As part of my CAS 138T class, we had in class deliberation days, were the class members broke into smaller groups and deliberated about the topic of sustainability. There were many approaches to the problem and these were all deliberated at length by the group members. This is my essay discussing the overall quality of the deliberation and conversation during these sessions.
Deliberation Evaluation Essay
The deliberation that occurred during the Civic Issues Forum in-class
session for the most part was very civilized and educated. Much information was distributed from the various opinions, anecdotes, and facts that each member of the deliberation brought to the table. At the end of the deliberation, a moderate approach was mostly agreed upon by the members of the session with many of the facts and opinions considered. When compared to the nine criteria for deliberative discussion in the Political Communication and Deliberation book, the in class activity proved to be very civil and effective.
As far as the first step in the Analytic Process listed in the book, the discussion did create a very solid information base. General deliberators, moderators, and recorders alike all discussed personal and emotional experiences, as well as known facts. Participants talked about their backgrounds and attitudes about sustainability as a whole. It was interesting to see how the general attitude at Penn State is geared heavily towards sustainability whereas many of our hometowns and former high schools were not as concerned about the movement. It was nice to lay some ground information and fill in some gaps on sustainability as a whole.
The next step of prioritizing the key values at stake was pretty much agreed upon by everybody as a whole. We all seemed to agree that the security and stability of our environment versus the freedoms and capital gains of Americans (and others) were at stake. With an increase in protection for the environment comes a sacrifice in freedoms for American people as well as financial repercussions. It may cost more to implement new technologies or the implementation of
taxes to protect the Earth. On the other hand, with an increase in freedoms and liberties such as driving a six liter diesel truck because you have the money, comes with a decrease in
environmental conditions and availability of natural resources. As a whole, the deliberation group agreed that we needed to find a medium between the two extremes and a plan of action that would be agreed upon by a majority to ever affect change on the topic.
As far as identifying a broad range of solutions, my group went above and
beyond in this area. Many solutions were proposed to the argument concerning sustainability.
One solution that was proposed involved an increase in taxes to cover environmental protection of clean-up efforts. Another idea also proposed was to reapportion current taxes to cover more environmental needs. Outlandish options were also proposed like somehow forcing everyone in
America to favor sustainability through brainwashing. It was good to have no lack of suggestions on how to fix the problem and even the outlandish ones gave a good laugh.
The weight of pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions was always held very close during the deliberation period. One member of the discussion would propose a solution, and then another member would respectfully pull up some problem areas with that solution. For example, the increased taxes for sustainability would definitely help the environment, but these taxes would anger many people as Americans are generally not receptive to an increase in taxes for any reason whatsoever. Option number two in the packet suggested that sustainability improvements should be accomplished through product innovations and technology. This is great but was discussed to place and undue responsibility on only scientists and engineers when the overuse of resources is really society’s problem as a whole.
On the final day, each person was able to give their concluding statement and update their opinion in order to make the best decision possible. A few opinions had changed and I know that after receiving some more information I believe that some government initiatives should be started to increase sustainability. Most of us had a middle of the road decision to fix the problem in the end, with a few disagreements, but overall the information was all considered in the decision.
To start out with some of the social aspects of the Deliberative process, each moderator adequately distributed speaking opportunities, but I did feel that an arbitrarily short time limit on statements did not help the deliberative process. I believe that each person should get around one to two minutes to fully develop their arguments. Some time limits for speaking were given at 30 to 45 seconds apiece. A little bit more time would be more conducive to better argument and responses to previous points made. Each person was called on through and was allowed to express their opinion and ideas on a topic.
I believe mutual comprehension was ensured during the in-class deliberation period and correct understanding of points made did not seem to be a problem. I tried to fully explain any information I presented during my time to talk and others did as well. It seemed that scientific
jargon and terminology had no use and was not used. Most participants spoke in plain English. I do remember a specific instance where I did not understand someone’s points about government taxation so I asked for clarification. This cleared up my confusion and the discussion resumed none the worse for wear.
One of the hardest processes of the ones listed was to consider other ideas and experiences. I know that personally, I tend to “stick to my guns” on controversial and debatable topics. With my upbringing I tend to lean more to the right on the political spectrum and am hesitant when someone brings up an increase in taxes to solve a problem. However, I respected the opinions of others and agree with some of the points presented. I would bet the same was true for other members of the group as we kept it civil and tried to understand the other members’ backgrounds and experiences on the topic of sustainability.
With our deliberation group and class as a whole I did not see any disrespect towards
other participants. There were some honest disagreements between members of the group but the process never resorted to name calling or foul language like many online forums. I believe that there was a definite presumption that all other participants were honest and well intentioned as the book states.
The Civic Issue Forum on sustainability provided overall a very positive deliberative environment. I remember one member stating that, “Man, our CAS class could really solve some of the world’s problems, too bad we’re not in government”. The discussions strayed sometimes to outlandish ideas and outside topics, but it was kept mostly on topic and many solutions were posed as well as questions. I fully believe that this activity could be completed again with a more controversial topic, and the overall deliberativeness would remain on the same positive level.
Deliberation Evaluation Essay
The deliberation that occurred during the Civic Issues Forum in-class
session for the most part was very civilized and educated. Much information was distributed from the various opinions, anecdotes, and facts that each member of the deliberation brought to the table. At the end of the deliberation, a moderate approach was mostly agreed upon by the members of the session with many of the facts and opinions considered. When compared to the nine criteria for deliberative discussion in the Political Communication and Deliberation book, the in class activity proved to be very civil and effective.
As far as the first step in the Analytic Process listed in the book, the discussion did create a very solid information base. General deliberators, moderators, and recorders alike all discussed personal and emotional experiences, as well as known facts. Participants talked about their backgrounds and attitudes about sustainability as a whole. It was interesting to see how the general attitude at Penn State is geared heavily towards sustainability whereas many of our hometowns and former high schools were not as concerned about the movement. It was nice to lay some ground information and fill in some gaps on sustainability as a whole.
The next step of prioritizing the key values at stake was pretty much agreed upon by everybody as a whole. We all seemed to agree that the security and stability of our environment versus the freedoms and capital gains of Americans (and others) were at stake. With an increase in protection for the environment comes a sacrifice in freedoms for American people as well as financial repercussions. It may cost more to implement new technologies or the implementation of
taxes to protect the Earth. On the other hand, with an increase in freedoms and liberties such as driving a six liter diesel truck because you have the money, comes with a decrease in
environmental conditions and availability of natural resources. As a whole, the deliberation group agreed that we needed to find a medium between the two extremes and a plan of action that would be agreed upon by a majority to ever affect change on the topic.
As far as identifying a broad range of solutions, my group went above and
beyond in this area. Many solutions were proposed to the argument concerning sustainability.
One solution that was proposed involved an increase in taxes to cover environmental protection of clean-up efforts. Another idea also proposed was to reapportion current taxes to cover more environmental needs. Outlandish options were also proposed like somehow forcing everyone in
America to favor sustainability through brainwashing. It was good to have no lack of suggestions on how to fix the problem and even the outlandish ones gave a good laugh.
The weight of pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions was always held very close during the deliberation period. One member of the discussion would propose a solution, and then another member would respectfully pull up some problem areas with that solution. For example, the increased taxes for sustainability would definitely help the environment, but these taxes would anger many people as Americans are generally not receptive to an increase in taxes for any reason whatsoever. Option number two in the packet suggested that sustainability improvements should be accomplished through product innovations and technology. This is great but was discussed to place and undue responsibility on only scientists and engineers when the overuse of resources is really society’s problem as a whole.
On the final day, each person was able to give their concluding statement and update their opinion in order to make the best decision possible. A few opinions had changed and I know that after receiving some more information I believe that some government initiatives should be started to increase sustainability. Most of us had a middle of the road decision to fix the problem in the end, with a few disagreements, but overall the information was all considered in the decision.
To start out with some of the social aspects of the Deliberative process, each moderator adequately distributed speaking opportunities, but I did feel that an arbitrarily short time limit on statements did not help the deliberative process. I believe that each person should get around one to two minutes to fully develop their arguments. Some time limits for speaking were given at 30 to 45 seconds apiece. A little bit more time would be more conducive to better argument and responses to previous points made. Each person was called on through and was allowed to express their opinion and ideas on a topic.
I believe mutual comprehension was ensured during the in-class deliberation period and correct understanding of points made did not seem to be a problem. I tried to fully explain any information I presented during my time to talk and others did as well. It seemed that scientific
jargon and terminology had no use and was not used. Most participants spoke in plain English. I do remember a specific instance where I did not understand someone’s points about government taxation so I asked for clarification. This cleared up my confusion and the discussion resumed none the worse for wear.
One of the hardest processes of the ones listed was to consider other ideas and experiences. I know that personally, I tend to “stick to my guns” on controversial and debatable topics. With my upbringing I tend to lean more to the right on the political spectrum and am hesitant when someone brings up an increase in taxes to solve a problem. However, I respected the opinions of others and agree with some of the points presented. I would bet the same was true for other members of the group as we kept it civil and tried to understand the other members’ backgrounds and experiences on the topic of sustainability.
With our deliberation group and class as a whole I did not see any disrespect towards
other participants. There were some honest disagreements between members of the group but the process never resorted to name calling or foul language like many online forums. I believe that there was a definite presumption that all other participants were honest and well intentioned as the book states.
The Civic Issue Forum on sustainability provided overall a very positive deliberative environment. I remember one member stating that, “Man, our CAS class could really solve some of the world’s problems, too bad we’re not in government”. The discussions strayed sometimes to outlandish ideas and outside topics, but it was kept mostly on topic and many solutions were posed as well as questions. I fully believe that this activity could be completed again with a more controversial topic, and the overall deliberativeness would remain on the same positive level.
RSS Feed