Discussion Guidelines for Challenging Topics

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.

Group arrangement: Trios of 3 (or pairs if numbers require) followed by whole-group consensus

Timing: UWT suggested 15-minute pacing based on the Sheridan Center discussion guideline framework

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.