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: 7825db9f9f5b5822f8d9d906efaeb325001bb0a1403911ca740481f79c86bc23

# Discussion Guidelines for Challenging Topics

Working in trios and then as a whole group, participants draft, test, and adopt specific ground rules for discussing controversial topics constructively.

**Time:** 15 minutes. UWT suggested 15-minute pacing based on the Sheridan Center discussion guideline framework
**People:** 4 to 24. Trios of 3 (or pairs if numbers require) followed by whole-group consensus

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Establish an agreed set of observable conversation behaviors before addressing contested or emotionally charged content.
**Use it when:** At the start of a term, project, or workshop series that will examine contentious topics, systemic inequities, or divergent political viewpoints.
**Skip it when:** In purely technical, brief informational briefings where no debate, personal perspective, or controversial content will be examined.

## Materials and tools

- One Discussion Guidelines Reference Sheet per participant
- One blank index card or half-sheet of paper per trio
- One pen per participant
- A whiteboard, flip chart, or shared digital board

## Before participants arrive

1. Write the four core prompt categories on the main board: Clarifying Intent, Idea vs Person, Air Time, and Opting In/Out.
2. Distribute the Discussion Guidelines Reference Sheet to every seat.

## Say this to open

When we address difficult or contentious topics, conversations get messy quickly unless we agree on how we talk with each other. Today we will establish our own shared discussion guidelines. Your task in trios is to select or draft three concrete behaviors that help us evaluate ideas critically while treating people with care. You do not need to share private experiences to draft these rules.

## How to run it

### 1. Review reference categories (2 minutes)

Facilitator reads the four guideline categories aloud from the reference sheet. Participants individually review the sample phrasing and mark one behavior they consider most important for the group.

### 2. Draft trio guidelines (5 minutes)

Participants form groups of three. Trios compare their choices and agree on two or three specific observable behaviors they want this room to follow. One person in each trio writes the drafted statements clearly on their index card.

### 3. Compile room agreement (5 minutes)

Facilitator calls on each trio in turn to share one guideline. Facilitator records unique proposals on the main board, combining duplicates with participant consent. If a suggested guideline is too vague, the room refines it into an observable action. Example: change 'be respectful' to 'ask clarifying questions before stating disagreement'.

### 4. Confirm and commit (3 minutes)

Facilitator reads the consolidated list aloud. Facilitator asks for any final objections or needed refinements. The room adopts the list by a visual show of thumbs up, thumbs sideways to accept the consensus, or thumbs down to voice an unaddressed concern.


## Debrief questions

- Which guideline on our list will require the most intentional discipline from us when debate gets heated?
- What specific question can any participant ask if they notice the group drifting away from these agreements?

**Finished output:** A posted list of 4 to 6 observable discussion agreements adopted by the entire group.

## Remote

Use breakout rooms of 3 participants for the draft step (5 minutes). Have one person per trio paste their top 1 to 2 proposals into the main room chat or onto a shared collaborative slide. Bring all participants back to the main room to consolidate duplicates and confirm agreement using digital reactions.

## Hybrid

Keep in-person participants in room trios and remote participants in breakout rooms of three. Have all trios post their draft guidelines to a single shared digital document visible on the room projector and screen share before whole-room consolidation.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants can read along with written text on the reference sheet if verbal instructions are hard to follow.
- Any participant may choose the scribe or timekeeper role in their trio instead of proposing verbal arguments.
- Passing or declining to share personal examples during discussions is explicitly written into the guidelines.

## If the session gets stuck

**A trio proposes a vague rule like 'respect everyone'.**

Ask the trio: 'What does respect look or sound like in practice when two people strongly disagree?' Help them turn the abstract concept into a concrete action, such as 'critique the claim using evidence, not the speaker'.

**Participants propose incompatible guidelines around speaking boundaries.**

Acknowledge the tension directly. Differentiate between sitting with intellectual discomfort versus enduring personal insult, and write boundaries that explicitly protect against derogatory language while allowing tough questions.


## Terms used here

- Calling in: Inviting someone into a reflective conversation about an offensive or problematic remark rather than publicly dismissing or attacking them.
- Take space, make space: A guideline encouraging frequent speakers to listen more and quieter participants to share their views.

## Participant material: Discussion Guidelines Reference Sheet

Four Categories for Constructive Discussion Agreements:

1. Clarifying Intent
Seek to understand what someone means before reacting. Ask clarifying questions instead of assuming motive.
Sample: 'Can you tell me more about what you mean when you say...?'

2. Idea Versus Person
Evaluate the claim using evidence and logic rather than judging the person making it. Keep disagreements focused on data, arguments, and patterns.
Sample: 'What evidence supports that view?' rather than 'You are wrong.'

3. Equitable Air Time (Take Space, Make Space)
Be mindful of how much time you take in the discussion. If you usually speak first, wait to hear others. If you usually stay quiet, look for opportunities to add your voice.

4. Stepping In and Opting Out
Recognize when someone may need to step back from explaining exhausting personal experiences, and when others with relevant knowledge should step up and participate.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in teaching resources published by the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning at Brown University, authored by Dr. Mary Wright with reference to DiAngelo and Sensoy (2014) and Arao and Clemens (2013).

Retained the specific pedagogical guidelines, framing questions, and 'calling in' mechanics documented by Mary Wright and the Sheridan Center at Brown University (citing DiAngelo, Sensoy, Arao, and Clemens). UWT structured these open-ended recommendations into a concrete 15-minute, 4-step collaborative norm-setting activity with trio drafting, concrete scripting, and printable reference prompts.

[sheridan.brown.edu](https://sheridan.brown.edu/resources/classroom-practices/discussions-seminars/facilitating-controversial-discussions)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/facilitating-controversial-discussions/