Our latest alumnus profile on Rhetoric Notes is of Stephen Creason ‘97.  Mr. Creason was a Speech major and Political Science minor.  While a student he was involved in Parliamentary Union, Alpha Phi Omega, Student Senate, College Republicans, The Commentary, and Moot Court.  After Wabash he attended law school at Indiana University Indianapolis and has remained active by regularly judging Moot Court and also participating in WABASH Day.

Mr. Creason has also worked to organize an educational panel on Public Service in the Law, which will be held in Baxter Hall 101 next Wednesday (November 4) at Noon.  Also serving on the panel will be the Hon. James Joven '89 (Judge, Marion County Small Claims Court), Josh Minkler '85 (Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice), and Chris Atkins '97 (General Counsel and Policy Director, Indiana Office of Management and Budget).

TM: What is your current position in the professional world?

SC: I'm a Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller where I'm an appellate attorney.  I've worked for the Attorney General's Office for 10 1/2 years, first as a law clerk and then as an attorney.  The Attorney General's Office is the State's law firm, so we handle most of the State's legal business.  It's a high-volume, diverse legal practice.  Personally, I handle litigation in the State and federal appellate courts, primarily as a prosecutor in criminal cases. 

TM: Can you explain a little about what you do on a day-to-day basis?

SC: I supervise the section of the Office that is responsible for responding to federal court appeals filed by prisoners (called habeas corpus petitions) and representing the State in the various appeals filed in murder cases where a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole was imposed.  My practice is mostly in the U.S. and Indiana Supreme Courts, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals.  Most of the questions we deal with involve interpretation of the state and federal constitutions and statutes, which makes each case a unique intellectual challenge.  The job involves a lot of reading transcripts of trials, researching a wide variety of legal questions, and writing briefs for the appellate courts.  Although I present oral argument in many cases, much like what Wabash students do during the Moot Court Competition held each year, much of my time is spent researching and writing.  (At right, Steve Creason before the Indiana Supreme Court)

TM: What led you there?

SC: When I went to law school, I wanted to become an appellate attorney so that I could focus my practice on complex legal questions--especially constitutional law.  I also had a strong interest is public service, so the Attorney General's Office was always on my short list of desired employers.  Also weighing in the OAG's favor is the fact that most law firms don't have specialized appellate practices and those few that do give few opportunities to young attorneys.  The Attorney General, on the other hand, represents the State in every appellate case where it or its officers are a party, both civil and criminal cases.  A clerkship-for-credit during my second year of law school got my foot in the door and from the very first day I had my own caseload and was writing briefs that were filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals.  Even since then, I've personally handled my own cases and never carried a more senior attorney's briefcase (nor has a junior attorney ever carried mine!).  I've received more appellate experience with the Attorney General than I could have received anywhere else in Indiana and I remain very thankful for the opportunity to have done it.   

TM: What do you most enjoy about your job?

SC: I enjoy several things about my job.  Foremost, I love the challenge of solving difficult legal questions at the highest level and appellate law gives me that opportunity every day.  It's also rewarding to have your name associated with appellate court decisions that establish new legal principles--most lawyers don't have the opportunity to make new law every day they go to work.  Finally, I'm blessed to work with some of the brightest and most dedicated public servants around; plus, I know that my work benefits the public at large and not just a private person or corporation.    

TM: What are some of the opportunities that public service has given you?

SC: I'm lucky to have the opportunity to work on some of the most high-profile and important cases in the State, and occasionally, nation.  And I get to do so while representing the public at large and their collective interest, which both an honor and heavy responsibility at the same time.  Aside from essentially being an advisor to some of the most respected courts and judges, my best opportunity was to spend several months at the U.S. Supreme Court through a fellowship offered for state attorneys through the National Association of Attorneys General.  It was an unparalleled opportunity that allowed me to study the Court full-time and help other state attorneys prepare their briefs and oral arguments before the Court.  I attended every argument that the Court held during my time there and got to witness the country's best advocates before the nation's toughest panel of judges.  I have no doubt that my career in public service has made me a better lawyer and better man.

TM: How did Wabash help prepare you for your future?

SC: Study in the liberal arts is the ideal training ground for a legal career--or any career focusing on advocacy, for that matter.  Law professors like to say that they don't teach law as much as the train students "to think like a lawyer."  Wabash handled that far better than my law school did, in my opinion.  In fact, I find that I draw from my undergraduate experience studying history, literature, science, politics, and (especially) rhetoric far more than I do from any lesson learned in law school.  And it's not just the critical thinking skills that I gained; I also learned the ability to acutely relate to people, events, and ideas to which I have little personal connection.  That makes me a better lawyer and more persuasive advocate.  Wabash probably isn't the only place that could have given me such an education, but I have no doubt that it was one of the best.

TM: Is there something in particular that you miss about Wabash?

SC: The "place," and by that I mean the grounds, buildings, and the feelings I have when I'm there.  I only get back a couple of times a year, if that, and I always leave feeling as if I just didn't spend enough time. 

TM: What sort of academic and extra-curricular advice would you offer today's Wally?

SC: I am a strong supporter of the Parliamentary Union and other forensics-based activities that are offered at Wabash, whether they be Moot Court, Model UN, or student government.  Being able to effectively speak about your ideas is probably the most important skill that a person can learn outside of class, so the reasoning and persuasion skills honed in these programs are invaluable.  Years from now, they will serve you in your professional career--whatever that may be--and personal life far more than what your major or grades were.  Writing for one of the several student journalism and opinion publications is also valuable for much the same reason.  And although I didn't appreciate them as much as I should have at the time I was a student, I think athletics of any type are important for teambuilding and leadership skills. 

TM: Other things you would like to add or share?

SC: I strongly encourage my fellow Wallies to consider dedicating part or all of their careers to some form of public service no matter what field they choose.  All too often, we allow ourselves to get preoccupied with advancing ourselves up the ladder and/or making more money.  But public service brings intangible benefits that far outweigh our status or income.  And it doesn't have to be a full-time job, you can serve on a school board, local advisory board, or even be active in civic groups that improve the community.  I don't believe I know a public servant or volunteer who doesn't find his or her efforts to have been highly rewarding. 

Of course, none of that has been as rewarding as my family.  My wife Kate and I are looking forward to bringing our 22-month-old son Evan to Crawfordsville soon for his first campus visit.  Hopefully we can get that in before the Class of 2030 matriculates. (At left, Steve and Kate Creason volunteering at WABASH Day)

TM: Thanks, Steve, for taking the time to share your experiences with Rhetoric Notes and we look forward to your panel next week at Wabash.

There was a new addition to the Wabash College rhetoric family last week with the birth of Carter Samuel McDorman.  Carter was born on Thursday October 8 at 8:31 a.m.  He weighed 8 pounds and 13 ounces and was 21 inches long.  The proud parents are Todd and Kelly McDorman and he is welcomed to the family by Dana and Lily.

There is no truth to the rumor that he is already being trained as a left-handed pitcher (although his sister Lily is left-handed).  Nor has he expressed affection for the Cincinnati Reds (although he already has a couple of Reds outfits from his grandparents). Carter is pictured below with one of his sisters, Lily, and Dad.

Our second alumnus profile on Rhetoric Notes is of R. Scott Medsker ’03.  Mr. Medsker was a Rhetoric and Political Science double major.  A class agent, Medsker was active on campus in a number of organizations including the Kappa Sigma fraternity and the Sphinx Club, he was an annual participant in Moot Court, and he spent a semester studying in England.  He also was the lead author of a rhetorical analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Nixon. After Wabash he attended Catholic University, where he obtained his J.D., and clerked for the honorable C. Arlen Beam, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, before joining a law firm.

TFM: Please tell us a little about the law firm you work at—where it is, its areas of practices, etc.

RSM: I work for the international law firm Jones Day in its Washington, D.C. office.  We were founded in 1893 in Cleveland and now have over 2,400 attorneys in 32 offices covering North America, Europe, and Asia.  We count over 250 of the Fortune 500 as our clients and specialize in litigation, including antitrust and competition law, labor and employment, appellate litigation, product liability, and mergers and acquisitions to name some of our strongest fields.  Recently, we helped Chrysler through its bankruptcy proceedings and won a large case for DIRECTV--a case that was headed by another Wabash alumnus in our DC office, Greg Castanias, '87.

TFM: What areas of practice do you specialize in?

RSM: I work in our Labor & Employment group and specialize in employment discrimination class actions, traditional labor (such as disciplinary arbitrations and collective bargaining), and employee benefits issues.

TFM: What do you do on a day-to-day basis?

RSM: Every day is different, and that is part of what makes the job great.  But the one thing that is constant is that I'm communicating all day, every day, whether it is counseling clients, reporting up to my senior colleagues, or drafting arguments to a court.

TFM: What do you most enjoy about your job?

RSM: I enjoy the pressure, the high stakes, and the problem-solving, particularly for employers in a rough economy like we are currently experiencing.  But what I most enjoy is the ability to work with good, talented people to try and help clients tackle some very difficult issues and, hopefully, bring their business out of a potential problem stronger than they could have expected.

TFM: How did Wabash help prepare you for your future?

RSM: Two ways come to mind, both dealing with communication.  First, Wabash helped me to find my "voice" and to have the confidence to make it heard.  Because the community and classes were so small, I was required to think about an issue, form an opinion, and then share and defend it, whether against students or professors.  That gave me a confidence in communication that I think some young professionals lack.  And second, Wabash refined the communication, making me a better writer and speaker than I could have been at a lot of other schools, in part, again, because of the individualized nature of the education.  Being clear and concise in argument or explanation goes a long way in the legal profession.

TFM: Do you have a favorite Wabash memory that you would share with us?

RSM: Fall Saturdays and being at any Wabash Football game, though "The Catch" and winning at Wittenberg on their homecoming in the Fall of 2002 stand out.  Being able to welcome my brother to campus and sharing two years of Wabash with him was a fantastic experience as well.

TFM: What is something about Wabash that you miss?

RSM: Having it around you, all the time.  I was back on campus in September and it was so nice to be able to sit on the Mall and do nothing.  For those of you who move away, you'll be surprised how much it means to come back.

TFM: What sort of academic and/or extra-curricular advice would you offer today’s Wally?

RSM: Work hard, both in and out of the classroom, but play hard too.  You'll never have another opportunity like the years you have now, so don't waste them.

TFM: Any final comments?

RSM: I've been very lucky to continue my Wabash experience, though not on campus, as an alumnus involved in my local regional association, which I'd encourage everyone to do.  And if you can get your family involved in Wabash, all the better.  My wife, Lauren (who went to the all-women's college Agnes Scott), is a huge fan of Wabash and fortunately lets me indoctrinate my five month old, Davis, who we hope will be in the Class of 2031. (picture at right is of Scott and Davis) 

If you would like to share your story and news with Rhetoric Notes please contact Todd McDorman (mcdormat@wabash.edu).

Over the next few months, here on Rhetoric Notes we hope to feature a few of our Rhetoric majors and minors.  We will share “email interviews” that consist of questions and answers with graduates, checking in with what they are doing, getting their perspectives on Wabash education, and reminiscing a bit about their Wabash experiences.

Our first alumnus profile on Rhetoric Notes is of Grant Gussman ’09.   Grant was an active member of the Wabash community with memberships including Theta Delta Chi, the Sphinx Club, the Thomas Riley Marshall Democrats, and the Parliamentary Union.  Grant was one of the most decorated forensics competitors at Wabash in recent years, winning top honors at both the Indiana State Individual Events Tournament and at the DSR-TKA national tournament.  He was also a Baldwin oratorical contest winner, a Moot Court finalist, and the 2009 recipient of the Joseph O’Rourke Jr. Award for the top senior project in Rhetoric (Gussman is pictured at right with Joe and Beverly O'Rourke).

TFM: Tell us about your decision to participate in Teach for America (TFA).

GG: Nearing the end of college, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. I seriously considered graduate school, but ultimately I decided to enter the workforce for at least a while to see how I liked it. I applied to TFA because I wanted to do some kind of service while simultaneously working and gaining experience. The program is a great way for recent college graduates to do exactly that—gain valuable real-world experience and give something back to the country.

TFM: Where have you been placed?

GG: I teach at Edna Karr High School. It's in a New Orleans community called Algiers. Prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it was a magnet school and was twice recognized as a National School of Excellence. Since the storm, we've changed to open enrollment, but our academic reputation is still excellent. Karr is recognized as one of the best public high schools in the city. Furthermore, we have one of the best football teams in the state, and our star quarterback (Benton "Munchie" Legaux) has been recruited by Michigan and Oregon to play college football. How cool is that? Go Cougars!

TFM: At Wabash you were a Rhetoric major and a Philosophy minor. Clearly we know that a Wabash education effectively prepares men for a variety of career paths, but explain how you are teaching Science and the training that has been involved in preparing to enter a high school classroom.

GG: Teach for America chooses what subject its members teach based on college transcripts. They tend to place a lot of people in high-need teaching areas, like math, the sciences, and special education. Once I was assigned a science position, I was required to take and pass the Praxis tests in science and chemistry in order to begin gaining complete certification and to be a "Highly Qualified" teacher under No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, I'm enrolled in a weekly 3-hour seminar that improves my content knowledge and helps me build my repertoire of teaching skills. This program allows me to teach with a Practitioner Teaching License, pending my successful completion of all the coursework. Then at the end of the school year, I'll be a fully-licensed teacher in the state of Louisiana.

TFM: What is your day-to-day routine like?

GG:  My day-to-day life is very busy. I'm up at 5:30 a.m., and I arrive at school by 7:00 a.m. every day.  I usually fine-tune and rehearse my lesson again in the morning and chug coffee to prepare for the students. School begins at 8:30. I teach 4 classes of 11th-grade honors chemistry and 2 sections of 9th-grade physical science, plus I have one planning period each day. School ends at 3:48 p.m., and I usually stick around for tutoring, detention, or just to grade papers. I'm usually out the door by 5:30. Once I get home, I finish whatever grading I have left and prepare for the following day's lesson. I’m in bed by 10 p.m. most nights! Teaching is definitely hard, but I love my kids, and it's incredibly rewarding.

TFM: So, you’ve started a debate program?

GG: Yes, I've started a debate team at my school. My principal OK'ed the proposal, and now I'm working on getting funding to join the National Forensics League. I was amazed at how many students are excited about the team--so many that, when it took me 2 weeks to get a meeting going, a few different students came in after school to make sure I hadn't changed my mind! The movie "The Great Debaters" definitely got students excited about the concept of debate. While I'm happy debate is currently "cool," I hope a lot of the interested students stick with the program for the long haul.

TFM: What do you like the most about your job?

GG: I like a lot of elements of my job, but I most enjoy when students really understand the material and come in for extra work or ask me to make things more challenging. Most students wouldn't dare ask such a thing, but I've had a couple kids who LOVE learning, and it's awesome to see that. I got one student reading Plato during the 2nd week of school! 

TFM: At the same time, I’m sure the job is not without its challenges.

GG: Well, I least enjoy that the majority of my students tell me Lil Wayne is the greatest musician of all time on a daily basis. Outside of that, grading is definitely a bummer. I know it's super important, but it eats so many hours each week that it's hard not to call that the worst part of the job.

TFM: How do you think Wabash prepared you for this experience?

GG: Wabash definitely helped me prepare for this. For one thing, getting placed in a discipline I didn't choose to pursue makes me really appreciate that I received a broad, liberal education. The science classes I took in college, though there weren't too many of them, have been crucial in me staying a step ahead of my students when I teach. One other thing Wabash has helped me with is that I really learned to be a better learner while at Wabash, and how to be aware of my own education progress. I've tried to weave this sort of meta-cognitive thinking into my classes, and the students seem to like it. I'm hoping to teach them to be better learners, on top of teaching them about atoms, chemical bonding, and stoichiometry.

TFM: Do you have a favorite Wabash memory?

GG: Guarding the Bell while I was a rhynie during my junior year.

TFM: What do you miss about Wabash?

GG: Something I miss about Wabash: This is intangible, but I really miss the feeling of Wabash in the fall. The weather gets cooler, the leaves start dropping, the trees are all bright. We have homecoming, the Bell game, pledgeship... 1st semester is a really special time at Wabash.

TFM: What sort of academic and extra-curricular advice would you share with current Wabash students?

GG: Grades are important, but there's a lot more to college than your GPA. It’s essential that you get involved on campus.  You're at a liberal arts college--you should expose yourself to as many new clubs and ideas as possible.

Thanks Grant and please keep us updated on your work at Edna Karr.

For those who study communication, it is an accepted axiom that our language—the words we use—shape and create our reality. Any number of scholars have made such pronouncements: Aristotle, Vico, Kenneth Burke, etc.  The idea they share in common is that the way in which we talk about something—or someone—shapes the way we see it and think about it. In turn, we use these labels and names to both create understanding and to persuade others.

In the political word a label with a long and often powerful lineage is “liberal.”  The connotations of the label have differed by era, but at least since 1988 “liberal” has been appealed to as an accusatory political label.  In choosing 1988 as a significant marker I have in mind the way in which the term was used in that year’s presidential campaign between Republican candidate George H.W. Bush and Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis.  Among other significant elements of that campaign (including the Willie Horton ad, Dukakis's ill fated appearance on an army tank, and Bernard Shaw’s debate question about capital punishment), Bush’s labeling of Dukakis as a “liberal” struck a political chord.  It was such an issue that on the eve of the election Dukakis found himself still trying to explain the label. In subsequent elections, “liberal” has been a favored accusation directed, with varying degrees of success, at candidates such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry.  Further, “conservative” political commentator Ann Coulter has been particularly fond of demonizing the term, using  “liberal” as a means of condemnation in several of her book titles: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, How to Talk Like a Liberal (if you must), and more.

To be sure, these democrat candidates were more “liberal” than their republican counterparts. But the exact meaning of the term “liberal” is unexplored, and ultimately much less important than the emotional response it is intended to evoke.  It has been appealed to as a devil term, a short hand that substitutes for nuanced policy discussions.  Of course the word “conservative” can be used in the same way, but it rarely seems to have as much political traction; if anything, it has more often been a prized badge.  Candidates have worked to establish their “conservative” credentials, but can we say the same thing about “liberal” credentials?  (The term “conservative” is also much more nuanced than it is often given credit for being, as some Wabash student publications have insightfully explored over the past couple of years).

I share these reflections because of a language-shift that seems to have taken place over the past few months—and my current effort to understand its implications. “Liberal” does not seem to be the term in vogue for criticizing President Obama. Perhaps this is because currently there is more perceived baggage to “conservative” (the presumed counterpart of “liberal”) than there has been in some time.  So, instead, President Obama has more often been called “socialist.”  In fact, several months ago Mark Leibovich of the New York Times made note of this apparent shift, writing that “it seems that ‘socialist’ has supplanted ‘liberal’ as the go-to slur among much of the conservative world.” More recently, the label has been used to voice opposition to President Obama’s speech to school children, which was object to by some as an effort at “indoctrination” and as part of a larger “socialist movement,” as well as to Obama’s views on healthcare, which Republican party chairman Michael Steele calls "socialism."

My point isn’t so much to critique what is “liberal” or “socialist,” but to reflect on the shift in language and its implications.  Why has “socialist” become the more popular attack?  It could be because President Obama’s policy proposals are perceived to be so radically different from his predecessors (Click here for a Socialist's view of Obama's "socialism"). Or it could be that “liberal” has lost some of its sting with the “conservative” movement lacking a defined leader and with the nation coming out of a “conservative” presidency that was much criticized.   The deeper question yet is what these labels—liberal, socialist, or even conservative—really tell us about the policies and ideas under discussion.  Unfortunately the answer is, “very little.” The labels are appealed to because they are easy shorthand for broadly conceived ideologies, not because they are nuanced or insightful. Moreover, their broad use may have additional negative consequences given how they are appealed to in the writings of everyday citizens, which I may comment on in a subsequent posting.

On the first day of class in the Rhetoric Senior seminar, Rhetoric majors are asked to define rhetoric and discuss its potential for good and ill in society.  Below are the answers from three of sixteen students in the course this fall: Charles Goodman, Gary James, and Victor Nava

Charles Goodman ‘10

Rhetoric, in my opinion, is the art of argumentation and persuasion.  On the one hand, rhetoric enables one to know the proper techniques and skills necessary to be an effective public speaker (delivery, tone, etc.) while it also enables one to learn the most effective way to persuade one's audience (establishing credibility, ethos, logos, pathos, etc.). Rhetoric also teaches one how to analyze a given artifact, break it down, and interpret the meaning and aim of the artifact in addition to stating the effectiveness of one's rhetorical methods.

Rhetoric can unfortunately be manipulated for ill as well as for good in human society.  History has shown us time and time again that rhetoric can and will be used in all aspects for the sole purpose to persuade an audience towards the speaker's point of view.  We have seen genius rhetorical speakers spread positions of peace such as Martin Luther King Jr. and we have also seen rhetoric being used to manipulate followers into evil actions like that of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's.

In my opinion, the only thing that can beat a solid rhetorical argument is a BETTER rhetorical argument.  That is really the only true way to beat someone else's argument.  By finding the holes in one's argument and having a solid and firm refutation, you may be able to open the eyes of those being led astray by the "evil sources.”

Gary James ‘10

To put it simply, rhetoric is the way humans interact with one another with all the tools at their disposal, from spoken and written language to image production and physical activities. This human interaction includes transmitting information, persuading, and advocating, and ceremonial acts. For example, rhetorical theorist Walter Fisher looks at the way stories function as arguments and include bases for reasoning that can inform, persuade, or advocate in a way many people can understand.

Rhetoric also has a powerful capacity for good and ill in society. History is a compilation of epic accounts of how rhetoric can be used to enslave and to liberate, to control and to inspire. Because humans - and the way we understand and respond to messages - are a key concern of rhetoric, people in power - like Hitler - have used it to rally hate for an entire group of people, the Jews, while leaders such as JFK or Ronald Reagan summoned it to uplift a people and convince them they can do things they never thought possible.

To combat the ills of rhetoric, more rhetoric is required. The utility of studying rhetoric is that it trains the mind to recognize how different messages can influence, sometimes deceptively, even well-educated and inquisitive people. So if everyone is exposed to the ways human interactions can influence thought and actions we would all be prepared to recognize and reject the ills of rhetoric. 

Victor Nava ‘10

I would define rhetoric along the same lines that I define literacy: a study of how artifacts function to create meaning. By this, I perceive rhetoric to be a critical form of study which not only examines the presentation of arguments within a given text (written, verbal, visual, etc), but also relates these arguments and hidden meanings to some form of social impact. Especially when living in an age of mass information and communication mediums, the interpretive skill of rhetoric to decode these messages becomes even more important and thus provides a new, contemporary interpretation of the term.

At the same time, especially here at Wabash, I would also contend that our interpretation of rhetoric carries a high emphasis on classical/historical perception; perceptions which lead to the notion of a “perfect orator” and make note of the five canons of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). Simply put, these historical roots and techniques of public oration seek eloquence as their ultimate end and thus provide the art of public speaking a permanent place in rhetoric’s definition.

Rhetoric appears to be the only medium for any “good” or “ill” imposed upon a society. Without any methods of communication, messages (whether good or ill) will never have the opportunity to reach the number of people necessary to have any form of impact. Rhetoric provides the means of communication and thus acts as the only potential for social change.

As seen throughout history, rhetoric has the ability to spark wars, fuel social movements, impact human emotion, craft education, provide aesthetic oration, and move symbolic mountains composed of human culture.

First, I would default to classical interpretations of the term and argue that “evil rhetoric” isn’t rhetoric at all. Without an ethical orator (or crafter of communication) the basic premise of rhetoric isn’t fulfilled and thus can’t be called as such. Though rhetoric may appear to be vast and transcend any human rules of being, the emphasis on ethics acts as a reign on the widespread use of rhetoric for any means.

However, I understand that this may be the “scapegoat” answer and thus provide a second response to the notion of evil rhetoric: counter it with good rhetoric. Even if it is believed that rhetoric can be “evil,” it must not be forgotten that rhetoric is a human creation and can thus be deconstructed in a similar fashion. Evil rhetoric doesn’t mark the end of society. On the contrary, it invites the creation of more rhetoric which will aim to repair any damage done to society and prevent such evil rhetoric from being used in the future.

Over the past two decades, rhetorical scholars have debated the merits of the public sphere as articulated by scholar Jürgen Habermas.  While the concept of the “public” has enthralled scholars interested in public communication, public policy, and democracy, scholars also have debated the viability and wisdom of Habermas’s vision, have questioned his understanding and respect for a vibrant conception of rhetoric, and lamented what some characterize as a view that offers few real possibilities for democratic engagement by disenfranchised groups.  Concerns about the viability of Habermas’s views has given way to alternative modeling, under the label “counterpublics,” with a greater focus on the plight of the marginalized who seek inclusion in and acknowledgement by state actors (who are often conflated with the public). 

In an essay published in the latest issue of the well respected journal Philosophy and Rhetoric, Wabash College Visiting Assistant Professor of Rhetoric Jeff Motter, and his co-author Melanie Loehwing (Indiana University Bloomington, Department of Communication and Culture), revisit theories of publics and counterpublics and their relationship to democracy while advancing an intriguing reading of Habermas that advocates the potential benefits of his vision for democratic practice.  Starting with Habermas’s works on publics and Nancy Fraser’s work on counterpublics, Loehwing and Motter argue “for a return to the original point of theoretical contention [between Fraser and Habermas] in an effort to specify the different normative commitments of the two perspectives and reevaluate the role each envisions for rhetoric as a potentially democratic praxis” (p. 220).  In doing so the essay is concerned with the implications of adopting one view of (counter)public-democracy relations over the other (p. 221) and, perhaps even more interestingly, the “kind of function each imagines rhetoric to serve in the creation and maintenance of democratic culture” (p. 221).

While the essay begins by examining Habermas’s seminal work in the area, The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere, and how it has been critiqued in an extensive body of scholarship, the central idea of the essay is the advancement of a unique reading of Habermas that is interested more in the democratic potential of his vision than becoming mired in the particulars of his specific historical example of structural transformation (p. 226).  More specifically, of fundamental interest to Loehwing and Motter is the sense of democracy entailed by theories of publics and/or counterpublics. They contend that the distinction in how democracy is viewed in the two perspectives is rooted in the contrast between a “Habermasian perspective [that] understands democracy to thrive as the ongoing constitution of democratic culture from public spheres’ rational-critical debate” and the view of counterpublic studies that sees “democracy both as the setting in which counterpublics operate (actually existing democracy) and at the level of optimally universal access to participation (democratic treatment of publics)” (p. 231).

Ultimately, Loehwing and Motter favor seeing public spheres as a “revitalizing force” in democratic culture, which means pursuing how democracy can be a product of civic rhetorical action rather than focusing on how relationships might be reformed via a counterpublic perspective.  This view is developed out of a concern that counterpublic studies advocate a substituting of one power interest for another. This, then, is a project that seeks to reclaim power rather than enriches democratic practice itself (234).  In contrast, the authors contend that the perspective offered by Habermas “features the sort of civic discursive engagement, identification, and judgment central to our notion of rhetoric as (democratic) praxis” (p. 239).

The implications of the investigation are significant for rhetorical studies as the discipline seeks to make increasing contributions to multi-disciplinary conversations of democratic theory and culture, contributions that are also sought by the Wabash Rhetoric Department in its Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts project that is revising the department’s Public Speaking course.

For further reading see Melanie Loehwing and Jeff Motter, “Publics, Counterpublics, and the Promise of Democracy,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2009): 220-241.  The journal is available in print form in the Lilly Library and also accessible through Communication and Mass Media Complete and Project Muse.

L. Jill Lamberton has joined the Wabash College English and Rhetoric Departments with a two-year appointment as a Lilly Teaching Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor. Professor Lamberton will be splitting her duties between the two departments while helping English and Rhetoric explore the connections between the two academic fields.  In important respects, Professor Lamberton’s work illustrates the close and complex relationship between the two disciplines.  For instance, while her education is in Rhetoric and Composition as affiliated with English, her dissertation was recognized with an award from the American Society for the History of Rhetoric, an organization affiliated with the National Communication Association.

Professor Lamberton has a B.A. in English, Religious Studies, and Spanish from Walla Walla (College Place, Wash), an M.A. in English Studies from Western Washington University (Bellingham, Wash), and in 2007 she completed her PhD at the University of Michigan.  Her dissertation, Claiming an Education: The Transatlantic Performance and Circulation of Intellectual Identities in College Women’s Writing, 1870-1900, explores the role of student writing in late nineteenth-century women’s colleges by examining artifacts such as diaries, letters, poetry, and campus publications.  In particular she examines the rhetorical strategies used by the women during their integration into Girton and Newnham Colleges at Cambridge and Radcliffe College at Harvard. 

During the Fall semester Professor Lamberton will teach Freshman Composition, Public Speaking, and Cultures and Traditions. Her office is in Center Hall (112B) and she can be contacted at lambertj@wabash.edu or campus extension 6154.

Yesterday (August 24) marked the twentieth anniversary of Pete Rose’s banishment from baseball. During that time the Rose controversy likely has been the most consistently talked about issue in sports, recurring with every Hall of Fame weekend, Rose appearance at a gambling establishment, and player, columnist, and fan musing on the issue.  And, of course, an anniversary such as this provided a new round of television programs and sports columns.

I’ve long been interested in Pete Rose’s situation; after all, I grew up a Reds’ fan and a Pete Rose fan.  I collected his baseball cards, had his poster on my bedroom wall, and attended Reds’ games.  I also made Pete Rose part of my scholarship, examining his image repair efforts in the wake of his appearance at the 1999 World Series and the infamous Jim Gray interview. In a book chapter entitled “The Rhetorical Resurgence of Pete Rose: A Second-Chance Apologia” (Case Studies in Sport Communication, eds. Robert S. Brown and Daniel O'Rourke, Praeger Publishers, 2003), I argued that the confluence of events presented Rose with a redefined rhetorical situation that gave new salience to his apologia.  Furthermore, the passage of time, the sympathy evoked by the Gray interview, and the disappearance of many of Rose’s accusers from the public eye suddenly made Rose’s rhetoric more appealing. Finally, the fragmentation of contemporary culture—seen through the multitude of media outlets broadcasting parts of Rose’s message—raised his effectiveness and seemingly partially redeemed him in the public eye. 

With that, Rose seemed potentially poised for reinstatement and, by all accounts, privately confessed to baseball commissioner Bud Selig in November 2002.  However, with his public confession issued outside of an agreement with baseball, announced in his 2004 autobiography entitled My Prison Without Bars (and released the same day that a new Hall of Fame class was announced), Rose seems to have lost his chance at a return.  While Rose did confess his gambling, he did so in ways that undercut his effectiveness.  Through his narrative Rose attempted to minimize the offensiveness of his actions and, when possible, evade responsibility by appealing to psychological diagnoses such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Behavior, his acculturation in gambling from childhood, and his unwillingness to lose in any encounter (which made it impossible for him to admit his wrong doing). The result was measured mortification, an apology without contrition and one that sacrificed 15 years of consistency while failing to assure readers that Rose had really learned from his mistakes or truly regretted anything other than getting caught.

What should Rose have done?  Instead of a lengthy book, which required an extended and often unflattering narrative and suggested an economic motive for Rose, Rose would have been well served to first reach an agreement on his baseball reinstatement and/or Hall of Fame eligibility.  Then, at a press conference with the commissioner and his most well known supporters such as baseball Hall of Famers Hank Aaron, Joe Morgan, and Mike Schmidt, a humble, repentant Rose could have expressed his regrets in a more appealing image repair effort.  Yes, Rose could have still written his book, but he should have done so after his confession and after reaching an agreement with MLB.

What does the future hold for Pete Rose? Presently, reinstatement is unlikely.  However, with the passage of time it is likely that Rose will again become more appealing and more people will wonder why he is banned from baseball and if he should be reinstated.  Such questions arise when figures such as Hank Aaron express their support for Rose, when columnists and radio personalities advocate his reinstatement, and as fans try to compare the damage done to baseball by Pete Rose and that done by performance enhancing drugs. Whether redemption is possible in Rose’s lifetime is in serious question, but in the meantime the best discourse strategy for Rose on the issue is to say nothing about his possible reinstatement.

Alright, I’ve been in school for the better part of my life… the last 15 years or so. I’ve been in so many classrooms that I’ve lost count. Some of my favorite classes were courses on humor, social psychology, and creative writing. Whenever I would begin a new class, my teacher would always set a syllabus in front of me. With each new syllabus, I knew exactly what I would be learning that semester, the assignments I would be expected to complete, and how my grade would be calculated. From a student’s perspective, that syllabus immediately colors how I view the course. Now, to be totally honest with you, I’ve never thought about how much work actually goes into preparing a syllabus. I guess I assumed that syllabi just sprung into being. Maybe there was some nerdy Academic Fairy that secretly slipped them underneath my professors’ pillows while they slept.

Oh, how very mistaken I was. There is no Academic Fairy. Only teachers who spend loads of hours writing their syllabus… and the (naïve) intern that volunteers to help. That was my internship this summer. My task was to help revise the Public Speaking 101 course. Now, you may be thinking to yourself, “Public Speaking is a fundamental course. Why would you want to change it?”

Well, my friend, many people use public speaking as a tool to promote their own ideas. That is, to the extent they defeat their opponents, skilled rhetors use the power of public speaking to promote their own values and policies. In other words, the common public speaking course teaches their students to win. When the media presents “both sides of the debate,” the student who has taken Wabash’s Public Speaking 101 should win.

The traditional method of teaching public speaking can potentially be dysfunctional, as an individual’s personal values and policies may not be what’s best for the community as a whole. Learning public speaking in this manner can open some unethical doors. Individuals may use their skills to manipulate others and accomplish some self-serving end.

The Rhetoric Department is re-designing the course to focus on civic engagement and deliberation. Public speaking was always intended to teach students skills to aid their community; now, our rhetoric department is placing a greater emphasis on that. The new course emphasizes that there are more than two sides to an argument; the argument can be approached from multiple perspectives. And it is the responsible citizen’s duty to present his/her approach to the argument, and listen to what others have to say within their community. Only then can the community find a mutual consensus that serves everyone, not just an individual.

It was my job to locate potentially appropriate class readings. My job was to read through text books and articles. As well, I searched for videos that may be used for class examples. Also, after Dr. Abbott wrote several assignments, I gave her feedback from the student perspective. In other words, I was a Teacher’s Assistant. I learned the ins-and-outs of writing a course.

With everything I learned this summer, I may become a professor and write my own course now… who knows?

Jim Amidon — Rhetoric Professor Todd McDorman asked me to swing by the Caleb Mills House on Tuesday night to take a few pictures of the senior rhetoric majors at a banquet that both honored the seniors and welcomed the Brigance Forum Lecturers Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites.

I sat quietly in the corner waiting for dinner to conclude, but listening to the lively conversations the students were having with their invited guests, as well as familiar faces like Joe and Bev O’Rourke, Vic and Marion Powell, and Jack Oest, William Norwood Brigance’s grandson.

When dinner concluded, Professor David Timmerman welcomed everyone to the living room and, alternating with Professor McDorman, talked about the accomplishments of the six seniors who majored in rhetoric.

What a remarkable group.

Three of them — Josh Gangloff, Pat Long, and Dan Masterson — were members of the Wabash football team which set an all-time record for most wins (40) and won three straight North Coast Athletic Conference titles.

Gangloff, a fierce nose tackle on the football team, is a soft-spoken leader whose Christian outreach has extended as far as Botswana and as close as the young people at Pleasant View Baptist Church here in Crawfordsville. Gangloff will pursue a master’s degree in divinity upon graduation, while working in his family’s business.

Masterson, while not the stars of the team like Long and Gangloff, minored in theater. He appeared in two main stage productions and in the Studio One-Acts. I’ll most remember Dan for his gripping performance as a dirty cop in the spring ’09 production of The Pillowman.

In addition to an amazing senior project for his rhetoric major, Derek Hickerson also spent last summer working on a “Know Indiana” research project with Professor Timmerman. Hickerson’s original research focused on James Matthew Townsend, Indiana’s third elected African American legislator. Hickerson researched the legislation Townsend authored to repeal Indiana’s “Black Laws.” And though Townsend’s bill was voted down, a year later a similar bill passed through the Indiana legislature.

Matt Dodaro, star baseball player, also is a rhetoric major. I’ve taken a couple hundred photographs of Matt diving for ground balls from his position at shortstop and crossing the plate after smashing a home run onto Jennison Street. I never knew he was a rhetoric major until last night, nor did I realize that he’s started every single baseball game during his four-year Wabash career.

Finally, the professors paid tribute to Grant Gussman, whom I did know was a rhetoric major. I knew that he won the famed Baldwin Oratorical Contest. I knew he had won both state and national titles in forensics. But I didn't know Grant was, perhaps, the most decorated forensics student in recent history.

I also learned that Grant finished his course work in December and has been coaching a speech and debate team back home. Beginning this summer, Grant will begin training for the Teach for America program and he’ll spend the next two years working at a high school in New Orleans. Teaching science!

The evening concluded when the professors presented Gussman with the Joseph O’Rourke Prize, which honors the outstanding senior rhetoric major. It was a touching occasion to see the expressions of pride and joy on the faces of Joe and Bev O’Rourke, seated closely to their dear friends — Jack Oest and the Powells.

And it was clear from his expression that Gussman, too, was honored to receive the prize named in honor of a legendary speech and rhetoric professor.

I did end up snapping the photo of the six senior majors on the front porch of the Caleb Mills House. But I left with a terrific feeling about the accomplishments of the seniors and the potential for greatness they have — as teachers, lawyers, ministers, and representatives of Wabash College.

Over the past two weeks students and faculty of Rhetoric have been busy with a number of activities inside and outside the classroom. In many respects these events reflect the active present and ambitious future of rhetoric at Wabash.

As noted in an earlier post, from February 26 to 28 the Rhetoric Department hosted the Brigance Colloquy on Public Speaking as a Liberal Art.  In addition to the excellent keynote address by Professor Denise Bostdorff of the College of Wooster, attending scholars engaged in a series of productive conversations about the role and future of rhetorical education.  Participants shared a vision of rhetoric as an art for civic engagement, discussing the role of public speaking in college curricula, how to place the practice of citizenship at the center of rhetorical study, and shared ideas of both practical import and theoretical significance in matters of teaching and scholarship.  The event energized the department’s CILA supported project and will have an important role in our work over the next 14 months.

While the colloquy holds great potential for the future of public speaking at Wabash the more visible aspects of rhetorical study have been the flurry of course related activities. Also as previously noted on this blog, on Monday March 2 Grant Gussman ’09, Daniel King ’10, and Professor David Timmerman shared their collaborative research on The Boondocks. On that same day, Professor Todd McDorman’s class met with artist Samuel Bak in the Eric Dean Gallery to discuss his work. Prior to the visit the Visual Rhetorics class read works analyzing Bak from Dean Gary Phillips and his co-author Danna Nolan Fewell. The students got their first look at the art work on Monday and engaged the artist in a discussion of the meaning of the work, testing out their own interpretations. Following the class hour the students were reluctant to leave the gallery, each flocking to the piece of his own choosing, lingering over it while considering the conversation.  The class also gathered for lunch with Samuel Bak and Dean Phillips’s class, “Parables in Jewish and Christian Traditions,” in the first of a series of collaborations between the two courses.

On Tuesday March 3 the Indiana Court of Appeals made its annual visit to Wabash.  A variety of community members attended the oral argument--students, professors, a local judge etc. However the case had the most significance for Professor Jeff Motter’s Legal Debate class. The week before the oral argument each of these students engaged in their own in-class debate on the case.  The students were able to test their understanding of the case as well as to see how the actual litigants and judges handled the argument.  Thursday, in their final class session of the half-semester course, the class exchanged their reactions and offered their evaluations of the oral argument and case.

Finally, on Friday March 6 at 6:00 a.m., Professors David Timmerman and Tim Lake left Crawfordsville with their students from African American Rhetoric and Expressive Culture.  This week the class has visited a number of significant Civil Rights sites in the south.  The student blog entries illustrate the value of the experience, the way it has brought new dimensions to their studies, and its life-changing nature.

A brief paper and presentation from a rhetoric course from spring 2008 has developed into a provocative collaborative project between Grant Gussman ’09, Daniel King ’10, and Professor David Timmerman.  Seeing potential in the text, the provocative adult swim cartoon The Boondocks (based on the comic strip of the same name), and the initial work of the students, David Timmerman offered to mentor Grant and Daniel in a four week internship last summer. During the course of their research, which was supported by the Undergraduate Research Celebration Committee (which is funded by the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts), the scholars spent many hours watching every episode from the first two seasons of the program and analyzing themes, characters, and visual elements from the show. They sought to find entry points into the way in which the show uses humor and race to address important societal issues and were guided by a difficult question: does The Boondocks provide a new space for dialogue about race?

While the four week summer internship was productive, it was not enough to complete a project of this scope and complexity.  And after the four weeks they each initially went their own way—Grant visiting Spain at the generosity of the Rudolph Fund, Daniel engaging in an off campus psychology internship before spending his fall semester abroad, and David Timmerman engaging two other students in collaborative research projects that were supported by Know Indiana.  Despite these seeming obstacles—and without the incentive of additional grades or additional internship monies—the project has continued to develop this semester.  The students continued working on the project while David Timmerman worked with them to assemble the ideas into a form fitting for publication in a rhetoric journal.  Grant and Daniel presented a revised version of their project at the Student Research Celebration in January and on March 2 the three of them combined to present the next iteration, an essay that is now approaching 12,000 words, to a room full of Wabash students and professors in the context of a Humanities Colloquium. On the one hand this is a non-traditional project: a collaborative humanities project, a rhetorical analysis authored by a Wabash professor and two students, outside of class. On the other hand, the project represents the best of Wabash and the most valuable aspects of our tradition: direct student-faculty engagement over a complex text; three engaged researchers collaboratively considering the social implications of contemporary depictions of race and humor.  What could be more influential on students’ educational experiences than that?

The presentation itself was a great success.  After an introduction by Timmerman, each participant presented a segment of analysis that showed how The Boondocks makes meaning.  Gussman discussed how the visual characteristics in the show, including the use of anime, lead an audience to either accept or reject characters. For instance, the scholars argue that the visual elements used to portray the character Huey encourage the acceptance of his views while visual elements used to portray the character Uncle Ruckus lead the audience to reject what he represents.  In a similar fashion, King illustrated how music is also used to signal the desire for comedic acceptance or rejection.  Uncle Ruckus is rejected through the application of a harsh trombone that undermines the most objectionable of his verbal messages while the philosophical reflections from Huey that are designed to explain the meaning of the message are positively accentuated with an elegant, graceful jazz piano.  Finally, in the last section, which is still in development, Timmerman examined the meaning of the dialogue delivered by Ruckus, reflecting on the use of satire and the grotesque as a transitional device that leads the audience between the possibilities of acceptance and rejection. Following the presentation the authors welcomed enthusiastic questions and discussion. Audience members at once corroborated and challenged the reading while suggesting additional avenues of development for the authors to consider as they finalize their essay for submission to a journal. 

 “What kind of speech training is needed in a democracy? The answer is obvious.  The kind needed to promote the welfare of a free society” -- W. Norwood Brigance

With the support of the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, this Thursday to Saturday (Feb. 26 to Feb. 28) the Wabash College Rhetoric Department will host twelve communication scholars to discuss the benefits and content of public speaking courses.

The meeting, the Brigance Colloquy on Public Speaking as a Liberal Art, is a follow-up to our 2005 meeting on Rhetoric and Democratic Citizenship.  The colloquy is convening to consider the role of public speaking in a liberal arts curriculum.  Our interest in the topic is based on several interrelated considerations including the role rhetoric plays in public deliberation in a healthy democracy, the tendency to reduce the teaching of public speaking to a basic skills course without regard for its role in democracy, its relationship to leadership, or its standing as part of the discipline of rhetoric, and the alarming lack of attention that is given to bridging these concerns in most public speaking textbooks.

The colloquy is part of a two-year review of the department’s public speaking course. Objectives include refashioning the course as being more geared toward issues of civic engagement and underscoring the role of public speaking in the liberal arts while retaining the present course’s focus on the critical analysis of public discourse.

The colloquy kicks-off with a public lecture by Dr. Denise Bostdorff of The College of Wooster. Dr. Bostdorff’s lecture, “Citizens Speaking: Rhetorical Education and Civic Engagement,” will be Thursday February 26 at 4:15 in Baxter 101. The talk is free and open to the public.

Subsequently, the twelve visiting scholars will meet with the members of the Wabash College rhetoric department to discuss a range of topics including the goals of teaching public speaking as a liberal art, methods and models for teaching public speaking, content of public speaking texts, and efforts to extend the public speaking classroom.

The scholars participating in the colloquy have a range of experiences in teaching and research. Included are scholars at liberal arts schools and research universities as well as scholars who have authored textbooks, lead centers that address rhetoric and civic engagement, and have engaged in the revisioning of public speaking efforts on their own campus.

The roster of participants is: Jennifer Abbott (Wabash College), Courtney Bailey (Allegheny College), Denise Bostdorff (The College of Wooster), Leila Brammer (Gustavus Adolphus College), Kristine S. Bruss (Kansas University), Martin Carcasson (Colorado State University), Joshua  Compton (Dartmouth College), W. Thomas Duncanson (Millikin University), Bryan Fisher (Francis Marion University), Darlene Hantzis (Indiana State University),  J. Michael Hogan (Pennsylvania State University), William Keith (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), Jeff Kurtz (Denison University), Todd McDorman (Wabash College), Jeff Motter (Wabash College), and David Timmerman (Wabash College)