Abstract

Despite the many positive effects of social media, the rise of extremist views and outrage culture and decline of Civil Discourse (CD) on many platforms have been a growing concern for decades. Conversation decorum and the ability to agree to disagree have been replaced with overconfidence, finger pointing, disinformation, cancel culture, gas lighting, and the ever-growing need to ‘win’ the argument by any means necessary – human flaws that social media have normalized. Social media has ignited a form of argumentation that encourages combative rhetoric at the expense of the art of conversation. It has changed the way we speak, listen, and disagree. This article reports on how Oros’s (2007) tools of Structured Classroom Debates (SCDs) were used to create outcomes for an undergraduate course titled ‘Civil Discourse and Democracy’ that aims to unteach divisive argumentation through developing critical inquiry skills.

Keywords

Civil Discourse, Structured Classroom Debates, Developing Critical Inquiry, Civic Education

Introduction

We live in online silos that we have curated for ourselves with people who like us and are like us. It is a simplistic way of looking at how we have lived the past couple of decades on social media, but the analogies of living in bubbles, planets, etc., all highlight one reality – they give protection and validation to our personal views, whether positive or negative. We are finding ‘our people’ and feeling supported, acknowledged, and safe in the company of our peers in perspective. We can spread our shared views faster and in numbers and help each other stand out in the online crowd. We do not see beyond what is happening in our silo, and we do not acknowledge the danger this poses; after all, our silo is a perfect echo-chamber that reinforces our principles and makes us feel stronger – a community. Although our ‘community’ makes us feel less alone behind our screens, the tendency to interact with our people ‘only’ – those who think like us, support what we like, and are angry about the same things we take issues with – poses a threat to the fabric of the bigger society we live in. Our online community of like-minded people makes way for overconfidence in our views with no regard to the views of others – in comes divisions and ‘othering’ and out goes civil discourse. 

There is a lot of evidence about the negative effects of social media on the way we communicate. For example, Cinelli et al. (2021) studied the effects of echo chambers and information exchange and found that homophilic networks are dominating online dynamics with higher bias and segregation on Facebook than on Reddit. Even without the research, many of us use social media and blame it for the death of CD; also, we have always had problems with civic engagement, even before the advent of Facebook, X, Instagram, etc. The blurred lines between free speech vs hate speech have always been subject of much contentious debate, but the difference now is that the anonymity of social media and the support we have in our online echo-chambers is making it easier to defend hate speech as free speech and still call it CD and freedom of expression. The reliance on social media for facts, health diagnoses, and news, the lack of training in spotting disinformation, and the excitement of sharing sensational news in our silos also add to societal divisions. It is becoming harder for people to redirect, slow down, critically analyse what they are consuming and sharing, and open up to different perspectives. We know how we got to this point, and social media is not the only reason we are here; it only made it worse. The question is: can we bring CD back from the dead?      

Despite our best efforts as educators, encouraging students to engage in debates, learn how to argue for a point, and listen for a new point of view is sometimes difficult. Classroom debates can be easier for mature students, but they are never an easy process overall. Unlike social media, there is no place to hide in such debates. We are made to doubt and react in real time, in-person; we are left at risk of being judged, canceled, and proven wrong, feelings we can manage or avoid in our online silos. Training rhetorical maturity is a challenge. Teaching students “How to Speak, not Just Talk”, using Paul Simons distinction from his “The Sound of Silence” lyrics, for lack of a better reference, has more to do with unteaching them harmful social media reaction and interaction habits than developing their confidence. If anything, it has more to do with helping students manage their social media interaction and argumentation habits; we need to teach students how to positively and constructively doubt and react to the information they consume online.    

We are not reinventing the wheel here; CD courses and programs of study are offered at many universities around the world, so how is the Civil Discourses and Democracy course presented in this article different? The answer is that it may not be different at all. In fact, it may be that this course underdelivers when compared to those offered at bigger, more historically, civically active institutions. We are not presenting a new, unique course to many; we are merely presenting an example, one of many that others have presented – one that might encourage the creation of more examples. This article aims to trigger more discussions about CD courses and how they might look in the future. The course reported here uses content and discourse analysis skills to develop critical inquiry mainly due to the fact that the course creator is a linguist. Therefore, other and future examples will most likely be influenced by the interests and training of their creators.  

Below, we give an account of how the undergraduate, 400-level elective, ‘Civil Discourse and Democracy’ course was created. We present the background of how the course idea stared and the theory that shaped the direction of the course design, and we argue that CD needs to be taught independently from Public Speaking (PS) courses. Finally, we show how Oros’s (2007) tools of SCDs were used to build the course outcomes. 

How the Course Started

A few years ago, I received an email from a high school student in the United States, requesting an interview for a paper they were writing about CD. The student had found my profile online after reading a paper I co-authored on the network flack that CNN and Fox News received through memes (Al-Rawi, Al-Musalli, & Rigor, 2021), which encouraged them to reach out to me for an interview. Little did they know that I had no clue were to start. The problem of CD is unsolvable, but I could not simply give this answer, especially that the student was trying to do something to promote civil discourse. I studied for the interview and gave the best answers I had. 

The questions centered around what I thought was the reason for the decline of CD in the United States, and how educators could help promote a more inclusive, civil society. I advised that these are issues that I cannot fully cover in one interview and that the problem with CD is not restricted to the United States. Many countries are facing the same issue and have varying degrees of success in promoting CD skills in schools and universities. I offered the student a summary of how journalists, fact-checking experts, pedagogues, and media specialists in Finland created simple and effective Media Information Literacy tools for media users and students of all ages, including primary school pupils, to support responsible participation in civic discourse online FactBar Edu (2018), making Finland, as Henley (2020) argues, “Europe’s most resistant nation to fake news” (pp. 11-12). I encouraged the student to read widely on the subjects of critical thinking skills, pre-social media civic liberty movements, and the kind of discourse that took place around the issues they support. I acknowledged to the student that our readings on CD and civil liberties in the United States might be biased and limited as they come from the perspective of an academic, immigrant to Canada from a war-torn country that was sanctioned by the United States. However, I left the student with the hope that the Finish model does give a good footprint to follow to promote healthy discourse and that it can be what the United States and other countries need to replicate in K-12 and undergraduate curricula. 

But what are CD skills, what should we train, and where do we start? I found answers to some of these questions in a presentation by Andersen and Arcus at the Global Media Education Summit (2023). They argue that to facilitate civil discourse, teachers need to develop a pedagogy of empathy. Contentious topics must be given room in the classroom, which they call “a site of struggle as well as a medium for agency and action”. They cite an interview by CCCB (2019) with Henry Giroux, founder of critical pedagogy, who argues for a recognition of the advantages of discourses of anxiety and struggle,

Uncertainties can be a time of great anxiety but a time of great possibility. A time to rethink the language of politics, rethink the language of struggle. Power is not always about domination. It’s also about resistance. Young people have a lot of power. They can shut societies down. They can block streets, they can engage in direct action, they can educate their parents…  They are a potent political force and I think what they need to do is to recognise themselves as a potent political force and they need to act.  Because a discourse of anxiety should give way to a discourse of critique and a discourse of critique should give way to a discourse of possibility. And a discourse of possibility means that you can imagine a future very different from the present.

Classrooms, which are forms of media environments, ecomedia literacy succeeds or fails as our critical thinking is affected by our biases and fears (Andersen & Arcus, 2023). Originally developed to promote sustainability and the relationship between media and living system, ecomedia literacy has profound effects on how educators can navigate CD training. According to López (2019), ecomedia literacy offers a framework to explore ‘the ecological “footprint” and “mindprint” of media as drivers of environmental problems and solutions.’ The framework involves a critical examination of the positive and negative impact that media and communication technologies have on the physical environment and our beliefs about our relationship with the environment. Ecomedia literacy advocates for promoting sustainability through civic engagement, youth media, alternative media, and global citizenship.

Andersen and Arcus (2023) offer a number of measures to support the learners’ and educators’ ecomedia in challenging discussions:  

1. Acknowledging and accepting the fragility of our identities in order to explore difficult ideas openly.  
2. Understanding that learners will struggle as they balance critical thinking and personal identity and beliefs to negotiate meanings. 
3. Accepting the simultaneous integration and disintegration effects of digital media, especially to tackle the alienation, isolation, and biases that the latter effects might produce, hence, the classroom could act as sight of struggle as well as a “balancing site for ecomedia literate thinking”. 
4. Offering learners a safe space for critical thinking to reflect on classroom and media environments ecosystems and metacognition, keeping in mind that learners are invested in media environments with narratives and technologies that have unknown influences on their values and identities. 
5. Applying pedagogical strategies to help learners develop agency through CD. Educators need to have the presence of mind develop leaners’ understanding, tolerance, and empathy. This could be done through using epistemological awareness and processing skills to lower tensions, support healthy participatory learning and discussions, and facilitate ecomedia literacy. 

The most important piece in this list of criteria is the need as educators to understand that tension creates resiliency, and without healthy tensions in the classroom, growth will not happen. We need to be part of the tension and prepare ourselves and the students for it. This way, our method and intension are clear, and we can help students make distinctions between justified opinion and belief and reflect on both. 

The above guiding measures that Andersen and Arcus presented, the idea of offering a framework to explore the “mindprint” of media from ecomedia literacy, the importance of critically examining the impact of media on the environment and users, and the questions posed by the high-school student have been the building blocks for the Civil Discourse and Democracy course presented in this article. Also, it is important to note that much of the course outcomes presented below have been founded on readings and experiential work in teaching Disinformation Literacy (see Al-Musalli, 2022; Al-Musalli & Wight, 2023).

Civil Discourse vs Public Speaking 

When mentioning the Civil Discourse and Democracy course to a colleague, they asked whether this was “an advanced Public Speaking course”. The question is not completely invalid, as some advanced PS courses promote debate and dialogue skills, not simply monologue writing, and CD is, in layperson’s terms, speaking to others in a civil way. However, CD is much more nuanced than the act of encoding speech in a polite way, choosing speech acts to show disapproval without the intention to offend others, or preparing a script and practicing it in the hopes that there will be an opportunity to use some of the prepared arguments.  

The importance of promoting CD in the curricula and in our conversations as educators is not new; however, we seem to have relied on PS courses to train CD skills and lost the foci of CD skills along the way. While the two courses are arguably two sides of the same coin, they are not interchangeable. Are some of the CD skills and PS skills the same? If we entertain the idea that some of their subskills or micro-competencies align, this suggests that PS can be the answer to developing CD skills, so there would be no need for an independent CD course, no need for new hires with expertise in teaching CD, and no need for new course expenses. Why offer two courses when you can offer one? Thankfully, many educators can see the difference and do not need convincing that CD and PS must be taught independently – PS being the preferred prerequisite for CD. 

If we look closely at what constitutes CD, we will find that CD is not a subskill or sub-literacy of PS. Our expectations of students after CD and PS courses are different as are the outcomes. While both promote active listening, CD includes skills that are not necessarily practices in PS courses or activities. In CD, we have two opposing arguments, while in PS, the speaker in most cases delivers a speech with does not generate a debate. CD course can promote PS, but the reverse is not guaranteed. CD skills include actions that go beyond the preparation of a researched, eloquent speech. 

Leskes (2013) makes a plea for CD and cites a number of definitions that highlight CD skills. Firstly, Brosseau (2011) reports one from a conversation at the US Supreme Court as a, “robust, honest, frank and constructive dialogue and deliberation that seeks to advance the public interest”.  Also, Davis (2010) define CD as, “the exercise of patience, integrity, humility and mutual respect in civil conversation, even (or especially) with those with whom we disagree” (P. 159). Other definitions focus on the harshness of CD. For example, Ahrens (2009) maintains that CD inevitably contains offensive expression, and Leach (2011) argues that civility is not simply about manners; there is a social good in argumentation and spirited advocacy. Herbst (2010) suggests, “even some incivility can move a policy debate along. Creating a culture of argument, and the thick skin that goes along with it, are long-term projects that will serve democracy well” (p. 148). Wegge (2013) gives two elements in CD: 1) the emotive, which is expressed through norms of behaviours and manners (self-control), and 2) the constructive confrontation, which is expressed through the civility demonstrated during the deliberation. Therefore, CD goes beyond simple courtesy. It is an informed and frank exchange of ideas and an understanding of ambiguity and complexity. Leskes concludes with the same argument presented by Andersen and Arcus (2023) above – that we cannot expect that CD would create a feeling of comfort as any discord causes uneasiness, and challenging opinions, especially those that are deeply held, induces pain. Finally, Leskes (2013) proposes that discourse that is civil involves the following: 

1. undertaking a serious exchange of views,
2. focusing on the issues being discussed rather than on the individual(s) supporting them,
3. defending arguments through verified sources and information,
4. listening thoughtfully,
5. looking for points of disagreement as well as common purposes,
6. showing a willingness to be open-minded and will accept other’s views, 
7. assuming a willingness to compromise,
8. treating other’s ideas with respect, and 
9. avoiding emotional, physical and verbal violence.

Furthermore, CD is a skill of civic learning which requires responsible and engaged citizens who are not only informed about political process and major contemporary and historical issues but are also empowered by practical and intellectual skills including: 

1. critical inquiry,
2. reasoning and analysis, 
3. information retrieval and evaluation,
4. effective written communication,
5. effective oral communication,
6. understanding of personal perspectives and their limitations, and
7. interacting constructively with individuals who hold conflicting views.

It is safe to say that the skills in the latter list may apply to advanced PS, especially when PS requires an exchange of views after a speech. Nonetheless, the emphasis on promoting a dialogue in CD rather than a monologue in PS implies that the outcomes in these courses are not identical, and therefore, the two skillsets should not be deemed exchangeable. We need both literacies, not one or the other. 

Course Aim and Outcomes 

The aim of the Civil Discourse and Democracy course presented in this article is to train students how to conduct content and discourse analyses of debates on topics of their choices to formulate a critical inquiry practise on the subject matter, after which they debate their topics in a SCD. In order to fulfil this aim, we looked for tools in the literature as well as outcomes and objectives that could help us achieve the course aim. 

Oros (2007) argues that only few of us provide students with effective debate tools through our syllabi and curricula, so when we encourage students to debate challenging issues, especially politics, most of the debates end up as unguided class discussions. Debate tools are the foundation of SCDs and are important for active learning, skills retention, and positive effect on future interactions. Oros suggests that these tools could be: 

1. integrated in the course design as a core component to understand politics,
2. developed through teaching critical thinking explicitly through assignments, 
3. planned through assigned debate questions provided in advance to groups of students to work on to consider the different lines or argumentation to the posed problem/question, and
4. combined with other follow-up reflection through written assignments.

To develop the course outcomes of the Civil Discourse and Democracy course, I merged the first two functions of Oros’s four tools, as they were decoding-focused tools, and created the three following interconnected pedagogical action items, which I identified as tiers:  

Tier One (T1): Analysis, reflection, fact-checking, and understanding of existing content and information, through developing content and discourse analysis decoding skills to prepare for a debate,

Tier Two (T2): Application of continued research and T1 skills in argument production and demonstration of ethical, researched argumentation in planned debates, and 

Tier Three (T3): Reflection on class debate, retention of information and debate skills, demonstration of growth, and planning for future application.  

The above tiers helped create the following course outcomes that align with the aim of the course, each of which connected to one or more tires as shown:  

1. create coded transcripts through codebooks to conduct content and discourse analysis of debates, to develop a critical analysis and assessment of values, relevance, assumptions, and rhetorical argumentation (T1);
2. identify the difference between free speech, hate speech and assumptions (T1);
3. develop ethical arguments about the issues in the debates chosen for analysis (T1 & T2);
4. research and support arguments through reliable, relevant, and recent sources and researched facts (T1 & T2);
5. understand different perspectives and positions based on differences in culture, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability, age and other identity categories (T1 & T2);
6. demonstrate new learning and personal growth, using theoretical approaches and critical frameworks, such as the Dialectic Theory and Dual Process Theory, among others (T2 & T3);
7. apply principles from the course and civil discourse skills in their personal interactions, at work and online to argue and defend ideas respectfully (T3).

In addition, I planned the course to stand out as an elective that could be taken by any student from across the university. Therefore, I looked for specific CD skills that align with required Self and Society electives as represented by the university’s general education framework for baccalaureate degree programs. This way, the elective course was founded on institutional, pedagogical, and didactical principles and offered a unique set of skills that complement different programs of study. The course outcomes were also scaffolded on other courses offered in the School of Communication to better situate it for graduates in the program. The Self and Society Cap Core course outcomes are: 

1. Identify potential root causes of local/global problems and how they affect local/global cultures, economies, politics, and policies. Students are expected to write and speak conversantly about what democracy means in different contexts to enhance free speech and identify what is collectively considered hate speech and assumptions.
2. Assess and evaluate individual and collective responsibilities within a diverse and interconnected global society. Students are expected to understand, respect and advocate for different perspectives and positions based on differences in culture, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability, age and other identity categories.
3. Apply concepts of sustainable development to address sustainability challenges in a global context. Students are expected to study debates on the topic of sustainability, engage in group debates on the issues, and propose practical, personal, community, and national action plans or suggestions in the debates. 
4. Analyze the impact of colonialism and racism on Indigenous peoples. Students are expected to analyse and create codebook transcripts of debates on issues of colonization, climate change, religious freedoms, and gender identity to present suggestions in the debates that would help mitigate the risks and suffering of the peoples facing the issues in question.  
5. Synthesize a range of differing community perspectives on ethics and justice and explain how these perspectives can inform structural change. Students are expected to assess values, relevance, assumptions, and argumentations to inform the proposed suggestions. 

I also took into consideration the classroom support and planning measures that Andersen and Arcus (2023) suggest for challenging discussions and the rubrics presented by Oros (2007) to support the objectives of the course as the students progress through the outcomes. For example, when presenting a rebuttal, students are expected to acknowledge and measure their limited knowledge on a new point of argument before proceeding to defend it with limited facts. 

Conclusion

The need to have the final say about something is not a new flaw in humans, but social media has fed it, rebranding and normalizing it to the extent that we can no longer hold a conversation with one another without the desire to win the argument. Some may argue that this desire to win has made us more intelligent and adaptable, more able to make a living and connect with people, but are we, really? 

The Civil Discourse and Democracy course presented in this article is not the first of its kind. It is one of many attempts that other educators have made to get students to start speaking with rather than talking at one another. It has been developed with emphasis on content and discourse analyses of debates on subjects of students’ choice. The rationale is that teaching students how to conduct analyses of debates on topics that they support, disapprove of, or are undecided about can help them slow down, draw a picture they might not have considered about the pieces of information that make the whole picture and plan a better way to respond to the challenges they face around their problems. The course is inspired by disinformation literacy assignments from a Disinformation and Media course that I created in 2022 and is founded on principles suggested by scholars in the field. The instructor’s role in this course will be that of facilitator who will provide ample student-focused, team-based activities to support students’ work both inside and outside the classroom. Success is not guaranteed, and advice from you, dear reader, is always welcomed. 

I hope that this case study will encourage further discussions and reflections on best practices and new ways to teach CD. This particular course is still at its infancy in terms of outcomes planning. I hope that more universities see how different CD and PS courses are, both in rationale and competencies, and I call for more space for CD course at all levels of education to help remedy some of the divide in our communities. 

References

Ahrens, J. (2009). Encouraging Civil Discourse in a Most Unlikely Place. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Ethics Across the Curriculum, Rochester, NY. http://vault.hanover.edu/~ahrens/Vita_and_mss/Encouraging%20Civil%20Discourse.Pdf

Al-Musalli, A. and Wight, K. (2023). Pedagogies for critical media production and disinformation studies: A taxonomy of co-literacies. The Journal of Media Literacy. DOI: https://ic4ml.org/journal-article/pedagogies-for-critical-media-production-and-disinformation-studies-a-taxonomy-of-co-literacies/

Al-Musalli, A. (2022). Disinformation Literacy: Undergraduate Students’ Perspectives on Emergent Skills and Implications for Disinformation Pedagogy. Global Media Journal-Canadian edition, 14(1), 143-168. DOI: http://gmj-canadianedition.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/08_Al-Musalli-Volume-14-issue-1_Paper-FINAL.pdf

Al-Rawi, A., Al-Musalli, A. and Rigor, P. (2021) Networked flak in CNN and Fox News memes on Instagram. Digital Journalism, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1916977

Andersen, N. & Arcus, C. (2023). Facilitating Civil Discourse: How might teachers develop a pedagogy of empathy for discussion of contentious topics? Global Media Education Summit, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada.

Brosseau, C. (2011). “Executive Session: Civil Discourse in Progress.” Frankly Speaking. http://nicd.arizona.edu/newsletter/october-2011#125

CCCB. (2019, July 2). Henry Giroux: “All education is a struggle over what kind of future you want for young people” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCMXKt5vRQk&t=599s&ab_channel=MacPhersonInstitute

Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

Davis, J. C. (2010). In Defense of Civility: How Religion can Unite America on Seven Moral Issues that Divide Us. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

FactBar Edu. (2018). Fact-checking for Educators and Future Voters. Available online at: https://www.faktabaari.fi/assets/FactBar_EDU_Fact-checking_for_educators_and_future_voters_13112018.pdf  

Henley, J. (2020). How Finland starts its fight against fake news in primary schools. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/fact-from-fiction-finlands-new-lessons-in-combating-fake-news 

Herbst, S. (2010). Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Leach, J. (2011). “The Health of Our Nation.” Speech delivered at Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA, http://www.neh.gov/about/chairman/speeches/the-health-our-nation

Leskes, A. (2013). A plea for civil discourse: Needed, the academy’s leadership. Liberal Education, 99(4), 44-51. https://carleton-wp-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/291/2022/05/A-Plea-for-Civil-Discourse.pdf

López, A. (2019). Ecomedia Literacy. In Hobbs, R., Mihailidis, P., Cappello, G., Ranieri, M., & Thevenin, B. (Eds.). (2019). The international encyclopedia of media literacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0210

Oros, A. L. (2007). Let’s debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160701558273

Wegge, D. 2013. “Toward a More Civil Discourse.” St. Norbert College. http://www.snc.edu/livingnorbertine/stories/201210civildiscourse.html