DEMOCRATIC TOPIC SELECTION

On the first day of class, my students were shocked when I presented them with an almost blank syllabus and a survey. I explained that after a two-week introductory period, during which we would read several works that address the general idea and practice of democracy in America, the course would have five two-week-long, topic-related sections, the subjects of which would be determined by student vote. They were offered a choice of 22 subject areas (for each, I also listed the types of questions that we might discuss in class).^{Footnote 2} After the votes were counted, I selected readings for each topic and filled in the syllabus. In several instances, students suggested articles, books, and videos that they thought would stimulate excellent discussion on a particular topic.

Without exception, the students praised this feature of the course. Their comments almost all concerned two points. First, they reported that voting on the discussion topics “increased student interest” and made them more “invested” in their coursework. Because “we were already interested in the topics we were discussing,” one student commented, “we were more passionate about the readings and work.” Said another, “I think this led to a more engaged and thoughtful class” because “students actually chose the topics and questions we discussed. There wasn’t a single class where I felt like we were talking about something that didn’t matter.” (Another student made the same point in a particularly blunt and charming way: “Given that we had input into the specifics of conversation, if it wasn’t interesting or if conversation sucked, [we knew] it was ultimately our fault,” he wrote.^{Footnote 3})

Second, the students emphasized that being able to vote on the topics discussed increased their sense of camaraderie. As one wrote, this aspect of the democratic syllabus “created a much more communal atmosphere conducive to discussion” because “all of us knew we were talking about these things because we wanted to.” It “contributed to a sense of community between us,” said another.^{Footnote 4}

It is interesting that most of my students also framed their comments about this aspect of the course in terms of the politics of education. “It made me realize the importance of student responsibility and flexibility in curricular goals for a quality education,” said one. “Students have to feel that they have an equal part in their educational process for them to truly contribute.” Wrote another, “It reinforced my ideas about how important relationships and community are to learning.” Many wrote that the course made them see for the first time how much power professors usually have, just by virtue of their position as syllabus-designers. Similarly, two students reminded me that although this syllabus was far more student-generated than most, calling it democratic was “overstated” because “ultimately, the professor chose the direction that each topic went” and “it was really still largely structured” by a professorial authority.^{Footnote 5}

The direction of these comments suggests ways in which, throughout the semester, democratic topic selection gave me opportunities to talk about the difficulties of basically democratic governance. For instance, on the first day, my shocked students expressed anxiety that they might be “choosing wrong” by choosing the topics rather than having the professor choose for them. I used the opportunity to discuss with them the ways in which self-government in practice can be difficult and unsettling, even when we value the concept of self-government in the abstract. We talked about how the exercise of choosing topics illustrated how democratic governance results in outcomes that are relatively popular but not necessarily in outcomes that are correct. I spoke with them about the many political thinkers, from Alexis de Tocqueville to James Baldwin, who connected democratic governance to feelings of internal anxiety; their experience, it became clear, was emblematic of bigger issues.

DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION LEADING

Another feature of the democratic syllabus was that near the end of the semester, we devoted two weeks to student-led discussion. Each student was given half of a class session to lead a discussion based on readings and questions of his or her own choosing. In those sessions, I participated as a student, limiting myself to one question or comment every 20 minutes.

Regarding this aspect of the course, students’ comments also were almost uniformly positive. “The discussions were among the best ones we had,” said one. “Student-led discussion at the end of the semester helped to change discussion dynamics and power structures,” wrote another. Many opined that they enjoyed the role of discussion leader—as one student put it, because “being able to choose any topic I wanted to and having class time to talk about it was really cool.”^{Footnote 6}

Yet most of them pointed out that the success in this course should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of student-led discussion. (I, having had my own share of negative experiences with student-led discussions, would agree.) For their part, the students emphasized that they would not have enjoyed or learned from this exercise in even slightly different circumstances. A few mentioned, for instance, that it was important for student-led discussions to occur at the end of the semester, “when we had substantial practice discussing as a group.” Others said that this exercise worked—several specified that it worked better than in other courses—because of the context of the democratic syllabus and their unusual sense of course ownership. “For this to work, the students must be intellectually motivated and enthusiastic,” one student commented. “It was better than in most classes, where you ‘teach’ something…you hardly know,” reported another.^{Footnote 7}

Part of what was interesting about the student-led discussions is that many of them focused on the dynamics underlying of-the-moment campus controversies and local politics. That was encouraging to me in that I could see my students testing the abstract literatures of political science and political theory on the terrain of their daily life. Whereas I perceived this as a critical moment of intellectual connection, my students were happy to hear one another speak intelligently about matters of personal importance. “The students in these classes were more interested and engaged than in any other classes I’ve taken,” wrote one student.^{Footnote 8}

DEMOCRATIC ASSIGNMENTS

The third experimental piece of the syllabus was a plan of democratic assignments. I required my students to complete two tracks of work outside of class. For the first assignment track, “Democratic Observation,” I provided a list of approximately 100 sites that political scientists claim are potentially important to democratic practice in the United States.^{Footnote 9} Throughout the semester, they had to visit five sites and write a two-page reflection about each experience. For the second assignment track, each student chose to undertake either a “Democratic Expression” or a “Democratic Understanding” project. The former project entailed developing a plan for expressing a public position or educating American citizens on an issue and then executing that plan, reflecting on the experience in writing. The latter required the students to design and execute a research project to explore how a particular issue plays out or is experienced in a particular community. For both assignments, I gave the students wide latitude about when and how they completed their work, emphasizing that independent thought would be rewarded.

Despite initial misgivings about having such wide latitude, the students all concluded that this freedom had been a positive experience. “At first, I wasn’t sure exactly how this all would work out,” said one, “but I found that being given greater flexibility was a fantastic idea once I got ideas for exactly what I’d do.” Independently of one other another, the majority said that the loosely structured assignments encouraged creative thinking. One student commented, “I think that this component allowed us to challenge ourselves to think outside the box and apply what we learned creatively.” Opined another, “The loose structure definitely helped promote creativity and inspired me to do things I was really interested in.” A third wrote, “I usually just navigate by deadlines and grading criteria, so this forced me to take more initiative and think more deeply about what I would do and what I would write about it. With so many possibilities, I felt pressure to do really creative things.”^{Footnote 10}

Calling this his “favorite part of the course,” one student summarized a widely shared sentiment by saying, “I thought it encouraged an organic approach to experiencing life in the context of a democratic society.” Another commented that realizing that “we could get as little or as much out of it as we put in” placed “accountability and responsibility on the individual” that he saw as representative of the obligations of democratic self-governance. A third wrote, “I think the nature of the assignments expanded the spheres in which I can see the intersections between democracy and public/private life.”^{Footnote 11} Here, too, my students reported that the democratic syllabus inspired them to think about the nature of democratic politics in ways that they had not done before.