Teaching students to deliberate not debate

It's immediately clear upon entering the small classroom of 30 students that today is an important day for the students in public affairs professor Amber Wichowsky's class. Most students sit in a ring of desks with a small group of their peers seated in the middle, ready to face off. To a newcomer, the students look like they're primed for a heated debate. Most of the students find a spot to sit at desks around the edges and turn towards the center of the room.

There's a palpable, anxious tension as the students at the center of this makeshift arena face each other across a table, laptops open and notes at the ready. They're perched at the edges of their seats, staring at their opponents, waiting for their cue to begin.

But then, Professor Wichowsky's voice cuts through the tension. "Remember," she says, "this is not a debate."

A counterweight to rising polarization

Addressing the rising issue of polarization and the breakdown of civil discourse in America has been a focus for the University of Wisconsin-Madison's La Follette School of Public Affairs for the past several years. Wichowsky's course, Advancing Public Policy in a Divided America, is one of the only public policy classes in the country to directly address the political divide and will be a foundational requirement for La Follette's new public policy undergraduate major, set to debut in fall 2026. It's also a key example of the work Chancellor Jennifer L. Mnookin seeks to expand as part of the Wisconsin Exchange, an initiative to advance pluralism at UW-Madison.

"We have to understand where people are coming from," Wichowsky says. "We're not going to know that if we don't talk to them, if we don't try to get to know one another."

That's a big reason the course was designed around discussion rather than lectures. It's also why students' seats change every class, so they are talking to different classmates and hearing different opinions regularly.

"It's a lot of learning by doing in this class. Students really embrace having good discussion in the classroom, they love it," Wichowsky says. "We know it's a best practice for learning and student engagement, but it's also just practicing the civic skills that we know our students will take with each other throughout their time here at UW-Madison and then into their careers."

Moving from debate to dialogue

Back in class, the buzzing tension subsides to normal presentation jitters. The students aren't preparing to defend themselves, prove their points or outwit their classmates. Instead, they launch into a respectful, structured conversation from different sides of a hot-button issue: the effect of artificial intelligence on the job market. After each side presents their findings, the listeners reiterate what they heard from their peers.

"Okay, now that you've heard facts from both sides, you can drop your assigned point of view," Wichowsky instructs the class. "Just talk to each other, what do you really think should be done?"

As each group runs through the exercise, the students arrive again and again at potential solutions informed by multiple perspectives. The exercise compels students to think through who and what is left out when a solution only considers one perspective. It's a good way to start answering the question: How can America advance public policy when the country is so polarized?

Finding respect-and compromise-amid disagreement

As the semester begins, Wichowsky sets the scene of how polarization became so pervasive in American politics and society. Students then learn about the science and psychology of how we form opinions. Wichowsky explains that understanding how personal experiences inform opinions opens the door to understanding how those opinions may be able to change.

This idea prompted Bella Sciara, a senior biochemistry major, to incorporate new skills into her own advocacy work beyond the classroom. As a childhood cancer survivor, Sciara has a personal interest in advocating for legislators to continue investing in cancer research. Rather than focusing on her own points in conversations, she hopes to invite others to reflect on their experiences, creating shared common ground they can build progress from together.

"It's just really interesting to see how different people's backgrounds and what they've experienced has influenced how they see the world," Sciara says.

Students then learn to do non-partisan research that acknowledges biases, makes evidence-supported arguments, engages counter arguments and starts to acknowledge trade-offs. That's where the structured academic controversies - not debates - come in.

"There are conservatives in class, liberals, centrists, and because it's so discussion based, everyone's bringing up their own point," says Drew Stacey, a sophomore majoring in both history and educational policy. "You might propose an idea, and a classmate says, 'That sounds great, but what about this?' I think it's honestly surprising just to see how nuanced some discussions with your classmates can get, and the parallels that draws to public policy."

Before this class, Stacey noticed that sharing facts alone with people he disagreed with wasn't enough to change their minds. Now, Stacey is learning how to productively disagree with opinions that differ from his own.

"It might seem like gridlock, but I think that's one of the great parts of democracy. We're in a room talking to figure it out and we have to compromise," Stacey says.

With research and deliberation under their belts, students move on to negotiations - what to do when deliberation alone won't provide a solution. This is when Wichowsky helps students weigh tradeoffs and hopefully reach a productive compromise.

One of senior political science major Grace Ellinger's goals in taking this course was to be able to approach people regardless of their politics and have a productive conversation with them.

"I want to prepare myself for those quick policy decisions and how to approach them with both a critical thinking lens and an understanding that our politics is steeped in polarization," says Ellinger. "Nothing good will come of that [polarization], unless we can have a deliberation where we all have the same facts and maybe come to a solution."

Discourse beyond the classroom

At a summer internship in the State Capitol, Ellinger has seen pieces of legislation go from first draft to floor votes. Other courses have helped her define public policy, learn writing skills and understand procedure, but still, Ellinger says, this course provides a crucial mental framework for her understanding of the field.

Ishaan Srivastava, a sophomore political science major, is used to having political conversations about controversial topics. In his home state of Illinois, Srivastava hosts a political news show where he interviews candidates from up and down the ballot in the hopes of spurring younger Americans to engage more with politics.

Even still, walking into a room full of 29 strangers to discuss controversial topics was nerve wracking at first.

"From day one, though, Professor Wichowsky made sure that it's a very safe, open environment," Srivastava says. "There's a great camaraderie between everyone, and a very good level of respect. We have lively discussions but no one's judging anyone for the opinions they have. Everyone is there to listen to each other and have those discussions and grow."

Fall 2025 is the only the second time Advancing Public Policy in a Divided America has been taught. Both times, Wichowsky has been pleasantly surprised by how eager students are to learn from and share with one another.

"We are all coming from our individual perspectives and experiences," Wichowsky says. "But if we can share a little bit about that with one another, be open, you might be surprised. You find areas of common ground, shared values, shared experiences. We humanize each other."