Program aimed at developing civic-dialogue skills

Can we talk?

I mean, really talk. And not just with members of our tribe, but with people who may have little to nothing in common with us?

Can we have meaningful conversations with others without them devolving into shouting matches or both sides digging in their heels and “agreeing to disagree”?

Can we consider opposing viewpoints, find common ground and work toward mutually beneficial solutions to public problems?

If JMU has anything to say about it, we can.

In support of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s request that all new students at public colleges and universities in the Commonwealth receive training in freedom of expression and free speech, and building on JMU’s mission as an engaged university, the James Madison Center for Civic Engagement has implemented the Better Conversations Together program to help students develop and refine their civic dialogue skills.

“We want to produce students who can be active agents in their communities for the common good,” said Kara Dillard, interim director of the Madison Center. “That means being able to talk to our neighbor who may wave a different flag outside of their house than we do.”

The democratization of news media, shorter attention spans and computer-generated algorithms that feed us information based on our personal preferences have divided us along political, cultural and ideological lines, and made us less tolerant of individual differences.

“We’ve lost the ability, and oftentimes the willingness, to understand where people are coming from,” Dillard said. Better Conversations Together attempts to remedy that.

“We try to teach students the value of being curious about others’ beliefs, and not to snap to judgment but to ask questions: What led you to that belief? What experiences have you had? What do I not know about you that will help me understand who you are? … By asking those kinds of questions, we see each other as human beings and not ‘others’ whose beliefs are so foreign to us that we don’t want to engage with them. Because it’s in that lack of engagement … that we find that problems become intractable.”

The program, now part of first-year orientation at JMU, is intended to help students understand their own views and values, as well as to actively listen and productively talk with others across divides.

Prior to arriving on campus, students participate in the first two modules in the Constructive Dialogue Institute’s Perspectives e-learning program, which explores how our brains process information and how people form values and beliefs.

Once on campus, as an extension of their civic learning, students participate in a 90-minute, facilitated, small-group deliberation using a pre-framed, nonpartisan issue guide from the National Issues Forums Institute. The program includes a midpoint assessment and a survey at the end to assess participants’ experiences and learning.

The Madison Center partnered with the First Year Research Experience program to conduct a pilot project, Bridging Wicked Divides, during the 2022-23 and 2023-24 academic years. JMU students from diverse backgrounds and different political persuasions were chosen to participate. The students deliberated in small groups on topics including climate change, the economy, free speech and immigration.

Contrary to the perception that some college students are afraid to express their views for fear of facing discrimination or sanctions by their professors and peers, the survey results indicated that overall participants felt comfortable expressing themselves. Perhaps more significantly, 92% reported finding common ground on which to act, and 98% of respondents expressed a high degree of support for their group’s decision.

“It’s easy to think that students might find common ground, but their support for acting is [usually] weak, especially if their political inclinations are primed and the issue discussed is framed in polarizing language,” 2022-23 Senior Democracy Fellow Angelina Clapp (’21, ’23M) and former First Year Research Experience Fellow Annika Thompson wrote in the project summary. “Then, groups might be willing to say they agree for social reasons — to agree to move the conversation along. What we [found] in our deliberative forums is different. When participants agreed on common ground, they committed to it.”

Finding common ground on difficult issues means “we may not get everything we want,” said Dillard, who is also co-director of JMU’s Institute for Constructive Advocacy and Dialogue. “But we’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to give up something, so that we can address a problem that is impacting a large number of people.”

When asked whether the forums increased their respect for others’ views, pilot project participants were somewhat less positive. While 72% of self-identified moderates reported having somewhat or significantly more respect, liberals (44%) and conservatives (46%) indicated less respect for others’ views.

According to Clapp and Thompson, “it’s one thing to talk and share ideas; it’s another to listen and deeply consider the merits of others’ views.” Indeed, they argue, “those two civic behaviors may be the hardest to do, despite structural conditions that may enable productive listening and talking across differences.”

Dillard agrees there is still work to be done. “There’s a level of bravery that’s required of students to step out of their comfort zones and affinity spaces, where they’re with people who have the same interests and values and who look like them, and to engage with someone who has a different background and a different perspective, and to say, ‘What led you there?’ … And to not just ask that question, but to really be curious about the answer.

“That’s the skill and the mindset that I hope this program teaches students,” she said.