Jessica Badia CAS 138T Civic Issues Forum Deliberation The in-class deliberations were not only successful

in teaching the class the necessities of a deliberation and how to deliberate correctly, but they also progressed very nicely throughout the weeks of deliberation. There was a large change from the first day to the last. We were able to catch onto what we did wrong during our reflections and conclusions and also gained a lot from the help of the professor who pointed out things that needed to be fixed. Sustainability may not have been an interesting topic for some or most of the students in the class, but that did not seem to be a problem once the conversations were started. The use of Gastils nine criteria for deliberation was very apparent in the deliberations that we had, showing that the class grasped the concepts of deliberation well and were able to bring the teachings from the readings we had done into the deliberations. These deliberations began with stating personal stakes in order to form a foundation for the conversations and then went on to use both the analytic and social processes of deliberation. During the first day of the forum, we came together to discuss our personal stakes in order to set a base for the deliberations and to determine exactly where everyone stood on the topic. This discussion started off very slow, but with some prompting from the professor, we were able to start thinking of how and why we felt the way we did. It was interesting to hear what everyone had to say, because each student had a personal reason for why he or she felt that way. It ranged from broad personal stakes that most people agreed on, such as the opposition to higher gas prices, to specific examples, such as that of Ammara. She was able to explain her experience, or lack thereof, with sustainability in the UAE, which was very informative for those

of us who have never lived out of the country. This explanation gave us a different perspective on sustainability. There was also some agreement that the issue of sustainability was not very interesting to many of us. It seemed to fall below most other priorities, such as education and military (though not everyone agreed with this). Prioritizing our key values falls under the second criterion. For most of us, sustainability took the back seat in a society that is more focused on moving forward in the future instead of taking a step back in order to help with sustainability. It was also hard for those of us who did not know much about the topic to have strong opinions on the issue besides that it should not be highly prioritized. Though many of us agreed on this, our reasons were different. For example, I value traveling and visiting family members who live far from me and therefore I would hate having higher gas prices. Those with values that led them to believe that staying close to family consequently did not have the same reason as I did for not wanting higher gas prices. Aside from that, it was a nice introduction to the topic, because it made us think about the issue of sustainability from different points of view and also helped us to get a sense of who would advocate what during the deliberations. As Gastil explains in his book, creating this information base is the first of the nine criteria and is extremely important in analyzing the topic and the group. Sadly, we lacked in explaining why some of us did not feel strongly about sustainability. Not prioritizing sustainability is an opinion that should be explained rather than just stated. The NIF issues book helped get us started towards talking about how we felt about specific issues, which assisted us in getting more of a reaction from the class. This step also helped us prioritize the values that we discussed, although not everyone agreed on this. This is the second criterion that Gastil explains. We used this prioritization again later on in the week when we discussed where sustainability landed in our

lists of priorities. Most people agreed that it was pretty low on the list, though the argument did get heated and a bit off topic when a classmate did disagree. The deliberations themselves were laid out very well in the sense that they were ongoing and, included thought provoking questions, and had a wide range of opinions and points of view. The options laid out many possible solutions to the problems, but as a class, we came up with some alternate solutions that we preferred. This makes up the third criterion for deliberation. For example, during the deliberation of Option 2, Mike proposed reducing the use of non-renewable sources and Gwen proposed doing our own research in order to learn more about sustainability and form a bigger stake in it. During the deliberation of Option 3, I proposed having classes to help with sustainability offered in high schools but not mandated. We were able to make suggestions like these through the weighing of pros and cons, which is the fourth criterion. We discussed what we were willing to do as well as what we were completely against doing. In the end, some people were able to compromise and agree on solutions that had more pros than cons. These decisions were the best possible decisions we could come up with at the time, and though they did not make everyone happy, the majority of the class agreed upon them. Making these decisions makes up the fifth criterion of deliberation. The social process of the deliberations was rocky at some points. There were some awkward silences and moments, in which people were called out for not speaking, but they did develop nicely and by the last deliberation I thought that we were doing a good job with them. Although, the second option was moderated in a way that I did not quite agree with. I thought that it was inappropriate to make everyone go in a circle and say what they felt and I also did not appreciate how many times people were called out for not speaking enough. This seems to violate the social process of respecting others, because if someone does not feel comfortable

speaking about a certain topic he or she should not be forced to. This is the sixth criterion. Due to the fact that adequately distributing speaking time is important and is considered the seventh criterion for deliberation, moderators need to learn how to get people involved in the conversation without calling on people. This can be done by trying to appeal to particular people or by asking what others think about a certain situation. It seemed more like a teacher teaching a class than a deliberation in this case. I cannot put all of the blame on the moderators, because that option was definitely the hardest because the class seemed to have the least connections to that option. I personally thought that the best moderator was Gwen, who moderated for the first option. She was able to get everyone involved in the conversation without making anyone feel pressured into speaking about something they did not want to discuss. Also, she moderated alone, which would have most likely freaked me out, but she took on the challenge with pleasure and did a better job than most groups did. I thought that all of the moderators did a good job in clearing up any misunderstandings, which is the eighth criterion. I realized that misunderstandings happened quite a bit in the last deliberation of option three. In this deliberation, many of the students cleared up the misunderstandings themselves, such as when Mike and Steven cleared up their opinions on the American Dream, which ended up showing that they agreed on the subject. Steven did an especially good job considering other opinions during this deliberation, which is the ninth criterion. He heard what everyone had to say, and though he seemed to be the only one to disagree, he stayed very calm and handled the situation respectfully. This is important, because being able to understand that everyone grew up in different situations and therefore would have different opinions is imperative. During the first deliberation, the discussion got a little hostile when a disagreement on the prioritization of sustainability came up because of the fact that people were not willing to hear each other out on

the topic. The respect for each other did diminish during this part of the deliberation, but for the most part, people were respectful of one another. Though some classmates did disagree with each other, it was clear that no one wanted to attack anyone else, and instead just wanted to state their own opposing opinions in order to give a different point of view. This environment in which people respectfully gave their opposing opinions made people more open to listening to each other. In my case, it even persuaded me to change some of my original thoughts. I think that most people were pretty open to admitting that their original thoughts had changed because of something that someone had stated in class. Overall, I thought that these deliberations were entertaining and very informative. I was able to learn a lot about sustainability that I did not know before, hear my classmates points of views on the topic, form some new opinions of my own on sustainability, and most importantly, I was able to learn about what makes a deliberation successful. These deliberations are very different from online deliberations, because they are more spontaneous and less censored. They also include more raw emotions and give everyone involved the opportunity to make others understand you on a more personal level. We were able to work through all of the steps of deliberation and also followed the criteria that Gastil lays out in his. We may not be professional deliberators yet, but we definitely have grown and can more effectively deliberate with others now. In our conclusion, we did point out some aspects of the deliberations that we did not approach well, such as setting a clear goal for the deliberations or talking about a wider range of topics within sustainability rather than getting caught up in one topic. It is hard to point these things out while deliberating, but when looking back on it, it is easy to realize what was done wrong. Pointing out these problems will really help us be more effective in the future with deliberations such as these, especially with coming to clear conclusions.

Works Cited Gastil, John. Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008.