Four Wabash men took the stage in Korb Classroom last Wednesday (April 10) to compete in the 139^th annual Baldwin Oratorical Contest. The nature of the contest was to present a short oration on an issue in the local community and to advocate a solution; its prize was a cash reward, a copy of the complete works of William Shakespeare, and a spot on the Baldwin plaque that hangs in the Ball Theater Lobby. President Patrick White, Wabash First Lady Chris White, former Baldwin contest winner Donovan Bisbee ’12, and Marc Lotter, Communications Director for Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, served as judges for the competition. A large number of students and faculty braved the poor weather to witness this exciting exercise in civic engagement, and I’m confident that they also learned some new information about the issues addressed by the speakers (The video for the contest is available here).

The contest began with Corey Hamilton’s speech (class of 2014), who chose to address the homeless in Montgomery County. He provided statistics to show that homelessness is a big issue in the area even if it is not visible. Most dislodged families, he said, tend to board with friends for short spans of time and move around from home to home. While there are not people living in the streets of Crawfordsville as in larger cities, there are still many families struggling to raise children without the benefit of a stable home.

He then emphasized the success that Habitat for Humanity has had in providing low-cost homes and turning bad situations around, work that they cannot do without massive volunteer effort. Fraternity freshmen tend to be drafted into Fall Semester work with Habitat, but the number of Wabash volunteers dwindles in the Spring. Hamilton appealed to Wabash’s commitment to “living humanely” and challenged members of the Wabash community to share their time and strength with this important organization throughout the year, reminding us that there are mothers, fathers, and children suffering without a home in our very own community. Notably, Hamilton announced his intention to volunteer with Habitat the Saturday following the competition and encouraged his audience to join him.

Scott Purucker ’16 was the second contestant and spoke about the benefits of transitioning Lacrosse from a club to a varsity sport at Wabash. He spoke about the rising popularity of Lacrosse nationally and the difficulties that the team currently faces with minimal financing from the Student Senate. He shared statistics and charts to illustrate the impressive growth of the sport and the funding deficit between the current funds and those that would be needed to fund a varsity team. These funds are needed to supply safety equipment, game day equipment, and travel costs. The most powerful argument he summoned was highlighting that Wabash is one of only two NCAC schools that still lacks varsity Lacrosse and is thus hurting itself in terms of prestige and admissions strategy by omitting a sport that will only continue to grow in popularity. It seemed to resonate with the audience quite strongly when he reminded us that DePauw University has already created a varsity team… ahead of Wabash.

The solution that Purucker offered is simple: we should demonstrate our interest in the sport to the college in two ways. First, we should raise attendance at games and show more support. Second, we should write to incoming president Dr. Hess to lobby for varsity status for the team.

The third contestant was Justin Taylor ’15, who delivered a passionate speech calling his Wabash brothers to practice greater love and acceptance. He began his speech by praising MLK Jr., whom he saw as a great hero in the timeless fight against discrimination in every form. Taylor argued that the new target of oppression is the homosexual community, and that the Wabash homosexual community is the frequent victim of careless comments and insensitivity. He first framed the practical reasons for fighting this type of discrimination: the rates of depression and suicide are higher in the gay community. The impacts of insensitivity and discrimination are felt at every level of society, including our children, who are becoming trained to perpetuate this discrimination. Our careless comments and meanness can have real consequences.

Taylor was not content only to explain by reason why discrimination is harmful. He reflected on his own experiences as a gay student at Wabash and the turmoil that plagued him as he recognized his own sexuality while hearing gay slurs and intolerance at Wabash. Taylor invoked the principles of our college and challenged his audience to eliminate the slurs that seem so harmless but cause real pain. In so doing, we can join the fight against discrimination and fulfill our duty to love one another. It only takes an awareness of the harm that jokes and slurs can cause and a willingness to eliminate them.

Zach Thompson ’13 delivered the final speech of the evening by outlining two easy improvements that would make our downtown area more “walkable.” Thompson, a Crawfordsville native, has learned through conversation about the idyllic past of downtown Crawfordsville which was once a hub for business and sociability among the community. This atmosphere was spoiled by the gradual increasing of traffic along Highway 231 and the dispersion of local business. The lost benefits of walkability are improved health, sociability, and the statistical evidence for higher civic engagement and lower crime in more face-to-face communities.

Thompson offered two simple solutions for improving the area and attracting walkers: we should petition the city council to adjust crosswalk lights to facilitate faster crossings for waiting pedestrians, and we should beautify our city with more trees and benches. Currently, it is quite tedious to cross 231 because of long wait times at the traffic lights even at times of day when traffic is relatively light. The opportunity to plant trees involves little cost and could involve volunteer work from Wabash, boosting the college-town relationship. The effects of the beautification process could improve this relationship also by attracting more students to the downtown area.

The judges selected Thompson’s speech for the evening’s top award due to the superior clarity and simplicity of the solutions offered.  Every finalist received the complete works of William Shakespeare in keeping with the tradition of the contest, and the finalists earned cash prizes as well.

The Rhetoric Department invited Dr. Robert Asen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison to present at the annual Brigance Forum Lecture this past Wednesday. The purpose of the event is to bring prominent scholars in the field of rhetoric to Wabash to share their insights about the discipline.  Dr. Asen chose to speak Wednesday evening about the importance of trust in a democratic community and the methods that work for effective deliberation.

Our guest was introduced by senior rhetoric major Garrett Wilson, who welcomed the audience and listed Dr. Asen’s accomplishments (for details, see the previous blog entry). He then yielded the podium to Dr. Asen, who offered gratitude to the college and honor to the late Dr. W. Norwood Brigance, former Wabash Professor, the namesake of the event, and important scholar in the field.

Dr. Asen began his speech by calling attention to a major problem: declining trust in our government and neighbors as evidenced by less willingness for volunteering, charity, and public service. He reminded us that trust is a binding force in a democratic community and that we should find this trend alarming.

He argued in his lecture that deliberation, when done properly, is a powerful tool for building trust. This fact was clearly illustrated by a study that Dr. Asen led called the Research on Education, Deliberation, and Decision-Making Project. He and his team visited more than 100 School Boards and conducted interviews to discuss a number of things that included “board dynamics” and “district culture” – all in an effort to learn more about the deliberative process. Dr. Asen wanted to draw special attention to the fact that nearly all of the projects’ interviewees mentioned the importance of having “trust” between their board members, and they all did so spontaneously. This evidence suggests that those whose job it is to deliberate with others and make group decisions do in fact recognize that trust is critically important to success. Through the course of his interviews, Dr. Asen came to identify four particular qualities that the members thought needed to be present in order for deliberation to build trust among participants: flexibility, forthrightness, engagement, and heedfulness. The bulk of the lecture was devoted to explaining the precise meanings of these terms and how they improve the process.

Flexibility, he believes, involves a willingness to gather new information and to allow that more information might bring about better decisions. Deliberation, he argues, is pointless if each of the deliberators walks into the room with his or her mind set on one decision. Only if each member recognizes their responsibility to search for the best solution, whether or not it’s their own, will the best solution be reached.

Forthrightness is the second feature of deliberation that builds trust, and it seems to resemble what we mean when we use the words “honesty” and “transparency.” Good deliberators need to share all of their information, and they need to disclose their opinions. If there is a sense that other members are hiding information, then flexible and effective deliberation can’t possibly take place.

Dr. Asen’s third quality is engagement. A deliberative meeting must involve a real exchange of ideas. If the process becomes too routine, then the discussion breaks down into a sort of ritual that will not go far in discovering new and better solutions to problems. The School Board members expressed a desire to use their meeting time to discover the crux of issues affecting them and to lay bare the sources of disagreement among them. This requires a degree of engagement from all members and a belief that discussion meetings are more than formalities.

Heedfulness is the last quality that Dr. Asen highlighted. This means a perception that the group’s decision will be adhered to by participants. The sharing of ideas becomes an empty process if there is a sense that it will not result in an outcome or if the decision has already been made. The incentive to contribute to a deliberation is the belief that one’s insights will be taken into consideration and that one can actually participate in the search for optimal solutions. Those who feel that they are attending meetings with foregone conclusions are not likely to contribute to good deliberation.

Dr. Asen’s lessons on deliberation need not be limited to the context of School Board meetings. The methods of good discussion and of fostering trust were no doubt helpful pieces of information for many of the Wallies in the attendance who can put these principles into practice in discussion courses, fraternity meetings, and perhaps beyond. The forum ended with Dr. Asen taking questions from the audience. Several thoughtful questions asked involved the effect of the public space where meeting took place on the dynamics of the discussion and the effect of different kinds of audiences on discussions.

The event was met with a good turnout, good engagement from the audience (which included the distinguished professor emeritus Dr. O’Rourke), and a bustling post-lecture reception. I trust that next year’s presentation will continue the tradition of stimulating lectures and large student interest that have marked these past few which I have had the pleasure of attending.

Professor Robert Asen will present the 2013 Brigance Forum lecture on Wednesday, March 20 at 8:00 p.m. in the Korb Classroom of the Fine Arts Center. His lecture is entitled “Education and Democracy: How School Boards Use Deliberation to Build Trust.” The lecture is free and open to the public.

Professor Asen teaches in the Communication Arts Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on the connections between rhetoric and public policy, particularly in deliberative settings. His lecture will present on research he conducted as lead investigator for the Research on Education, Deliberation, and Decision-making (REDD) project, funded with a $448,000 grant from the William T. Grant Foundation. Professor Asen has previously published two books (on debates over welfare and social security reform), two co-edited books, and numerous articles. His book Invoking the Invisible Hand: Social Security and the Privatization Debates was recognized with three prestigious awards: the 2011 Kohrs-Campbell Prize in Rhetorical Criticism; the 2010 National Communication Association Winans-Wichelns Award; and the 2010 National Communication Hochmuth Nichols Award.  In addition to teaching and research, he is a Resident Fellow with the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin. We are excited to have Dr. Asen join us for this year’s Brigance Forum.

The Brigance Forum honors the legacy of W. Norwood Brigance.  Professor Brigance educated generations of Wabash men during his tenure at the College (1922-1960).  During that time he made an indelible mark in the classroom (“Room Filling Energy”!), was a forceful public speaker, an exemplar of the public intellectual, and a scholar of great renown.  Among his many scholarly accomplishments was his work as editor of the pioneering two-volume set History and Criticism of American Public Address, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, author of numerous textbooks on public speaking, and President of the Speech Association of America (forerunner to today’s National Communication Association).  For these accomplishments, in 2007 Brigance was recognized as a Distinguished Scholar in Communication by the National Communication Association. And in 2010 his name was engraved alongside other prominent Montgomery County Writers on the exterior of the Crawfordsville District Public Library.   In honor of his memory, family, friends and former students have made generous contributions to make the annual Brigance Forum lecture possible.

 
We hope to see you at this year’s lecture!

Four Wabash men sat confidently on stage Tuesday October 23^rd in Salter Hall, ready to argue a case before Wabash’s version of the Supreme Court.  A panel of four judges sat across from them, ready to scrutinize their arguments and challenge their claims. Joining them was a large audience of students, faculty, alumni, and visitors from Indianapolis’s Lawrence North High School. Such was the setting for the final round of the Nineteenth Annual Wabash College Moot Court Competition. And though it was a moot proceeding, the finalists argued their cases with the same preparedness and dedication one might expect from men who were actually present before the highest court in the land.

This year’s case concerned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Passed in 1996, DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for the purpose of allocating federal benefits.  Echoing many actual lawsuits, the Moot Court hypothetical focused on the claims of multiple same-sex married couples who sued the federal government for denying equal rights, and their suit was upheld in both the district court and the US Court of Appeals. A critical component of the case was whether or not the government could prove a “rational basis” for having the law and, also, whether the law should be subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny.  Representing the government, seniors Michael Carper ’13 and Alex Robbins ’13 defended DOMA.  Senior Riley Floyd ’13 and sophomore Andrew Dettmer ’15 represented the plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of the act. The panel of judges included Hon. John G. Baker, Hon. Denise K. LaRue, Hon. David Ault ’70, and Political Science Chair Dr. Melissa Butler H’85.  The issue was divided into two separate arguments: the challenge the law presents to equal protection and the challenge it presents to federalism. The contest involved each participant arguing one element of his client’s two-pronged case.

Dr. Himsel of the Political Science Department introduced the Judges to the audience. He was followed by Dr. McDorman of the Rhetoric Department, who summarized this year’s competition and introduced each finalist.  The event began with Michael Carper stepping up to the podium to argue that DOMA does not deny the equal protection guaranteed citizens under the fourteenth amendment. He reminded the judges that same-sex couples are not considered a suspect class and argued that the government had a public interest in promoting (via tax incentives) the union of conventional married couples because of their potential for procreation. Thus the act is not meant to be punitive or discouraging towards same-sex couples but rather to limit the allocation of its scarce benefits to those whom it can encourage to pursue childbirth.

Next, Alex Robbins defended the government on the grounds that DOMA does not violate states’ rights. His main arguments involved the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the Federal Government’s right to define who is eligible to receive benefits from its own programs. He reiterated that the federal government has an incentive to encourage conventional marriages and increase the potentiality of childbirth, which is the government’s main interest in the law – not defining marriage, which states are still free to do.

After Robbins concluded, it was time to hear the arguments on behalf of the Dwight plaintiffs who challenged the law.  Riley Floyd argued that the law does in fact violate equal protection. He argued the government has not proven any permissible interest in denying benefits to same-sex couples and put forth that same-sex couples are free to adopt children. He also argued that denying benefits to same-sex couples does not reinforce heterosexual marriages in any way even though it comes at the cost of discrepant treatment towards gay couples. He concluded that the government has an impermissible “moral standard goal” behind defending the legislation rather than a legitimate public interest.  The final contestant, Andrew Dettmer, attacked DOMA for violating states’ rights. He countered Robbins’ argument of the Supremacy Clause with the 10^th Amendment and reminded the judges that there was court precedent for allowing the states to regulate “domestic relations.”

The judges were prone to interrupt during each contestant’s speech and asked many difficult questions that frequently caused the advocates to have to momentarily pause and to think carefully about how to proceed. In this observer’s opinion the judges were quite menacing, and there could be no doubt after their scrutiny that the contestants had a more than substantial understanding of the topic. Though they were tough, one should expect no less from a school that prides itself on thinking critically.

After an exciting hour of learned jargon, impressive legal knowledge, and Wabash-quality critical thinking, the finalists rested while the judges convened to select a winner. The audience was left to chatter and let all the action sink in, at which time Mr. Jon Pactor ’71 – himself a successful lawyer in Indianapolis – came by to have a conversation and told me that he was extremely impressed not only with the content of the students’ arguments but with their style and poise as well. I can only pretend to have represented the contestants’ mastery of the subject accurately (I myself am not very legal-minded), but it was evident from the reaction of the judges, faculty, and others that their performance was impressive.

The judges returned, and Hon. John G. Baker announced that senior English major Riley Floyd had been chosen as this year’s winner on account of both his preparation and his presentation. All of the finalists were lauded for their participation.

For the first Presidential debate on October 3, 2012, over 100 Wabash students—and a few faculty and staff—gathered in Hays 104 for live steaming and post-debate analysis. The event was hosted by Rhetoric Professors Sara and Jeff Drury, who challenged students to analyze the debate from the perspective of rhetoric as well as politics. Dr. Sara Drury introduced several questions for students to keep in mind while listening: What are your expectations for the debate; what do you expect the candidates to say or do? What do you already know about each candidate?  What are you seeking to find out about each candidate during the debate?

Students then settled in to watch President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney debate, and debate they did. Viewers were treated to an hour and a half of high caliber, fast paced, heart-pounding political action. Topics ranged from job creation, to improvements in education, to trimming the budget, helping the trade deficit, boosting small business, fixing healthcare, and the healing power of good old-fashioned American grit. Big conflicts arose on the topics of cutting taxes vs. covering the bill for America’s investments in education and debt reduction, prioritizing energy independence over investment in green energy, the merits of state or federal regulation, and the need for government regulation in health care.

As soon as the debate ended, Professors Drury invited students to share the expectations they developed before the debate and how well these were met. This list included the clarification of policies, appeals to the people, personal anecdotes, question dodging, campaign slogans, hostility, outright lies, impasse, and division. It was agreed that these dismal expectations were largely met. Dr. Sara Drury offered the opinion that the presidential debate provides the chance for a “joint appearance” of the candidates, which is more important than the specific policies that are addressed briefly in rapid succession. In the discussion that followed, sophomore Nick Freeman offered the idea that since the candidates’ platforms can easily be found online and in print, the primary goal of the televised debate is to express the candidates’ political principles to the public. These ideas seemed to represent the general mood of the group assembled, many of whom indicated skepticism about the specific figures and predictions given by the candidates.

Other topics of conversation included satisfaction that the debate focused heavily on improving education, but dissatisfaction that it did not address immigration policy. A long conversation arose on the candidates’ demeanor and poise and whether or not this should impress audiences in addition to the substance of their arguments. The moderator of the debate garnered lots of conversation as well. The meek Jim Lehrer was walked all over by both candidates, neither of whom wanted to be brief with their answers. Students suggested this was to be expected and allowed the candidates to prove their force of character, a kind of oratorical strategy that proves they will not show weakness when dealing with foreign leaders and gainsayers.

All in all, the event provided an excellent opportunity for Wallies to engage in the political process and discuss the rhetoric that runs through it. Every chair in the room was filled, and those present offered intelligent comments and thoughtful feedback.

Last Thursday, April 12, the Korb Classroom in the Fine Arts Center hosted the 138th Baldwin Oratorical Contest. For those not in the know, the contest was established in 1873 with an endowment from Wabash trustee Judge Daniel Pratt Baldwin and prides itself on being the oldest speaking competition west of the Alleghenies. The annual contest awards the Wabash students who “compose and pronounce the best orations” with the Complete Works of Shakespeare and a cash prize. The winner of the first competition was C. D. Whitehead, who was described as “a big man whose whiskers were the pride of the class of ‘73” (The Bachelor 1960). Such was the impressive tradition of time, rhetorical skill, and 19th century manliness that four Wabash students faced when they took the stage for the 2012 competition.

This year’s contest used the theme “Practicing Civic Engagement” and the four finalists, in order of presentation, were Trevon Stovall ’15, Michael Witczak ’14, Ryan Cloyd ’14, and Peter Gunderman ’12. The judges for the competition were our very own Dr. David Hadley; Peggy Lohorn, Montgomery County Superior Court Judge; and Carolene Mays, Member of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and Treasurer of the Mid-America Regulatory Conference. Master of Ceremonies Andrew Dettmer ’15 introduced the judges and contestants, and immediately afterwards the contest began with Trevon Stovall taking center stage to begin the night’s first oration.

Trevon’s speech was entitled “Eligibility for Financial Aid & Drug Use,” which focused on how a drug use conviction affects a student’s eligibility to receive financial aid for college. Trevon argued that the law has three problems that merit its repeal. In response he proposed that students establish a charter chapter of the group “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” in order to oppose this restriction.

The next contestant to speak was Michael Witczak ’14 with his speech about the recent friction on campus. In “Fixing Problems the Wabash Way,” Michael built on a humorous opening to focus on the importance of close student-faculty relationships to the Wabash experience. Fearing that these relationships are in jeopardy, Michael proposed that the administration, fraternity leaders, and campus leaders should communicate and rethink the structure of faculty dinners so as to preserve the tradition in a way that is acceptable to students and also acceptable to the standards of the administration.

Ryan Cloyd ’14 followed with his speech, “Wabash Always Tutors.” Ryan addressed the high economic costs of high school dropouts and argued that even a small improvement in graduation rates could have an enormous impact on productivity and employment. In order to assist with the issue, Ryan proposed that all Wabash students should consider getting involved with tutoring programs to combat this very dire problem. He talked about his own experience with tutoring and how he has seen real improvements in grades. Ryan gave several suggestions for how students can get involved and brought handouts with contact information for interested students.

The last to speak was Peter Gunderman ’12, with his speech, “The Missing Ingredient in Health Care Reform: Community.” Peter outlined three problems with health care in America: quality, coverage, and cost. These problems, Gunderman argued, cannot be fixed by national reforms, demonstrating why three attempts to fix health care at the national level have been insufficient. Instead, Gunderman advocated a local approach to reducing health care problems, one that depends on community action and personal responsibility. He presented four suggestions for improving the healthcare of our own, Montgomery County community: (1) avoiding unnecessary care, (2) engaging in personal preventative care (moderating obesity, smoking, drinking), (3) filling out the 2012 Community Health Assessment Survey to improve the information that the community officials have, and (4) supporting the Dr. Mary Ludwig Montgomery County Free Health Clinic which will soon open and will be staffed by volunteers. According to Gunderman, these measures could decrease the cost and improve the quality of care for the community.

The speeches were followed by a brief Q & A session while the judges deliberated. The contestants’ knowledge on their subjects was impressive and it reflected both a lot of research and a passion for their topics. The judges returned to announce the winner, Peter Gunderman. Then, in the true spirit of education, they proceeded to give constructive criticism to each of the contestants and presented them with their awards, following the tradition begun by Judge Baldwin. The evening was educational for everyone involved and reflected well on all the students that participated. I imagine that Judge Baldwin would be satisfied with the continuing quality of Wabash oratory.

The oldest continuous public speaking contest west of the Alleghenies!

Auditions are on April 5, 6, and 9 and the final public round will be held on April 12 at 8pm in Korb Classroom in the Fine Arts Center. A signup sheet with audition times is located outside the “Rhetoric classroom” on the second floor of the Fine Arts Center.

Speech is the chief tool with which civilization was developed and it remains the chief tool by which men (sic) work and live together. – Professor W. N. Brigance  (Wabash College 1922-1960)

Contest Theme: Practicing Civic Engagement

There are many different sorts of actions we might label as “being a good citizen,” from voting to being a political activist, from serving on the local school board or city council to establishing a career in public service, from helping to build a local skateboarding park to taking an active interest in one’s community.  These acts of citizenship illustrate the concept of civic engagement, our participation in organizations, institutions, and societies with the goal of contributing to the public good.  Through civic engagement we enrich our communities and seek means to collectively address the challenges and problems we face.  In keeping with the traditions of rhetoric at Wabash College, the Rhetoric Department invites students to partake in civic engagement by giving a persuasive speech on an issue of public concern.

Is there an issue of significant public debate within your community that you would like to transform?  What might a group of concerned, engaged citizens do about this problem if it came together and agreed upon a solution?  Many problems can seem too “big” and “distant” for citizens to imagine how they can make a real impact, but when an advocate translates that problem into local terms, it becomes relevant and creates the possibility for change. Your charge is to advocate for a specific public action that addresses an issue faced by your community.  To succeed, you should talk about the issue and your solution in local terms whenever possible.  That is, explain how the problem and your approach impact your immediate audience, and guide the audience toward actions they can take to help solve the issue.

Format:  Contestants will deliver a persuasive speech.  You are given great latitude in how you address or deal with the topic.  The speeches should fall in a range between 8 and 10 minutes and be delivered in an extemporaneous style.

The members of the Rhetoric Department (Profs. Abbott, Drury, and McDorman) will judge the preliminary rounds on Thursday, April 5, Friday, April 6, and Monday, April 9.   You may sign up for a time on the sheet outside the Rhetoric classroom (FAC 206).  If you cannot make one of those times, we will do our best to arrange an alternative time.  The top speakers will advance to the finals round at 8:00 P.M. on Thursday, April 12 in Korb Classroom in the Fine Arts Center.  Preceding the finals, the final round speakers have dinner with the Rhetoric faculty and our distinguished panel of final round judges at 6:30pm in the Trippet Dining Room.

The final round will be judged by:

* Carolene Mays, Member of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Treasurer of the Mid-America Regulatory Conference, former member of the Indiana House of Representatives (2002-08), former Publisher and President of the Indianapolis Recorder Newspaper and the Indiana Minority Business Magazine.

* David Hadley, Chair and Professor of Political Science, former Dean of Students, former Chair and member of the Indiana State Ethics Commission, former legislative staff member of Governor Evan Bayh, former Chair of the South Montgomery School Board, former Chair of the Montgomery County Democratic Party.

* Peggy Lohorn, Montgomery County Supreme Court Judge, member of the Board of Directors and Strategic Planning Commission of the Judicial Conference of Indiana, member of the Montgomery County Youth Service Bureau Board of Directors, former chief deputy prosecuting attorney in Montgomery County.

If you have questions or wish to discuss a speech topic, contact one of the members of the Rhetoric department.

1^st Prize           $250

2^nd Prize          $150

3^rd Prize           $100

On Wednesday, March 21^st, the Wabash College Rhetoric Department hosted another exciting adventure into the world of public address with its annual Brigance Forum Lecture. This year’s speaker was the impressively well-qualified Dr. John M. Murphy of the University of Illinois. Dr. Murphy spoke about the philosophical underpinnings of President Obama’s speeches in a lecture entitled, “The Moral Imagination of Barack Obama.” I feel the need to say that not every guest lecture I’ve attended has managed to be interesting. Some end up being dull, and some go as far as to lower your blood pressure. You never know quite what to expect when you sit down and pledge an hour of your time to listening to what a stranger has to say – especially when that stranger has a PhD and will probably hit you with all sorts of subordinate clauses and strange polysyllabic words. But Dr. Murphy’s lecture did not disappoint. It was not only informative; it was genuinely interesting from start to finish.

The talk began with the invocation of William N. Brigance who is at once a beloved rhetoric professor of Wabash’s past, the namesake of the Brigance Forum, and giant in the history of public address studies.  Dr. Murphy introduced us to one of “Briggie’s” important ideas: looking beyond the immediate goals of famous speeches to try and understand the underlying historical processes and philosophies that were at work in that particular time and place when our famous orators were doing their famous orating. By looking beyond the immediate goals of Obama’s rhetoric, Dr. Murphy believed we could understand how Obama articulates his vision of America and what it is that the President believes and wants us, his audience, to believe. To help drive home his point Dr. Murphy used the example of President Reagan’s famous words: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem!” Dr. Murphy believed that these words transcended the immediate goals of President Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address and said something broadly philosophical about his worldview.  Reagan offered the kind of persuasive words that people took to heart and that had the power to influence the way people thought about their government.  In a similar fashion, Dr. Murphy wanted to uncover Obama’s philosophy: What sorts of core beliefs does President Obama want to communicate to the American people? He outlined two main points that show up often in Obama’s rhetoric: human nature and historical narrative.

This was setting up to be a good talk, and I found it difficult at this point to stop listening long enough to take good notes. But I think I have enough of the story straight to report the important points. As a warning, this blog entry is about to become extremely philosophical, so if you aren’t firmly seated now is a good time to adjust yourself.

Dr. Murphy began his dissection of Obama’s “moral imagination” by introducing us to 20^th century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhr was a strong believer in realism and argued against both the extreme theological liberals and the fundamentalists of his day (per Wikipedia). He also focused on original sin and man’s struggle to overcome his limitations. Obama cites Niebuhr as one of his greatest inspirations and took away from him the belief that there is serious evil in the world but that it can be overcome with determination and toil. At the same time, our optimism should be moderated by realism. We should not become self-righteous, and we should not hope to eradicate the sin and limitations inherent in human nature. Applying this philosophy to practical decisions, Dr. Murphy explained that Obama subscribes to the beliefs of King and Gandhi in saying that it is better to persuade and change our enemies than to crush them. But at the same time he is conscious that the head of state cannot sit idly by in the face of serious aggression (The example of Nazism was brought in, as a destructive force that couldn’t be reasoned away). When you boil it down, Dr. Murphy’s conclusion is that President Obama wants to project a realistic, practical philosophy of human nature and how to respond to it. Dr. Murphy believes that this philosophy of human nature can be extrapolated from Obama’s speeches and that it says something important about Obama’s personal beliefs and the beliefs he wants to impart to the American people.

Dr. Murphy’s second point was that Obama makes frequent references to history, which reveals another goal underlying his speeches: he wants to convince us to see ourselves as part of a historical narrative – to see current issues as the most recent chapters in a long American story. Obama believes in a sort of consistency of human nature and problems throughout America’s history and likes to raise idols from America’s past that we can imitate. America’s past heroes and past triumphs remind us that we can still conquer our problems with good old fashioned American grit and optimism. According to Dr. Murphy, Obama’s rhetoric reflects this philosophy, and his speeches present it in such a way as to sell these beliefs to the average American. Underlying whatever immediate message Obama’s speech needs to communicate, there is constantly a hope that we will pick up on his beliefs and think, “hey, if every generation is plagued by the same human errors and dangers, then we can face it too.”  It is his belief in original sin and our place in the historical narrative that characterize both Obama’s way of thinking and the message that he wants to impart to Americans. If all this seems intuitive, I can promise that Dr. Murphy had a way of saying it that was extremely interesting. And he emphasized that it was incredibly unique for a President to dwell on such extremely realistic topics as original sin, which separates Obama’s rhetoric from other Presidents. He concluded the lecture with a Q&A session that included both intelligent Q’s and intelligent A’s. All in all, the whole audience seemed to have found the talk stimulating.

As I said, it was one of the more thoroughly interesting talks I’ve had the pleasure of attending – the kind of lecture that gets the blood flowing to the philosophy lobe and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Dr. Murphy was at once elegant and entertaining, and he even managed to incorporate some Clinton humor, which will never go stale. I think this talk made an excellent impression for the department on everyone who attended.

On Friday, January 27^th, at the 12^th Annual Celebration of Student Research, Scholarship, and Creative work, the Rhetoric Department sponsored presentations produced by three senior rhetoric majors and one senior chemistry major. Rhetoric majors Donovan Bisbee and Adam Miller presented work related to their senior projects.  Fellow rhetoric major Kenny Farris presented work produced for his Fall 2011 Visual Rhetoric class, and chemistry major Peter Gunderman offered an analysis prepared for his Public Speaking class.  Each had the opportunity to present his rhetorical skills in action and to show off all the hard work and excitement that went into his research. I had the pleasure of attending each of their presentations and witnessing the exciting work that students are doing in the department. The quality of the presentations was impressive, as was the entertainment value.

Donovan Bisbee gave a talk titled “Looking for a Home Called Earth: Identity, Myth, and Survival in ‘Battlestar: Galactica.’” He summarized the plot of the 2004 – 2009 SciFi television show and analyzed the deeper messages underlying the action, including its relevance to post-9/11 America. Donovan argued that the show had deeper artistic value than may appear at first glance, and he made a compelling argument for the artistic value of science fiction as a genre. He argued that outer space could be a good setting for exploring real human interactions and drama in an environment that is fictional and neutral. Specifically, he outlined how characters in the show are caught up in a war against space robots on their journey towards Earth. Interactions with the robots force the characters to reflect on their own identities and the consequences of having divisions and holding an “us and them” philosophy. I was raised on “Star Trek” myself, and I knew nothing about the show before I walked in the door. But Donovan did an excellent job of summarizing the plot, expounding the show’s messages, and drawing connections to the War on Terror. It was a surprisingly academic take on something that seems silly on the surface. He even managed to pepper his talk with Star Trek jokes. By the end of the presentation, I was thoroughly impressed with both Bisbee’s argument and the show.

Kenny Farris presented an analysis covering the Libyan uprising, the use of photographs and videos in reporting, and the Western world’s attitude towards the Libyan rebels. His talk was titled “Watching a Tyrant Die: Body Politics and the Libyan Uprising.” Kenny argued that imagery is a particularly useful tool for the media in shaping public opinion. The presentation centered on the example of the public’s reaction to seeing images of former leader Gaddafi’s brutalized corpse. He argued that America had an idealized image of the rebel militias prior to the release of photos of Gaddafi’s capture and dead body. The media presented the rebel militias as a unified resistance and most Americans were able to sympathize with their fight for liberty. However, Kenny argued that footage of Gaddafi’s treatment brought the reality of violence into focus and caused Americans to treat the rebels with greater scrutiny. He backed his argument by showing a violent video segment of the rebels with Gaddafi in custody, and it was indeed difficult to focus on the fight for freedom while watching the brutality. The presentation was convincing, and I will confess that it was enough to change my impressions of the uprising.

Peter Gunderman gave an equally thoughtful presentation in which he applied his rhetorical skills to a critique of the film, “Waiting for Superman.” The film, a 2010 documentary about the educational system, follows five children through their public education journeys and highlights the system’s problems. Peter’s research focused on discovering the dominant ideologies that underlay the film’s argument and also identifying which ideologies were given less or no consideration. He concluded that the film was unbalanced and dedicated to an “anti-establishment ideology.” This ideology prevented the film from taking a good, critical look at the issue from all angles. He believed that the film focused on only one of many possible solutions to reforming education (increasing funding to charter schools), which simplified the problem and the process of teaching. He also highlighted the film’s sneaky use of dramatic music and selective information to win over the audience. Peter’s talk was insightful not only because it gave us an impressive look at the skills and methods used by students of rhetoric, but it was also full of interesting information about the issue of education.

Adam Miller gave a presentation titled “Applying Rhetoric to Change Lives: My Plans to Start a Non-Profit Organization.” His talk was more personal, and it deviated a bit from the style of the other students as he chose to focus on his motivations for the project and his future plans. He told a story about his visit to Greece and how he witnessed young children trying to play soccer with pine cones for want of an actual ball to use. This struck a chord with him as did a documentary called, “Kicking It,” which portrays soccer as a means to encourage homeless people to improve their lives by through a soccer competition. Adam wants to find a way to supply sports equipment to impoverished kids – an act which could give aspiring athletes a shot at pursuing their dreams and also bring joy to the hearts of children. He has developed an idea for a non-profit organization that could provide these gifts and finance them by gathering and auctioning off autographed memorabilia. He made a good case for his strategy by referencing that the market for autographed merchandise enjoys wide and consistent demand. Adam gave an engaging presentation by giving a report of his classroom and internship skills put into action and combining it with his sincere desire to do some good – something which he communicated beyond a doubt.

Collectively, I found that the presentations by these four students were more engaging than expected and that the information in each student’s presentation was matched with a lot of excitement. Having witnessed their skills in action, I can affirm that these seniors are passionate about their studies.

The Wabash debaters took the floor first, arguing that our current political system is too burdened with checks and balances, short term limits, and congressional gridlock for the government to act quickly and efficiently. They presented the proposition of a constitutional monarch who would oversee U.S. foreign policy while the traditional president would lead domestic policy.  The constitutional monarch would be able to act more freely while still being held accountable to the people by a 20-year reelection cycle and having his or her power checked by congressional override with a ¾ consensus. Our international guests then countered by arguing that the costs of the more efficient government under a monarch would far outweigh the benefits as such a system would go against American traditions of democracy and limited government and because the term limit would be too long to keep a monarch accountable to public opinion. The debate was very engaging as both sides demonstrated quick critical thinking and eloquent speaking. The audience responded loudly to particularly good rebuttals and to witty remarks from both teams. The atmosphere, while academic, was generally very excited.

A question and answer session was held midway through the event, and many Wabash men stood up to ask thoughtful and, in some cases, difficult questions! It only added to the growing spirit of critical thinking and learning erupting from Korb classroom that evening. After both sides had presented their arguments and taken questions from the audience, a vote was taken declaring the British the winners of this year’s debate. A short reception followed and while the night ended with our guests’ being victorious, everyone enjoyed a small victory by being exposed to a stimulating and educational hour of political science, rhetoric, and general academic fun.