The deliberation I attended was titled “Riots or Regulation: The Ethics of Censoring Controversial Speakers on College Campuses.” I picked this particular deliberation because I thought it may overlap with my own, and I thought this would help me facilitate conversation better at mine the following day. I also find it important that I feel safe on my own campus, and sometimes the riots can get out of hand and have a negative impact on the community.

Anyone that voiced their opinion in the group appeared to agree, but there was still a lot of discussion to be had. The first option explored the idea of having equal time for opposing views. As a group we discussed the logistics of  implementing something like this. There is more than 2 views on any particular topic so many of us failed to see how we could ever accurately represent each side. There was some merit to this since this is what happens at most debates. Each side is given an equal amount of time to speak to whatever issue is at hand. However, when it comes to bringing speakers to campus, it doesn’t work as well.

During the next approach, we talked a lot about the funding required to bring controversial speakers to campus. Some speakers cost the college $600,000 to host because of the amount of security needed. These speakers generally tend to be right winged as well. To not allow them to speak because of the cost would seem like the universities (which are normally left leaning) just don’t want right winged speakers. We discussed as a group how important it is to hear varying opinions, but struggled to find a solution for the high costs associated with bringing some of these speakers to campus. One member of the group suggested that the university offer a constant amount of security, and if that wasn’t enough for the speaker they would have to fund more themselves. However, I personally felt that it would be hard for universities to do this. If something happened, it would look bad for the university, not the speaker. Also, if a controversial speaker is attacked, they are made a martyr which is another unfavorable outcome. This group suggested that a list be made in which each speaker would be associated with a statistic that demonstrated how often violence broke out when they spoke. Speakers could be legally barred from speaking at a university if their violence statistic was high enough. This was easily dismissed by the group because people may begin inciting violence within the audience of a peaceful speaker just to get them barred.

The last approach felt a bit like a summary. They asked us all how the deliberation was going. They then proposed that the way to combat these riots was to host more deliberations that allowed students to express their frustrations. They argued that as long as students had an outlet to express their feelings toward an issue, they wouldn’t get as frustrated and would be less likely become violent. As a group, we thought that teaching kids at a young age to debate will provide them with the skills they need to logically talk through disagreements.

Overall, the deliberation went very well. Everyone was very successful at expressing themselves, and the questions from the moderators were appropriate and thought provoking. I don’t think we reached much of a conclusion, but that may have been because this topic is a hard one to discuss in just two hours. I also felt like this discussion was great for helping me with my deliberation.