Overall, I found my group’s deliberation to be extremely successful. My group was able to facilitate a multifaceted and thought-provoking conversation concerning the implementation of mental health services in high schools, and explore a wide variety of possibilities for the future.
We were able to establish a solid information base and consider unique ideas and experiences of our participants. In the beginning of our deliberation, we opted to include a Personal Stakes section. This section allowed us to share our own experiences with mental health services in our high school careers to our audience, adding a layer of relatability and interest to the presentation. Additionally, the Personal Stakes section also gave our participants an opportunity to create a more two-sided dialogue and help us to explore previously unconsidered viewpoints. Each human has their own unique set of experiences and ideas, and to recognize this in a project such as this was crucial to the success of our conversation. I found this section to be both eye-opening and beneficial to our overall discussion.
My group was also able to explore a broad range of solutions and center on the best decisions possible. In a topic as complex yet crucial as this, it is important to consider all possible solutions, imperfect as they may be, and consider each benefit and drawback. I felt that in our deliberation we did an excellent job of doing so. Although our conversation centered mainly around three key approaches–addressing mental health early on in educational curriculum, standardizing mental health action plans across the country, and providing equal attention to college processes and students’ mental health–we were able to branch out from these overarching topics and deliberate about a variety of solutions and methods to improving mental health services across the nation. We weighed each pro and con carefully, from the responsibilities of guidance counselors to costs to everything in between, and explored a vital conversation in depth.
In addition to overall content, I felt that the process of deliberating as a whole was extremely successful for our group. I was both proud and relieved to see such active participation from our audience members and it was with their contributions that we were able to have a truly engaging discussion. Despite the challenges of hosting such an event over Zoom, I felt that there were little to no occurrences where people were interrupted or lost the opportunity to speak. I thought that the deliberation was able to open up a wide range of possibilities all while maintaining time constraints and civil aspects of a public discussion. I found the conversation to be highly respectful and open-minded as well. Although most audience members came from a variety of different backgrounds and experiences, I did not notice any instances where people’s opinions were dismissed or deemed invaluable. Every participant spoke honestly and genuinely, drawing from their own life experiences and contributing highly unique solutions and thought processes to the group. Overall, it was the audience–as well as our own successful preparation–that made the deliberation as successful as it was.
I found my own experiences as a participant to be equally as rewarding. In fact, since the stress of taking notes and leading a debate was lifted off of my shoulders, I felt that I was able to engage in and comprehend the conversation even more fully. For one, I thought that each group did a fantastic job of establishing a strong information base as a foundation for their deliberation. The group that focused on media bias and representation was particularly interesting to me. Being that I am a female film major and face this gender bias on a near-daily basis–both on-screen and behind the scenes–, I was particularly engaged in this discussion and felt that I had a lot to add to and explore in the argument.
In addition to personal stakes, I thought that each group was successful in ensuring mutual comprehension for each audience member. Specifically, the deliberation surrounding cyber security can often become an argument bogged down with technical jargon, and I thought that the group did an excellent job in breaking things down into terms everyone could understand. This process also added another layer of relevancy and interest to their argument. I also noticed that group leaders frequently rephrased questions to ensure maximum clarity and comprehension. If there was a silent gap in the Zoom meeting–which much too often happens–, leaders would reword their approach and address the problem in a different way. This ensured mutual comprehension for all parties involved.
Finally, I thought that each group respected each participant’s perspectives. While reviewing the issue guides before each class period, I thought that the hate speech deliberation in particular might give way to some particularly incendiary dialogues. It is often in today’s political climate that people become quite divided from one another, as well as ignorant of the other side’s opinion. However, in this deliberation, I did not find this to be the case. Each audience member was extremely respectful of each viewpoint presented, and the resulting dialogue was both well-rounded and open-minded.
As a whole, I found this project to be thought-provoking, engaging, and successful. Each group did a fantastic job exploring their topics in depth, and I look forward to seeing how these issues will continue to be addressed and implemented in everyday life.