The deliberation nation project was one unlike any other so far this year because we engaged with the community on a rewarding new level. My group’s deliberation, Womb to Tomb: What we Owe Our Parents attracted a crowd of at least ten attendants, all of whom contributed to an incredibly thoughtful discussion and raised different issues, points, and perspectives relating to the topic. Attending another group’s discussion was also very valuable (I attended the Living in a Barbie World deliberation about single-use plastics) as it familiarized me with the college student community’s general thoughts and opinions on the topic of single-use plastics.

Overall, I think my Deliberation Nation team did very well on this project. We all put in all we could to ensure the project was complete and went off without a hitch. Finding a topic was quite a process. I’m someone who loves listing huge amounts of ideas when coordinating a brainstorming session, so I immediately started writing down every single idea people could think of, no matter how terrible, and I later typed them up for everyone to see and add to. In the first two days of the project, we had come up with an over three-page list of brief bullet-point topic ideas, and had gone through this lengthy list, evaluating the merit of each and eliminating them one by one. We eliminated topics that seemed too easily swayed by personal opinion or current politics, those without enough information we could meaningfully discuss at a basic level, and those we thought were too broad or ‘common’ deliberation ideas. We finally settled on the concept of filial responsibility laws as an interesting and underrepresented topic that people of different age groups could really benefit from discussing in a public forum.

I was on the conclusion and outreach mini-team of our group. Though most people immediately shied away from this role when they learned they would be responsible for attracting people to the event, I signed up immediately. If there is one thing I love in this world, it is organizing and managing an event that many people attend and benefit from. I also absolutely love synthesizing information on the spot to summarize arguments and end discussions in an extemporaneous manner (a skill I practiced as a closing attorney through many years of high school mock trial). For these reasons, I jumped at this role, and I absolutely loved it. It was incredibly rewarding to reach out to dozens of community members, continually interact with them and address their needs, and track who would be in attendance. I visited some offices in person with some printed out letters, and Molly and I also each emailed dozens of people from around the local state college health and geriatric care communities. Even though many people declined, did not respond, or said they would come and then did not show up, that is to be expected, and the large mass of people we reached out to paid off in the end with a productive discussion. Molly designed a beautiful poster and the whole team contributed to putting them up, though I believe I put the most posters up (partly because I have a lot of previous poster experience and know where all the bulletin boards are across campus). It was a team effort, and my mini-team worked very well to coordinate the efforts of the group and make sure that people came to the talk and were comfortable and felt heard.

The issue guide that the team put together was also wonderful. Though everyone from the issue teams contributed, Aaliyah did the final formatting, and it was absolutely gorgeous, so I am particularly thankful for her role in the guide. The formatting packs in a lot of information while using graphics to break up text and distinctly visually represent all of the different arguments. If I had one criticism, I might pare down the amount of information on our issue guide, but I’m not sure that would be necessary because, even though it was lengthy, the guide was readable, informative, and well-put-together. We also have had printed surveys in the end, as QR codes simply did not work well with our target audience. This is something I had briefly considered but had not brought up due to a combination of groupthink and laziness. In the future I will be sure to voice such concerns, as I’m probably not the only one who had them.

The day of the deliberation was exciting to say the least. It was thrilling to see so many people in the room for our discussion! Our topic definitely gave us an advantage, as it attracted an older audience less adversely affected by the Bacchanalia of State Patrick’s Day weekend. Our group’s presentation was strong all around, and the people in attendance all definitely had a lot to say. It was really satisfying to hear ‘real adults’ engage with our project with interest and take our presentations seriously. All of them had personal and professional experience to bring to the table, and the students in attendance also added greatly to discussion. If there was one point we might have planned for better, it is, ironically, the tendency of adults with a personal stake in an issue to keep talking on and on beyond a certain point. While this was sometimes a point of minor frustration, the team dealt with it really well and still covered all topics within a reasonable timeframe. Debriefing on the experience afterward was very helpful. Talking about our own strengths and weaknesses, and what could have gone better with the audience, helped shape how we might do it again. One personal point I noted for myself with conclusions is that I wish I had spoken in a less monotonous, off-the-page manner. I hope that, if I were to do it again, I might make more eye contact and have more vocal inflections instead of rushing through my notes.

Seeing the other group’s deliberation was also quite an interesting experience. They were in a different part of the hotel, more of an open space with several groups sitting around them, running different discussions, which presented challenges with noise, space, and being aware of who was in which group. We were lucky we got a nice conference room space, but, if we had not gotten such a space, I would have liked to visit the space and prepare for its realities beforehand. It seemed like the only attendees were a few students, and the presenting group asked us to identify ourselves and asked all of us questions throughout the presentation. I also made sure to ask questions of the group and make comments on their points.

Overall, this group also had a strong presentation put together. They considered reducing the use of single-use plastics through individual behavior, corporate action, and government legislation. This was a good set of perspectives that considered solutions to the problem from many sides. The issue of corporate action was a little muddled at times, because spearheading corporate sustainability fundamentally relies on either individual decision-making or government regulation. However, they dealt with the territory well, opening the issues up to discussion even when their perspective was a little confusing. As one of only a few student attendees in the room, I definitely felt the presenters staring straight at me and asking me questions directly, but it was better than awkward silence in the room. They also used tools such as think-pair-share effectively to get the whole room discussing the issue. The members of their own group weighed in much more to answer questions posed by other issue teams than in our group, which was interesting to consider. Maybe we could have shared our own thoughts on our issues more.

The single-use plastic deliberation was sometimes frustrating when it felt like not enough research had been done into the feasibility or effectiveness of a solution. It was good to hear some students responding at points when presenters seemed clueless in order to fill them in on what they did not know. For example, when the presenters remarked they did not know why Green2Go containers are not given to everyone, a student attendee raised their hand to explain the history of Penn State students throwing away the containers in protest to the switch, prompting the current voluntary opt-in deposit system. I did learn some things about campus sustainability history during this conversation that I would not have known otherwise, and came out of the event with some new ideas for how to get students to act more sustainably. Another thing I found grating was the general culture of college students complaining about how difficult campus sustainability is from the perspective of their own comfort and convenience. I did remark on this, and we had a meaningful discussion about campus culture and being willing to make personal ‘sacrifices’. The whole discussion left me more aware of the way most people think of sustainability on campus, which is good to know, even if it seems like it sometimes leans towards wistful entitlement. As an officer of a Sustainability-Institute-affiliated club, I appreciate being able to keep up on the honest thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of college students about this issue, as this helps my team prepare potential awareness and action campaigns.

Despite some frustrations, I found it incredibly rewarding to be a part of this project, both as a member of a presenting group and as an attendee, and I am very grateful to everyone that helped it happen. This was a unique experience that allowed me to engage with the community at an unprecedented level, and, seeing the entire Deliberation Nation talk listings, I felt proud of the campus RCL community as I looked at a giant number of events that looked really interesting. It made me really happy to see even non-RCL students discussing the events they wanted to go to. I feel like this project has been an incredibly productive use of class time that has benefited the community, and I hope to have more opportunities like this in the future.