Civilian Juries: To Enable a More Informed and Less Apathetic Denison Student

Below is my first extensive research paper I spent 10 weeks completing. This is the preliminary research into much more extensive research in the future. I hope you enjoy the results.

CIVILIAN JURIES:

TO ENABLE A MORE INFORMED AND LESS APATHETIC DENISON STUDENT

citizen juries:

to enable a more informed and less apathetic denison student

Nathaniel Oliver Beach

Paul Aaron Djupe

Department of Political Science

Denison University Summer Scholar Project

Date: 2018

Abstract

Ever since its founding, the United States has been the benchmark for democratic nations. The core concept of America is based on the reliance on freedom and allowing for all people to express their beliefs to enable self-government. Behind this philosophy is the concept of deliberation. Deliberation is an experience in which individuals take part in long, collective, and careful consideration through discussion of specific topics. For example, when civic deliberation is taught in schools, it has been noted to enhance students’ academic knowledge (Harris, 1996) and build civic skills, notably the ability to discuss with others “how to solve pressing public problems” (Hess & Posselt, 2002). When students are given the opportunity to discuss controversial political topics in a welcoming environment with multiple sides being presented, they feel more comfortable expressing their view and will report higher levels of political efficacy, interest, trust, and confidence than students who do not receive these same experiences (Hahn, 1998).
Numerous researchers find that the deliberation of controversial political issues can play a central role “in increasing political knowledge, political tolerance, perspective taking, and political participation” (Gimpel, Celeste, & Schuknecht, 2003; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Of course, these are some of the very deficits of American citizens. In this paper, I explore the possibility for deliberation to rectify some of the ills of self-government at Denison: Can deliberation make more informed, invested citizens?"

Deliberation is rooted in social psychology that examines behavioral factors that take place in deliberation. Some scholars have focused in particular on the “social networks” within which individuals are embedded. These social networks are composed of the people “with whom individuals maintain ongoing personal relationships and with whom they discuss important matters, often including friends, family members, neighbors, and co-workers” (e.g., Burt, 1984, Burt, 1985, Burt, 1990, Huckfeldt et al., 1995, Huckfeldt and Sprague, 1987, Huckfeldt and Sprague, 1991, Marsden, 1987).
Visser and Mirabile (2004) suggest that individuals “embedded in attitudinally heterogeneous social networks,” in which members of social networks have many differing beliefs, may have “weaker” attitudes towards an issue than individuals “embedded in attitudinally congruent social networks,” in which all members of a social network agree with the individual about a specific issue. In other words, exposure to disagreement appears to make people open to compromise. They suggest that a number of psychological mechanisms may be the cause of this. For example, “attitudinal congruity within one’s social network may signal that an attitude is valid” (e.g., Festinger, 1950), increasing the certainty or confidence with which the attitude is held and decreasing the anxiety or uncertainty an individual may have of being wrong. Attitudinally congruent social networks may also exert normative influence, signaling to individuals that a “particular attitude is appropriate or desirable, thereby raising the perceived social costs of attitude change” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
Visser and Mirabile (2004) also found that people whose social networks were attitudinally diverse were more susceptible to persuasion when confronted with a counter-attitudinal message than were individuals whose social network members tended to agree with them on that issue. This was true not only of college students around the nation, but also of a representative sample of United States citizens. The relation between the social network composition and openness to attitude change appeared to be partially attributed to attitude certainty and attitudinal ambivalence. More evidence also suggests an association between the attitudinal composition of individuals’ social networks and the strength of their attitudes (e.g., Huckfeldt and Sprague, 2000, Huckfeldt et al., 2004, Levitan and Visser, 2008, Mutz, 2002a).

In addition to social networks, many researchers believe that the views of the people are generally linked to the elites in society. The elite cue theory is a well established theory that explains that people’s beliefs are grounded in the elites they support. If the elite changes their beliefs, then so do the people. However, research would also suggest that this phenomenon isn’t as strong as one might expect, and it actually depends a lot on conversations with one another. That is, conversations (like deliberation) can weaken the power that elites hold over them. The main concept the researchers focus on is framing effects. Framing effects can occur by interpersonal discussions among groups of people (Gamson 1992; Simon and Xenos 2000; Walsh 2001, 2003). “For example, Walsh (2001, 2003) shows that people embedded in discussion networks (e.g., in voluntary associations) base various policy attitudes on their social characteristics (e.g., race, income) to a greater extent than those not in the networks.” The crucial point that this research finds is that the beliefs and ideologies that people base their political opinions not only come from elites, but can  come from conversations with others. This is imperative in the study of deliberation. It shed light on how elite cue theory is not the only basis of thought among citizens. Granted, the elites in society do play a pivotal role in decision making, but the deliberation of citizens among one another also plays a role. This shows that deliberation can in fact impact thought and change the way individuals think about certain things.

This is important in terms of deliberation. In terms of policy, by rejecting the notion that elite cue theory is solely the cause of the people’s beliefs, it gives more credibility to the deliberation occurring between individuals. If the views of the people can be influenced by more than just the ideological elite they support, then the views that are ultimately expressed at the end of deliberation are truly representative of the people and not that of the elites.
Potential Problems With Deliberation

However, many theorists claim that deliberation can actually be harmful for democracy. One of the main criticisms of deliberation is the tendency of  groups to polarize: “Group polarization means that members of a deliberating group predictably move toward a more extreme point in the direction of their pre-deliberation views” (Sunstein, Cass R. 2002). Sunstein argues that there are three main explanations for group polarization. First, persuasive arguments mean that when a group of individuals come together to deliberate, people are drawn towards arguments. In a group representative of a city, state, etc. there is almost always going to be a majority and a minority. When deliberations occur, there are most likely going to be more arguments for the majority than the minority,providing a higher chance of a more persuasive argument. While keeping in mind that the individuals coming in to the deliberation will already have pre existing opinions on the topic, persuasive arguments can help lead to more one sided argumentation.
Second, social influence plays a large role in group polarization. Research seems to suggest that societal influences can lead to polarization in a group as well. This is because people have a certain conception of themselves and a corresponding sense of how they would like to be perceived by others. For example, if a deliberation is on gun control and a citizen comes in predisposed to support it, and the deliberation is more in favor of gun control, then that individual is more likely to side with gun control more in line with the group’s thinking. Or, if a person comes in against control, seeing that the group is against that point of view, the individual might feel isolated and distant from the others, so they are likely to shift their stance towards the group. Another phenomenon that is seen to come from this is if the person is in agreement with the majority opinion, that individual may even push towards a more extreme position.
Finally, psychology research has found that those with more extreme views have a tendency to be more confident in their stance (Krosnic 1995), and that individuals who gain confidence in their stance shift more extreme in their views. One potential result of this process is that less confident individuals shift their opinions towards the more confident individuals due to being persuaded by them.
Evaluating Evidence From Actual Deliberations

While deliberation does not come without its criticism, it is imperative for democracy. In addition, many of the points stated by critics of deliberation do not hold up to empirical evidence. In a Denison University study looking empirically at deliberation, it was found that students were more inclined to moderate their views and collaborate, unlike what critics believe happens. In a civic deliberation in 2017 sponsored by Dr. Paul Djupe and senior students at the university, students from Denison came together and formed small groups to discuss whether or not security cameras should be added to dorm halls. Initially reviews were split (46% were opposed, 16% split, and 38% in support) of the cameras. After the deliberation, stances on security cameras were much more moderate with support actually shifting to adding security cameras as seen in the graph below: (Djupe 2017). A similar study was conducted in 2015 by Dr. Djupe regarding campus speech codes. Similar results were found as well, shown in the graph below: (Djupe 2016). It is interesting to note, that with the 2017 study, partisanship seemed to play a non factor in the deliberation, with both groups moderating their views relatively evenly (Djupe 2017).
While two studies at Denison do not fully disprove the critics of deliberation, many more have been conducted as well with similar results. For instance, numerous states have adopted programs developed by Dr. John Gastil from Penn State University to allow for more deliberative citizen input into larger governmental processes.
In these so-called Citizen Initiative Reviews (CIRs), Arizona, Massachusetts, and Oregon have developed programs that allow for the citizens of these states to express a voice and decide legislative issues in their respective states. Within each CIR, participants have had great experiences and allowed for more productive legislation to be passed as a result. The default model of political expression has the people being seen as under informed, ideologically biased, and impervious to straightforward corrections of misperceptions (cf. Kuklinski et al., 1998; Lupia, 1994; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010; Zaller, 1992). These programs provide voters with a brief summary of key points developed by a body of their peers. Given the public’s favorable attitudes toward such lay deliberative processes (Gastil, 2000; Neblo et al., 2010; Warren & Pearse, 2008), it is conceivable that the CIR creates a distinctive communication setting in which voters might discover, read, and reflect on the messages generated by a deliberative body of their peers.
A CIR is set up in a small group discussion format. Roughly 20-25 individuals representing a larger population come together to hear testimony from experts on each side of a topic, then get together and deliberate on the topic at hand. After discussion ends the group writes a general consensus of what they feel is the proper solution to the issue.
In every state that has performed it, there has been incredible support by the participants. In the original pilot programs in these states, there was, at the very least, a 90% approval rating for each program (94% in 2014, 92% in 2012, and 98% in 2010). Relatively equal were the participants’ thoughts on whether or not CIRs were productive and at least 95% of the participants in every trial run believed they were more capable of making informed decisions in voting after the deliberation ended (Gastil,, Johnson, Han, & Roundtree, J. (2017). Assessment of the 2016 Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review on Measure 97. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University). Similar results in these programs across the United States were found in approval from the participants in regards to respect while speaking, ability to discuss rationally, and the productiveness of the actual deliberation.

Testing Deliberation in a Campus Setting

In order to successfully test this concept of a civilian jury, I ran a trial run. The first step is figuring out which topic is best to conduct the deliberation. For the purposes of the trial, it will be a relatively divisive campus topic that can result in a solution. After the topic is selected, briefing materials must be developed. This is important, because this is the first thing the participants will experience from the deliberation as well the first official knowledge they will have on the subject - which is imperative for them to develop opinions to take into the discussion. There are different forms briefing material may come in, however only one can be chosen. One that many CIRs utilize is having experts from each side of the legislative battle come in and offer testimony on the topic and answer any questions the participants may have. This has been recorded as being extremely productive in the numerous states that have used it. In the Denison specific seminars, the briefing materials were presented in a different manner. Basically a single sheet was presented with a list of pro and con arguments for the topic and participants could utilize this to create arguments for the side they supported (Djupe 2017).
In the context of the trial run for the civilian jury it is best to follow the precedent set by the previous two civilian juries at Denison and use the pro and con one sheet. This way, participants can learn the basic facts of the case and develop arguments to help with the deliberation.  This in turn would provoke the conversation to commence between various parties. A sense of unity, hope, and perseverance past the current status quo could result.

In order to better understand how a civilian jury would work on campus, an IRB-approved trial run was conducted utilizing student volunteers. The topic of discussion was on a DCGA sponsored proposal regarding the concept of “party barns” and party culture as a whole. The rules for the trial run were simple, students were to deliberate on the topic presented and utilize the information given to them to devise a solution for what should be done in DCGA. They had as long as possible to come up with a solution, but a written recommendation was required.

What the students received immediately when walking in was the “one sheet” that is shown below:

Topic: Party Culture and DCGA Party Barns

DCGA proposed solution: Use the reserve fund (60-80 thousand) to construct “party barns” on the IM fields that will become the new party location on campus.

Details of proposal:

• 6-8 barns will be constructed and built on concrete in a “circular formation”.
• A stage for a band will be in the middle
• Each barn costs roughly $10,000 to create
• Peer safety monitors will be stationed at each party thrown

PROS:

• Safer environment than cramped senior apartments
• Less risk of sexual assault
• More open space for students
• Ability to have live bands perform
• Less stress on senior apartments
• Greater access to party culture among all of Denison’s groups

CONS:

• Expensive
• Students may not use them and continue using the senior apartments
• Senior apartments will have new restrictions on the party registration
• Risk of fraternities taking control of the barns and not allowing other groups to use them
• Reserve fund will have to be used for regular maintenance
• Since alcohol will be present, school may impose legal restrictions on them

Things to consider when deliberating:

What are the positives and negatives of party culture at Denison?

Is there a way to make parties more inclusive without spending money?

Post Survey

The civic deliberation was a good experience
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
My opinion changed during the deliberation
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
My opinion was the minority opinion at the start of the deliberation
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The starting majority opinion was the final majority opinion
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
I felt respected during the deliberation
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
I would participate in a civic deliberation again
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly Disagree

After receiving this and reading over the information presented, the rules of the trial run and the project in detail were explained to them in more detail. Then the moderator chose who to speak and the deliberation occured. There were 12 students who volunteered to partake in it. The room was fully embracing the deliberation and taking it seriously, with 11 of the participants actively engaged in discussion. After 57 minutes of deliberation, the group made their final recommendation to the moderator. The final recommendation consisted of a bullet point list of ideas for what should be done to better party culture: University money would be used to renovate the Senior Apartments and build social spaces into the apartments. During the renovations, senior students would have access to off-campus housing. The group decided to take a vote on it and it passed 8-3, as one student left the simulation early.

The trial however, had many flaws that helped determine what not to do in the finalized program being implemented. First, the sample was not a representation of the student body, with 3 female students, 2 students of color, and 9 white fraternity men participating. This is largely due to the relatively limited sample size of students living on campus for the summer and other reasons. Invitations were sent over social media on numerous platforms that students use, but not enough to get more people involved. Second, the group simulated many techniques that are highlighted in the “against deliberation” literature, including group polarization and majority suppression of minority views. This is seen in the final vote, where the recommendation passed 8-3. As the trial was wrapping up, the majority voices started speaking out much more than those who were in the minority at the beginning. As the trial went on, minority voices fell silent more and more until the final vote, when only the majority was speaking. The trial ultimately shows what should not be had in the finalized jury program, for if the sample size was more representative of the student body, chances are the recommendation that was ultimately decided on would be different.

The post survey results also seem to backup the observations made during the trial. Most of the survey questions asked had almost unanimous agreement from the participants, with all 12 agreeing it was a good experience and 11 of 12 participants stating that they would be willing to participate again in a deliberation.

Where the results differed was in the questions “My opinion was in the minority opinion at the start of the deliberation” and “The starting majority opinion was the final majority opinion.” The two questions yielded answers in every category participants could choose.

These results suggest that participants were unaware of what the majority and minority opinions were in the first place. Seeing as the final recommendation of the group was almost entirely different from the actual DCGA proposal, it is possible that the participants simply had no way of knowing who truly supported what.

The trial run allowed for many formerly unknown questions to be asked. What came from the trial was an idea of what the final program should look like, who will actually run the program, and how to incentivise students to participate in it. After utilizing the data from the trial run and past Denison civilian juries, the finalized program starts to take shape.

A Civilian Jury Program at Denison

The three main questions to be answered are: How will the civilian jury be setup, who will run the civilian jury, and how can students from all over campus be incentivized to attend and participate in these juries. In regards to the first question, the jury will be setup with groups of roughly 5-8 students and a moderator. In the research conducted by Dr. Djupe on Denison’s campus, it is seen that smaller groups of students tend to deliberate better than larger groups. In cutting down the size of the trial by half, it allows for students to have more room to speak and decide what is best for DCGA to work on (Djupe 2016, 2017). In addition to the size, the finalized program will run similarly to how the trial run went - with students getting a one sheet of information like the one in the trial and deliberating with each other on the information. There will also be a “findings” section on the briefing materials that will better explain the concept that DCGA is discussing and explain any potential terms that students may not know about or understand. If DCGA is deciding on an actual piece of legislation, this too will be included in the briefing materials for students to read over.

Meanwhile, the finalized program needs some sort of oversight, and in order for this to run smoothly, DCGA Senators will be able to volunteer to moderate the juries. There will be 2 Senate moderators in each deliberation from differing class years overseeing the deliberation. The reasoning behind dual moderators is solely to hold each other accountable in the jury, as to keep Senators from potentially using a personal bias towards a piece of legislation to sway the participants. Using DCGA Senators as moderators is beneficial, because it allows DCGA to see firsthand what their constituents are thinking and believe in and also allows for them to be able to answer potentially difficult questions that the participants may have.

Finally, arguably the hardest question to answer is how to incentivise students to participate in these juries. In order to have a truly successful jury that accurately represents the student body, there will need to be an accurate demographic breakdown of students in the juries. This includes, race, ethnicity, social standing, income class, gender, academic success, etc. The problem that the trial ran into was such an uneven distribution of students with ¾ of the participants being Greek men. In order to truly reflect the entire campus’ views, there needs to be more diversification in the juries. In order to do this, students need to be incentivised to show up to them. One of the largest issues with Denison University is a lack of interest in DCGA related events. Generally, DCGA does not have a wide variety of students in attendance. Ironically, given the summer trial, the lowest category of student is white men affiliated with Greek organizations. However, there are many different ways to go about incentivising students to take part in the program. For example, if the program was offered for a small amount of academic credit students may be more inclined to part in it. However, to get to this point, the program will need to be established and legitimized. So in the meantime, for the first few semesters, giving students monetary incentives may prove to be the best course of action. If students have the ability to make money off of the program, then it gives a strong incentive to participate.

With the largest concerns out of the way, the civilian jury program becomes easier to develop with the skeleton in place. First, DCGA will promote the program and recruit the student body to volunteer for it using the incentives. Then when there are enough volunteers, DCGA will keep the list and utilize it when a piece of legislation occurs that requires the jury. Students will be invited to participate after being randomly selected into a sample group that closely resembles the student body. If a particular student cannot participate for some reason, a replacement who resembles that student will be invited so that the final participating sample reflects the student body. If there is a piece of controversial legislation being discussed in the Senate, there can be a vote held to send it to jury, in which case the legislation will then be deliberated by the student body and the recommendation will then be sent back to DCGA for further discussion. If a policy is sent to jury, the DCGA Executive Board and Administration advisors will utilize the list of volunteers and randomly select the students to participate in it. In turn, the students will be contacted via email and given the information for the jury which will generally take place one week after the policy is voted to be sent to jury in DCGA.

It is then up to the DCGA Public Relations Committee to develop the briefing materials, working with the author(s) of the legislation to put it together. Then DCGA Senators who volunteered to moderate will be selected.

Once the recommendation for the policy is reached by the jury, it will be sent to the entire Senate Body, and the piece of legislation will be voted on in the next Senate meeting, utilizing the new information. Senators will be able to amend the proposal to fit the jury’s recommendations if they choose, or they can shut the resolution down as well, if the jury sees fit that the resolution proposed does not truly help benefit the student body.

In order for this program to officially take off, many steps are needed to ensure that it can come to fruition. Originally, DCGA passed a resolution to support research into this program shown below:

Resolution to Initiate Research to Design a System to Achieve a Less Apathetic and More Informed Denison Student Body

Sponsored by

Rules Chair Nathaniel Beach

Cosponsored by

President Kalombo Ngoy, Vice President Daniels, Speaker Beck, Policy Chair Shook, Finance Chair Crum, Treasurer Angelo, Community Engagement Chair Seward

Section 1 - Purpose

1. Whereas, the Denison Campus Governance Association favorability rating is at 52% and vote turnout is extraordinarily low for a student government organization;
2. Whereas, DCGA is formed to accurately reflect the beliefs of the student body;
3. Whereas, DCGA needs to be able to better represent the student body and allow for their voices to be heard.

Section 2 - Implementation

1. Be it herein resolved, that the Denison Campus Governance Association formally grants Nathaniel Beach and Professor Djupe permission to conduct research on DCGA. This research will take place in the summer of 2018 as part of the Summer Scholars Program;
2. Be it further resolved, that Rules Chair Nathaniel Beach will report back the findings of the research to DCGA in the Fall 2018 Semester.

Passed by DCGA (29-1-2) 1/23/17

After the research is completed, in the Fall Semester of 2018, the findings and recommendation for the finalized program will be brought to the Senate floor. In turn, a resolution will be developed to firmly establish the program as the DCGA Student Review Board (DCGA SRB). After this, the program will then take effect later in the semester after passage by the Senate. If in the off chance the program is voted against and not passed in DCGA, the Executive Board can still decide to implement it without needing a vote, as a “community task force” with approval of the DCGA President. In this case, the Executive Board will be responsible for the program and can continue about it the same way regardless of whether or not it is voted on. However, passing it as a Senate resolution will make success more plausible with full Senate support behind it.

To Conclude

By analyzing the concepts behind deliberation and how people interact at  psychological level, it is interesting to see how this interaction can be utilized in a legislative matter. By creating a system that utilizes what is known about human deliberation, allows for the people to discuss legislative issues that directly impact them and have a say in the political matters generally reserved for elected officials. With the civilian jury, it helps take the representative aspect of politics out of the picture, and instead put that focus back on the people who live based upon these pieces of legislation. Numerous studies and tests throughout the country have yielded positive results for this new and upcoming program, and by bringing this exciting new concept to Denison, may just help the campus and give a voice to the student body. DCGA is in crucial need for reformation and help to allow for positive growth and change in the campus. By using a Denison Civilian Jury, that may just help.