Capizzi 1 Deliberation Topic Position and Forum Evaluation Deliberation, as opposed to a debate, is a slow, careful discussion surrounding a specific

issue with the end goal of reaching a general agreement. Through a series of thinking, observation, and presentation of opinions, a deliberation is meant to make strides regarding aa large and public issue. Our deliberation about education that took place in the classroom was not only intellectually stimulating and extremely diverse, but also productive and effective. In assessing the proper way to go about educating our children in order to better society, we found that we easily came to a general consensus without much debate. However, in drawing upon the nine criteria for deliberative discussion as presented by sociologist John Gastil in Rhetoric & Civic Life, although we did not fulfill all of them perfectly, it is evident that our discussion was still both constructive and deliberative (Crowley and Hawhee, 89). Gastil begins his criteria with analytical prerequisites by stating that a solid information base must be established. This is accomplished by discussing not only facts, but also personal and emotional experiences. Within our group discussion, this was effortless. Each and every member was a student, meaning that they themselves were experiencing the issues that the National Issues Forum was trying to address. In this way, we were all extremely educated on the topic at hand and all had personal experiences to share that were valuable contributions to the discussion. The only place where this faltered a bit was in the fact that the majority of us were Liberal Arts students and were clearly in disfavor of Option 1. This was difficult because it was evident that the few science and math oriented students that were present were quickly overshadowed or outnumbered. No one scoffed at them or dismissed their opinions, they just didnt seem as powerful or persuasive as others. For example, in analyzing the deliberation notes

Capizzi 2 from day one, there is a clear favor against increasing math and science studies, and only a handful of opinions supporting it. Gastil then advances to his next piece of criteria, prioritizing the key values at stake in the issue. This involves reflecting on your own values, as well as those of others present. Although the topic of values was never blatantly brought up in conversation, it was evident that everyone had taken into consideration such values in stating their opinions. Not one person compromised his or her own values or snubbed the values of others in forming their viewpoints. In this way, we were able to assess what values were at stake within each option and then decide accordingly what we agreed or disagreed with. John Gastil continues with his analytical process criterion saying that it is necessary to then identify a broad range of solutions by brainstorming a variety of ways to address the problem at hand. Furthermore, he encourages the deliberators to weigh the pros, cons, and tradeoffs among these solutions while recognizing the limitations of your own preferred solution and the advantages of others. This was where the majority of our discussion bloomed from. By working our way through the three options presented to us, we were able to construct an abundant amount of possible solutions simply though our dialogue. As a group we bounced ideas around and hashed out what had the potential of working and what did not. In this way we spent less time idly chit-chatting and more time honing in on the most important aspects of the deliberation. The final analytical criteria that Gastil proposes is to make the best decision possible and to update your own opinion in light of what you have learned. He makes it very clear that no complete agreement need be reached in this stage. Throughout our deliberation it was clear that we had all agreed on many different topics and viewpoints. Unfortunately, as much as I would

Capizzi 3 love to say that our conversation had a ton of variety to it, the reality was that we were almost all in agreement before the deliberation even started. Once the deliberation was completed though, it was also clear that there was no possible way to have us all agree 100% on one specific solution. Although I can only speak personally on this criteria, I noticed that throughout the three days my opinions fluctuated constantly as I listened to what others had to share. Many times I prematurely abandoned my own beliefs thinking that they raised a better argument, but in the end, I ended up right where I had started from. Gastil next delves into the social process criterion that need to be addressed in order to have an adequate and productive deliberation. To begin, he states that speaking opportunities must be adequately distributed among all members of the deliberation and that they must take turns in conversation or take other action to ensure a balanced discussion. This was not an issue in our group, especially the first day when the conversation flowed so effortlessly. Everyone had ample time to voice their opinions, no one was talking over each other, and each member had at least one thing to say. On the second and third days when conversation lagged a little more, the moderators had absolutely no trouble asking someone for their opinion if they had been quiet, posing questions to kick start dialogue, or keeping us on track in general; Sydney was especially good at that. Secondly, in order for the conversation to flow smoothly, there must be a mutual comprehension among the deliberators. Gastil encourages those involved to speak plainly to each other and ask for clarification when confused. For the most part we all spoke eloquently, but in a way that was comprehensible for everyone. Once in a while however, some had trouble finding the exact words to help them express what they were feeling. Such was the case on day three when Jay was our recorder and Alexandra was getting a little jumbled. Nevertheless Jay had no

Capizzi 4 trouble asking her to clarify her thoughts, which was how we all approached the issue when there was confusion. Gastils final two social criteria for deliberation are to consider the ideas and experiences of others: to listen carefully to what others say, especially when you disagree. This was something that I believe our group truly excelled in. It was evident that we were all very much open to the ideas and opinions of others and either took them into consideration or incorporated them into our own thoughts and perspectives. The last and possibly most important criteria presented is to respect other participants. Presume that other participants are honest and well intentioned. acknowledge their unique life experiences and perspectives. What I loved was that there was no yelling, no arguing, no pointing fingers, and no Im right, youre wrong going on. We were all extremely respectful of one another which provided a productive and easy-going atmosphere. It also caused those quieter students to feel comfortable enough to open up to the group. In analyzing John Gastils nine criteria for deliberative discussion I believe that my group did a substantial job with the deliberation process. Although we did not completely fulfill all of the criteria, we still made considerable progress and got to experience something different. It was interesting to take part in something that had a collaborative goal at the end as opposed to a winner and a loser. I felt that we truly were doing something for the betterment of society and that we had the power and potential to make significant change for the future. I would consider our deliberation a success and I hope to participate in more in the future.