Brown 1

Kevin Brown

Dr. Freymiller
CAS 138T
27 February 2014
Deliberation Reflection
The Civic Issues Forum is the first time in college where I feel that I have participated in
a spirited and structured form of discussion. The respectful deliberation I was able to have with
the members of my group is a testament to the power of open-minded discussion. Several of the
group members shared opinions and stories that allowed me to reevaluate my own feelings about
the subject of higher education. A point that kept resurfacing in our discussion of higher
education was the failure of primary and secondary education to prepare students for higher
education. Although our forum revolved around the reformation of higher education, most of us
felt that the real problems with Americas system of education was actually a lower-tier issue.
Despite this, we tried our best to weigh out the pros and cons of each option regarding the reform
of higher education; overall, I felt that the group did an excellent job of approaching the forum
with an open mind, and listened to each other attentively. The relevance of the topic to our own
lives made the issue perfect for us to discuss and each of us had personal ideas and experiences
regarding the issue. For me at least, being able to hear those opinions and experiences gave me
the opportunity to rethink my own ideas of what higher education is currently, and what it should
be in the future.
Deliberation requires that the participants be informed through personal experience,
research, or word-of-mouth. In order to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way, what
is being put forth as a fact must actually be trueif anyone is stating something that is false, it
Brown 2

could actually harm the discussion by provoking fallacious opinions. For the most part, this was
not a possible problem that had to be considered during the groups deliberation, since most of
our discussion relied on personal experiences and opinions rather than facts. Many members of
the group relied on their experiences to form and share their opinions with others. For example,
Option One, which suggested higher education be reformed to be more centered around STEM
related studies, was questioned by certain STEM-major students within the group. Although they
believed STEM disciplines were important, some of the STEM-students thought that forcing
people to take STEM classes would prove to be difficult. Their own experiences with the
difficulties of studying STEM subjects was the basis for this belief; if people in STEM majors
struggle with STEM classes, they posited that Humanities majors would most likely not be able
to withstand the rigor of these classes. A Liberal Arts major student agreed with this sentiment
she said she felt that if she was forced to take classes like Physics, she would not be able to focus
on disciplines where her talents lied, such as those within the Humanities. A chemical
engineering major within the group also talked about how she felt pushed into a STEM major;
she related this experience to what would occur if we forced people entering college education to
pursue STEM studies. Another instance in which our information base was built upon experience
rather than facts was in our discussion of Option Three, which suggested higher education be
reformed to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance. A couple of members felt strongly about
this option because they had come from areas where their peers and community were never
really given the opportunity to pursue higher education. I could easily relate to this experience
because a large portion of my class went to either careers or community college after graduation.
One member also shared a story about her fathers struggle to receive a higher education. Her
story about her fathers dilemmas seemed to stir the group and make them reevaluate their own
Brown 3

feelings about the option. The sharing of these experiences became the information base upon
which the people of my group had to revise their preexisting ideas and opinions.
Beliefs and values that were held prior to the deliberation played a large role in how the
groups discussion played out. The personal stakes segment encompassed much of these types of
beliefs. A Liberal Arts major talked about her concern with Option One because it ignores the
importance of the humanities. I raised an objection to Option One because I thought it violated
the idea of American freedom in higher education. I believed, and still do to an extent, that since
we are paying for our college education, it should be an experience molded in our liking. The fair
and equally valid counter-argument made was that Universities have the freedom to prioritize
certain realms of education over others. Although every member of the group came in with prior
beliefs, it seemed that every person was able to put their beliefs on hold, for the purposes of
the deliberation. Each of us felt free to share our beliefs while also realizing that they would not
match every other persons within the group. Most importantly, we were able to deliberate
without anyone feeling as if their beliefs were being devalued or disrespected; in turn, the
respectful open-sharing of our principles gave us the opportunity to see an idea from a different
perspective.
The packet we had to work with contained some general proposals on implementing each
of the options. Member of our group drew solutions from both inside and outside of the packet
given to us. Some of the solutions we synthesized were slightly revised versions of those
outlined in the packet. For example, we agreed that it could be beneficial to have more college
students study STEM disciplines as Option One suggested, but we thought that this could only be
accomplished if the STEM disciplines be readjusted to be more easily accessible and less
daunting. We proposed that a STEM education could be beneficial to many students if it were
Brown 4

offered in a way that was less competitive and more encouraging. We thought more students
would be interested in pursuing STEM studies and research if they felt they werent going to fail
or be weeded out of those types of course. For Option Two, which proposed students receive a
Humanities type education, we proposed another revised solution. Some members of the group
suggested that students in other disciplines be forced to take more humanities courses, but that
those courses simply augment their own discipline to a greater degreein a sense, they were
suggesting that General Education simply be enlarged to accommodate more Humanities studies
for those students outside of the Humanities. An Option Three solution the group synthesized
that was not outlined in the packet was the idea of increased University Outreach; a member of
the group suggested that more University officials visit poorer school districts to motivate and
inspire students within these districts. Overall, I was impressed by our groups ability to consider
solutions that were creative and pertinent to each option at hand.
Although I was impressed by the groups ability to synthesize creative solutions, we may
not have adequately considered the trade-offs and costs of these solutions. In retrospect, our
solutions may have been too demanding. The idea of making STEM courses easier and more
attractive to incoming college students may sound like a good idea, but the reduced rigor could
also result in engineers or scientists that are not prepared for a rigorous career. Universities
would run the risk of producing sub-par STEM students into the professional world, which could
be a tremendous problem, especially if those students go on to work in medical fields in which
they are entrusted with the lives of their patients. Other ideas suggested, such as reallocating
scholarships and reforming general education, would call for sweeping reforms that may just not
be realistic. Even after discussion, most of the members of the group still had their own preferred
solution; each of us had our own opinion about which suggested solution was of greatest
Brown 5

importance to implement. Although the group was able to see the advantages of all of the
solutions, it was apparent that each person had their own prioritized problem and corresponding
solution.
On the final day of deliberation, the group briefly reflected on the discussion we had
about each option on the previous days. Since the group could not decide on a single option to
implement, we decided to highlight the most important problems that each option outlined. This
final day of reflection gave the group the opportunity to consider what the most important issue
of each option was, and also what might be the most effective way to confront that issue. It
seemed unfair to come to a joint decision on our final day of reflection because we felt each
option had its own particular merits and flaws. The combination of solutions (which we called
Option 4) taken from all the options was:
1. Expose students to STEM subjects from a younger age and offer easier STEM
courses in college.
2. Universities should require students to take more classes that teach Ethics,
Communication, Collaboration, and other professional skills. These types of skills are
important no matter what the students major is.
3. Universities should provide outreach to poorer school districts. They should sponsor
programs for students from these districts.
Although many more suggestions were made, the solutions above were the ones the group
agreed were most important. The group seemed to feel that the implementation of these
solutions, although they would not please everyone, would satisfy the majority and make
improvements in the structure of higher education. The deliberation gave me the opportunity to
reconsider my own opinion in comparison to the opinions of others; the voicing of their opinions
Brown 6

forced me to revise my priorities so a suitable compromise could be reached. I think that the
compromise reached on our final day of deliberation reflects how personal priorities were able to
be set aside in order to please the greater majority.
In my opinion, the social process of our deliberation was above average. Each member of
the group was respectful, cooperative, and attentive. Since each member of the group was so
respectful, it wasnt necessary for the moderators to create rules by which the discussion had to
be carried out. Although sometimes members of the group would raise their hand to speak, the
discussion mostly flowed in a manner where each member would speak whenever a pause in the
conversation occurred. Even if members began speaking at the same time, one member would
always relinquish the opportunity to speak to the other. In order to ensure that every member of
the group would share their opinions, moderators would sometimes pose certain questions to a
particular person within in the group; these specific lines of questioning were always met with an
enthusiastic answer, and it was an effective method of ensuring that all members of the group
were participating. Although it is impossible to create entirely equal speaking opportunities, I
think that the discussion was fairly well-balanced.
Every member of the group was also glad to clarify their statements by providing more
elaboration or specific details. The requested clarifications actually had the effect of enriching
the discussion because they required the speaker to explain themselves in a more detailed
manner. These detailed clarifications were formed through personal experiences, different
vocabulary, or extended knowledge about the topic. I cannot recall any instance in our
deliberation where any members of the group could not understand what another group member
was saying after clarification was given; the comfort that each of us felt with asking for further
elaboration enabled us to have a more interesting deliberation.
Brown 7

Overall, each member of the group was attentive and interested in the discussion at hand.
I can recall a few times where it seemed some members seemed to be inattentive, but they were
rare occurrences. The attention was especially acute when ideas being presented were in conflict
with the values of certain group members. For example, during the groups discussion of Option
Three, one group member was stressing the importance of reaching out to students from poorer
school districts. In response to this sentiment, another group member stated his concern that the
outreach might be wasted if the students did not take advantage of the provided opportunity.
Although the group member acknowledged this concern, she still felt that these students were not
being given equal opportunities. This exchange forced both of members of the group to
reconsider their ideas about Option Three, even if neither member necessarily changed their
opinion entirely. Instances such as this were frequent during our deliberation and I feel that each
member of the group was listening very carefully to each others ideas and experiences.
In my opinion, the most important facet of any good discussion is the factor of respect. I
think that every member of the group showed their ability to respectfully share their experiences
and opinions, despite the differences between us. Each member of the group had a very unique
perspective to offer, and sharing those perspectives allowed myself and the others to see the
discussion from different vantage points. Without the factor of respect, deliberation turns into a
battle of wills; if the members of the group did not respect each others values, we all would
have just disregarded how the implementation of each option affects a larger community.
Respect also affects how comfortable each member of the group feels. If any member of the
group felt disrespected, they may have been less inclined to contribute to the discussion. Since
good deliberation requires that every person voice their opinion, respecting every single
Brown 8

members ideas and experiences is also a requirement. I believe that each member of the group
felt respected, and therefore comfortably shared their thoughts and feelings.
After participating in a small-sized group deliberation, I think I have come to a better
understanding of the potential benefits, and potential drawbacks, of any discussion. If
deliberation is carried out in a disrespectful, willful, and narrow-minded manner, then it may
actually do more harm than good. If you have participated in an effective deliberation, you
should feel that your preconceived opinions and ideas about the topic was adequately challenged,
even if they havent changed. This is the aspect of discussion that many people today undervalue
because it requires that they actually think about what others are saying to them. The hardest task
is putting our own thoughts aside so we can consider the thoughts of others; deliberation requires
a depth of empathy that is often hard to come by. If society was able to learn to more effectively
carry out deliberative discussion, I believe that we would be able to compromise more
efficiently. Deliberation is not about finding the flaws in the other partys argument; it is about
seeing the reasons why the other party feels that way, and being able to see the flaws in your own
argument.