I took part in the Standardised Testing Reform Deliberation and a deliberation discussing Political Correctness and Cancel Culture. These deliberations were both dramatically different in tone and approach. Both deliberations were met with similar problems, the stakeholders represented were fairly homogenous. In the Standardised Testing Deliberation, the audience and facilitators were exclusively younger Penn State Students. In the Political Correctness Deliberation, the cluster of students was exclusively Penn State Students as well. This deliberation also could play into one political ideology and I believe the room here was fairly vocal in its left-leaning disposition. Because in both these deliberations only one style of stakeholder was represented, I feel it impaired our ability to address criterion #5, Make the best decision possible. In both situations, we made the best decision possible for the stakeholders present as opposed to taking into account all the stakeholders.
A strength of both Deliberations was definitely on the front of the Social Processes involved. Neither Deliberation took a nasty turn and an air of respect and acknowledgment was present in both. The Political Correctness Deliberation was a much larger group, fifty-plus probably, and yet it was still held in a manner that adequately distributed speaking opportunities. I believe this was possible because the room was large enough to allow everyone to sit in a circle and moderators were placed sporadically throughout the ring. Mutual Comprehension and respect for participants were strengths of both deliberations as well, I think this aided by the moderators coming out in the beginning and establishing ground rules that instilled respect. The Political Correctness Deliberation and Standardised Testing Deliberation represented a limited range of key values which more or less listed or named instead of prioritized. The Standardised Testing Deliberation liked the ideas of independence and best representing the student above all else, approaches that appealed to this were prioritized. The Standardised Testing Deliberation appealed to the value of respect above free speech. It is hard to prioritise multiple or conflicting values when you have room for similar stakeholders. In conclusion, both these deliberations were interesting experiments and were overall successfully moderated conversations on important issues but were plagued by like-minded consensus.
I had not considered how the homogeneous political nature of the standardized testing deliberation could have affected the conversation, but reflecting based on this notion I can see how it guided the general conversation based on a shared set of beliefs that are generally associated with left-leaning politics. I can see how this would cause a bigger problem in a conversation about political correctness and cancel culture, where it would be ideal to have a large spanning of people to discuss this topic. It is unfortunate that the deliberations tended to be likeminded people of similar backgrounds, but I feel like this did not affect the standardized testing deliberation as students are the people which are affected by these tests. However, I would have been interested to hear the input of someone from admissions at Penn State, as I feel they would have a better perspective on why standardized tests are relied on in college admissions.
The point that you made about the limited viewpoints and biases of the SAT topic is an important one to address because although we came to a relative agreement, it could have not accounted for the views of others. Since we had mostly students, it could have not accounted for an adult’s opinion on the topic as well as different political views than college students normally have. I think that the size variable was handled well in the other deliberation that you attended due to the ring formation of seating. I think that the way the SAT deliberation was set up impeded the conversation a bit due to the noise and the people sitting behind other people.
I liked how both of the deliberations you went to were respectful and filled with acknowledgment. I had a similar experience with mine, and I think that it was a common theme with many deliberations during Deliberation Nation. You raise an interesting point with the political homogeneity and its influence on the discussion. I would interested in seeing how having different people with different viewpoints would’ve affect the respect/flow of the discussion due to the very nature of politics. While there is the possibility of things turning sour, I would like to believe that the ground rules of a deliberation would be respected in order to produce a fruitful discussion.
It is great to hear that your deliberation went especially well as you had some important stakeholders available to your conversation. However, like you said it is necessary to include all perspectives in the deliberations and some of them were not accounted for. This heavily reminds me of the deliberation that I took part in because we did not have many representatives present to come forward and talk about the issue at hand.
It is great to hear that both of the deliberations went well! I think it is very unfortunate that we don’t have a choice in where we host our deliberations nor how many people come, because the general atmosphere of the room itself can hugely affect how a deliberation goes. If your room is too big, and not many people come, it can seem impersonal. If it is too small, and you have too many people, it can seem cramped. In both cases, it can make it hard to get participation from your peers. I am not sure it is very fair to have such a big part of our grade be based on something kind of out of our control.