Friday, April 25, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #24
While the Communication students have been busy with the Debate Team and Communication Club, the Communication faculty has also been pushing the frontiers of Communication into other parts of Touro College. We already have a rotating Communications seminar in the MBA program of Graduate School of Business in the Wall Street area. The seminars cover public speaking, memo writing, teamwork and interpersonal communication.
This past week Touro’s Graduate School of Education. accepted two new Communication proposals, beginning this fall. The first is the only graduate course in Oral Communication in the Master’s degree program in TESOL (Teachers of English for Students of Other Languages). It will introduce TESOL teachers of grades K-6 to methods of including oral Communication in their classes. The courses will include vocabulary building, conversation skills, impromptu speaking, voice and diction, leading a discussion, questioning practice, etc.. Video will be used in the class. This is an unusual course since most of their TESOL coursework deals with writing.
The second course will be called “Communication Skills for Teachers.” Master’s students in Education and Special Education will practice a variety of oral skills similar to the TESOL course but geared to the students themselves. Strategies to build vocabulary, practice conversation, develop class discussions, impromptu speaking, learning how to question, etc., are among the topics to be covered. Video will also be used. The course is being added to enhance the oral skills of these MS students.

Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club:
Wednesday, April 30 – 1 pm -Debate Team
The team has set Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on Gun Control. That’s 4 weeks away. It’s during Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. We have a tough month ahead.

Wednesday, May 7, 20081 pm – Club – “The Bully Pulpit Meets Politics”
After a very successful discussion about “Race, Religion and Rhetoric” in our first Bully Pulpit discussion. Professor George Backinoff will continue the exchange of the ways the concept of a Bully Pulpit moves into the arenas of politics and media. It should be very interesting!

What happened on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at The Bully Pulpit”?
A solid turnout made the discussion very interesting. Drani Gabu, Theresa Wright and James Millner of the Debate team welcomed newcomers Olushile Akintade, Dennis Kniazev and Lara Koerfer. Lara won lst place in the recent 5th Speech Contest.. Professor Jason Carvell led the discussion while Communication faculty member George Backinoff, Richard Green, David Nussbaum and Hal Wicke participated along side of the students. Dean Timothy Taylor also participated in the discussion.
Jason began by asking what “Bully” in the workshop title meant. “Intimidation, pushy, scary” were among the responses. To his question, “What does a bully do?” the group responded with a variety of negativity behaviors that characterize bullying. What is a pulpit? Who has one? were the next questions. The Pope (Pope Benedict XIV was about to visit New York City this weekend) and religious leaders, politicians and teachers had their pulpits of various kinds. They had pulpits because each had a forum where people listened to what they said.
So an audience is necessary for a pulpit, Jason summarized. And that audience had to belong to some group and have an identity, he concluded from the discussion. He pointed out there are competing bully pulpits for different audiences. The audience was divided into three discussion groups who were asked to identify 2 individuals who had competing bully pulpits. The group was asked to define where these “bullies” derived their authority - “What right did these people have to have their “pulpits”?
One group chosen “Presidential spouses” – Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton – the significant others of Democratic Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Another group chose Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. The third group picked Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In the discussion that followed, many issues affecting both the “bully” and the “pulpit” were mentioned – formal title; personal authority; style of speaking; all speakers gave hope to their listeners; their supporters were people willing to listen to the speakers.
For the sake of a humorous comparison, Jason mentioned the power and authority of Miss USA. Although she had a title, her power was very limited and perhaps was only a symbol of the popular American ideal of “beauty.” “American Idol” is another example of a title with dubious power and authority, except in the eyes of those who voted for a particular singer.
Jason asked the group to identify the source of the following quote, “I have come to believe that the biggest purveyor of violence in the world...is my own government.” The author was Martin Luther King. Before he was assassinated, King was called “anti-American’ because he opposed the Vietnam War. Then Jason made a transition to the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama’s church in Chicago. There has been a public outcry about Wright’s controversial “anti-American” comments. There was discussion about the issue as the group struggled to answer Jason’s question, “Why were Wright’s comments controversial?” The group generated a number of possibilities.
Jason proposed having a controversy with a dog .over some issue. The group agreed that there could not be any controversy because there could not be any significant communication between human and dog.. Another topic was President Jimmy Carter’s recent controversial meeting with the Hamas leadership, an anti-Israel Arab group. Napoleon was mentioned as using his Corsican roots to help him return to power.
To give a more vivid picture of the tradition of fiery African-American preachers, Dean Taylor commented on his experience in the black church. Often, he said that certain ministers would use their righteous indignation to the history of unjust treatment of African-Americans to motivate their congregations toward actions to correct these terrible conditions. Dean Taylor commented that Dr. King was famous for fiery sermons to galvanize his people to take action.
Jason commented that when the bully pulpit changes contexts, the meaning of the message changed also. He raised the use of the generic bully pulpit. In a religious and political context, the bully pulpit is a platform designed to change behavior. By comparison, Hollywood uses the bully pulpit to get their audiences to feel the depth of the issue, but not to act on it.
The entire 90-minute discussion gripped the attention of everyone present. As we left, knots of students and faculty continued to talk about various aspects of this endlessly fascinating topic.
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Monday, April 14, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #23

This week’s “Bully Pulpit” topic promises to be an interesting one. Sunday’s NYTimes’ Magazine featured Chris Matthews on the cover. He is one of the biggest loudmouths on cable TV and has a quite visible negative attitude toward Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. What was more interesting to discover was how much these “pundits” – at least Matthews – socialize with the political people behind the scenes. Everyone seems a little too “chummy” for me if the media is to report the news.

As Jason Carvell’s brilliant flyer demonstrates, everyone has a mouth and is willing to shoot it off. Sounds like French politics where everyone has a very loud opinion. For us in the Communication Club, we have to sharpen our listening skills to discern the differences between fact and opinion plus, more importantly, accuracy of those facts and the validity of those opinions. Just because someone has a pulpit – media, politician, teacher or religious leader – doesn’t necessarily mean that person knows what he/she is talking about. See you Wednesday!

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – Club @ 1 pm @ 610 @50 West. – “The Bully Pulpit”
The Communication Department faculty was talking last week about the impact of race and gender on this year’s Presidential campaign. Barack Obama’s speech on race and religion two weeks ago raised the standard for discussion about these two volatile issues. There were so many ways we could approach these sensitive issues in a Club session that we finally decided to focus on “The Bully Pulpit.”

The term, “Bully Pulpit” comes from President Teddy Roosevelt’s constant saying “Bully” when he was in office (1901-1909). One hundred years ago, to say “Bully!” would be equivalent to saying today “Great!” or “Cool” or “Dope” or “Thass Baaad!” The “Pulpit” is an advantageous position, as for making one's views known or rallying support:

The President of the United States has a built-in “Bully Pulpit.” So do preachers, minister, priests, rabbi and imams. So does a teacher. And, with so many TV personalities (“talking heads”) and Radio Show hosts becoming “pundits,” the media has become a major “Bully Pulpit’ for competing ideas. My unsolicited personal definition of a “pundit” is “a self-appointed windbag that spews opinions that are mistaken for facts or knowledge.’

Jason Carvell will lead the discussion on how “The Bully Pulpit” has become the dominant – and noisy – way to promote your position. With so many opinions thrown about, we become easily confused because it is hard to differentiate between fact and opinion. Too often we are forced to listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat!

Our three-week schedule:

Wednesday, April 23 – Spring vacation – get some sleep!

Wednesday, April 30 – 1 pm Debate Team
With Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public presentation, we will be working hard on the cases and practicing the cross-examinations.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 – 1 pm – Club – topic to be announced

What happened on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at Debate Team meeting?
Drani Gabu and Amina Bibi worked hard reviewing the Affirmative case outline and then outlined the Negative case. Hal Wicke and David Nussbaum helped them to develop their cases. Before the team meets next time, each of the arguments needs to be developed and filled out with evidence.

During the session, both Drani and Amina talked about their political aspirations. Amina definitely wants to return to her native Pakistan to pursue a career in politics while Drani, although very concerned about the tragic events in Sudan, is not yet sure but wants to keep learning. Amina spoke about a petition she is presenting to Mr. Alan Schoor, Touro’s Vice President of Operations, about the creation of a student lounge at Midtown. We talked about her strategies for presenting the petition. Amina has 15 minutes to present her case.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #22

The intensity of activities seems to escalate for the Department. Richard Green’s NYT Teacher of the Year Award seems to be getting a lot of attention. The Times did a press release on the event. Touro wrote its own press release recognizing Richard’s honor. Dean Boylan asked Richard to stand to faculty applause at the opening ceremonies of the Faculty Development day on Thursday, April 10. As word spreads about Richard’s honor, many people have been coming up to congratulate him. Richard is not unlike so many Touro instructors who teach their classes and do an excellent job, but no one shines a spotlight on them. Now, at least one Touro teacher has been given a moment in the sun. And I’m delighted Richard is in the Communication department!!

On Faculty Development day, Hal Wicke practiced his communication skills when he shared a workshop on “Writing Across the Curriculum” before two groups of interested faculty. He used the 15–sentence outline speech format to demonstrate how it can be used for writing essays as well. He believes to teach and learn this simple 5- paragraph recipe allows both students and teaching to learn one structural paradigm for both writing and speaking. After learning the paradigm, the writer and speaker learns to transcend it to make it your own. The 15-sentence outline process is analogous to taking the sonnet form and turning it into a work of art. Hal also provides a sample of the 15-sentence outline in a speech “Stage Fright” which was adapted from an ESL textbook. Finally, he shared the handout he created for the Debate team on Types of Evidence, Tests of Evidence and the Language, Logical Fallacies and Propaganda Devices used in written and oral work.

Our two-week schedule:

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 – The Debate Team Will Meet At 1:00 Pm In Room 610 @ 50 West 23rd Street
At this session, we are going to begin building the negative case against Gun Control. There are many people who argue that gun control doesn’t work and have the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment to support them. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard landmark arguments against the gun control law in Washington DC. This is the first time that the Court has heard any kind of gun case since 1939. We are also going to work on our cross-examination technique of how to ask punchy questions and give cogent answers.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – Club @ 1 pm @ 610 @50 West. – “The Bully Pulpit”
The Communication Department faculty was talking last week about the impact of race and gender on this year’s Presidential campaign. Barack Obama’s speech on race and religion two weeks ago raised the standard for discussion about these two volatile issues. There were so many ways we could approach these sensitive issues in a Club session that we finally decided to focus on “The Bully Pulpit.”

The term, “Bully Pulpit” comes from President Teddy Roosevelt’s constant saying “Bully” when he was in office (1901-1909). One hundred years ago, to say “Bully!” would be equivalent to saying today “Great!” or “Cool” or “Dope” or “Thass Baaad!” The “Pulpit” is an advantageous position, as for making one's views known or rallying support:

The President of the United States has a built-in “Bully Pulpit.” So do preachers, minister, priests, rabbi and imams. So does a teacher. And, with so many TV personalities (“talking heads”) and Radio Show hosts becoming “pundits,” the media has become a major “Bully Pulpit’ for competing ideas. My unsolicited personal definition of a “pundit” is “a self-appointed windbag that spews opinions that are mistaken for facts or knowledge.’

Jason Carvell will lead the discussion on how “The Bully Pulpit” has become the dominant – and noisy – way to promote your position. With so many opinions thrown about, we become easily confused because it is hard to differentiate between fact and opinion. Too often we are forced to listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat!

What happened at the 5th Speech Contest WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008
Twelve Finalists presented excellent informative speeches during the contest. The general reaction was that the quality of the speeches was higher than in the last few contests. The judges seemed to think so too. Here are the results;

First Prize ($100) – Lara Foerster spoke on “A Berlin Impression of Manhattan.” Lara is a business major at Touro/Berlin and is in New York for the semester taking Communication courses. She is the second Touro/Berlin student to win the contest. Simone Weber won the 3rd Speech Contest with her speech on “Male-Female Relationships.” Lara presented her speech for Interpersonal Communication, taught by Hal Wicke.

Second Prize ($50) – Amina Bibi spoke on “Human Trafficking.” Amina is a political science major and wants to return to her native Pakistan when she graduates to enter politics. A member of our fledgling Debate Team, she came to watch the Speech Contest and then, on the spot, decided to enter the contest. Her passion for her topic persuaded the judges to give her 2nd prize.

Third Prize ($25) – Akeem Poe spoke on “I am an American and I love it.” He is a 100 student of Professor Delores Albert and brought a lot of enthusiasm to his presentation.

George Backinoff, who coordinated the judges, commented that the scores for 2nd and 3rd prizes were often just a point or two apart. Clearly, the judges found performance level of all the Finalists to be very close and were impressed with their work. The judges were Adriana Jiminez, Coordinator of Student Job Placement; Professor Carlisle Yearwood, English instructor and Freshman Coordinator; and Robert Babsky, an administrator in the Institutional Advancement office of Touro College.

Over 30 students and faculty watched the Contest. All Finalists receive a Certificate of Participation, suitable for framing. Your resumes should include a reference to being a Finalist. In alphabetical order, the excellent remaining Finalists were:

Rose Guzzo, “The Effect Music Can Have on Children’s Grade performance in School.” GCA 101 – Public Speaking, Professor George Backinoff
Stephen Bouskila, “The Nargila”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor George Backinoff
Clifford Fulmore, “The Golden Ratio”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Jason Carvell
Esther Mitchell, “High Blood Pressure”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Richard Green
Jetante Morris, “Peer Pressure on Smoking”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Richard Green
Lorinda Moore, “Discrimination: No Man Is An Island”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Barry Cline
Ferdinand Moulton, “How to Get Rich in Life”
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Diana Thompson
Aryeh Rapoport, “Diamonds”
GCA 153 – Introduction to the Arts, Professor Barrie Cline
Saroya Stowe, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” (our first PowerPoint presentation)
GCA 100 – Survey of Human Communication, Professor Diana Thompson

Congratulations go to everyone who presented a speech! As more and more people are learning, being able to present a credible speech in public is a valuable tool in your professional life. Public Speaking has long been recognized as a confidence building exercise and can be important in achieving recognition in your field.

The 6th Speech Contest will be held in Fall, 2008. Richard Green videoed the speeches which will be posted on his own blog as soon as possible. When the speeches are posted, you will be reminded to look them up on the tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com Aside from enjoying the speeches again, they can be used by students and teachers as examples to study how they were constructed and delivery. We are fortunate to have such an archive of student work.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Debate and Communication Club Schedule

Touro Communication Club #21

This is a big week for the Communication people. On Monday, Richard Green gets honored by the New York Times as ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Teacher of the year. A full-page ad was in Wednesday’s edition of the NYT. Then on Wednesday, the Department has its 5th Speech Contest. These are always interesting events because the Finalists present some very interesting topics. Come and watch Touro’s leaders for tomorrow show their stuff! Right now, the Speech Contest is Touro’s only activity which regularly recognizes student accomplishments.

Our three-week schedule:

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 1:00 PM IN ROOM 610 @ 50 WEST 23RD STREET
At this session, we are going to begin building the negative case against Gun Control. There are many people who argue that gun control doesn’t work and have the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment to support them. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard landmark arguments against the gun control law in Washington DC. This is the first time that the Court has heard any kind of gun case since 1939. We are also going to work on our cross-examination technique of how to ask punchy questions and give cogent answers.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 – Club @ 1 pm @ 610 @50 West. – “The Bully Pulpit”
The Communication Department faculty was talking last week about the impact of race and gender on this year’s Presidential campaign. Barack Obama’s speech on race and religion two weeks ago raised the standard for discussion about these two volatile issues. There were so many ways we could approach these sensitive issues in a Club session that we finally decided to focus on “The Bully Pulpit.”

The term, “Bully Pulpit” comes from President Teddy Roosevelt’s constant saying “Bully” when he was in office (1901-1909). One hundred years ago, to say “Bully!” would be equivalent to saying today “Great!” or “Cool” or “Dope” or “Thass Baaad!” The “Pulpit” is an advantageous position, as for making one's views known or rallying support:

The President of the United States has a built-in “Bully Pulpit.” So do preachers, minister, priests, rabbi and imams. So does a teacher. And, with so many TV personalities (“talking heads”) and Radio Show hosts becoming “pundits,” the media has become a major “Bully Pulpit’ for competing ideas. My unsolicited personal definition of a “pundit” is “a self-appointed windbag that spews opinions that are mistaken for facts or knowledge.’

Jason Carvell will lead the discussion on how “The Bully Pulpit” has become the dominant – and noisy – way to promote your position. With so many opinions thrown about, we become easily confused because it is hard to differentiate between fact and opinion. Too often we are forced to listen to the loudest voice regardless of what is being said.

Join us as we try to promote more light than heat!

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE DEBATE MEETING ON Wednesday, March 26, 2008.

Today’s Debate training session brought the largest crowd (12) we’ve had to date. Old timers, Drani Gabu, James Millner, Tetyana Averkina, Kazi Fathah and Theresa Wright welcomed two returnees Amina Bibi and Gabriel Amar and two new debaters in Pramila Ghimire. and Resul Akgeyik. Pramila was a Finalist in the lst Speech Contest in Spring, 2006. As usual, faculty stalwarts Richard Green and David Nussbaum helped Hal Wicke as the team developed their AFFIRMATIVE case.

The group began with the restatement of the RESOLUTION: “Resolve that New York State enact a law prohibiting hand guns, with the exception of law enforcement officers.’ Then we defined each of the key words in the RESOLUTION. Definitions are important to make sure everyone is using words with the same meaning. The NEGATIVE team may choose to redefine the AFFIRMATIVE’s definitions.

Next week we brainstormed the initial section of the AFFIRMATIVE case: the status quo – what is the current situation about gun control – no overall law in NYS, a mish-mash of gun licensing, much confusion, the number of deaths caused by hand guns, etc. More needs to done to bolster the status quo.

The status quo establishes the NEED for the AFFIRMATIVE side to advocate the RESOLUTION. The stronger the need, the more compelling the case. (Again, the Negative team is just waiting to poke holes in the AFFIRMATIVE’s case.)

Then we developed several preliminary reasons for the RESOLUTION – control, clarity, certification, etc. This part was hard work and more needs to be done to build a stronger case. Again, more work is needed.

Once the AFFIRMATIVE team builds its case for the NEED to enact the RESOLUTION, then they have to develop a PLAN to show how their ideas are going to work, once enacted into law. But we aren’t there yet.

At many points during the 2 hours (several stayed for another half-hour), team members were asked to defend their points of view on the spot. One person would ask the speaker a question and he/she would have to defend their point. Lots of times both questions and answers were very muddy. Each was asked to rephrase their questions and answers more clearly. It was excellent that veryone participated more than once.

Another aspect came up with the fact that so many of the debate team are ESL students and often their spoken English was not comprehended by others. Several times a listener was asked whether he/she understood the speaker. If they did, they would repeat what was said. If not, they got used to not being polite and covering up their confusion.

It was here that David, and sometimes Richard, became especially helpful is giving instant Voice and Diction lessons to several of the speakers. Certainly, the fast pace of the session slowed down to a crawl, but the Debate team is working on its clarity of English expression as well as the substance of their argument. This verification process is one way to make sure the debaters are communication with each other.

I thought it was a very intense and exciting session. Every one was willing to participate in some really difficult training in identifying and clarifying ideas as well as speaking them clearly. The reality is that no matter how well prepared we are as debaters, if our opponents and judges don’t understand what we say, our team is going to lose.

Next time we will begin to frame the NEGATIVE case, even though we aren’t finished with the AFFIRMATIVE case.

See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke