A HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF ORAL COMMUNICATION AT WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY LEONARD M. DAVIS Copyright © 1998 by WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever, by photograph or xerography or by any other means, by broadcast or transmission, by translation into any kind of language, nor by recording electronically or otherwise, without permission in writing from West Virginia University, Department of Communication Studies DEDICATION To David Carter Hardesty, Jr., President of West Virginia University, in recognition of his devotion to the study and practice of effective oral communicat'lon, this volume is dedicated. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of /J/ustrations v Foreword , ... vii Preface . , .. xv 1. tn the Beginning .. 2. Deve!opment of the Speech Department 14 3. From Speech to Communication Studies 40 4. Forensics and Debate 54 5. High School Contacts 79 6. Interpretation 88 7 < Drama 98 8. Speech Correction 120 9. Mass Communication 127 10. Speech and Communication Education 143 Appendix A: Faculty 1868-1997 152 Appendix 8: Ed.D. Degrees 1974·1996 158 Appendix C: M.A. Degrees 1949-1996 159 Appendix D: B.A. Degrees 1920-1996 187 About the Author 205 iii List of Illustrations Photos and illustrations are direct links to specific parts of the past, and are often more significant in history than the written texL No amount o'f written or verba! description, however vivid, can make us appreciate the past as do pictures of that life, With this in mind, A History of the Study of Oral ComrnuncatlOns at West Virginia University includes the following photos and illustrations, Page Abraham Lincoln's Prociamation 2 Old Monongalia Academy 3 Woodburn Hail Female Seminary 4 Columbian Literary Society Meeting Room 9 Literary Society Contest Program 10 Parthenon literary Society Meeting Room 11 Frankiin S. Lyon 16 Morgantown Female Seminary 20 Episcopal Hall 21 Robert Allen Armstrong 22 Harriett Lyon 23 Senator Matthew Mansfield Neely 24 C. Edmund Neil 25 Wilbur Jones Kay 30 James H. Henning 31 Leonard M. Davis 39 James C. McCroskey 40 Virginia P. Richmond 47 Donald W. Klopf 49 Armstong Hall 53 Transcontinentai Debate Team 59 Women's Debate Squad, 1924-25 60 WVU International Debate Team, 1934 69 Women's Debate Team, 1942 71 Oxford University - WVU Debate Team, 1948 74 Interscholastic Public Speaking Program, 1938 82 WVU High School Speech Institute, 1965 85 Program for "Night of Assassins", 1960 95 Voice ChOlf Telecast, 1963 96 First WVU Football Team, 1891 99 Theatre Cast, "Richard III, Rev·lsed", 1892 100 Poster, "Artie in Wall Street", 1915 101 v vi Page Scene from "Artie in Wall Street" 102 Scene from "Riders to the Sea," '1925 103 Commencement Hall, 1925 104 Original Auditorium in Commencement Hall 105 Rear Elevation, Commencement HaJI 106 Scene from "Little Women," 1943 108 Army Air Corps Cadets on Campus, 1943 109 Sam Boyd, Jr. 111 Carolyn Eberly 112 Don Knotts 114 David Selby 118 Voice Exercise at the Speech Clinic 122 Speech Auditometrv in Use 123 Eleanor Roosevelt on Campus, 1940 130 University Players' Broadcast, 1942 132 Film Crew on Location 140 * * Photo Source: West Virginia and Regional History Collection, WVU libraries: pages 3, 4, 9,10,11,20,21.22.24,31,53,59,60,69,99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106; WVU Center for Women's Studies, Centenary Project Archives: pages 16, 23; Erickson Alumni Association, pages 25, 30, 71, 108, 109, 114, 118; Private Collection of the Author, 74, 82, 85, 95, 96, 103, 112, 118, 122, 123, 132, 140; Mrs. Sam Boyd, Jr., page 111; James R. McCartney, page 130 Foreword Histories of academic departments generally have three things in common: they are written by an amateur historian who is likely to be a senior member of the depart­ ment in terms of service; they do not enjoy a wide reader­ ship beyond those who were directly involved with the evolution of the department; and they are almost always dull. There are not many examples of department histo­ ries. To be sure, there are a few, some exceptionally well done. But departmental histories aren't exactly dropping from the trees. Yet, the lessons learned in the enterprise are numerous. For example, a department history should not be written by a committee. Though the advantages in having many viewpoints represented are undeniable, there is a tendency for committees to produce records, rather than tell a story, and often find it easier to pile up facts than relate how a department evolved. A second lesson learned is that everything relating to a department isn't worthy of inclusion. Those who read the history may be disappointed to find what was important to them has been omitted, but the inclusion of all information assembled for this history would have resulted in the reporting of trivia. Hence, perspective and proportion have been attempted, recognizing that neither will be fully realized. In writing a history of the department, one must decide if it should emphasize intellectual philosophies as they emerged and evolved as a part of a major university, or focus on a composite of faculty, students, courses, and textbooks? Should it trace the subsequent careers of its vi! majors, and obtain testimonies on the value of the subjects taught? Can one treat the history of a department in isolation from the institution which governs policies and programs? Without recognizing the diversity of the task, a coherent end result becomes more difficult, influenced by the availability of sources, and judgments made by the author. It would not be unusual if the layman had some difficulty in answering an inquiry regarding what "Speech," or "Rhetoric," or "Communication Studies" is. Moreover, a large number of students enrolled in courses under one of these names are totally unaware of the evolution of Speech, and its original position of prominence in the classical liberal arts tradition. Perhaps a brief historical overview should be presented in order to provide perspective. Rhetoric, as a formal study, first emerged in Sicily about one hundred and fifty years before Aristotle. There, the first treatise on the subject was written by Corax as an instrument for training speakers to carryon litigation in the law courts. In this narrow view, the whole aim of Rhetoric was to win cases, and if truth was sacrificed in the process, this was an issue for moralists rather than the rhetorician. Plato, the noted Greek philosopher, denounced this type of Rhetoric as a devious way of making the worse appear the better case through the deceptive influence it exerted. Aristotle, who had been Plato's student, played an important role in the development of our present day idea of Speech as an academic discipline. He taught that Rhetoric had as its primary purpose the discovery of all the available means of persuasion in a given case. A central element in these efforts of discovery, when properly used, would be a method of inquiry called Dialectic, since Rhetoric was the counterpart of Dialectic. viii Cicero, an orator in ancient Rome, defined Rhetoric as the art of giving effectiveness to truth, while a prominent Roman educator, Ouintilian, taught that Rhetoric empha­ sized "the good man speaking well" concept. Instruction in Rhetoric, he maintained, had the high purpose of developing the Orator-Statesman. The Greeks and Romans considered Rhetoric the very foundation for education, and the most important subject in the curriculum. But, with the development of writing, literature, and poetry, the legitimate subject matter of Rhetoric was diffused. Some of the most eloquent pas­ sages of Longinus were written in protest against the absorption of Rhetoric, and Ouintilian cautioned against the usurpation of Speech by other subjects when he said of Grammar: Not content with the theory of correct speech, no inconsiderable subject, it has usurped the study of practically all the highest departments of knowledge. On the other hand, Rhetoric, which derives its name from the power of eloquence, must not shirk its pecu­ liar duties, not rejoice to see its own burdens shou!­ dered by others. For the neglect of these is little less than surrender of its birthright. Because the Greek and Roman organization of learning was widely accepted, their philosophy was passed along to succeeding generations. Educators spoke of the liberal arts Trivium, which consisted of Rhetoric, Logic, and Grammar, and the Ouadrivian of knowledge which included Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music. With the fall of the Roman Empire, many of the writings of the early rhetoricians were lost, and the impor­ tance of Rhetoric declined because authoritarian states had ;x little use for the art of persuasion and the role of logic (Dialectic) in discovering truth. With the rediscovery of the classical works of Rhetoric during the Renaissance and post-Renaissance period, Rhetoric reclaimed much of its former position of importance. The growing interrelatedness of the various areas of speech came about with the development of advanced knowledge, specialization, and the new concepts of the function of education. Not only was there an expanding body of knowledge, but more important were the recent methods for increasing knowledge. Of great significance was the new concept that practical knowledge could be profitably incorporated into higher learning. This contributed greatly to the addition of an expanded curriculum, and the exercise of greater control over the nature of the studies within the various specialities became a necessity. For a time, new knowledge was accommodated in the old curriculum through the addition of new courses. This soon proved impractical and gave way to administrative reform through the departmentalization of instruction. Departments of instruction did not exist, nor have administrative significance, until after 1865.