best decision possible.
We came up with too many solutions without ever comparing them and talking about
which would actually be the best. Our conversations were similar to a concept web: a
lot of ideas, but each of equal value. If we used more of a scientific method approach, and
balanced our time well enough to go through the most popular solutions, gone through
hypothetical experimentation, and analyzed how each solution would integrate with
society, we could have come up with the best decision.
6. Adequately distribute speaking opportunities.
The moderators did a great job of distributing speaking opportunities. Although there
were still some people that spoke more than others, thats inevitable. Some people have a
more fluid and open mind than others, and contribute more ideas than others.
Importantly, when any of us looked like we had something to say, the moderator was sure
to catch it, hold the conversation, and ask what was on our mind.
7. Ensure mutual comprehension.
This criteria depends partially on how well guided the discussion was. The
moderators only briefly discussed the nature of the issue at the beginning of each
discourse, and it was an unspoken notion that we all understood what was being
discussed. This may or may not have been a correct assumption to make, but based on
how the deliberation proceeded, it seemed that we knew what we were talking about as
we all contributed relevant and logical ideas in regards to each option.
Cribas 5
8. Consider other ideas and experiences.
From the beginning, it was clear that we all had a personal stake, as college students,
in each of these options, and I think we did a great job at acknowledging that by
encouraging everyone to speak. Notable, we paid even closer attention to dissenting
opinions. We were open to what everyone had to say, and were even swayed by some
ideas we hadnt thought of. For example, in option one, someone brought up how NASA
should stay relevant and from this, stemmed ideas such as encouraging special interest
camps to keep our childhood curiosity alive. By considering others ideas, we opened
new doors to new options that provided an all-encompassing discourse.
9. Respect other participants.
Both the moderator and all the participants did their best in creating an open and
respectable environment. Unlike debates that can get out of hand, Crossfire for example,
the point of this deliberation was to exchange ideas to come up with the best solution,
where society was the winner. We did this in an intellectual and purely intrinsic manner.
Conclusion:
Overall, I think my group excelled in some areas of deliberation, but fell short in
others. We did have a deliberative exchange and the goals of deliberation were reached,
but only to an extent. My first experience here with deliberation was moderately
successful, and I enjoyed the atmosphere deliberation creates: one where everyone is
treated fairly and our aim is to find the best solution for everyone involved. Like my
colleagues, I felt much more comfortable opening up in this kind of setting because it was
basically an exchange of ideas. By following John Gastils analytic and social features of
Cribas 6
deliberation, it can serve as a beneficial tool to us as a society to promote civic
engagement and political participation.
References:
1. Rhetoric & Civic Life. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. 88-89. Print.
2. Issue guide - Shaping Our Future: How Should Higher Education Help Us Create
the Society We Want?. Dayton: National Issues Forums Institute, 2012. Print.