Steltz1

Austin Steltz
May 7, 2014
English 138H
Kyle King
Recognition and Respect of Diverse Backgrounds
Deliberation, or thorough, mediated discussion, is key to facilitating the progression of
societal solutions representative of all of the deliberation participants personal backgrounds.
However, voicing controversial viewpoints can often lead to arguments, which if not quelled,
will lead to the breakdown of the deliberation. It is the role of the moderator to encourage the
participants to examine why these opposing viewpoints exist if they are relevant to the topic,
and to bring the participants back on topic if they allow their personal arguments to distract
them from the deliberation.
When conflicts arise, there are a number of factors a moderator must analyze before
intervening. The first factor the moderator must consider is whether the conflict is somehow
related to the topic of the deliberation, or has arisen over some other matter. If the conflict is
directly related to the deliberation, the moderator should guide the discussion to focus around
the conflict, by examining the different viewpoints that caused the conflict to arise. For
example, in a deliberation regarding general education requirements, if an Engineering Major
and an English Major began to argue over the value of English courses as a general education
requirement, the moderator should direct the deliberation to examine why the Engineering
Steltz2

Major and English Major value the general education requirements differently. By guiding the
deliberation to make it apparent why differences in viewpoints occur, the moderator can help
the participants develop a solution that maximizes the satisfaction of all the participants of the
deliberation.
However, on occasion, arguments between deliberation participants will break out that
have very little relevance to the topic of discussion. Such arguments occasionally occurred
during our in-class deliberation, when two individuals began to quibble over whose major had
more value. These kinds of arguments contribute nothing to the deliberation, and can often
lead to deliberation derailment. When these arguments arise, it is the job of the moderator to
intervene, and gently guide the deliberation back to the pre-decided topic of discussion.
Nonetheless, a moderator may occasionally encounter a participant who seems
determined to derail the deliberation. This participant repeatedly and frequently insults the
other participants, which in turn leads to arguments and the halt of deliberation. These kinds of
participants are extremely damaging to the deliberative environment, where understanding of
different views are supposed to be facilitated. If an individual continues to catalyze fruitless
arguments, the moderator will have no choice but to remove the participant from the
deliberation. Though this action may seem contrary to an environment where all viewpoints are
to be considered, a moderator may have to remove an individual if said individual risks derailing
the entire deliberation. If this course of action is reached, the moderator must announce that
he or she knows dismissing the individuals goes against the foundations of deliberation, but it is
Steltz3

a necessary action to assure the entire deliberation does not collapse due to one individuals
unwillingness to consider the views of others.
Deliberation is about encouraging the understanding of why opposing views regarding a
topic arise. It is the goal of the moderator to encourage understanding as much as possible, by
steering the discussion to examine differing viewpoints, diverting the deliberation away from
unrelated arguments, and infrequently expelling deliberation trolls , who want nothing else
than to see the deliberation fail.