My experiences during last week’s deliberations taught me how to be a valuable contributor to any discussion from both the moderating and participating point of views. The deliberations showcased the introductory information from Gastril and other sources in a more immersive and interactive experience that widened my knowledge on the true meaning and goals of a deliberation. Every discussion consisted of valuable exchange, thought-provoking questions, and a variety of perspectives, achieving the nine deliberative criteria delineated by Gastril.
As moderators of the discussion on how NCAA athletes should be paid, my group aligned each approach around the values they upheld, fulfilling Gastril’s analytical criterion of prioritizing the key values at stake. It’s important to recognize the guiding values behind each approach because it provides focus and meaning to each argument. Prioritizing values also establishes a common ground between moderators and the audience, as many people share a similar collection of basic values.
During the brainstorming phase of our group’s deliberation planning, we made sure to identify a broad range of solutions that appealed to different perspectives on the issue. Each participant brings their unique personal stake to the table and will react differently to each approach. Additionally, as a participant of the deliberations, I appreciated when other groups would include vastly different approaches that addressed different parties of their issue. For example, the deliberation on drug misuse with college students included several vastly different approaches that had different entanglements with law enforcements, drug users, and college administration. Ultimately, the different approaches allowed participants to form their own solution that combined a couple of the options, which sparked even more discussion.
Another key idea to keep in mind when organizing a deliberation is to weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions. It’s important to realize how these pros and cons may change with different perspectives from the participants, as well. It can be difficult to find solutions that appeal to all stakeholders, so a pros and cons list can be helpful when deciding which approaches to consider. As a participant, I used this tactic most during the deliberation addressing mental health issues in Pennsylvania high schools. Having just graduated from high school less than a year ago, I’m familiar with the logistics of a high school environment and the practicality of certain large scale changes. I used this prior knowledge to help guide my thinking when listening to their ideas.
It is also imperative to adequately distribute speaking opportunities when facilitating a deliberation. By carefully planning each segment of the deliberation, my group each member would have a chance to speak and represent the group while also allowing for ample discussion from participants. It’s important to consider this criterion to ensure the team appears equally represented and united.
During our moderation, some ideas were brought up that we failed to consider, and despite them conflicting with our approaches, we as moderators realized their virtue respected their thoughts. For instance, the idea of not paying college players at all was suggested, yet that wasn’t covered in any of our approaches. It’s important to consider other ideas and experiences, even if they conflict with our approaches.
Respecting other participants, whether in a deliberation, group project, or any other collaborative effort, is always the most important idea to follow. As moderators, my group made sure to announce the rules of respect in the introduction to set the tone for the rest of the discussion. As a participant, I appreciated when other moderators described the deliberation as a safe space to say whatever we want without fear of being judged. Our class was so respectful of each other, and it made me feel as though I can truly share my opinions without feeling scrutinized. Realizing people may have differing opinions is what makes society great; if there were no differences and clashes in ideology, progress would never occur.