Monday, June 29, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #78
Communication Quote of the Week
”Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”
The Bible, New Testament, James I: 19

This Week: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Talking to Men”
Recently, we had a spirited discussion of what women expect when they have a conversation. Some men had difficulty withholding their own expectations of what their experience was when they talked to women. Now the men – and yes, the women – have the opportunity to explore their expectations when they have a conversation. Lots of energy is expected!


A Note for Communicators:
On Celebrity
Strategy: to find stories in the news from which we can learn how to communicate more effectively.
Tactic: To examine the behavior of publi c figures to discover personal lessons.

This week’s news highlights –
  • Michael Jackson died.
  • Farrah Fawcett died.
  • Senator John Ensign (R. NV) admitted an extramarital affair.
  • Governor Mark Sanford (R. SC) admitted an extramarital affair.
    and then there’s Iran. (But that’s another story.)
You’re asking: “What' s the connection between death and infidelity?” Nothing – at least for this essay.

Celebrity is the theme that ties these four items together. Two were entertainment celebrities. Two were politicians who were in the celebrity spotlight.

Being famous is important to a lot of people. We are surrounded with celebrity in The Big Apple – or so they say. Several years ago, a student approached me after class and asked seriously, “How can I become a celebrity?” Even though she’s now taking her Master’s degree at Hunter, I’m sure the thought celebrity still runs through her mind.

Celebrity means that “everybody” knows you. You are famous. Your picture appears in People magazine and in the gossip columns. You walk down the street and everybody asks for your autograph. You get to walk on red carpets with pretty people on your arm – “arm candy.” You get to wear beautiful clothes and get interviewed for your fans in TV land.

Michael and Farrah – first names only when you are a celebrity – had a talent which propelled them to stardom. You might argue over whether their talent merited their celebrity. But that’s another discussion.

The two unfaithful politicians achieved a level of celebrity. Both were considered future presidential bright lights of the Republican party. Their talent was getting votes. What they did after being elected was irrelevant. Getting elected – becoming famous – was what counted.
Once in the spotlight of celebrity, the public attention is immense. Paparazzi swarm like flies. Cronies crawl out of the woodwork. “Yes” men and women become acolytes of the celebrity. With such support, it is easy for the celebrity to believe he/she is an extremely important person.

The exaggerated attention makes narcissism a natural companion. I am the center of the world. Money follows. It buys power – or the illusion of power. With the sensation of power comes the awareness that you are different from other people. In fact, you belong to your own world of equally powerful celebrities. You know the old New England saying, “The Cabots talk to the Lodges and the Lodges talk only to God.”

Your behavior says you are above the law. In fact, the law doesn’t apply to you. You communicate immortality.

In this world of servile gofers, you can do anything you want, get anything you want. Your wish is their command. Drugs, sex, all kinds of toys. Even rock 'n roll. You easily disconnect from reality and operate entirely in a world of magical thinking.

However, the human world likes balance – homeostasis. As soon as one extreme is reached, the pin ball starts rolling the other way. The magical world collapses. And, in these cases, death follows-- a physical death or a political death.

Sad, but not surprising. I don’t at any time intend to be a moralist. It is not my place to judge. As someone interested in communication, my job is to observe and report accurately verbal and non-verbal behavior.

I learn much from looking and listening. I watch for patterns of behavior. In fact, the patterns are infinitely fascinating.

Join us on this journey . We will discover amazing things right in front of our faces!

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
July 8 – “Stand-Up Comedy” - We owe this topic to recent Geovanny Leon’s impromptu speech. His performance led to a discussion of what is funny and how to make people laugh. The joke and its well-honed implicit structure will induce a laugh if told well. In the open-ended discussion, we’ll explore a series of questions about humor and comedy. Just in case it gets boring, bring your favorite joke.

July 15 – “Anatomy of Freedom” II – As expected, the discussion of 6/24 merely scratched the surface. This time, we could go a number of ways: political freedom, social freedom, religious freedom, etc. What are the consequences of freedom? It is given or taken? Many more questions.

What happened on
Wednesday, June 24, 2009? “Anatomy of Freedom”

Last week’s hiatus didn’t prevent the regulars from coming back ready to exchange ideas. Newcomer Chui Hong You (Terry to us) joined an animated group that included Jose Dunker, Markus Vayndoff, Anna Indelicato, Brian Brown, Carlisle Yearwood, Lorinda Moore, Ileana Tintea, Charles Mason and Hal Wicke.

Hal wrote an outline for our discussion of an anatomy of Freedom.

  • Definition
  • Kinds of Freedom – Person, Belief, Political, etc.
  • Iran
  • Fear
In the search for definitions, Markus, our mathematical friend, raised the issue of the probability and our ability to infer from our experience the degree of freedom in our lives.

Brian’s definition began with an observation about how “amazing” our country is. One person’s freedom is another person’s prison. He raised the question of where capitalism and freedom are compatible. He finally settled on freedom being “the ability to hope and pursue happiness.”

Anna was interested in the idea of serfdom where people either gave up or were forced to give up their freedom. We need to give up a little liberty for the protection of others.

Markus remarked that “freedom is a social concept which has absolute and relative elements, e.g., social entities.” Fear is one of the constraints of freedom."

Jose commented that freedom was individual liberty against foreign influences such as oppression and coercion.

Terry said that belief in freedom for others was as important as for oneself.

Carlisle felt that freedom was a social concept where each person has a right to expression. He mentions Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his “Social Contract.”

Hal thought that “Freedom stops at your fingertips.”

Several references were mentioned:
  • The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another.
  • Psychologist Erich Fromm wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom.”
  • Psychologist Viktor Frankel, in his “Man’s Search for Meaning,” wrote “The last human freedom is the ability choose one’s attitude toward a given set of circumstances.”
In closing, Hal asked the group if they felt they were “free” at this moment.” Six said yes they were free. Five said no, they were not free.

The voting generated a newly refreshed round of thoughts about freedom. Many felt that to have a choice is to be free. One person said, “If you don’t think you are free, you aren’t.”
We will have Round II of “Anatomy of Freedom” in a couple weeks.
----
Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.

As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Monday, June 15, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #77
Communication Quote of the Week
Voltaire was a 18th Century French Enlightenment writer and philosopher. His statement is a cornerstone of the right of freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Voltaire wrote “Candide” whose hero’s mentor, Dr. Pangloss, taught him that “This was the best of all possible worlds.” Leonard Bernstein wrote a brilliant score in 1955 for the operetta of the same name.

Please Note: Next week’s meeting is postponed.
We will take a day off on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, because Hal Wicke has to attend a meeting on the Graduate School of Education. We will continue on Wednesday, June 24th with “Anatomy of Freedom.”


This Week: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Anatomy of Freedom”

This topic derived from the civil rights discussion after the Carvell program. Other ideas included “Is freedom really free?” A fascinating universal subject which every person faces in some way all the time. Among many other authors, Erich Fromm, a well-known psychologist, wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom” The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another…Much to talk about.

A Note for Communicators:
Strategy: to discern the truth of what is being said.
Tactic: To listen to the words and compare them to other statements and actions.

In President Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, he responded to the tension between America and the Muslim world by asserting, “We must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect each other, and to seek common ground.”

The world of international diplomacy is not the only place where people “speak with forked tongue.” We tell white lies so as not to hurt someone’s feelings. We withhold information as a tactic to manipulate a situation in order to gain advantage. We use weasel words (see any advertising copy.) to hide unproved claims or shortcomings of the product.

Verbal duplicity has been with us since the beginnings of language in civilization. One view says that this tendency toward indirection reached its zenith in the 19th century with Queen Victoria who disliked direct statements of any kind. The euphemism. the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant was raised to an artful level.

Direct speech, the candid statement of thoughts and feelings, is often considered profane, akin to using curse words. Where indirect speech is a basic tool of advertising, linguistic
protocol in politics prohibits against direct speech. Nations, families, businesses do not want to offend. Former president George W. Bush often twisted these protocols with familiar speech and inappropriate non-verbal behavior.

George Orwell’s famous article, “Politics and the English Lan guage,’ analyzes the ways language is manipulated for political advantage. In Japan, indirect speech remains the order of the day where the smile covers a multitude of thoughts.

Fear is another motivation for using direct speech. We don’t want to hurt the feelings of someone important. We are afraid of losing a loved one. We are afraid of incurring the wrath of an important person. We are afraid of losing our job.

We may not have the vocabulary to surmount the fear. One colleague says, “I do not use profanity. I have a vocabulary.”

With practice indirect speech, the artful use of euphemisms, can grease the wheels of social intercourse. It can also improve business and political relationships. Some people perfect their skill at superficial amenities. Indirect speech can get us through ritual and ceremonial occasions. It can even allow us to survive stressful and confrontational situations.

Still, many people use indirect speech as a way of life. For me, the consistent use of indirect speech produces in me an alienation from the other person, a shadow, a ghost that may inhibit serious conversation. Personally, I try to be as direct as I can as often as I can, using feeble attempts at humor to overcome my discomfort. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not.
Ultimately, each of us has to determine for ourselves when and how to use direct and indirect speech. More importantly, every communicator needs to work toward becoming conscious of the style of language we use every time we open our mouths.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
July lst – “Talking to Men” – Recently, we had a spirited discussion of what women expect when they have a conversation. Some men had difficulty withholding their own expectations of what their experience was when they talked to women. Now the men – and yes, the women – have the opportunity to explore their expectations when they have a conversation. Lots of energy is expected!

July 8 – “Stand-Up Comedy” - We owe this topic to recent Geovanny Leon’s impromptu speech. His performance led to a discussion of what is funny and how to make people laugh. The joke and its well-honed implicit structure will induce a laugh if told well. In the open-ended discussion, we’ll explore a series of questions about humor and comedy. Just in case it gets boring, bring your favorite joke.

What happened on Wednesday, June 10, 2009? “Interviewing Strategies”

The session attracted eleven participants, with the faculty dominating the students. Faculty and staff included David Nussbaum, Carlisle Yearwood, Markus Vayndorf, Rich Cohen, Hal Wicke and newcomer Michael Aiello. The students were Lorinda Moore, James Millner, Anna Indelicato, Drani Gabu and Brian Brown.

Hal established that there were strategies and tactics to the interviewing process. The group agreed that the interviewer’s strategy is to find the best applicant. The applicant’s strategy is to be that best applicant. Although we did not examine them, there are many other strategies that both interviewer and applicant may have in their minds.

Since no one had a resume, Hal asked the applicants to briefly state what job in what company they were applying for. Then he asked the interviewers to shape the interview – style of introduction -interview itself and the good byes.

Then three role plays followed. James interviewed Anna. Lorinda interviewed Drani and Brian interviewed Lorinda. After each interview, each participant was asked to evaluate his/her performance. Then the group commented on the interview.
Among the issues we talked about were:

  • Who dominated the interview?
  • Typically the interviewer dominated the exchange.
  • How much should and must the applicant assert him/herself into the questioning remained unanswered.
  • The quality of the questions was important – rote closed end questions need to be varied with open end questions.
  • What kind of questions elicited what kind of responses?
  • What level of formality should be present in the opening and closing of the interview?
  • The applicant must take control of setting up a follow-up appointment.
A very tense disagreement arose over age-ism – the presumed bias against older workers. One interviewed felt that the statements and questions asked were not illegal. Several others took issue with the implications of the phraseology. Hal cut the discussion short because it was moving toward more heat and light. (We have to work on communication strategies for facing and overcoming disagreement in any situation. Otherwise we move quickly to argument, fights and perhaps war.)

Everyone felt the session was very productive. Rich commented accurately on how many issues were not addressed in the session. Obviously this was just a superficial introduction to the interviewing process. There are many, many nuances that can be brought up in a future session. With experienced interviewers, more tactics can be introduced.

In three weeks, we will focus on the second half of the Gender discussion – “Talking to Men.” Considering the frustration, some men had with the discussion on “Talking to Women,” we should have an interesting time with this session.
----
Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.

As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Monday, June 8, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #76
This blog entry marks the beginning of the third year of the Touro Communication Club.
Communication Quote of the Week
This is one of the most famous pieces of advice to Communicators

Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, by use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but in explicable dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-herods Herod. Pray you avoid it. Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. O, there be players that I have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly (not to speak profanely), that neither having th' accent of Christians, nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of Nature's journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. Reform it altogether! And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them, for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the mean time some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villainous and shows a most pitiful ambition in the f ool that uses it. Go make you ready.

Hamlet’s Advice to the Players, Act III, Scene 2, lines 1-36 by William Shakespeare
This Week: Wednesday, June 10, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Interviewing Strategies”
One of the most practical communication skills is to be able to make a positive impression in a job interview. Questions are important, but preparation is crucial. Bring your resume and cover letter as we role play the applicant and the interviewer.
Please Note: Next week’s meeting is postponed.
We will take a day off on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, because Hal Wicke has to attend a meeting on the Graduate School of Education. We will continue on Wednesday, June 24th with “Anatomy of Freedom.”
A Note for Communicators:
Strategy: To understand how a world politician approaches an important speech.
Tactic: To analyze the structure and elements of President Obama’s speech at Cairo University, June 4, 2009.
One of candidate Barack Obama’s promises during the presidential election campaign was to speak in a Muslim country. The promise was fulfilled on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University in Egypt, eight months after his election.
A political speech has many audiences: the one in front of the speaker, the audience at home in America, the Muslim countries and the countries around the world. To be successful, there must be something for everyone.
What follows is one person’s somewhat academic analysis of the speech highlighting how clearly organized the speech was. According to reports, Obama’s speech writers have been working on the speech since his election in November. The President made constant revisions to the drafts he was given. The speech structure is very straight forward. It is almost boring in its obvious organization yet clearly required by the importance of the occasion.
According to the White House transcript, President Obama spoke for 55 minutes.
I. Introduction
A. Amenities appropriate to the occasion.
Compliment host – Cairo University
Make connection to American people
Use Arabic for welcome – “Assalaamu alaykum.”
B. Transition
Current status:
Acknowledge tension between U.S. and the Muslim world.
Connect 9/11/01 to Muslim frustrations which led to violence
Changing the status quo
Our differences empower hatred.
C. Thesis statement
I seek a new beginning.
D. Transition
Change cannot happen overnight
Quote from Koran
E. Preparation for body of speech
Personal Muslim reference connecting Obama to audience
Kenya, Indonesia, Chicago, Obama’s names
Muslim contribution to civilization
Muslim connection to America
The danger of stereotypes of Muslims and Americans
F. General preview of specific issues – seven topics.
II. Body of Speech
A. Confronting violent extremism
B. The situation of Israeli, Palestine and the Arab world.
C. Nuclear weapons.
D. Democracy
E. Religious freedom
F Women’s rights
G. Economic development and opportunity.
III. Conclusion
A. Review – cursory sentence.
B. Generalization – repeat theme of “new beginning”
Expand the context of the themes
Moralize on taking a negative view of Obama’s position
C. Close with quotes from Koran, Talmud and the Bible.
To do this kind of autopsy on this well-crafted speech seems unnecessary. Yet, we have learned that President Obama has a clear rhetorical skill that needs understanding. Rarely do memorable phrases inhabit Obama’s speeches, but there is clear evidence of a pervasive grasp of material that is translated into accessible sentences and sprinkled with personal references and deliberately selected quotes. President Obama’s approach to his speech-making sets a communication standard that we can all benefit from analyzing.
It is encouraging when a leader demonstrates that he knows what he’s doing.
UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
June 17 – Club meeting is postponed.
New Date - June 24 – “The Anatomy of Freedom” – This topic derived from the civil rights discussion after the Carvell program. Other ideas included “Is freedom really free?” A fascinating universal subject which every person faces in some way all the time. Among many other authors, Erich Fromm, a well-known psychologist, wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom” The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another…Much to talk about.
July lst – “Talking to Men” – Recently, we had a spirited discussion of what women expect when they have a conversation. Some men had difficulty withholding their own expectations of what their experience was when they talked to women. Now the men – and yes, the women – have the opportunity to explore their expectations when they have a conversation. Lots of energy is expected!
What happened on Wednesday, June 3, 2009
“Impromptu Speaking”
Faculty outnumbered students at this week’s session. Two new faculty were Timothy Bellavia and Linda Creamer, both of the Communication department. Other faculty included Markus Vayandorf (Math), David Nussbaum (Communication), Carlisle Yearwood (English), Rich Cohen (Administration) and Hal Wicke (Communication). Students included Anna Indelicato, Drani Gabu, Lorinda Moore, Geovanny Leon and James Millner.
Hal opened the discussion with the idea of structure which Markus had raised in a prior conversation. Structure is basic to human experience. Since we had several poets, an actor, a children’s book author and a composer among the group, we talked about how structure underlies all artistic endeavor.
For impromptu speaking, the speaker needs to hold a clear structure of the concept in his/her mind. On a structure of the basic introduction/body/ conclusion format, the speaker hangs his/her perspective on a topic supported by evidence. Hal passed out copies of a 3-page summary of the approach.
Every one suggested a variety of general topics. Then one person was chosen and given a topic. Each speaker had 30-seconds of mental preparation before getting up to present a one-minute impromptu speech.
After each presentation, Hal asked each speaker to comment on his/her experience. The group then commented on what they observed
Geovanny chose to present his topic without any preparation. His speech led into a general discussion of whether a speaker should have ANY preparation. The group agreed to try another impromptu speech session without preparation. We will also schedule one for the “Elevator Speech.”
As always, the direction of the discussion is led by those who were present. Because of Geovanny’s Adam Sandler-like presentation, the group suggested that we explore stand-up comedy in a future session.
----
Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.
As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Monday, June 1, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #75
Communication Quote of the Week

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

Joseph Joubert, a 18th century French moralist and essayist, best known for his Pensées (Thoughts).

This Week: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Impromptu Speaking”
Speaking without apparent preparation on your feet is an acquired skill. We rarely think about what we are going to say in conversation, yet in a formal situation our brain freezes on us. Practicing this skill makes it possible to present oneself professionally at all times. In business, it is called the “Elevator Speech,” one which captures the essence of who you are what you do in 30 seconds or less, the time to travel in an elevator to your next appointment. Great fun!

A Note for Communicators:
Strategy: To discover the full factual context of an issue..
Tactic: Use questions elegantly and gracefully to seduce the information from a variety of sources.

Questions and questioning have long been an interest of mine. You may have noticed that many of our difficulties derive from not asking enough – or any – questions. Some students don’t understand an assignment because they thought they knew what to do. Some doctors make medical judgments based on superficial evidence without questioning the patient.. Some parents assume the worst of their child’s behavior without asking questions. Some lawyers lose their cases because they didn’t ask their client or witnesses adequate questions.

A fascinating study came to light this week (New York Times, May 26, 2009, A10) which documented the importance of questioning. Several years ago a second year law student at Georgetown University was able to predict which side would win a case in the Supreme Court based on the number of questions asked.

The conclusion was simple: the party that gets the most questions is likely to lose the case. The rationale: a weak case invites more questions. The vultures fly over dying carrion.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the results in his own study while he was a federal appeals court judge. Choosing 14 cases each from the Supreme Court terms October 1980 and October 2003, he started counting the questions.

“The most asked-question ‘rule’ predicted the winner – or more accurately, the loser – in 24 of those 28 cases, an 86% prediction rate,” Roberts told the Supreme Court Historical Society in 2004.

The New York Times article includes much more detail than space allows here, but the lesson of the questioning study is that the lack of questions presumes the “correctness” of a position. Nothing could be further from reality.

How do you know when to ask a question? When something doesn’t feel comfortable in the pit of your stomach. That doesn’t sound very scientific, but all research begins with using your “crap detector.” (The proper nomenclature is “perceptual checking.”)

With a skilled questioning technique that is not perceived as the Spanish Inquisition or a cross-examination in court, a more thorough response can be elicited.

My personal rule of thumb is to always assume there is at least one other side to every assertion or point of view. If something is portrayed as “black,” then somewhere there is an opposite “white” or at least some shade of gray.

Another annoying question is to always ask “why?” to every assertion or presumed statement of fact. To use “why” as your only questioning tool is like a carpenter who has only a hammer in his tool box.

Developing the habit of listening carefully is the most critically important behavior. But since most people don’t listen – or listen carefully – the rhetorical manipulator will continue to prevail.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
June10 – Interviewing Strategies – One of the most practical communication skills is to be able to make a positive impression in a job interview. Questions are important, but preparation is crucial. Bring your resume and cover letter as we role play the applicant and the interviewer.

June 17 – “The Anatomy of Freedom” – This topic derived from the civil rights discussion after the Carvell program. Other ideas included “Is freedom really free?” A fascinating universal subject which every person faces in some way all the time. Among many other authors, Erich Fromm, a well-known psychologist, wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom” The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another…Much to talk about.

June 24 – “Talking to Men” – Recently, we had a spirited discussion of what women expect when they have a conversation. Some men had difficulty withholding their own expectations of what their experience was when they talked to women. Now the men – and yes, the women – have the opportunity to explore their expectations when they have a conversation. Lots of energy is expected!

What happened on Wednesday, May 27, 2009
“Student Poetry Reading”
An extremely thoughtful group of students and faculty gathered to listen and comment on the poetry of several students. Student newcomers Miriam Jerusalem, Miguel Privott, Cynthia Laguerre and Ileana Tintea joined Pamela Sheppard, Brian Brown, Anna Indelicato, James Millner, Drani Gabu, Lorinda Moore and Frank Antwi. Faculty newcomers Leon Perkal, Charles Borkhuis, Gary Sheinfeld and Brenda Coultas joined Carlisle Yearwood, Charles Mason and Hal Wicke.

Clearly, there is extraordinary interest among students in writing poetry at Touro. Poetic energy virtually leaped out of those present. Anna, Lorinda, Miguel, Frank, Illeana and Cynthia each shared at least one of their poems. Inspired by the discussion, Frank wrote a new poem in a torrent of passion in a few minutes during the discussion.

Following each reading, the group commented on what they heard in the poem and each poet explained their inspiration. After the discussion, each poem was read a second time.
Underlying each of the poems was an intense personal passion or experience which was the genesis of the piece. Betrayal, “catching a feeling,” anger at injustice” were some of the motivations that generated their poetic fervor.

Frank’s angry rap piece described many shortcomings he has noticed in the world. The pieces of Lorinda, Miguel and Illeana spoke about their emotional responses to special personal experiences. I watched the faces of Drani and Brian who, though they did not speak, were listening and observing transfixed.

Charles Borkhuis asked if there was a special knowledge that poetry provides that is different from the world. Several took the challenge. Carlisle remarked at the degree of “nakedness” and ”vulnerability” which the poems expressed. Miguel commented that poetry was expressing philosophy. “You can’t be wrong in poetry,” he said. ”There’s no other way to express it.” Anna commented, “The poetry chose me.”

Gary offered that “You must get out of the way of the words” and “poetry cannot be paraphrased.” He suggested a quote, “That of which you cannot speak, be silent.” from Ludwig Wittgenstein, considered by many to be the 20th century’s greatest philosophers.

Cynthia closed the session with her powerful recitation of a poem she wrote several years ago which she performed during the recent trip to Alabama. The poem is part of performance of the Respect Project of the Firehouse theatre. She spoke of being driven to write, even using bed sheets to capture her thoughts.

In a final moment, Miguel read a rap lyric he had just written during the session.

Charles Borkhuis reminded everyone that he was offering a poetry workshop in the fall as an elective. If students wanted to register, they must insist that their advisors include the course in their schedule.

Each of these Communication Club sessions seems to have its own emotional character deriving from the content and of the people present. Other Communication Club sessions have been intellectually lively and combative, this poetry session was intense and caring as the poets opened a part of themselves. We saw a side of students that we rarely capture in our classes.
Now the trick is to translate the poetry of this session into the prose of the classroom. As always, there is much food for thought.

----
Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.
As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke