Introduction

In this blog post, I will be reflecting on the deliberation project my group created and facilitated, as well as the other deliberations I attended as a participant.  Throughout the reflection, I will be exploring six out of the nine criteria for deliberative discussion from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation to fully evaluate the various deliberations.  

Create a Solid Information Base

The first criteria from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation are creating a solid information base by discussing personal experiences, as well as factual information about the topic.  In my deliberation, I knew that every participant had some form of personal experience with taking standardized tests during their junior or senior year of high school, which varied due to the pandemic shut down in March 2020.  Many students, including myself, began to question the “when”, “where”, and “why” of requiring standardized tests in the college admissions process.  During the personal stake section of the deliberation, I was surprised that not many students shared their experiences considering that each of us went through the stress of trying to take the SAT/ACT to apply to college.  Even though most participants were aware of the background information on this topic, we felt it was important to share a brief overview of the standardized testing process during the deliberation.

In the “Homelessness in Skid Row” deliberation, the group gave a solid background on the issue of homelessness in the United States, specifically in the “Skid Row” section in Los Angeles, CA.  Even though none of the participants or facilitators were directly affected by homelessness, we all recognized that it is a severe problem in many major cities across the country and around the world.  In addition to this, all of the participants and facilitators agreed that something needs to be done to address poverty and help those who are homeless.

Identify a Broad Range of Solutions

The second criteria from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation are identifying a broad range of solutions to solve the problem.  My deliberation team created three different approaches to solve the issue of whether or not standardized tests should be required in the college admissions process.  Our three approaches included requiring test scores and offering a free test preparation course, offering test-optional score submission, and eliminating test score submissions.  Some participants offered the idea of skills tests or specific subject area tests being required for college applications rather than a benchmark test like the SAT or ACT.  Other participants thought it would be hard to come up with an alternative to the current SAT that would properly assess the college readiness of increasingly diverse applicants.  Throughout the deliberation, we examined each approach and received feedback from participants on each solution, as well as other aspects to consider.

In the “Cancer Alley” deliberation, the facilitators presented three approaches to solve the issue of toxic pollution in Louisiana, including anti-pollution legislation, terminating factory production, and relocating the community members.  After considering the three approaches, I believe that the proposed solutions would help relieve exposure to toxic pollution and substances, but none of them would eliminate the pollution that is causing the cancer clusters.  While these solutions are a good place to start to solve the problem of air pollution in Cancer Alley, more work should be completed on how to effectively eradicate the actual pollution at the root of the problem.  

Weigh the Pros, Cons, and Trade-Offs of Proposed Solutions

The third criteria from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation are weighing the pros, cons, and trade-offs of the various proposed approaches.  For each approach to the issue of requiring or not requiring standardized test score submission, there are advantages and disadvantages.  If score submissions are required and a free test prep class is offered, colleges would be able to compare applicants uniformly as well as provide colleges with information on individual students and their potential success in college.  Because of the difference between students of low vs. high socioeconomic status, there is unequal access to test prep due to financial constraints, accessibility, and varying programs offered in local school districts.  If colleges offer test-optional score submission, it gives students a choice to submit their score and allow for other ways to show their strengths in the application process.  However, there would be no benchmark to compare applicants using the test-optional approach, therefore making it riskier for colleges to accept students.  Lastly, eliminating score submission creates a fairer process for students of lower socioeconomic status without access to test prep or other resources to apply to schools.  There is also less stress on students during the admissions process, but there would be more weight on high school GPA, which could be inflated.

In the “Order in the Court” deliberation, the team proposed three approaches to solve the problem of injustice in the courtroom, including bail, sentencing, and limitations on media presence.  If bail is implemented more heavily, it would reduce strain on the prison systems by allowing those who can afford bail to be released more quickly, but this “catch-and-release” situation could cause issues and it is unfair to those who cannot afford to pay their bail.  By reducing minimum sentencing, people would be in prison for fewer years and there would be fewer penalties for drug offenders specifically.  Even though the years of minimum sentencing is decreased, this does not stop the offenders from being imprisoned multiple times.  Lastly, by restricting the media presence in the courtroom, the influence of outside opinions on the judge and jury would be decreased and it would prevent celebrities convicted of crimes from making a profit from breaking the law.  The lack of media in court cases would restrict public access to information on crimes as well as it would be very difficult to implement and control in our society.

Ensure Mutual Comprehension

The fourth criteria from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation are ensuring mutual comprehension between facilitators and participants by speaking clearly and asking for clarification when necessary.  During our deliberation, everyone spoke equally and asked clarifying questions.  I appreciated that the participants would ask questions to better understand a certain aspect of the topic or approach.  By providing the topic guide, participants were able to read and gain background knowledge on our topic and approaches, so when they came to the deliberation, they were prepared to ask questions and discuss.  While we were lucky that our topic was familiar to the students in the class, I would have liked to ask the participants to share their experiences a second time because I know that each participant at the deliberation went through the college admissions process and has interesting and relevant information to add to the conversation.

Consider Other Ideas and Experiences 

The fifth criterion from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation is listening carefully to others, especially during a disagreement.  Throughout the deliberation, many people shared their personal experiences, thoughts, and opinions about standardized testing in the college admissions process.  At some points during the discussion, there were some disagreements among the participants and toward the approaches colleges are taking.  The participants seemed evenly split on either requiring standardized test score submissions or not requiring score submissions.  Overall, several participants disagreed with our first and third approaches, but they all did so respectfully – which we appreciated!

Respect Other Participants

The last criteria from Gastil’s chapter on deliberation are respecting other participants by recognizing that each participant has a unique background.  Throughout the deliberation, all of the participants were respectful of each other and the facilitators.  Even though the number of participants was smaller, I believe that everyone spoke equally, but I would have liked to see every participant add at least one thought to the discussion.  Sometimes, I felt like we were receiving the same thought or opinions constantly from the same participants, and I wanted to hear what some of the quieter participants had to say about the topic.  

Conclusion

Overall, I believe that all of the deliberations were presented well and were informative.  After each deliberation, I walked away with a deeper understanding and fresh perspective on each topic.  I look forward to analyzing the takeaways from our discussion in the next part of the deliberation unit.