Thursday, June 19, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #31
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
The week’s events were punctuated by the sudden death of Tim Russert, the long-time moderator of NBC’s“Meet The Press.” The loss of Russert will be unfathomable in the current political campaign. A model for incisive questioning technique, he used his extensive preparation for every show to develop questions which both illuminated an issue and often highlighted his guest’s contradictory statements. Everyone interested in Communication could look to Russert to learn how capture the heart of every issue. We have lost a valuable teacher.
This week’s New York Times featured an extensive front-page article on perceived gender bias in the reporting of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential bid. Two volatile communication filters, misogyny and race, are important factors for us to explore further in our discussions.
Sunday’s graduation ceremonies at Avery Fisher Hall, Lincoln Center, was a first at this premier location. With Dr. Lander introducing Congressman Charles Rangel coupled with the chewing gum and cell phones during the event , the graduation provides a rich opportunity to identify the elements of communication that operate during such experiences.
We’ll continue to watch. We hope you will too!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is

Wednesday, June 18, 20081 pm - Club meeting –“Cultural Rituals” led by Lorinda Moore

After the discussion on Awareness and Memory, we thought about several topics, but chose broad subject of “Cultural Rituals.” This is a milestone for the club to have a student lead the discussion. First, we have to define our terms. What is culture? What is a ritual? Once these are clarified we can then turn to various cultures and their rituals. I’m sure we will develop an enormous list of rituals in different cultures. Then we can begin a discussion of how these cultural rituals impact the communication of the people within the culture. Sounds very promising! Let’s come out to support Lorinda’s leadership!
Wednesdays, June 25 }
Wednesday. July 2, } Let’s take a two week vacation to put our heads together.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 – Debate – SPAR debates – finish debate video
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 – Club – topic to be decided
What happened on Wednesday, June 11– Analysis of Video of the Final Debate
With Richard Green operating his laptop, the group watched a high school debate on school uniforms followed by part of the Debate Team’s final debate on gun control. The debaters, Drani Gabu, James Millner, Olushile Akintade and Theresa Wright watched fascinated. Both Richard and David Nussbaum contributed while Hal Wicke led the analysis of the school uniform debate.
Theresa is working nearby and comes to the debate meetings during her lunch period. Now that’s a sacrifice! She shouldn’t get indigestion, however!
The video on the school uniform debate was helpful because it was divided into segments – constructive, cross-examination, rebuttal – each with general instructions as to the purpose of each. At many points, Hal asked Richard to stop the video to highlight what the debaters were trying to do. Uncertain pauses, choice of words, repetitive use of only one source, inefficient questioning, a lack of clarity in one position were among the many items that were identified.
In the video of the team’s own debate on gun control, Hal asked each debater what were the strengths and weaknesses of their presentations. This kind of detailed analysis is very stressful. Rach debater quickly learns to be objective about how their presentation appears. We’ll continue to work on these skills on our new topic and the improvisatory “SPAR” debate. Here’s part of the handout:
SPAR Debate (SPontaneous ARgumentation)
This is a classic introductory debate exercise.
Format
Affirmative (Pro side) opening speech 90 seconds
Cross-Examination by Negative (Con side) 60 seconds
Negative opening speech 90 seconds
Cross-Examination by Affirmative side 60 seconds
Rebuttal - Affirmative closing speech 45 seconds
Rebuttal - Negative closing speech 45 seconds
6.5 minutes
Procedure
Debaters step to the front of the room in pairs. One debater calls a coin flip. The winner may either choose the topic (from a list posted on the board) or the side they will defend. After two minutes of preparation time, the debate begins. There should be an on-deck pair of debaters preparing their arguments.
Possible topics
Honesty is always the best policy.
True love really does exist.
The male should always take the lead in the dating game.
All Americans should perform 2 years of public service.
There is life after death.
And many more unusual topics......
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Monday, June 9, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #30
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
We have a birthday! The Club is one year old! Our first meeting was on June 6, 2008. This was our 29th meeting. Over this year, more than 100 Touro students stopped by for at least one opportunity to find out what was going on. In that year, the Department has held its 4th and 5th Speech contests. Richard Green was given the New York Times ESOL Teacher of the Year award. A debate team split off from the club and held its first public debate – on gun control.
The club has discussed a variety of Communication related topics – language, questioning, cold-calling sales, language, non-verbal communication, impromptu speaking, the Presidential campaign, the Bully Pulpit of the media and its controversial reflection of how issues are presented to the public and the recent sessions on Awareness and Memory. In last week’s session, we identified three areas of interest – the use of terminology and jargon, negotiation and the topic of “Cultural Rituals.” We decided that we would focus on cultural rituals. And Lorinda Moore will lead the discussion. This is a big step for Lorinda and everyone will help her through leading the session. She was one of the finalists in the 5th Speech contest in the Spring..
All these and many more can easily be included in any discussion about Communication. In all our sessions, our overriding goal is to increase our “Communication Competence.” Since good communication is virtually invisible, we have to identify the elements of the communication process, then figure out the many filters through which our communication goals and finally, work on putting these millions of factors together to become competent in our communication all the time, 24/7. It’s a noble aspiration but one which, I believe, will generate so many productive outcomes.
Mind you, all that we work on in Communication provides a vital tool bag to examine the Presidential campaign (Obama declaring victory, Clinton reviewing her strategy, McCain ratcheting up his attacks on Obama), the soaring gas and food prices plus the political problems in Myanmar, Zimbabwe and elsewhere. And, more closely to home, what about school and course topics? Aren’t there major Communication issues in Human Services or Computing or Business or Education or Psychology? Topics toward which we can apply our Communication microscope are everywhere.
As a final note, Touro is fortunate once again to have the Honorable Charles Rangel, the effective Harlem Congressman and Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, as our SGS Graduation speaker. He spoke to the SGS graduates in 2002, the year of 9/11, and his words and style of speaking are always memorable.
We’ll continue to watch. We hope you will too!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, June 11, 20081 pm -Debate Team – Analysis of Video of the Final Debate
As the debate team reviews the video of their final debate, we are going to have to be brutal with ourselves. Among the items we must analyze are the format of each presentation, the reasoning, the evidence, the effectiveness of the cross-examination questions AND answers and the rebuttals. Click on the following link to see what a typical debate judge’s ballot looks like: http://www.profgreen.tv/ballot.doc then, copy the information supplied to make your own ballot by filling in the diagram below:











































































































































































Wednesday, June 18, 20081 pm - Club meeting –“Cultural Rituals” led by Lorinda Moore
After the discussion on Awareness and Memory, we thought about several topics, but chose broad subject of “Cultural Rituals.” This is a milestone for the club to have a student lead the discussion. First, we have to define our terms. What is culture? What is a ritual? Once these are clarified we can then turn to various cultures and their rituals. I’m sure we will develop an enormous list of rituals in different cultures. Then we can begin a discussion of how these cultural rituals impact the communication of the people within the culture. Sounds very promising! Let’s come out to support Lorinda’s leadership!
What happened on Wednesday, June 4, 2008- Awareness II & Memory
This exciting session included 4 students and 5 faculty. Drani Gabu, Lorinda Moore and Denis Knaznev welcomed newcomer Marta Shah. Jason Carvell led the session and was joined by faculty members Richard Green, David Nussbaum, George Backinoff. Hal Wicke came at the end. David took the notes which are printed below.
Introduction
The session began with a discussion on the nature of memory and different types of memory. The relationship between attention and memory was presented as a key concept. We can view ourselves diagrammatically as a circle into data is pouring in from multiple sources and through multiple senses at times. This was represented as a circle (the receiver) and data represented as arrows penetrating the receiver’s cognitive system. The group was asked to put forth types of memory. Among those suggested aware recognitive, evocative, and associative memory. The session focused primarily on associative memory.
Exercise, Part 1
Participants were broken up into groups of two and asked to list seven concepts, messages or things, but to reduce to those to one word. For instance, “Waiting for a bus” may be reduced to wheels or transportation. Madison square part to “park and so on”. Members of each pair then read their list to their partners, who were asked to repeat the list. Individual had varying degrees of success in naming them all.
A discussion followed on devices and associative techniques, such as visualization, that can be used to aid in the process, which was then repeated.
Exercise, Part 2
Then participants assigned numbers (1 through 7) to each cue and the process was repeated. Prof. Carvell listed seven cues on the board with their corresponding numbers. Numbers were assigned and their meanings ascertained, with the mnemonic device, this time being non-verbal cues. Then, the group was read just the numbers and asked to repeat these non-verbal cues. This exercise vividly pointed out the value of assigning an association with a cue that the individual participates actively in, is clear and distinct, is exaggerated or is all of these.
A more general discussion followed on how to put the concepts learned here into practice. So, taking cues seen on the street that may otherwise not be important to the perceiver to be and assigning an association of the nature discussed was one way in which these concepts can be put into practice. The session ended with participants having more understanding of memory and more tools to aid memory than when the session started, and all felt it was a very productive session
Following Jason’s presentation, the group decided to continue meeting during the summer. We discussed several topics – terminology, jargon, negotiation, and how culture changes the language we use. We settled on “Cultural Rituals” as the formal topic and Lorinda Moore will lead the discussion. Her eyes opened extra wide as she realized what she had accepted. We assured her that she will do well.
Then Hal referred to an email that Lorinda had sent him with the question “What is an infidel?” The question generated many responses, especially from Denis and Drani as Lorinda sought to understand why people get enraged with others who don’t believe as they do.
Just trying to identify the aspects of communication that cause difficulty is an unending task. We all remain students as we seek to understand each other.
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #29
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
As the Democratic Presidential campaign comes to a close, the news continued to be filled with verbal faux pas (missteps). Barack Obama now has two religious clerics (Rev. Wright and Rev Pfleger) who have caused him political and personal pain. John McCain also has his share of preachers full of volatile fire and brimstone.
Words are very powerful weapons. They DO count because they convey ideas and feelings. Words create an ethos (atmosphere) of constructive or destructive behavior. A Chinese saying reminds us, “A sword can kill once, but a word can kill many times.” When words are used negatively to inflame a situation or ridicule a candidate (Rev. Pfleger),
Scott McClellan’s tell-all memoir of “What Happened” while he was the Press Secretary for President Bush is another sadly rich source of how words are used. McClellan says, among other issues, that he was not given accurate information to pass on to the media. The public depends on the media for information, however filtered it may be.
Assuming McClellan’s accusations are accurate, the public will hear misinformation or “disinformation” (intentionally false information) that is further filtered through the media. When we unknowingly receive tainted information from a supposedly trusted source, our right to freedom of the press is invisibly clouded. Then, as citizens, we never know what or who to believe.
Perhaps the juiciest highlight of last week’s “word play” was the CSPAN offering on Saturday of the Rules Committee meeting of the Democratic party. (To have watched this event,, you have to be a political junkie who is a glutton for verbal punishment.) They met to decide whether to give voting rights to the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be represented at the Democratic Convention in August in Denver.
The speeches ranged from vague to brilliant, muddy to crystal clear. For people who hate meetings, this was a plodding doozy! Unfortunately, the democratic (small “d”) process is a slow, glacial experience. It is not one for the impatient. (Dictatorships are for the impatient.)
As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst of all governments, except for all the rest.” In the process, we are constantly reminded that God is in the details – and so is the Devil!
After all the testimony, the committee adjourned for a three hour “lunch.” While they were gone, they had more than lunch. Off-camera, they decided the outcome of the meeting. (Not nice, after the transparent opening.) Senator Clinton’s representative, Harold Ickes, reserved the right to challenge the decision with the Credential’s committee. That means, Clinton may continue her fight until the Denver convention.
This week’s 3 primaries are crucial to what happens with the Clinton campaign. With Puerto Rico in her column, Montana and North Dakota vote Tuesday. TV pundits (those are people are who constantly shooting off their mouths in front of a camera.) are predicting that Clinton will keep her options open for as long as possible.
We’ll continue to watch. We hope you will too!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, June 4, 20081 pm - Club meeting –“Awareness II + Memory” led by Jason Carvell
The first session on “Awareness” raised so many thoughts and feelings among the group that they felt that a 2nd session would be necessary to extend our exploration of what elements are involved in “Awareness.” Tanya Howard suggested that we add “Memory” to the exploration. Jason Carvell will again lead the session.
Wednesday, June 13, 20081 pm -Debate Team – Analysis of Video of the Final Debate
This is the week! The Debate Team’s final public presentation on Gun Control. Richard Green will video the debate and we will analyze it afterwards. This public debate is the culmination of about 3 months of preparation. No matter what happens, the Debate Team is clearly in a different place from when we started. When we’re finished, we need to give ourselves some perspective on our very challenging journey to discover and exercise our mental muscles. I am very proud of the Team’s progress and look forward a bright future.
What happened on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Public Debate on Gun Control
For 32 exciting minutes, two debate teams battled on the issue of gun control. The resolution was “Resolved: that New York State enact a law prohibiting the sale of hand gun, with the exception of police officers.” The Affirmative team was James Millner and Olushile Atkintade. The Negative team was Drani Gabu and Theresa Morgan. Lorinda Moore was a first time observer. Hal Wicke was the timer, Richard Green took the video record of the debate and David Nussbaum was the sole judge who wrote the following “Flow Chart” of the debate.
Debate Flow Chart
1st Affirmative
Amenities; Statement of Affirmative
Craving for sex/violence among reason why guns kill people
Survival chances lower with handguns than other violence.
“Eye for an eye” code of justice
  1. Stricter laws and penalties cut down on sales
  2. Cops would not have been as “Paranoid” in Sean Bell case
  3. Police are the militia referred to in the right to bear arms
  4. Police should have training
  5. Caught with handgun – attempted murder charge
2 +x negative
Guns do not create violence – people do
Most incidents are among people who knew each other (flash rage)
Police altercations
1st negative constructive
  1. Steelers used handguns to defend
  2. Protect family and save lives
  3. Protected by 2nd amendment
  4. Innocent people brutalized by legal owners can protect themselves if they own guns
  5. Gun possession does not turn people into lunatics
  6. Gun carrying would lower crime rate
+x 1st affirmative
  1. Wild animals
  2. Altercations between people who know each other
  3. 2nd amendment applies to all, including criminals
2nd affirmative constructive
  1. times have changed since a militia was needed
  2. Children can find guns
  3. police have training
  4. US leads in worldwide gun related deaths
  5. Existence of black market shows that affirmative would reduce but not eliminate
+x negative
  1. NYS part of US – only has stats for US
  2. No training for citizens
2nd negative constructive
  1. Woman was walking dog and defended herself with gun w/no means to call police
  2. 2 weeks is not enough police training
  3. Should the ability of police to help be restricted when they are off duty?
  4. What about hunting for meat?
+x 2nd Affirmative
  1. Poaching – poaching is a crime
  2. 2 weeks not sufficient – is that better than no training for citizenry?
  3. Advocate more training
  4. Not one person’s job to advocate that is right
Rebuttals
1st Negative
  1. Illegal does not prevent those who would break the law
  2. Reduce criminality – not handguns
  3. Punish person – not guns
  4. Law infringes on constitutional right
2nd Affirmative
  1. Guns out of the picture would reduce gun related deaths
  2. Citizenry not whole militia
  3. Alternative to two weeks police training
  4. Guns found in home – protection from that
2nd Negative
  1. It is a right
  2. Guns can be safely stored
  3. Protect from bodily harm to children
1st Affirmative
  1. Size of guns an issue – hunting is not relevant to resolution
  2. Talking about small caliber guns
  3. Guns in home- paranoid
The Affirmative Team was the winner, according to David’s analysis. In the post-debate discussion, he detailed his reasoning. The debaters, exhausted, shared their experiences. The group decided to view Richard’s video at our next meeting in two weeks.
Overall, the debate was a wonderful success! This was a first for Touro – a milestone. It was difficult in many ways, but the team members rose to the challenge in admirable ways. Everyone learned something. Lorinda exclaimed, “I want to do that!” In the debriefing we will have in two weeks, the team will comment on their arguments and discuss what will be next on the team’s agenda.
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke