The Deliberation that I attended was on Monday, February 20 called Deliberation Nation: A Deliberation on Sanctuary Cities. I decided to attend this particular deliberation because this was the same topic that we had chosen as our controversy video topic. Because I already had some knowledge on the subject, I was interested to see the different perspectives that students held on this topic. What made this deliberation even more appealing to attend was that our deliberation topic was similar to theirs. We both shared the overlap of relating to immigration policy. Even though our topic was more broad, it was very helpful to witness.
The deliberation was held at Webster’s Bookstore. Because of the unique vibe the bookstore gave off, it allowed for a very accepting and laid back atmosphere that encouraged discussion to take place. There was a small audience, but every audience member participated by offering their opinions to the questions. It allowed for a dynamic discussion that took on a broad range of ideas.
I like how the deliberation group presented all of the history and research of the subject before they started to ask questions on it. In the research section, they provided both sides of the argument so that they weren’t taking one side on the matter. I also saw how important it was to ask open ended questions so that the questions don’t sway the audience in any way. Open ended questions also encourage more audience participation.
One thing I noticed that each group did a very good job with, was being able to adapt to the opinions of the audience members and building their questions off of them. This allowed for a smooth, relevant conversation to take place without and sharp changes of subject or material. I think that being able to adapt to the audience members opinions and make up questions on the spot is a good tool to use.
I also like how the members of the deliberation team were able to participate because they were able to give a more factual argument since they had researched the topic. They also offered additional questions to the deliberation that were able to keep the discussion going.
The one thing that I did not like that the deliberation team did was they asked the audience who was liberal and who was conservative. The member said “Are there any brave conservatives out there?” I do not think that it should have been said in this manner, conservatives should not be afraid to share their views of who they are just because of recent events. Being a conservative and feeling like I am already in the minority on campus who can’t share my opinion for fear of being ridiculed, I did not appreciate that comment. I don’t think it was necessary to have people identify with a certain party before the discussion even started.
I do think that each side was equally represented and we covered the topic in many aspects. The deliberation allowed me to broaden my ideas on sanctuary cities, because I got to hear a diverse range of ideas that I had never previously thought about before. For example, the fact that we expected immigrants to earn their place in America, when Americans do not have to earn there place, they are simply just born here. I had never thought about immigration in that way. Most of the information that was presented, I had known from previous research on the topic for the controversy project, but what I did not think about was the connection to federalism and whether the state or national government should have more of a say in sanctuary cities.
Leave a Reply