By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation, “Take Back Our Campus: Preventing Sexual Assault at Penn State,” centered on three approaches to reduce sexual assault on college campuses. The first approach discussed alcohol, and the fact that alcohol is a major factor in sexual assault by lowering ability to communicate consent and perceive sexual signals. My group discussed the need for better, increased education about alcohol and sexual assault. That Penn State needs to do more than one pre-freshman online program, and present it in a more open and engaging platform so it is more impactful. Additionally, we weighed the idea of fraternities being required to have a third-party bartender so drinks can be better monitored. We all agreed frats are a major problem with how they handle alcohol and in turn those who drink, leading to increased opportunity for sexual assault. In approach two, help available, the groups discussed Safe Walk, blue lights, and “angel shots.” We concluded that PSU’s Safe Walk program is ineffectual as it currently is, with understaffing making wait times dangerously high. One girl brought up the idea of an improved Safe Walk run with golf carts for faster times, increased availability, and less creepy than being followed back to a dorm. For blue lights, we discussed how Penn State lacks in this department, with only four around campus, and that they need to build more. And lastly for downtown State College, we conversed about the advantages of implementing “Angel shots” for women who need to get out of uncomfortable positions in bars. For the third approach, bystander intervention was examined as an effective way to prevent sexual assault by different ways of intervention. We reached a consensus that the buddy system and having a game plan beforehand with friends was important so people can watch out for each other. Also, bystander intervention training could help students feel more comfortable knowing how to intervene effectively in a situation going south. One girl came up with saying to someone in need of help, “Hey didn’t we have English 15 together?” to distract and get the girl away from the guy (or vice versa). Analysis/Reflection I learned from the moderators and deliberation how I can become a better moderator. The format of their approaches was to have all of the groups listen to a moderator about the short introductions in each approach, then go back to discussion in each group. The conversation was sometimes abruptly cut off with this type of format. As a moderator, I learned that keeping it in the small groups the whole time might be easier to transition between sections. One of the moderators in my group mentioned outside information on how she had called and asked around downtown about the “angel shots” idea. This fact positively impacted her ethos to me, and made me think she really cared about this deliberation topic. I learned that it would further me positively as a moderator to show in small ways how I care deeply about whatever topic I am covering. In regards to the key issues discussed during the deliberation, each was distinct on their own to generate separate but equally useful discussion. But at the same time, I felt the moderators left enough open reigns that participants could come up with unique ideas; for instance, when one woman brought up the problem of fraternity parties and their overall environment here at Penn State, during the third approach.
0 Comments
By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation, College Tuition: Can You Pay for a Brighter Future? focused on three different approaches to the issue. The event started off when those who attended were asked to stand up if they wanted to buy a car, house, have their own credit card, and more after they got out of college. Most, if not all, stood up. Then reality was brought up, that included talk about high rates of student debt and that, of course, in a perfect world college would be not cost. After more introduction and personal stake discussion, we transferred into approach one, still in a large group. First of all, approach one centered on how the government could help with college tuition, through ideas such as greater use of taxation, economic price ceilings, and change towards a more universal system for public college tuition. The idea of the government regulating more tax dollars towards education (and therefore tuition prices), instead of spending almost half their budget on military costs was discussed. We also touched on how FAFSA unequally awards money to students, underestimating how much they/their parents can afford to pay. Our last major point we weighed was how our American attitude against socialistic approaches to government hinders our ability to provide free community college or price ceilings for student college materials. Next, we broke up into three smaller groups for approach two, students and family. We conversed about our different experiences with scholarships, and in the end how it is often difficult to find or win enough to cover college expenses. A solution we came up with is for high schools to have a class on scholarships and help students to learn about resources earlier. Also, we agreed that AP and dual-enrollment courses are a great way to earn credits and save money. But low income students may have trouble paying the money for the exams/other expenses, so there should be reduced prices. For the third approach, university, we debated reducing gen. ed. requirements, have more accelerated degree programs, and prioritize where tuition money goes towards. Specifically, about Penn State, we discussed various Integrated Undergraduate/Graduate (IUG) programs that allow students to get advanced degrees quicker and cheaper. We agreed that more students should take advantage of said programs. We also thought the 2+2 Penn State programs would allow students to save money at a more community college level before going to University Park. The issue was that there is a stigma of going to a branch campus first, but in the end fear of debt should take precedence over pride. Analysis/Reflection In regards to how the event itself was run, I learned valuable insight for future moderating. Structure-wise, they started their first approach as one large group, and the conversation was more stop and go than a flow of conversation. We then broke into smaller groups for the last two approaches, which stimulated much better conversation. I definitely learned that more intimate groups make people feel more comfortable in discussing sensitive/controversial issues. Also, the format of two moderators per group allowed them to bounce ideas off each other, and think of effective questions. If I were to moderate again I believe having a co-moderator is helpful. Lastly, their mix of more open-ended questions and specific questions impacted the conversation well in that we could bring in new ideas, as well as those outlined in the issue map. The key issues discussed I believe were easier to talk about since college tuition is a topic directly relevant to my life as a paying college student. The approaches stimulated good conversation, but as a busy college student, in reality, the approach of students and family is the one I could make a change for. I can put it on myself and my family to search more diligently for scholarships or other ways to raise money. Structural changes of the government or university are more complex to discuss as the economic implications go beyond typical knowledge. By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation,” The Electoral College: Protecting the Public or Diminishing Democracy,” centered on two main options, keep the Electoral College intact as it is or get rid of it and create a new system. The introduction to the afternoon’s discussion first mentioned what was on all our minds- the recent presidential election of Donald Trump by the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. The issue is a hot topic currently because of this, and many are calling for some sort of change to the system. Personal stakes were gaged, for example, concerns of the votes of individuals meaning little, and on the other side, concern that giving individuals too much unrestrained power can lead to problems. For option one, the discussion centered on keeping the Electoral College in tact as is, and that our top priority would be staying with the status quo. We talked about the pros of maintaining, such as that the Electoral College ensure all states are involved with selecting the President, that it guarantees certainty in the presidential election, and that our Founding Fathers placed it in our Constitution because they thought it best. Everyone in my group thought the E. C. at least needs some sort of change. We talked about how swing states gives power to those in certain states over others, and that it can elect a President the people did not majority vote for. And going to the extreme of abolishing the E. C. entirely might give too much power to uneducated masses of voters, to appoint unqualified leaders. The second option, getting rid of the E. C. and creating a new system hones in on making key improvements to the structure of it. We weighed the idea of appointing electors to districts across state borders, but realize gerrymandering can still be a problem. One person even brought up having the populous directly elect the electors, who then vote for and elect the President. An idea that electoral votes not state winner takes all was also weighed, but the tradeoff that that is basically a double popular vote then. We also thought of how difficult it would be to amend the Constitution to get rid of it, or make significant changes. And finally, as a joke we contended the Presidential nominees should just fight it out in a cage match to see who’s the next leader. Analysis/Reflection Personally, I do not feel as if I got as much out of the deliberation as I would have liked. The main issue is in my own lack of greater knowledge on the political system of the US, specifically around this issue. This deliberation topic is more on the difficult side because it requires a higher level of beforehand knowledge, but I definitely learned and understood this issue more afterwards. Additionally, I learned important knowledge of how to become a better moderator from this deliberation. Contrary to the first deliberation I attended, this one’s structure was on two options as opposed to three. I find the discussion to be more centered on each individual option at a time when it’s not just two ends of the spectrum. Two options resulted in conversation that tends to follow to a third middle ground quickly, without equal consideration to the two options. As a moderator in the future with two options I would make sure to diligently steer the conversation to the two opposites. Their format of two moderators to each group, who did not switch out for the options did not lead to as clear a distinction of when to begin discussing the second option. I learned that a clear division between approaches/options is key to get the most deliberation achieved. Finally, I observed the key issues discussed and the possible solutions weighed, depended on one’s belief that the people should have less restricted power, or stay more balanced by a system like the Electoral College. These differing, fundamental beliefs were not mentioned explicitly in discussion but both sides respectfully understood and listened to other’s opinions nonetheless. By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation titled “Mental Health: The Invisible Illness” centered around three key approaches. The afternoon started off with an introduction of the team members and a welcome to the deliberation. Their introductory statement began with a powerful statistic: Thirty-three percent of students reported feeling so depressed within the previous twelve months it was difficult to function. This fact helps to relate mental illness as a significant problem in young adults, and rid the stigma that those with mental illnesses face. Then, they asked personal stake questions such as how many people knew someone with a mental illness and/or themselves had a mental illness. Nearly everyone, if not all, raised a hand. Next, the large group was divided into three smaller groups to rotate discussing their three approaches to the solution: enhancing education, accessibility to treatment, and affordability for treatment. For the first approach, enhancing education, the main points formulated were increasing mental health/illness education earlier (such as elementary/middle school) and one participant even suggested publishing children’s books to normalize mental illness; have more programs for bystander education so they know the signs to watch out for others who need help; educate correct language to use; and more awareness for mental illness, for example many PSU students do not know about CAPS, Center for Counseling and Psychological Services, on campus. The overarching idea was increasing educational awareness leads to decreasing the stigma around mental illnesses. The second approach, accessibility to treatment, led to discussion about CAPS on our campus. We learned that CAPS only provide 6 free counseling sessions, has long wait times, and does not provide for prolonged illness. Possible solutions discussed were messaging services for students to psychiatrists, extra staffing of CAPS, possibly free college students group counseling together, and bring more awareness to this issue through walks for mental health awareness, PSU stall stories, flyers, etc that lead to more accessibility for students. The third approach, affordability for treatment, focused on insurance inclusion and increased affordability of college services. It was discussed that yes insurance policies need to have coverage for mental illness treatments but to the extent of coverage is had to decide. And universities should make treatments more affordable, such as the currently proposed $10 addition to PSU activity fee to extend CAPS. Another main point was that stigma causes financial burden, that society sees physical injury as a higher need than mental illness. At the end the groups came together to go over what we all had discussed and thought about. An overarching theme was how stigma affects all of the interconnecting approaches, and what should ultimately be done to end that stigma. Need to know resources and guidance for further action/involvement were provided. Analysis/Reflection I learned important knowledge to become a better moderator from the execution of this deliberation. The structure of the event was effective: starting in a large group to discuss personal stakes and the issue in general, then small groups for the three approaches, and then gathering as a large group again for the conclusion. In specifics, the three small groups allowed for easier and more comfortable conversation. As a future moderator, I learned that the rotation of the moderators left a clear distinction between the three approaches, which helped center the discussions. I also learned that for the provoking questions, it’s good to have ideas to prompt initial discussion if the no one speaks up. Additionally, the three approaches left more of an impact as participant because they were related back to my own community here at Penn State. The issues become more real this way, so to become a better moderator I need to leave the impact that these issues are intrinsically important. The key issues discussed and raised flowed together very well. Each of the three were distinct enough that numerous different solutions could be discussed. But all three approaches still interconnected enough so the issue was seen as multifaceted and that there are many ways and solutions to the issue. Again, the approaches connected back to our own community that increased thinking of community involvement and aide. |
Categories
All
|