Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 8cfb0bf344f6ebece21f2f0696d8fbc20a905286fb280f4552eb7903e4c5cb5b

# Legacy Perspective Cards

Participants review anonymous biographical vignettes from past cohorts before discussing a contentious case study. During the conversation, each person advocates for how a specific legacy perspective might receive or challenge the group's arguments.

**Time:** 25 minutes. UWT facilitation plan. The source narrative describes an open semester-long practice without a fixed round time.
**People:** 4 to 24. Subgroups of 4 to 6 participants. When numbers do not divide evenly, form groups of 3 to 7 participants.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Test policy proposals and conversational arguments against concrete life situations that are not visibly represented in the room.
**Use it when:** Use when an ongoing working group or class discusses policy, ethics, or contentious community decisions and tends toward rapid consensus or dismissive framing.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the group is in an initial introductory session, when interpersonal trust is absent, or when participants lack time to process intense lived experiences.

## Materials and tools

- One Legacy Perspective card per participant
- One Case Study prompt sheet per subgroup
- Scratch paper and one pen per participant
- A visible countdown timer

## Before participants arrive

1. Print and cut out enough Legacy Perspective cards for each participant to hold one.
2. Place one Case Study sheet in the center of each table.
3. Arrange seating into small circles of 4 to 6 people.

## Say this to open

When we discuss contentious policies, it is easy to assume everyone in the room shares similar backgrounds or values. Today each of you will hold a brief, anonymous profile representing a real lived experience from past groups. Read your assigned profile silently. During our discussion, your job is not to act in character or stage a drama. Your job is to serve as an advocate for that profile by speaking up whenever our conversation ignores, trivializes, or harms the reality of that person.

## How to run it

### 1. Read assigned profile silently (3 minutes)

Distribute one card face down to each participant. Participants read their assigned profile and jot notes on scratch paper about potential blind spots that might emerge during a discussion. Stopping condition: all participants put their pens down.

### 2. Examine the case study (4 minutes)

Direct subgroups to read the central discussion topic printed on their table sheet, which outlines the municipal policy scenario. Participants note how their assigned legacy profile would be affected by this policy.

### 3. Deliberate using legacy perspectives (12 minutes)

Small groups deliberate the case question. When an argument overlooks or oversimplifies a complex reality, the person holding that profile speaks up by stating: 'From the viewpoint of someone who experienced [state condition], this policy would cause [state consequence].' Keep dialogue conversational. Stopping condition: timer reaches zero.

### 4. Debrief whole room (6 minutes)

Reconvene the full room. Call on three to four volunteers to answer selected debrief questions about how the profiles influenced the flow and tone of the small-group dialogue.


## Debrief questions

- Which comments or proposals in your group shifted once someone brought in an absent perspective?
- How did holding an assigned perspective change your personal impulse to speak or stay silent?
- What difference did you notice between defending your own view versus pointing out an impact on someone else?

**Finished output:** A list of revised policy considerations or blind spots generated by each subgroup on their table scratch sheet.

## Remote

Maintain a numbered roster of legacy profiles. Distribute one unique profile text to each participant via private chat message before the session begins. Post the case study prompt in the main video chat. Send participants into breakout rooms of 4 to 5 people for 12 minutes. Return to the main room for the debrief.

## Hybrid

In-person subgroups work at physical tables while remote participants join in dedicated breakout rooms of remote peers. Distribute digital cards via numbered private direct messages, tracking assignments on a roster so each remote participant receives a unique card. Both groups report back to a shared plenary video call for the final 6-minute debrief.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide large-print profile cards and offer text-to-speech accessible digital cards upon request.
- Participants may step back from an assigned profile or swap cards privately with the facilitator without stating a reason.
- Passing during the small-group dialogue is always permitted without explanation.

## If the session gets stuck

**A participant attempts dramatic roleplay or adopts an offensive vocal caricature of their assigned profile.**

Intervene immediately. Remind the room that profiles are third-person reference points for policy impact, not theater exercises. Direct the participant to cite the practical constraint rather than performing an identity.

**The room becomes deadlocked or silent because participants fear offending one of the legacy perspectives.**

Clarify that the goal is not to eliminate disagreement. Ask: 'What is one version of this policy that addresses the core need while acknowledging the specific vulnerability on your card?'


## Terms used here

- Legacy perspective: An anonymous summary of a real situation faced by a past student or community member, introduced to represent life contexts not visibly present in the conversation.

## Participant material: Legacy Perspective Cards

Card 1: A community member whose family member died from vehicular homicide involving an intoxicated driver.

Card 2: A resident whose close relative was killed in neighborhood violence and who relocated with financial assistance from a community outreach worker.

Card 3: A student and solo parent who navigated contested legal custody battles initiated by extended family.

Card 4: An individual who experienced the suicide of an intimate partner following a sudden relationship separation.

Card 5: A young professional who is the sole financial support for an incarcerated parent.

Card 6: A person who has experienced housing instability while maintaining full-time employment.

## Participant material: Case Study Discussion Sheet

Discussion Topic: Should municipal agencies implement zero-tolerance employment dismissal for employees who receive off-duty criminal citations or court summonses?

Consider:
1. What public trust arguments support this standard?
2. What family, legal, or personal circumstances make this policy disproportionately punitive?
3. How would someone with your assigned legacy perspective experience this policy?

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in an Interactivity Foundation article describing a pedagogical method developed by Dr. Jerry Watson for college ethics courses.

The core mechanic of assigning anonymous student case backgrounds as third-person checks against conversational insensitivity is drawn directly from the Interactivity Foundation account of Dr. Jerry Watson's classroom practice. UWT developed the structured 25-minute timing, a neutral municipal policy case study, clear card templates, explicit non-acting boundaries to prevent offensive roleplay, and access accommodations.

[Interactivity Foundation](https://www.interactivityfoundation.org/discussion-sensitivity/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/discussion-sensitivity-interactivity-foundation/