Erin Kelly

ENG137
Professor Babcock
2 March, 2018
Deliberation Nation
Highly charged political debates can be dramatic and aggressive, but when using Gastil

methods along with a careful social outline, that debate can turn into a civil conversation. Being

a part of a deliberation, or civil conversation, was a new experience for me that shed light on the

importance of inclusivity, respect, and community. These aspects are incredibly important when

discussing tough topics, especially if the group truly wants to make progress. During our

deliberation “Talk Dirty to Me: A Discussion of Sexual Education in Modern American

Society,” I was incredibly impressed by how smooth the conversation went and how willing the

audience was to participate and listen to each other. Though we discussed an uncomfortable,

nearly taboo topic, people were fully engaged and seemed to have felt safe to share their

thoughts, which is the best outcome that could have been hoped for.

One of the best aspects of our deliberation was the formation of a solid information base.

The point of this criteria was to discuss personal anecdotes and set some base facts. This

occurred during our deliberation multiple times. The overview group first announced the known

fact of what sexual education was as defined by Planned Parenthood. This gave the audience an

understanding of what exactly was going to be discussed and made sure that the participants

were all on the same page. Next, anecdotes were shared by some of the moderators. These

anecdotes served two purposes: they lightened up the mood and highlighted a downfall of

informal sexual education. Furthermore, abstinence was defined by the group as a base fact so

that we could all discuss this type of education based on the same understanding. The

information base that was established allowed for the event to run smoothly and ironed out some
confusion in the audience. Comparatively, the deliberation “Penny-pinching in College: Where

Does our Money go at PSU,” seemed to lack completely solid base knowledge. Although they

created a great icebreaker by asking why we all came to Penn State (a relatable question to all),

they were lacking in their definitions, causing issues later. The group did not initially establish

how much we pay in tuition or where exactly that money went, so some people may not have

been able to participate in discussing whether money should be allocated to certain costs because

they were not even aware of the costs in the first place. In addition, it was not well established

from the beginning what “penny-pinching” was. This caused confusion making certain people

believe that we were trying to save thousands. This issue was cleared up in the end, but it would

have been more helpful as an opening information base. Ultimately, a solid information base

changes the dynamic of a discussion, putting everyone on the same page and leading to a better

conversation.

Another important Gastil criteria that was touched upon was prioritizing the key values

at stake. After analyzing the results of our deliberation, I had realized that we did not completely

emphasize the dire importance of the key values. These values were mentioned just a few times

throughout our discussion. People mentioned that it was important to standardize sexual

education so that some are not left in the dark while others are given a head start. People realized

the importance of preventing the spread of STI’s and the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy. We

also came to the conclusion that the value of sexual education came into play when people could

learn about things like consent or healthy relationships. In addition, others talked about the

importance of all-encompassing sexual education to the LGBTQA community members, who are

often left to fend for themselves information-wise. Though these values were mentioned, I would

have preferred to highlight the principles greater in the conclusion of the deliberation. The
conclusion group did a good job summarizing but failed to mention the audiences stake and why

we truly needed to discuss this topic.

Another strength of our deliberation was our ability to identify a broad range of solutions.

While the three, main topic were presented, the participants were able on their own to create

several new twists to our ideas that made the concepts even better. For informal education, many

people brought up that it was important for informal education to occur so that a child could stick

to his or her cultural and religious beliefs as desired. However, the audience also discussed that

the informal education should occur in coordination with a formal, all-encompassing education

type to add to what parents may have left out. Much of the audience agreed that formal education

should not just be limited to just informing upon the action of reproduction, but rather expand to

include puberty, body anatomy, healthy relationships, communication in relationships, consent,

and LGBTQA information as well. The audience also mentioned that abstinence should be

discussed and taught but not emphasized due to its unrealistic nature in working for all people.

At this point in the deliberation another Gastil criteria was reached in which the best decision

possible was made. The audience seemed to almost come to a consensus in which all of the

above methods should be combined and standardized across the country. Based on the post

deliberation quiz, a majority of people believe that formal all-encompassing education was the

best method, teaching everything possible to its students. In addition, the post deliberation quiz

shed light on how concerned the audience was that sexual education was not standardized (most

people mentioned how they could not believe that sexual education was only mandated in 24

states). While our debate came to a consensus, the other group “Penny-pinching in College:

Where Does our Money go at PSU,” seemed rather to be on common ground opposed to a

consensus. During the penny-pinching deliberation, many people seemed to have come in with
differing attitudes and left with those same various attitudes. While everyone respected other

people opinions about where our money went at PSU, there were still a wide variety of opinions

floating around at the end. No compromise was reached and the only consensus that seemed to

be made was that the “paying as you go” method was logistically unsound. However, reaching

common ground is not an issue. Everyone was able to respect and understand each other’s

positions, still bringing the community together as a whole.

The best way to even further bring the community together during a deliberation is to

follow the criteria of ensuring mutual comprehension. If all the members of the audience are on

the same page, a better discussion can occur. This happened in our deliberation as we made sure

to define topics that were a bit confusing. We defined sexual education, abstinence, and

described all of our topics (informal, formal abstinence only, and formal all-encompassing sexual

education) before we presented them for discussion. This allowed for the participants to

understand exactly what was going on. In addition, the moderators did a stellar job of making the

room feel like a comfortable and safe space, so people in the audience were not afraid to ask

questions or ask for clarification. Mutual comprehension fell a bit short in the penny-pinching

deliberation as some of the audience members were confused about the topic at hand. Some

people attempted to discuss logistics and number while the point of the deliberation was to

discuss where we wanted our money to go (leaving exactly how we do so to the professionals).

Although this problem did occur, the moderators did a good job of redirecting the conversation

ever so often back to the true issue at hand, which made for a good deliberation.

Mutual comprehension adds to a good discussion, but Gastil’s other criteria of respecting

others participating is absolutely necessary for a deliberation to occur, period. Respecting other’s

opinions makes people feel safe and more willing to participate, and participation needs to occur
for a deliberation to happen at all. Respect came into play many times during our deliberation.

Often the LGBTQA community was brought up, and this topic is highly polarizing. However,

those who did not agree with topics at hand regarding LGBTQA did not get rude, cause

commotion, or have outbursts. This allowed for us to have a safe discussion on the importance of

including LGBTQA in sexual education so that many students are confused about what to do if

their sexuality do not fall into the antiquated two categories. In addition, the belief in abstinence

was brought up by a student from a very rural town. Although abstinence-only teaching seems

foreign to many, the participants respected his words and allowed him to speak, adding to the

overall quality of the discussion.

Ultimately, the discussion was a success. Though it began a bit slow and awkward, the

silence was broken by a fun anecdote and people began to participate. The participants had much

to say, and they generally stayed on topic. They respected each other and created a safe space,

allowing for an unrestricted and productive conversation to occur. While this civilized

conversation was practical in the setting of open-minded college students, the real-world

applications may be a little trickier. It has been seen throughout history that there are always

people who are unable to demonstrate respect or those who believe that their opinions matter

more than others. While our deliberation lacked these people, they exist, especially in politics,

and can turn a civilized discussion into a heated debate. People need to learn the value of respect

and understand that while the perfect conclusion may never be reached, standing on common

ground is always a success in itself.