The two deliberations I participated in were my own deliberation cyberbullying deliberation and one discussing sustainability in regard to plastics here at Penn State. I found both deliberations in some ways similar, however, there were certainly some stark differences between the two.

The cyberbullying deliberation was better at the distribution of speaking time. In all fairness, the sustainability deliberation did have many more people; therefore, there was not as much opportunity to speak. They also used a microphone that interrupted the flow of the deliberation and made it difficult for many people in the back to receive speaking time. For most of the deliberation, it felt as if only a handful of voices were “controlling the microphone,” and therefore input from many of the participants (including the mayor who was sitting in the back) were unable to contribute as much as they would have liked.

However, the sustainability deliberation was better at considering the experiences and ideas of others. Once again, this is probably the result of the low number of people who showed up for the cyberbullying deliberation and the fact that all of those who came were students. In regards to the sustainability deliberation, one person pointed out that though plastic straws are bad for the environment, banning them can have an effect on those with disabilities, some of whom are unable to drink without a straw. By giving this viewpoint, a negative externality that would probably not have otherwise been considered became part of the deliberation. As for the cyberbullying deliberation, it is unfortunate the Delta students and other community members were not able to come and give a broader variety of viewpoints.

An aspect that both deliberations were able to utilize was the weighing of pros and cons. During the sustainability debate, when discussing the use of takeout boxes in the dining halls, every solution—from increasing use of Green-to-Go to doing away with takeout all together—were discussed with tradeoffs for each. For example, an increased use of Green-to-Go and reusable cups involved concerns about how to wash said items, while doing away with takeout altogether would be a major inconvenience for many students.

With the cyberbullying deliberation, the problems arising from the creation of a “social media hotline” to deal with cyberbullying were discussed at the length in addition to the pros and cons of parental and institutional-based solutions. For the parental/community-based approach, it was pointed out that it is unreliable and can easily cause parents to take their children’s side. When examining the school-based approach, we discussed how schools can provide greater consequences but are also constrained by invasion of privacy and biases applied by teachers.

Both deliberations involved productive conversations and can hopefully contribute to the betterment of our community. While it would have been preferable to have a larger and more diverse crowd for the cyberbullying deliberation, some factors were out of our control. Deliberations such as these are important. A major tenant of our democracy is the ability to have conversations in an attempt to solve problems. A grave shortcoming of our world today seems to be, for many people, the inability to do so. However, if students can set a precedent of civil and productive conversation, our society can drastically improve.