Webinar

Re/Designing Democracy

Envisioning a more aspirational democracy that works for everyone

July 30, 2024

Watch Recording

We know democracy has never worked for everyone, and national frustration with our political system and cultural divides is causing people to give up. Young people are especially disillusioned and unlikely to engage in the upcoming elections or other democratic practices. When people give up, authoritarian forces can take hold. Let’s stop this from happening by engaging students in discussion and listening to them.

Hosted by AAC&U’s Institute for Democracy and Higher Education (IDHE), this webinar provided an overview of “Democracy Re/Designed,” a conceptual framework and a set of tools for engaging students—and others—in discussions about the future of democracy. Learn how your campus can get involved and how you can use the tools to facilitate these discussions.

Download Webinar Slides

Presenter

  • Nancy Thomas

    Nancy Thomas

    Senior Advisor to the President for Democracy Initiatives and Executive Director of the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, AAC&U

Q&A

Below are responses to selected questions raised during the webinar.

  • We decided to define democracy (or democratic republic) as both governance and culture, but not go further than that. We don’t believe that students or other participants need to know, for example, exactly how the electoral college works or the nuances about separation of powers between state and federal governments. In systems “of, by, and for the people,” principles matter, and everyone, not just experts on politics, can reflect on what they want their communities and governments to look like. Perhaps people have more in common than they think.

  • We hear from many educators concerned about political pressure and even retaliation or other consequences for appearing to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion on their campuses. We understand the dynamics and worry that educators might self-censor, especially when exploring an essential “teachable moment” for student learning about the nation’s future. For some (and we hope very few), this might be a moment that calls for courage. Maybe these comments will help:

    • While the Democracy Re/Designed framework includes “inclusive and equitable” as possible characteristics of democracy, facilitating a discussion about democracy and its aspirational attributes is itself unrelated to the sort of DEI efforts currently under government scrutiny.
    • The attributes identified in the framework emerged from focus groups with representatives of civic organizations working to improve democracy, plus discussions with educators, surveys, and literature. The terms were not arbitrarily selected, much less selected for partisan purposes. We expect disagreement over the attributes. Indeed, that is part of the learning process for envisioning the ideal. The discussion guide includes questions and probes around the attributes: which ones resonate, which do not, what’s missing, etc.

  • This is a difficult question, without one “correct” or simple answer. You are smart to prepare for this situation ahead of your discussions.

    Start by setting the expectation in your group that all views can and should be expressed, but it is also important to discuss as a group what happens if someone says something that is malicious, dehumanizing, or belittling. The best way to set expectations is to suggest and discuss ground rules or group agreements.

    In the discussion guide, we recommend several ground rules, including, “Assume good will.” If someone says something that marginalizes others (either an individual or groups), assume good will but probe more to determine whether the comment was made innocently or maliciously. If innocently, explore how others in the group received the comment and how it made them feel. Remember, students come to college to learn, including learning how to communicate across differences.

    The ground rules in the guide were just suggestions, not a complete list. Our colleague Rhonda Fitzgerald, Executive Director of the Sustained Dialogue Institute, suggests being clear up front about how intentionally malicious and dehumanizing language will be handled. She suggests this ground rule: “Disagreeing is important. Dehumanizing or belittling others is not appropriate here.”

    If you are worried that a student will escalate the matter, check in with people overseeing the project about how much leeway you have. For example, if you want to be able to ask disruptive students to leave, find out whether that would be supported at the institutional level.

    We do not recommend promising participants a “safe space” for discussion. You can’t enforce that. Some facilitators like an agreement about a “brave space,” meaning participants might be uncomfortable but are being asked to continue, nonetheless. That might help, but it is not fair to ask people from marginalized groups to be solely responsible for “correcting” this situation.

    On the other hand, it is disempowering not to let the group handle it, which is why we also suggested the ground rule: “Share responsibility for making this discussion work.” When faced with a difficult facilitation moment, consider pausing and asking the group how they want to continue. You can ask what they think of the comment, and whether what the person said helps ensure the success of the discussion. You can also ask, “is [the comment] an attribute of a democratic society? How does excluding groups or people help society or communities?

    Speech has consequences, and those consequences can include pushback from peers.

  • Currently, we do not have the capacity to revise the organizing and discussion materials for all possible venues, but we think it is a great idea. We’re working with a campus-community organization to expand to communities, both rural and urban, but we welcome creative partners interested in other communities. We will need you to take the lead, but it’s not hard to do. Contact us.

  • There are dozens of polls and studies with this kind of information. Here are a few sources: