On February 21st, 2019, I went and watched “The Intention of Penn State’s Intervention: How Responsible is Penn State for Off-campus Travel.” In all honesty, the reason why I chose this topic was that it was right before mine, however, I’m glad that I went. I didn’t know much about the topic of off-campus traveling, and I was never personally affected by it. Although, I learned that there are many clubs that suffer due to this issue.

The introduction group went into detail about what each group was going to discuss. They also provided background information on why Penn State came up with the rules of allowing no off-campus travel, and they said what groups were suffering the most. Additionally, they created an environment that made people want to participate.

Approach group one did a good job providing the reasons on their topic. However, when it came to the discussion point of the conversation the questions that they were asking didn’t correlate with their approach. This led me to be confused about what exactly they were discussing. After hearing the rest of the deliberation, they were asking questions that dealt more with approach three.

In my opinion, approach group two was the best out of all the approaches. When they provided the information on banning or regulating, the information made a lot of sense. Additionally, the questions were very engaging. The activity about discussing what rules barely exist due to people normally breaking them really connected the whole approach. These two provided great information on the topic.

Approach group three was a little all over the place. They discussed the rights people have and the rules of the university that demises the rights of the people. Although, I am still confused about this topic. I wish that they would have explained it more in depth.

The summary and outreach group was the best group overall. They were very organized in the way they summarized the topics. The girls also got the audience involved too. However, they did go a little long.

Overall, I do wish that the group allowed the audience members to talk more. It seemed that most of the time it was the members within the group talking, even if a person outside of the section had their hand up. I also felt that some approaches were rushed and some dragged. Additionally, the introduction of the approaches was difficult to understand at times.