The topic of deliberation in this groups Civic Issues forum was How can we

balance law enforcement and privacy rights?. This topic sparked some interesting and
relevant debate within the two days of deliberation, and while we didnt near a solution I
feel that the points discussed and issues raised contributed to better overall
understanding of the topic and its relevance in modern society.
Our deliberation served to address the first criteria of creating a solid information
base by providing our issues brief to all participants. Additionally, we wrote our
overview in such a way that it related to current national events. The first sentence of
our overview reads, Since insiders revealed that the NSA is spying on citizens, many
Americans feel insecure when it comes to their privacy. This sentence brings to mind
events such as the Edward Snowden whistleblowing and other prior knowledge that our
participants were bringing to the deliberation. Additionally, our group provided a short
overview of the facts of those events in our opening statements of the deliberation. This
served to remind those who did not remember about the recent NSA incidents and to
inform those who hadnt heard of what happened. If more information was needed or
desired, we made sure to include specific legislation in our issues brief such as the
Patriot Act, that could be researched by the participants if more information was desired.
Our groups attempt to prioritize the key values at stake was also contained
within the overview. In the overview, we mention that public safety is an issue but that
personal privacy must be respected. By outlining these two extremes, we identified
that they were the values at stake while still leaving the importance placed on each
value up to the participant. Rather than say, as was said in the other deliberation, the
value at risk here is the value of gender equality we chose to say that the value was

either public safety or privacy rights and that valuing one over the other was perfectly
acceptable. In my opinion that was one of the most enjoyable factors about our debate,
the question not of how we fix this problem but of whether there was a problem at all.
Our 3 topics for discussion were how we chose to identify a broad range of
subjects. This was one place I feel the group fell short. While we did offer 3 distinctly
different option, a lot of the options had overlap or were largely unclear. This was
evidenced by the deliberation turning into one large conversation as opposed to three
smaller ones in the way the gender equality debate did. Overall I feel we should have
thought a bit farther outside of the box to create more diverse solutions, as well as
create solutions that explored both sides of the issue as opposed to focusing solely on
expanding or restricting government influence.
We weighed the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions throughout our 2
day debate. Again, I believe our pre-defined solutions to the problem were a weakness
for our group but the discussion done by the participants was still valid and very welldone. The participants strayed away from determining which of our solutions had the
most pros relative to cons or really expanding on those solutions in that way and
focused on combining all solutions, taking the best parts from each. This resulted in a
deliberation that was less pro/con focused and more focused on creating something
new and innovative.
I dont believe we worked to make the best decision possible. I dont think that
was really the intent of the deliberation as we werent trying to decide policy or a course
of action. This deliberation focused more on the idea of whether or not privacy rights
were a concern and how best those rights should be protected, if at all. The

deliberation itself however ended up focusing more on the first aspect of whether or not
they were a concern. I feel that given more time to work with maybe we could have
reached a consensus on the best course of action, but in the 2 days we had no decision
was even approached.
The group adequately distributed speaking opportunities through the moderator
role as well as through our groups decision to require each speaker to raise their hand
and be called on before talking. In this way, we ensured that everyones opinion was
presented and was valid without interrupting the flow of conversation too much.
However I would like to experiment with a more free-flowing style if we ever were to
deliberate again. The hand-raising created some issues of people being unable to
follow conversations, as well as some people not getting to speak for an extended
period of time.
The group attempted to ensure mutual comprehension through the recorder
role and through the moderators asking for clarification of some of the more confusing
ideas. While the recorder role was helpful, the moderators rarely needed to ask for
more clarity. The participants were all very competent at transparently presenting their
thoughts and opinions and it aided the flow of the deliberation greatly. This is something
I feel went very well.
This deliberation, as mentioned previously, was all about considering other ideas
and experiences. As I said, the ideas put forth by our group were quickly dismissed as
solutions seeing as they didnt touch on the totality of the issue. Therefore the entire
deliberation was based on people suggesting new and innovative ideas rather than only
speaking about the options presented.

Everyone involved in this deliberation was very competent at respecting other

participants. At no point, either as a moderator or a participant, did I feel that myself or
anyone else was being personally attacked. Peoples views and opinions were
challenged, but always in a respectful manner. While I dont think this speaks to the
merit of our group and speaks more to the good nature of our participants, I think this
went very well.
This deliberation served to find a balance between law enforcement and privacy
rights and while it didnt necessarily reach that goal it did bring up some important ideas.
I feel that overall this deliberation went about as well as it could have, but it does show
how difficult deliberation would be in a societal context. The idea of us having to
actually come to a decision is a tough one to swallow, especially with us spending two
and a half hours just to figure out if there really was a problem or not. To that end I feel
Ive learned that deliberation about real issues is far from easy.