Deliberation Reflection

The national issues format of deliberation offered up an unconventional way of

discussion that fostered the idea of collective thinking and mutual respect for others opinions.
But oftentimes the subjects of each deliberation were too foreign for us to discuss the issues on
more than a simplistic level. Our in class deliberation was one that was successful at points
because of strong moderators but the dominant opinions in our group combined with the
lackluster questions we were proposed led to large amounts of useless rhetoric that encapsulated
the majority of each class.
Personally, creating a solid information base was most essential in option one because the
argument between funding of stem vs non-stem majors must be based in economic gains and
personal income. I began by looking up statistics from universities focused in these fields MIT,
RIT, RPI, and WPI to understand the direct benefits of these majors. Along with this information
I looked at possible refutation sources that discuss the importance of the arts and liberal arts
education. This contrast allowed me to create a clear opinion that was deeply rooted in fact based
on economic factors and utility gained from these professions. My efforts paid massive dividends
during the deliberation of option one because I was able to give substantial information that
discussed how stem fields were the basis of economic growth despite the fact they might not be
as sexy. My preparation drastically shifted the course of the conversation as we began to discuss
how stem majors need to be exemplified at elementary school levels to promote economic
growth. The shift truly opened up the course of conversation because it allowed the stem oriented
students to engage other students in why they think these fields need to be glorified at a young
age.
One area I think most students struggled was prioritizing their key values about each
issue because I think each students personal stake in an issue became too large of a factor. The
use of personal anecdotes were largely overused as often the flow of conversation would go from
something productive to someones random story about how they hated one general education
course. This is where I think people lacked proper training as the majority of peoples arguments
were based on the archetype opinion of their major. For example, in option three many students
used the conversation of gen ed reform to discuss how engineering students shouldnt have to
take Econ 102 or how business major shouldnt have to touch a science course. These points
began to drag down the flow of discussion because people started to constantly complain about
how these courses were annoying and seemed to offer nothing in return. And I even found
myself, despite my best efforts, falling into this trap. The balance was my main sticking point
throughout the deliberation process because it was hard not to throw my personal disdain for one
class or teacher into the mix instead of saying something constructive. This flow of useless
rhetoric led to about a half an hour of monotonous sharing during option three. Day three was by
far our weakest collectively as a few strong and organized comments would be dragged down by
one persons strong opinion about a class or subject.
When attempting to understand the format of the national issues forum one consistent
point was finding common ground when two people had drastically different opinions. As
college honors students we all have strong opinions regarding certain issues and I think for many
people agreeing to disagree was a nearly impossible task. At first people seemed apprehensive to
speak because each of us was trying to understand which personal boundaries couldnt be
crossed. So for about the first half an hour everyone was being extremely calculated while
speaking until someone brought up how liberal arts majors should receive less funding. After this
point, despite the best effort of the moderators, the conversation was dominated by a few strong
personalities who basically discouraged others to speak and werent willing to compromise. I
believe though finding common ground was my strength during each session because I was
willing to accept others opinions and make concessions if it was for the betterment of the
conversation. I was never domineering over any situation and was trying to invoke each person
to participate.
But on the flipside were certain issues such as funding that I was not willing to budge on.
This careful balancing act was difficult because making concessions to me was okay on issues
such as gen eds but I held firm on my stance on equal funding for all majors. On the first day of
deliberation I took my hardest stance of any topic because multiple people were stating that
because stem majors have a larger economic incentive they should receive more aid. And
because I disagreed drastically with this reasoning I respectable stated that, although, I would
listen to other reasons I couldnt change my own opinion. But the balance of compromise, as
stated in the guidelines for deliberation, is the most difficult decision for each participant to make
because they must decide whether to concede some ideas for the betterment of conversation or to
hold firm in their deep rooted opinions. I found that when a situation seemed to even have a hint
of morality all participants in my group, including myself, became unmovable in our opinions.
But I think the guidelines of deliberation rather than those of argumentation or debate allow for
mutual disagreement which I found was essential for the flow of discussion.
The distribution of speaking opportunities no matter what the topic was a nearly
impossible task because of sheer number of strong opinions in our group. Despite the best efforts
of each moderator every deliberation came down to the ideas of a few and everyone else was left
to pick sides. But despite the deliberate inequality of speaking opportunities there were a few
specific methods I used to diffuse this minority. And personally I believe my conclusion period
and the option two moderators were able to spread the wealth in a more equal manner. I think the
strength of my moderation was the sheer variety of questions I asked. Due to my strict time limit
of fifteen minutes I purposefully created three minutes slots for each topic. For example, I gave
three minutes to stem majors, another three to the need for gen eds, and then another three for
how Penn State should reinvest funding for academic programs. I think by setting a basic outline
it allowed me to control the flow of the discussion and try to reallocate speaking opportunities
and change questions when a power struggle seemed to be beginning.
One area where the national issues forum fails is the idea of mutual understanding
because they only offer basic information about each issue brief. The inequality of prior
knowledge gave specific students a leg up when it came to speaking logically and knowledgably
which allowed them to dominate the conversation. These inadequacies became most apparent
during the middle of our option three deliberation. While a select few students understood the
curriculum that every Penn State students needs to take most had no idea beyond their set of
core classes. This specific situation is just one example of how the topics of our briefs allowed a
few students distinct advantage because of irrelevant prior knowledge that shouldnt affect each
students ability to communicate effectively. The disparity in knowledge, also led to
conversations that only discussed the information that was in the packets that included a few
personal anecdotes. I think overall the topics chosen should have been more mainstream ideas
that every person can relate to rather than trying to understand the basis of stem major funding.
Although the national issues forum lays forth clear guidelines for deliberation our group
was often bogged down by personal anecdotes and lack of prior knowledge about the topics. But
strong leadership from specific moderators allowed for some constructive conversation in
between the bantering of the dominant personalities in our group. The experience, to me,
represented one that presented a new way to communicate but was dragged down by the strong
opinions of a few.