Monday, March 24, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #20
BREAKING NEWS - Green Gets Award!
Richard Green, one of the Speech and Communication faculty members who works with the Communication Club and the Debate Team, just won a New York Times ESOL Teacher of the Year Award. He will be honored on Monday evening, March 31, at the NY Times Center on 8th Avenue between 40th and 41st. An advertisement will appear sometime in this week’s New York Times announcing the award. Richard was recognized especially for his work in developing technology (videos, podcasts) to support his ESL classes in Oral English. Congratulations, Richard. The award is well deserved.

Our four-week schedule:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 – THE DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
The Debate team has two copies of “Opposing Views: Gun Control” in addition to the extensive research they’ve already collected. We will now be able to push ahead in developing both the Affirmative and Negative arguments with the appropriate supporting evidence. We may be able to experiment with cross-examination technique in this session. This is the hard and boring drudgery necessary to get the cases up to speed.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 – 5th Speech Contest – 2 pm – Room 314 – Midtown - 27 West 23rd St.
Student Finalists from 3 Communication classes will present their winning Information speeches. These Finalists were selected by their classmates from speaking assignments in “Survey of Human Communication,” “Public Speaking” and “Interpersonal Communication.” A panel of faculty and administrative judges will rate the speakers according to the content, organization and delivery of their speeches. First Prize is $100 cash; Second Prize is $50 cash; Third Prize is $25 cash. Refreshments will be served while the judges are deliberating.
Come to “See How It’s Done!” Learning how to speak in public is one of the fundamental skills in today’s competitive job market.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 – The Debate Team will meet at 1 pm in Room 610 @ 50 West 23rd Avenue.
More hard work. What we do at this meeting will build on what we did on March 26th.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – Club @ 1 pm @ 610 @50 West.
The last Club meeting on the Presidential campaign was so interesting that everyone forgot to set a topic for next time. I promise it will be interesting! The topic will be posted in the next Club notes.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CLUB MEETING ON Wednesday, March 19, 2008.
Two new members, Alba Campuzano and Jetante Morris joined Drani Gabu, James Millner, Richard Green and David Nussbaum. George Backinoff led an exciting session of the current Presidential campaign. David took notes on the session. Drani distributed copies of Barak Obama’s speech on race and religion.
George asked the group what traits the President should have. Some suggestions included
  • Preparedness
  • Understand how the economy works for the benefit of all people
  • Understand world politics
  • Presents clear agenda
  • Policy to protect nation from invasion
  • Honesty
  • Strong decision maker
  • Fair and Balanced
  • Stamina/Debater
  • Candidates should have morals and charisma
George asked whether having been a First Lady was a qualification for being President. He gave examples of strong first ladies such as Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt. The group had mixed opinions.
Then the group focused on the issues of the campaign. Alba suggested an understanding of the economy and James suggested that the president should have a policy to protect the nation. Other issues that were mentioned included;
  • Education (Improvement)
  • Economy
  • Health care
  • Security
  • War in Iraq resolved
  • Race, gender, religion, age were issues for further discussion
The first topic to come up specific to the primaries is the controversy surrounding Obama’s association with Pastor Wright who has made controversial remarks which have been reported in the media of late. James read the New York Times excerpt of a recent speech by Obama addressing this. Drani read a different excerpt of the same speech from the Daily News.
The group then discussed the effects of the speech and how it was reported in these two very different newspapers.
The group noted that Obama made reference to his feelings of connectedness to both his white grandmother and to Pastor Wright. (The controversy that led Obama to make this fairly long nationally televised speech was over comments by the pastor of his church of choice).The group felt that Obama implied that Wright’s views may be influenced by conditions that no longer exist on the scale that Wright experienced them. The group agreed that Obama’s audience was a wide and inclusive one, and that the speech essentially succeeded.
Then George posed the question, “How should Hillary should respond to Obama’s speech?” All felt that she should not go on the offensive with personal attacks. “What about religion? George asked. The group shared a variety of personal feelings.
George pointed out that when Michigan governor George Romney made his bid for the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 1968, his religion was hardly an issue. Many did not know he was a Mormon, nor did they seem to care what his religion was. However, in this campaign, the opposite was true. When former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney George Romney's son, ran earlier this year for the Republican Presidential nomination, public pressure caused Romney to talk about his Mormon religion
Richard told of an article comparing the two religions of Clinton (Methodist) and Obama (Baptist) and how each religion has influenced the thinking and organization of the candidate. He promised to share this very controversial article.
Hal Wicke who had joined the meeting earlier, asked Alba, Jatante, Drani and James for their overall impressions of the election process so far. Jetante, Alba and James all would prefer to see a campaign that focuses on issues, and not personalities, race or attacking the other candidate. They seemed a bit disillusioned with the process. Drani commented that he expected the candidates to behave as adults, but was disappointed they were behaving as children. [Ah, the contrasts between expectations and reality are endless!]
At the end of this stimulating and informative session, all agreed it would be a good idea to have a Part Two. It would give all an additional stimulus to follow the events more closely as well as to provide an energizing atmosphere in which to discuss events as they unfold.
See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Monday, March 17, 2008

Communication and Debate Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club #19
The Presidential campaign has heated up this past week with the surrogates of the candidates getting Clinton and Obama into messy food fights. Add the sudden Spitzer resignation to the political mix and after a while one can have second thoughts about what is happening in America. I admit the events of the past week have strained my own ability to maintain a level of hope in public service.
I keep thinking that the public politics are often macro versions of the micro experiences we have with our families, classmates, colleagues and co-workers. (That’s why Shakespeare wrote about kings.) With each revelation, I ask how can this event have some relevance to our understanding of Communication. My observation is that events like the past week occur when there is a failure of communication. Then how can we prevent Murphy’s law from happening? (And remember Murphy was an optimist!)
P.S. On Thursday, 3/13, Professor Gary Sheinfeld and Dean Timothy Taylor performed Sheinfeld’s final interview with James Baldwin. Professor Carlisle Yearwood provided introductory material and read some of Baldwin’s poetry. Sheinfeld was a long-time friend of Baldwin.
Our two-week schedule:
WEDNESDAY, March 19, 2008 – THE CLUB WILL MEET AT 1 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23rd Street
The current Presidential Campaign will be the topic this week. George Backinoff will lead what will probably be a free-wheeling experience. There are so many ways to look at the dominant news story: Democrats vs. Republicans, Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain, delegates vs. super delegates, Florida and Michigan voter fights, the leaks and off-message statements by the Obama campaign, the probable appearance of “dirty tricks” made famous by Watergate, gender and race issues, the anti-Clinton and the anti-Obama internet sites, and on and on. Come with your questions and your opinions. This is a great time to speculate and shoot your mouth off –responsibly we insist – not like some of the TV pundits and talk show hosts. Bring a friend to add to the excitement!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 – THE DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
The Debate team has two copies of “Opposing Views: Gun Control” in addition to the extensive research they’ve already collected. We will now be able to push ahead in developing the both Affirmative and Negative arguments with the appropriate supporting evidence. We may be able to experiment with cross-examination technique in this session. This is the hard and boring drudgery necessary to get the cases up to speed.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CLUB MEETING ON Wednesday, March 12, 2008?
Drani Gabu, Kazi Faltah and Tetyana Averkina welcomed Theresa Wright to the session. James Millner arrived late. David Nussbaum took notes and Hal Wicke led the session.
This was a hard, brain-numbing, yet exhilarating session. We finally got into the material David’s notes provide the outline of the session. First we confirmed our resolution:
Resolved: That NYC enact a law prohibiting the sale and use of small handguns, except for law enforcement officials.
As the debaters move ahead in developing their cases, they must define the terms of the resolution. Often, an entire issue can change based on one definition.
The group brainstormed some of the issues relevant to gun control. They included:
  • Homicide/injury.
  • Robberies,
  • Domestic violence,
  • Unintended shooting,
  • Second amendment rights,
  • Guns at work/school/public places,
  • Registration of guns,
  • Control crimes (limit) – reduce crime,
  • Control who carries guns (registration)
  • Reduce hospital costs
  • Cases in which gun has been weapon of choice
The team began to develop a chart which listed the arguments. This is an early step to clarify each team’s case. For each argument, the other team must prepare for an opposite argument. Then the issues will “clash” and a judge can determine which side had the better argument and evidence. If there is no “clash,” or opposing view, the side that advocates the argument wins that point.
You will notice that the team was able to come up with more Negative arguments than Affirmative ones. We have much more work to do. Once the arguments are clarified, then the debaters plug in the supportive evidence.
Pro and Con Chart
Pro/Affrmative
Do arguments clash?
Con/Negative
Does not protect
Not parallel/ no clash
Need guns to protect ourselves, materials, etc.


Hunting.& Sport


No legislation will prevent gun use


Black market


Second amendment


Gun control laws don’t work
Thou shalt not kill


Research for next meeting
Cases in which handguns have been the principal weapon of choice
Evidence from non high profile cases
Next time the debate should be able to find other arguments and develop them.
See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Update

Touro Communication Club #18
The Presidential campaign seems to drift into everyone’s conversation. With five months until Denver when the Democrats stop squabbling over who will be their candidate, the horserace is producing some unexpected turns of events. The Clinton comeback in Texas and Ohio and the Obama campaign facing embarrassing off-message statements to Canadian and British sources make for interesting political gossip. Also, the number of emails being sent by both camps has exploded, often filled with misstatements and outright errors.
However, there are many lessons to be learned from this “entertainment” that are important to members of the club. First is the unreliability of polls, an important research tool for campaigns. A second lesson might be the difficulty in managing the communication so everyone is on the same page and saying the same thing. A third observation might be how elusive accurate facts are when information is carelessly misstated or taken out of context or, worst of all, is egregiously wrong. The regular voter is not trained in listening carefully or knows that all statements are assertions that must be proved with valid evidence. The Communication Club member is becoming more aware of how important it is to listen to statements people make, but not accept them at face value without verification. A final lesson might be the use of loaded language and glittering generalities (the propagandist’s term) to inflate an issue or attack an opponent. Josef Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Adolf Hitler, developed the “Big Lie” where he repeated an untruth so often that people began to believe it.
Oh, we have so much to examine and discover with future Communication conversations!
Our two-week schedule:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008 – THE DEBATE TEAM WILL MEET AT 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
We have our Gun Control Resolution is set; “Resolved: that New York State should ban all small handguns.” Now we will focus on cataloguing the Affirmative and Negative arguments. Remember, for each argument, there MUST be a counter argument – with evidence. A tall order, but one which is standard procedure in collegiate debate and in places like Congress. Hal, Richard and David will work with the team.
Today, March 8, on "All Things Considered," NPR.org audio may be heard on the story, "Arizona Weighs Allowing Concealed Guns on Campus." Just click on the following link to hear the story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88012596

WEDNESDAY, Narch 19, 2008 – THE CLUB WILL MEET AT 1 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23rd AVENUE
The current Presidential Campaign will be the topic this week. George Backinoff will lead what will probably be a free-wheeling experience. There are so many ways to look at the dominant news story: Democrats vs. Republicans, Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain, delegates vs. super delegates, Florida and Michigan voter fights, the leaks and off-message statements by the Obama campaign, the probable appearance of “dirty tricks” made famous by Watergate, gender and race issues, the anti-Clinton and the anti-Obama internet sites, and on and on. Come with your questions and your opinions. This is a great time to speculate and shoot your mouth off –responsibly we insist – not like some of the TV pundits and talk show hosts. Bring a friend to add to the excitement!
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CLUB MEETING ON Wednesday, March 5, 2008?
We thank David Nussbaum for his complete report. Jason Carvell led the session. Drani Gabu, James Miller and Theresa Wright welcomed English Faculty member Jan Castro. Professor Castro was one of the presenters at the recent Faculty Poetry Reading. (See the blog entry for February 14, 2008).
“The discussion began with the question, “What is a story?” and a working definition. Examples of known stories include fairy tales, Bible stories and Fables.
The group was asked to give their own “story.” After everyone shared their story, Jason asked the group if one person would tell the story of another in the first person as if the other’s story was his/her own. Differences in the verbal and nonverbal elements were noted and explained.
Jason followed this exercise with a relaxation exercise using breathing work and the “O” invitation to story concept.
The known story of “John Henry” was agreed upon as a basis for discussion. It was discovered that stories eliminate distance among people. A lively discussion of the imagery in the story followed. Everyone learned how to conjure details of the imagery and how to use this imagery to give the story a three dimensionality when telling it.
Several other “lessons” were evident, beyond the idea that stories eliminate distance among people. That early stories were an explanation of things unseen was an important idea. Another observation was that although stories evolved over time, their one constant is that they tell us our place in the world. Finally, when we tell a story, we draw from our sphere of experience which connects to the universal experience. In hearing a story we draw the larger experience into own world.
Everyone participated actively by giving suggestions for stories to discuss, sharing their own stories and contributing to the discussion of Storytelling. The general feeling was that we had only begun to explore the power and impact of Storytelling. No doubt the club will do another session soon!
See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke