The Gavel of Delta Sigma Rho Volume 43 Article 1 Issue 4 May 1961
5-1961 Complete Issue 43(4)
Follow this and additional works at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/gavel Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons
Recommended Citation Delta Sigma Rho. (1961). Complete Issue 43(4). The aG vel of Delta Sigma Rho, 43(4), 53-70.
This Complete Issue is brought to you for free and open access by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in The aG vel of Delta Sigma Rho by an authorized editor of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. .'f ■)
the gavel
volume 43 number 4
of delta Sigma iho
may
1961
• vl :
CTi
V-
ii>-^ THE GAVEL
Officiol publication of Delta Sigma Rho, National Honorary Forensic Society PUBLISHED AT LAWRENCE, KANSAS
By THE ALLEN PRESS Editoriol Address: Delta Sigma Rho, Bureau of Continuation Education, Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado Second-class Postage Poid at Lowrcnce, Konsos, U SA. Issued in November, January, Morch and May. The Journal corries no paid odvertismg.
TO SPONSORS AND MEMBERS
Please send all communicotions relating to tween September of one year ond September of initiation, certificates of membership, key orders, the following year, appear in the November issue ond names of members to the National Secretory. of THE GAVEL. According to present reguiotions All requests for authority to initiate and for em of the society, new members receive THE GAVEL blems should be sent to the Notional Sec for two years following their initiation retary ond should be accompanied by If they return the record form supplied check or money orders. Inasmuch as all them of the time their opplicotion Is checks ond money orders ore forworded by approved by the Executive Secretary and the Secretary to the Notional Treasurer, certified to the sponsor. Following this pleose make them to: "The Treasurer of time oil members who wish to receive Delta Sigma Rho." THE GAVEL may subscribe at the follow The membership fee is SI0-00. The of ing rotes: $1.50 per yeor for the stand- ficial key of lOK (size shown in cut on ord subscription; $5.00 per yeor for those this page) is $6.00, or the officiol keypin who wish to contribute to the work of of lOK is $7.00. Cut diamond In key is THE GAVEL and who will be listed OS $7 odditionol. Prices Include Federal Tax. sponsors in eoch issue; and $25.00 for o The nomes of new members, those elected be lifetime subscription.
NATIONAL OFFICERS President: Herold Ross, DePouw University, Greencostle, Indiana. Secretory: Paul Cormock, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Treasurer: Kenneth G. Nance, Michigan State University, Eost Lansing, Michigan. Trustee: E. C. Buehler, University of Konsos, Lawrence, Konsos. Henarary Trustee: Gilbert L. Holl, 1208 N. Wayne, Arlington, Virginia. Vice Presidents: Eugene Chenoweth, Indiana University, Sloomington, Indiana; Bob Griffin, University of Nevodo, Reno, Nevada; Leroy Loose, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebrosko; Bob Newman, University of Pittsburgh, Pitt^urgh, Pennsylvania; Marvin Esch, Woyne State University, Detroit, Michigan; Mel Moorhouse, Wichita University, Wichita, Konsos; Herbert Jomes, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE GAVEL
Editor: Charles Gcetzinger, Bureau of Continuation Educotion, Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado. Associate Editors: Halbert E. Gulley, University of Illinois, Urbona, Illinois; Clayton Schug, Pennsyl- vanio State University, University Pork, Pennsylvania; Poul Carmack, Ohio Stote University. Columbus, Ohio; Austin Freely, John Corroil University, Cleveland. Ohio.
Copyright 1961 by Notional Secretary of Delta Sigma Rho, Paul Carmack THE GAVEL 53
THE GAVEL
of
Delta Sigma Rho
Volume 43 May, 1961 Nitniber 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS The Fine Art of Being Ignored 53 President's Page by Herold T. Ross 54 Practical Experience in Human Relations for Debaters by Donald W. Klopf 55 A Postscript to The History of Debating in the American Colleges by David Rotter 57 A New Look at The Debate Brief by William A. Behl 60 Total Forensics Programming at Washington State University by Gerald M. Phillips 62 Ohio Wesleyan Debate History by W. Roy Diem 64 The Art of Persuading Whom? by Joseph A. Wigletj 67 Secretary's Report 69 Index to Volume 43 70
The Fine Art of Being Ignored
Another school year is drawing to a close. support of the countries' debaters and debate And witli that fact comes the annual coaches. "soul-searching" deluge of articles about The recent controversy has been marked what is wrong and right with American by this conspicuous absence. The "let's get education. tough school" has never bothered to men As usual, your editor gets a little bitter tion forensics as one of the toughest dis about this time of year. Mostly because the ciplines in any school curriculum (secondary thought of being ignored is just more than or college). By omis.sion they have made man should have to take. They can love us it plain debate just isn't one of the finer or hate tis, but how horrible to have them things in life. Loosely speaking, they have pretend we don't exist. lumped it into the general category of "frill" This yearly battle, between the "hard- subjects. What really hurts is the fact we noses" as represented by Rickover and Bestor haven't been mentioned by name (at least in and the "Deweyites" as represented by our the articles I have read). The acceptable sub entrenched public school officials, is a fight jects are listed, the most objectionable of worth enjoying. But to really enjoy a fight, the so called "soft" subjects are damned, one must take sides, even become a par and the rest of us are labeled by unplication. ticipant. And somehow I get the feebng Of course, the brave warriors on the other tlrat neither side is overly eager to have the (Continued on Page 59) 54 THE GAVEL President's Page ... The Faculty Sponsor
Herold T. Ross
A new chapter sponsor recently raised two tion so as to augment and stimulate co questioas: What are ray respoasibilities? operation in tlie debate and oratorical pro What are my duties? There are doubtless grams. Then the spoasor and chapter mem other sponsors who have the same questions bers should set a date near the end of the but have not taken the time to ask them. season to consider students who are eligible Tills is an answer to the Lssues raised. and to elect them to membership. Since it The chapter sponsor is the key link in the is always more impressive if new members chain of communication between the na receive tlieir certificates and keys at the tional officers and the local chapters on the time of initiation, elections should be held at various college campuses. This in no way least a month before the initiation in order dLsparage.s the cooperative and generally to give the national secretary and the jewel effective work of chapter officers. Their ers time to make out the certificates and period of activity as active members of Delta engrave the keys. The sponsor should as Sigma Rho on any campus is necessarily sume responsibility for an impressive initia limited to two years and they hold office tion ceremony. generally for one year. They really hai'e Delta Sigma Rho is not only a national little opportunity to establish effective com forensic society but it is a national honor munication with the national office. The society. This distinction should he estab chapter spon-sor, for the most part, serves for lished on the campus and in tlie thinking of a number of years, he has an established students, faculty and administration. There mail address to which letters, reports and are so many recognition societies and clubs Cavels may be sent and he is able to contact on the average campus that it is often neces members in the chapter. For this reason, the sary to consider the best way in which to national president seeks to establish chapter establish prestige of the cliapter on a campus. contact each fall with the chapter sponsor. On several campuses, for example, members In return, he asks a short form respon.se elected to lionor societies have their names which will establish tlie communications link printed on honors day programs or they are for the year. read on such occasions. On anotlier campus Obviously then, the first duty of a sponsor the annual forensic banquet brings to the is to send in his chapter reply, giving the campus state and national leaders who were national officers any infonnation which they elected to Delta Sigma Rho in tlieir college need to know about the local situation. days. There are many other ways by which What duties and responsibilities follow? tlie society may be given a place of prom The siwnsor should, of course, establish the inence on the campus. chapter each fall by contact with the mem Finally, the sponsor should keep the rec bers. If tlie local chapter has a program or ords and rituals of the society in his care, sponsors a tournament, plans should be especially during the summer vacations. Val made. The spousor, with tlie actives, should next encourage students who are academ uable material has been lost on occasions ically in the tipper third of their classes to when a summer mishap destroyed it or a come out for debate and to qualify for key student failed to return to the campus. membersliip. There is no thought here that The duties and responsibilities of a spon the chapter will in any way interfere in tlie sor are not heavy but they are exceedingly activities of the forensic director; tlie chap important—so much so that the future of the ter .should recruit and encourage participa society lies in their hands. THE GAVEL 55 Practical Experience In Human Relations For Debaters
Domald W. Klopf •Assistant Professor of Speech University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Victory in debate usually results from com situation outlined in the case bears little plete preparation—preparation wluch gives resemblance to that found by an individual the advocate thorough knowledge of the who is suddenly confronted by an actual subject. Such preparation requires more than difficulty because the case gives all the facts. individual analy.sis and research; it requires In a true life situation, some precipitating exteasive cooperation between squad mem event or challenge to authority wliicli re bers and coaclies in analyzing the proposi quires the need for a decision confronts indi- tion, assembling bibliographies, gathering xnduals. The whole case does not suddenly evidence, organizing cases, and formulating unravel itself. So the Incident Process came team strategy. into being. Cooi>eration of this sort promotes rational "Incidents" are brief, simple statements thinking, practical judgment, and wider un which present challenges of some type. For derstanding. But it requires a sympathetic example: appreciation among the squad members of each others feelings and attitudes. Too often, "Rah Rah U Debate Team" Incident however, in their deliberation, the members Five members of the Rah Rah Univer are unwilling or unable to cooperate in this sity debate team met at a six'cial or manner. Unless they have had prior training ganizational meeting to discuss plans in discussion techniques, chaos may result for a forthcoming tournament. During the course of tlie meeting Arthur An from this inability to work together. Tlie drews, a member of the team, insisted casually interested may be lost before his that the team members adopt his par interest ripens; friction occasionally develops ticular affinnative case. Bob Blair, an between the more serious debaters. other member, stood up and said; "You're all pig-headed. My ideas would Usually the coaches find it impractical to have settled tills whole problem, but you devote time and energy to teaching discus ignored them. I guess I'd better not sion metliods even tliough those principles participate in this tournament. dealing especially with group unity are use ful. However, insight into human relations Sucli an "incident" highlights tlie necessity for identifying the basic problems involved difficulties encountered in debate preparation in order to gain iiLsight into the behavior of can Iw gained quickly through tlie Incident Process, a form of the case stiidy.^ As a Andrews and Blair. These problems will be training device, it helps the participants come apparent only wlien all the facts are leam how to solve social problems by work known. Then solutions can be proposed. ing on situations analagous to those actually In a short training .session the coach can show his debaters the need for cooperation found in debate preparation. by liaving tliem analyze an "incident" similar The Incident Process gradually evolved from the case study. When a group meets to the "Rail Rah U" one. These five an to analyze a case, they are confronted with alytical steps are followed: the product of someone else's tliinking. The 1. Beginning work on an incident. Each debater silently reads the incident. As he
■ Much of the material on the Incident Process con tained in the article comes from the manual The -The "Rah Bah U" incident case was prepared by Incident Proces.i (Washington: The Bureau of Na Kenneth Sereno of the Speech Department, Uni tional Affairs, Inc., 1955) by Paul and Faith versity of Hawaii, for the Universlt>''s 1959 Debate Pigors. Workshop 56 THE GAVEL docs so, his situation is nuich like that of a recently started to debate and even though person in real life—he suddenly is confronted his idea.s iue usually sound, the group looks with an actual difficulty. In real life, he upon him as a newcomer and tends to iso usually would attempt to find some solution late him from their deliberations. Eve Elgin to the difficulty. In the discussion situation, agrees with everyone about almost anything. his concern would be similar hut he would When she speaks, her remarks are generally be impressed with the need to secure more very long, and though they are agreeable to facts before considering a solution. The everyone, the others !o.se interest due to the .statement of the incident is always so bare excessive length of her contributiofLs. that hardly any member would be tempted to The meeting had gone on for an hour and jump to conclusions. It is apparent that the a half with little accomplished before the next task is to get more facts. incident occurred. Much of the time An 2. Uncovering the facts of the case. Since drews and Blair bickered and argued about there is no opportunity for direct access to teclmicalities. Elgin took sides with each informational sources in a discu.ssion group, in turn. Duff spoke often but usually was the coach acts as a fact resource person. He ignored. Cornell said little. knows the complete detiiils of the case. As the debaters ask questions of the coach Questions concerning the facts of the case in an attempt to uncover these details, pos are answered by him. His replies pertain sibly some key questions may be overlooked only to the facts; they are not inferences and, therefore, certain vital information will which he has drawn from the facts nor are not l)e available to the group. An unrealistic they decisions which he has made about the decision may be made, as in real life, be facts. For example, the coach, questioned cause all the facts were not obtained. In a about the facts of the "Rah Rah U" incident, later step in the analysis, tliis problem, if would give, \vithout trying to speculate about it arises, can he dealt with. it, thLs information: Arthur Andrews, the de This step likely will require alx)ut one-half bate captain, called four other debaters to a of the discussion period. Collecting facts meeting to plan team strategy the day prior takes considerable time. It provides distinct to their departure for Kazoo University's advantages, however: (a) the process is so tournament. Altliough he knew several easy that the entire group can immediately months before that four debaters could go, experience the satisfaction of contributing to he neglected to ask anyone. Consequently, the total group effort and self-consciousness he could get only four inexperienced students tends to be dispelled; (b) members get ex who had not debated together previously. perience in interviewing while securing facts; This lack of planning typifies Arthur's leader and (c) participants gain experience in ship. Yet he enjoys directing people, as weighing the nature of evidence to detennine signing them tasks, and doing their thinking its importance to the case. for them. He likes to dictate the direction Before moving on to the next step, a sum of discussion. Bob Blair, on the other hand, mary is needed. All the facts are iissembled makes a practice of analyzing arguments. in order to picture the entire case. He gives special attention to all errors in 3. Determining what constitutes the cen reasoning, and thus blocks progress by the tral issues. Here the problem is to decide group. He does not discriminate between what are the main points at issue. Very ideas that should be tested carefully and likely several difficulties caused the incident. those that should be accepted or rejected In this step tlie group agrees to the mosi without absolute proof. He also becomes relevant and important of these problems. angry when his idea.s are refuted. The "Rah Rah U" case presents problems The tliree other debaters present similar primarily concerned with the development of personal problems. Cathy Cornell is insecure group unity. Cooperation is hindered by and very sensitive to criticism. She does not Andrew's authoritarian personality and exec contribute much to the group. Don Duff utive complex, l)y Blair's emotional antag- finds his suggestions completely ignored. He (Continued on Page 65) THE GAVEL 57 A Postscript to The History of Debating In The American Colleges David Potter Sometiiiies, when those of iis in debate too briefly) the major forms of debate that tiie of the criticism tossed so energetically in existed, expanded, declined, or died during our direction, we seek refuge in the glories this period, we might also measure the ac of our past. How reassuring it is to discover curacy of one of the most persistent and still that ages before most of the popular faculties pertinent criticisms of debate practice; name existed, we were important members of the ly, that during most of its existence in Amer academic coterie. What satisfaction there is ica, debate has been a stultifying and im in noting tlie imprint of famed literary and practical technique, far out of tune witli tlebating .societies on prized collections of contemporary educational objectives and 18th century literature, a satisfaction en with reality. hanced by the knowledge that long before When Harvard, the first of our colonial there was an English department to accuse colleges, was founded, it stressed twice- us of being "Mickey Mouse," students of weekly disputations for all the members our discipline were actually defying college of its tlrree undergraduate classes. These edict to explore important contemporary lit early debate exercises, as we learn from erature and the world of ciurent affairs. contemporary descriptions and examples, What halm to our pride as "outsiders" invade were very similar to the medieval Latin our doiniun of forensics and leadership train Syllogistic Disputations once so important ing to learn from the records of the student in arming tlie cleric and scholar for a de- societies that debaters were experimenting fen.se of his beliefs and for attack on the with various methods of oral communication "prejudices" of his opponents. Couched in and offering practical training in leadership, Latin (once the language of scholars) and all this many decades before the birth of formulated in tlie syllogistic mode (once an special colleges of education and statistically acknowledged method of inquiry and aca minded departments parading under tlic demic proof) the syllogistics also demon aegis of "communication." And what relief strated the academic proficiency so admired it is to hide from the caustic charges of some in men of the cloth and wearers of the political .scientists ("Debate's main contribu gown. But as the centuries passed, tlie tion to modem society is the fonnulation of format of academic debating remained con Richard Nixon's pohtical and ethical integ stant. Meanwhile, the needs of students, the rity" or "Debate as it exists in today's po interests of audiences, and the nature of litical assemblies is but specious and usually topics of vital concern to all colonials were ghost written window dressing.") behind the remolded by the oiu-ush of events and issues. pages of old new.spapers featuring victorious Thus, less than a century after the inaugura debaters in picture and headline. tion of the syllogistics in the English colonies, But relief of this sort is of short duration students at Harvard rebelled against forced and we learn little while our heads are buried participation in the e.\erci.se. And as Presi in past glories. Far better that we expose dent Wadsworth discovered to his chagrin ourselves to attack with the possibility of in the 172()'s, stiff fines seldom overcome vulnerability but with the possibility, also, student opposition. Nevertheless, and here of learning. our critics have a point in their favor, the With diis point of view in mind, let us overseers refused to yield to the onslaught examine briefly tlie development of collegiate of a new age and tlie syllogistics remained debating in America during the 17th, 18th, at Harvard and other tradition-minded col and 19th centuries (tlie 2(>tli deserves a leges until the early years of our Republic. paper of its own!). And as we examine (all Finally, an aroused press entered the lists. 58 THE GAVEL
In 1787, the Massachusetts Centinel strongly tributed to student opposition. Changes in urged tlie Harvard administration to abandon the college curriculum and in the student the increasingly "fulsome" exercise for more body favored other course work. And, as modern practices, assuring the academicians the administrations at Inith Brown and that "it would surely be more entertaining Columbia openly admitted when they and instnictive to discover thLs mode of dropijed the forensics from the ctiUege cur reasoning in conferences and orations, than riculum, student societies were already doing to \'iew it in tlie disgraceful garb in which a better job of teaching forensic skills. the schools have clothed it." Shortly after The administrators could have reached an wards, the ministers turned against dieir equally justifiable conclu.sion ahnost a cen ancient practice and the Rev. John Clarke tury earlier: While faculty and tru.stees alike sounded its deatli knell when he concluded demoastrated their dread of change or ex that in the syllogistics, "tlie art of reason perimentation, groups of students held ing has been degraded to tlie art of wran spirited meetings in private rooms, c-onven- gling .. . [in which debaters] by availing ient taverns, and elaborate halls. There, thcm.selve.s of technical tenns, and syllogistick amidst surroundings far more conducive to forms . . . have .stopped the mouth of an learm'ng than the foreboding classrooms adversary without convincing his under buildings, they engaged in parliamentary de standing." Score again for our critics. bate, reported on or read from contemporary But the story is not completely one-sided and classical literature, delivered orations and even in the 18th century. Secular-minded dialogues—m English, tried their hands at colleges like Pennsylvania had more modem dramatic productions, attempted to explore ideas from the very beginning. Indeed, light as well as serious topics, and, from change was in store for even such tradition- the beginning, stressed debate above all minded institutions as Harvard and Yale. their exercises. .At the former, for example, the admini.stra- At first, tile society debates were written tion voted to accept forensic disputation in and read or memorized, as were the foren English—in addition to tlie Latin Syllogis sics later introduced into the classroom. tics—in 1757. At the latter, tlie vernacular But, early in the history of tlie societies, was introduced in debate a decade earlier. undergraduates realized that developing skill Unfortunately, a scries of circumstances, in written disputation did not guarantee a the majority of which were not engendered transfer of learning to oral combat. In 1766 by debate, conspired to weaken tlie curric- tlie Y'ale Fellowship Club experimented witli ular tenure of the forensics. But for almost a new fonn of academic debate they called a century this form of debate served to train extempore. In 1778 the brothers of Phi Beta college men in their acquisition of written Kappa at William and Mary inaugurated a skiD in argumentation and in the use of emo similar exercise. By 1783 the new form of tional as well as logical proof. With the debate had replaced the written in two out powerful assistance of the student organiza of three assignments at the Linonian brother tions 1 shall treat in more detail later, tutors hood in Now Haven. By 1810 it was the helped countless patriots as well as tories format of the United Brothers at Brown. develop written styles of argumentation Gradually, at the other societies, the ex which reached their height at the time of tempore merged with the forensic to form an the American Revolution and during the almost standard type of debate (not dis period of the Federalist papers. similar to that used by most teams today) The circumstances to which I alluded wliich was featured in pubbc exhibitions and earlier began to manifest theniselve.s toward during intersociety contests. For many pri tlie middle of the 19th century. Popular vate society contests, however, tlie extempore methods of communication challenged the frequently turned into an impromptu affair— hold of the forensic mode. Drastic faculty especially as tlie student organizations control over the topics for debate and equal weakened in the later years of tlie I9th ly strict faculty censorship over content con century. THE GAVEL 59
Less flexible than the format of debating circle, students from Cambridge and New at the societies and more open to criticism Haven held their first intersociety debate was their system of judging debates. Fol in 1891. The attendant publicity breathed lowing the ancient faculty habit of giving the life of intercollegiate contention into decisions according to the merits of the forensics—and magnified a host of prob question, they carried over this practice to lems, old and new. But that is a topic for formal society debate well into the 19th another paper. century. As late as 1863, for e-vample, the And for another paper is the task of sug long-lived Linonians directed their president- gesting how we might benefit, if at all, from critic to ca.st his decision acc-ording to the past errors and omissions. Today 1 should merits of the question and the quality of the like to conclude this postscript by raising argument presentetl by the disputants. With two innocent questions for your considera in a decade, however, the (juality and de tion. 1. Is there any significance to the com- livery of the case was the determining factor pimative strength of forensics during past and some societies like Princeton's Cliosophic centuries when under student or faculty con in the 1870's brought the entire membership trol? 2. Is there any application to the pres into the critical function, requiring that each ent forensic .situation of the old ob.servation decision as well as the original presentations that as we resort to technical devices to be brought before the society for general silence our adversaries, we succeetl only in comment and discussion—a practice followed building resentment through tlie bypassing by only the boldest of modem educators. of an appeal to understanding? But the elements of change which in- fluencetl contemporary college curricula and American society did not bypass the literary THE FINE ART . . . and debate societies. During the middle of (Continued from Page 53) the 19th century and well into its final decades, the societies at many respected side are not much better. They have been eastern and southern schools lost their hold telling debate coaches for years tliat we on the student bodies or else disappeared make die students work too hard, we completely while athletics, an exjianded cur stress competition far more than we should, riculum, special and social societies, and and we are developing an elite corps of otlier media of entertainment and instruction thinkers to the exclusion of the general stu siphoned off tlie energy necessary to main dent body. So, you couldn't really expect tain a rounded and vigorous program of them to love us. But you might expect them debates and literary exercises. to hold us up as an example of what hard Fortunately, for those of us who direct work will lead to if one isn't ciueful. Frankly, forensics or coach debate, a small core of I'd rather be a horrible example than ignored. ardent debaters remained in most of the Somewhere in this country there must be schools where the societies were once the an individual who is willing to include us in major cog in the students' extracurricular the fight. This man won't even have to tell life. In the early 1880's, these "diehards" us how nice we are. As far as I am con in several midwestem, soutliem, and eastern cerned, I'd be willing to accept an article schools convinced their fellows of the de telling us why we have no place in modem sirability of debates with representatives education (and it wouldn't really matter from societies of other colleges. Momen which side of the controversy desired to tarily, the extended motivation of rivalry take first crack at us). awakened student and community interest. This is a .serious request. The editor would But these initiators of a new step in foren hope that someone could find it within his sic progress lacked the status and public province to tell the members of Delta Sigma appeal of a Harvard or Yale. Probably un Rho exactly where debate and forensics stand conscious of what others were doing outside in the present controversy. Any and all views their preparatory school and ivy league will be accepted. 60 THE GAVEL
A New Look at The Debate Brief
William A. Behl Brooklyn College It is a generally accepted principle in tion, including a complete analysis of a given tlie tciiching profession that it is wise to proposition and all the representative argu make a continuous evaluation of what we ments and evidence on a given side of a are doing in tlie name of education. Socrates erally accepted interpretation of the debate spoke well when he said that "tlie life which brief. is unexamined is not wortli living." It is resolution.'""' Other authors make a very doubtful tliat we in the field of speech do clear distinction between a brief and a case a sufficient amount of reflection on the outline: "A brief is a logical outline which nietliod and the content of our speech cur organizes and records all the available ma ricula. Certainly this observation is appro- terial on one side of a proposition. It is not xx>s in some areas of speech. I have .special intended to ser\'e as a case outline or a reference to the interpretation and the use speaker's outline; it is strictiy a preparatory of the brief as a tool in teaching and coach outline.""' There is still another definition ing argumentation and debate. For many of a brief: "It is a complete written survey years there has been considerable confusion of all available material tliat is pertinent to concerning its meaning and its use in the a given i>roblem."'> This type of brief is a argumentation class. In a recent survey, I complete survey of the data for and against discovered that approximately half of those all the significant solutions to a problem. who answererl a questionnaire believed that It Ls obviously a preparatory investigation a brief was a survey of all the pertinent from which the individual may develop argu material on one side of a proposition; the mentative or expository speeches. I believe otlier half considered it as a report of the that the latter definition should be the gen- arguments and evidence on both sides. In Just what would be tlie nature of thi.s the same investigation, I found tliat about kind of brief? Would it differ from the tra one-fiftli of tlie instructors did not use the ditional brief fonn? Would it differ in sub brief at aU. The results of tliis inquiry tend stance? The general format would not be to indicate tliat tlie purpose and the value changed because every brief should have of the debate brief should be re-examined. an introduction, body, and conclusion, but Let us look at some of tlie definitions as there would be some changes in the .sub .set forth in selected texts on argumentation stance of these main divisions. An important and debate. Some writers interpret the brief addition to the introduction would be the to mean something less than an outline of statement of criteria by which any solution the oral argument; others consider it more to a problem must be measured. What than tluit. One author says that a brief is should be accomplished by the solution to an "outline guide" and that "the whole brief tlie problem? Will the resolution under is not much larger than a single division of consideration measure up to the desired the finished forensic."^ On the other hand, goals? Suppose that students are debating otliers define it as "a full and finished ar the proposition, that capital punishment rangement in logical order of the evidence should be abolished. There must be agree and argument on a given side of a case. It ment among the advocates concerning the is not a preliminary outline on which to objectives of a penal code before a debate build a speech or essay."^ Still another can take place. If the affirmative maintain author defines it as "a storehouse of informa ^ A. Craig Baird, Argumentation, Discusaion and Debate (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, '"WilUain T. Foster, Argumentation and Debating Inc., 1950), p. 79, (New "york; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1927),
Gerald M. Phillips Washington State All of us in the field of speech know debate . . teaches critical thinking," they that "forensic" as applied to a program con may answer that the same assertion is made ducted as an activity by a department of of geometry, and tliat neither debate nor speech must have something to do with geometry lias offered definitive proof. If we debate. By usage, die meaning of this word say it "teaches subject matter," they may has been restricted to competitive activities point to innumerable courses on campus that in which groups of schools debate eacli other also purport to do that, and inquire whether at a central location for two or three days on deliate can do it any better; and if we say the same topic. Proponents of this sort of it teaches people to "tliink quickly on their activity contend that tins is a great conven feet," their logical question Ls, "what is the ience, since you get a "maximum of par carry-over from response to a formal debate ticipation" for a "minimum of dollars." tournament to 'life' and how do you mea There is no thought implied here about the sure it." Ratlier than attempt to justify tour role of forensics in a modern speech pro nament debating on these counts, let us gram—and simply "logging rounds" makes concede some lowest terms, i.e., that it docs little sense, even if it costs little money. The provide experience in preparation and si>eak- menning of the word "forensic" must be ing to a relatively large munber of people e.xtended if speech activities are to play a under a considerable amount of pressure, and rt>le in a modem speech curriculum, even because of this it is worth retaining as part if it means doing violence to Aristotle's of a total speech activities program. original definition. A broad forensics program must sweep Actually, tournament debating is the sole across as much of the field of speech as element of a forensics program in most possible. In order to appeal to the greatest schools in the United States. Some pay lip number of students (we presimie this to service to extended programming, by sched be desirable since, if tlie benefits are great, uling one or two public debates, or booking tliey are worth spreading widely) and to the visiting Oxford tciun, but this is not truly provide the diversified training that a speech extended programming, and it does not tend major must have on the undergraduate level. to increase student participation. Studies There are altliogetlier too many of us active made at W.S.U. of the 1958-59 debate sea in the field that received "speciali.sts" train son covering more than 200 actix'e debate ing on tlie undergraduate level as "debaters" schools indicate that the more active the or "actors" who now have a great deal of school in tournament competition, the fewer difficulty cooperating with directors of the total number of participants involved in "rival" speech activities. But this need not the program (with a few notable exceptions be. Total programming tends to resist this of course). It has been tlie experience of idea of fragmentation, and allows specializa the writer that concentration exclusively on tion on tlie graduate level, where it lielongs, competitive debate also limits personnel qual while producing a sound major—at home in itatively—for there does appear to be a "per the theatre or at the tournament, not to speak sonality type" that is magnetically attracted of spreading the benefits of participation in to competive debate—and I am not entirely speech activities farther beyond the borders sure that I like the type. Probably the big of the department. gest problem faced by a competitive pro This institution, Washington State Uni gram Ls justifying it to one's colleagues in versity, is committed to total programming. other academic areas, for, if we contend tliat We do not give it lip service in the form of THE GAVEL 63 an occasional public program. Competitive provided in the form of touring debate activity is a small part of our program. cUnics, which present demonstration debates Wliile our program is far from ideal, it to the high schools, and then meet with high represents, I think, a maximum in diversifi school debaters to answer their questions cation that can be expected after three years. and help them with their cases. Each year The program operates like this: wc invite some distant school to tour the 1. Competitive activities of a traditional state with us—and to do local programs as nature continue. We participate in five well. Our guests have included The Uni intercollegiate tournaments each year, pre versity of Florida, Western Reserve Uni ferably those with individual events. De versity, University of Hawaii, Bates College, baters are introduced to other forms of com Montana State College and University of petition, and persons skilled in oratory or British Columbia. Northwestern is tenta interpretation are acquainted witli debate. tively slated to be our guest next year. We We do not regard indi%'idual events as pay an honorarium and cover expenses for "extra" but as ends in tliemselves, equal with the visiting school, and we break eveu by competitive debate, and we have no qualms cluirging a .small fee to schools who take about training individual events experts as the program. In addition to this, the regu intensely as we might train competitive lar speakers' bureau provides programs for debaters. campus and local audiences. 2. In addition to regular tournaments, we 5. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of participate in a number of special competi our "total program" is our liaison with other tive events. For example, each year, Port speech activities. Each year our forensics land State College sponsors a "Town Meet group sponsors a tour of the state's high ing Tournament" which features symposium schools by the Readers' Tlieatre, a group of activity in front of audiences with the oral interpreters who do a one hour reading speakers rated by the audience, and prizes of a classic for assembly programs. This has awarded. The subject is something other been tremendously popular. We have put than the national college question. Hum- on programs in more than 7.5 communities boldt State sponsors a "pentatlilon of indi over the past two years, and interest among vidual events," each individual must par the students is very high. It should be noted, ticipate in five events, and tiie events are parenthetically, that more than half of our changed each year. Here, too, whatever successful tournament competitors have been topic is debated is different from the national recruited from the ranks of interpreters who college question. We regularly attend stu originally tried out for Readers' Theatre. In dent congresses as they are available, and addition to this program, we sponsor a week are currently looking forward to the 1961 ly radio program on our campus station, DSR meeting at Boulder. Tape recorded dealing with current issues. Sometimes a debates witli distant schools and a match celebrity is interviewed, and sometimes we with the touring overseas team rounds out u.se a simple panel or symposium format. this phase of the program. Also, for the first time, this year forensics 3. Wc sponsor tournaments when we can. is sponsoring a state-wide tour of a tliree- At the present time we sponsor, regularly, act play. The play has been booked by 16 one college tournament which attracts 25 comimmiti&s over a ten-day tour. It is inter schools and 250 competitors, a small re esting to note that at least half the players gional high school tournament, and the offi iU'e also varsity debaters. cial state high school tournament. When the The advantage.s of .such total programming opportunity arises, we offer our facilities to are obvious. In the first place, there is other tournamenLs. Persons who plan to no conflict between drama and debate for teach speech of coach debate are thus af personnel. It is simply presumed that what forded an opportunity for practical training ever qualified personnel is available will be in tournament mechanics. utilized as fully as possible in a diversity of 4. Couununity service and extension is (Continued on Page 65) 64 THE GAVEL Ohio Wesleyan Debate History
W. Roy Diem Emeritus Professor of Speech Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio Intercollegiate debate at Ohio Wesleyan surplus of $250.00. Proceeds from door University began with the organization at receipts would go to the treasury. Delaware on January 2, 1897, of the An executive committee would supervise Ohio Intercollegiate Debating League.^ The selection of judges and tlie making of ar League was a very close affair, involving rangements for the debates. "Tliree judges only four colleges—Ohio Wesleyan, Ohio and an idternale are to be selected forty State, Adelbert College of Western Reserve days before the contest. Protests against University, and Oberlin College. The rep jiidge.s are to be in twenty days preceding resentatives of the colleges were: Ohio the contests, and each college may have Wesleyan, Prof. Robert I. Fulton (the mov hut one judge removed." It was specified ing spirit), and Prof. John H. Grove; Adel tliat no person having any connection with bert, Prof. O. F. Emerson; Oliio State, Dr. either college in a debate would be eligible Barrows; Oberlin, Prof. W. W. Cres.sy. to judge. Annual contests were to be held as fol The first debate to be held under the lows: in 1897, Adelbert vs. Oberlin, and tenns of the constitution was held at Ohio Ohio Wesleyan vs. Ohio State. In 1898, State University on May 7, 1897.^ The ques Oberlin vs. Ohio State; Ohio Wesleyan vs. tion was stated, "Resolved, That a uniform Adelbert. In 1899, Ohio State vs. Adelbert; re.strictive tax should be laid on all immi Oberlin vs. Ohio Wesleyan. In following grants into the United States." Ohio State year.s, the same schedule would occur in University, reiiresented by William B. Guit- rotation. teau, Quintoii R. Lane, and Arthiu- C. Nutt, Kenyon College sent a representative to upheld the affirmative side. Ohio Wesleyan's the meeting and sought membership, but speakers on the negative were Webster H. was denied, owing to the difficulty of mak Powell, Charles W. Spicer, and Charles ing a schedule with five members in the Fulkerson. Guitteau had the affiniiative League. Later a separate arrangement was rebuttal speech. set up with Kenyon. The three judges were Rev. John B. The rules provided that the debates should Helwig, D.D., Urbana; Judge O. W. H. involve three speakers and an alternate on Wright, of Logan; and Frank Thomas, M.D., each team. Each speaker would have fif Marion. The decision was unanimous for teen minutes; the affirmative side would the negative. he given a fi\'e minute rebuttal speech to A delegation of 200 students and faculty conclude tlie debate. members went with the debaters to Colum Any student wlio was carrying ten hours bus, riding in a special train on the Hock of college work would be eligible for the ing Valley R. R. to tl\e Union Station in debates. Columbus, and by trolley thence to Ohio Debates were to occur on the last Friday State University. Among the 200 were of February and the first Friday of March many ladies from Monnett Hall. They were of each year. chaperoned by several faculty members who The home team would propose the ques made it tlieir concern, not to keep the boys tion to be used and tlie visiting team would and girls apart, but to keep them together. have the choice of sides. In tlie cheering section to support tlie Wes A charge for admission to the debates leyan debaters were the Ladies' Glee Club was to be made. Provision was to be made s The Ohio Wesleyan Transcript, May 1 and Mav 8, for a treasury of $1,000.00, with a constant 1897.
^The College Transcript, Jan. 24, 1897, p. 1. (Continued on Page 66) THE GAVEL 65
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE . . . to respect the feelings and attitudes of their fellow team members. Tlrey liked tire use of (Continued from Page 56) the Incident Process because they learned onisin and logic maneuverings, by Cornell's by doing. The skills and attitudes called for fear, Duff's isolation, and Elgin's oratioiLs. in working on a debate incident are the same The central issue is how to get these five as those needed by debaters in actual de to work together. liberation between team members. In one Tlie process of determining central issues short session, a group of debaters can learn has distinct adviintages: (a) members ob tile ueces-sity for cooperation in order to help tain experience in identifying key issues and themselves attain victory in debate. weighing evidence; (b) genuine discussion usually begins and the debaters start to work TOTAL FORENSICS . . . toward a common gotU; (c) as they discuss, they develop .social and intellectual sldlls like (Continued from Page 63) tolerance, recognition of the validity of dif activities. Scheduling, then, becomes simple. ference, clear thinking, objectivity, capacity Debate tournaments are not scheduled to to understand and clarify the thoughts of conflict with plays, and vice \'er.sa. The others. whole department can be mobilized to help 4. Finding solutions to the problems. The with tournamenLs, with coaching, with pro group suggests solutions to tlie central issues. ducing the play, whatever is necessary. The A number may be suggested, and securing viuiety in the program has the effect of more than one possible solution to any one drawing persons from other subject matter problem is desirable. The group members fields to participate in department activities. gain greater insight by being exposed to In the 1959-60 .season, over 100 persom numerous solutions. Also, in this step the here participated in forensic activities (plus coach calls to the attention of the group any an etpial numlrer in drama). Half of them vital facts not revealed in the second step. were speech majors; the other half repre If the new evidence changes the picture, the sented virtually every subject matter area group can revise its decisions. and class-standing (including 9 graduate 5. Reflecting on the case situation and students) on our campus. No one need be generalizing to similar problems. In this turned away for there is activity for all. The final step, tlie debaters are asked to broaden participants in the program debated nearly their \aew and to consider what needs to be 350 competitive rounds of debate, and ap done in actual events. Before doing this the peared in front of more than 30,000 people— group should evaluate tire incident on which and the radio prognun had a weekly listen they have been working. They think about ing audience of 40,000. It appears that prevention of future incidents, about general nothing has been sacrificed, and much principles, and about what they have learned gained. from this incident. They reflect for a few Of course, we have not been winning moments on the probable outcome of tlie many trophies lately, but a discussion of the cjuse. In the "Rah Rah U" case, for example, worth of tropliies is not germane here. At diey may consider whetlier or not the de least, winning them is neither an expressed baters would participate in the tounumient nor implied goal of our program. Exijerience and what would happen if tliey did. Then, and broad training is—and the sacrifice of finally, they should attempt to generalize to "hardware" to a diversified program is well other situations by testing general ideas worth it. which seem valid in the case they worked on As to cost, total progranuning can be and applying these to other social interaction operated with a moderate budget. Cm- stu difficulties in debate preparation with which dent govermnent starts u.s with a basic they are familiar. allotment of $2,800. To this we add some Debaters who have followed these five $2,100 in fees for programs, ranging from steps of the Incident Process have learned $15.00 for a debate clinic or Readers The- 66 THE GAVEL atre program, to $40.00 for tlie three-act the faculty personnel (except the director) play. The fees are not prohibitive and en receive load credit for their activity. It is able us to nearly break even on our state done willingly because of the obvious ad wide service, so that the original budget vantages of the program. can be used to supiwrt competitive activ May we recommend that you try total ities. Our General Extension Service helps programming at your school. by providing publicity and mailing, and the Speech Department provides letterheads, OHIO WESLEYAN . . . envelopes, secretarial help, phone, etc. The (Continued from Page 64) secret lies in cooperation. There are three, .sometimes four, graduate assistants involved and a male quartet. The Wesleyan yell, in the program. Two other staff members which in earlier years of Ohio Wesleyan, had give the program considerable time, and a cheered on the orators in many a hotly con staff member at the radio station sui^ervises tested oratorical competition, became an in broadcasting. Assistance is solicited and re tegral part of the debate tradition, occa ceived from other subject matter areas, in sionally to the surprise of debaters from cluding Business Research, Computer Cen other states, where yells were reserved for ter, Agricultural Extension, etc. None of atliletic contests.
IDEA.S AND CONTROVERSY ARE THE
LIFE BLOOD OF A DEMOCRACY!
So — as the official publication of a forensic honor society, The Gavel should express ideas and controversy.
If you have ideas or controversy, the editor would like to publish tiiem. Acceptable articles are always in de mand, and The Gavel will always feel a duty to protect your right of expression. THE GAVEL 67
The Art of Persuading Whom?
Joseph A. Wigley Assistant Professor of Speech Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington
I am writing as a speech teacher who is In order to avoid rewarding dishonesty, frecpiently called on to judge debates, but we test the two salesmen in a way that who has never engaged in debate either as m^ikes chicanery unprofitable. We restrict piirticipant or as coach. I am writing l«cause diem to .selling to independent automobile I have been disturbed by sucli statements as mechanics, whose knowledge of the facts "Debates should ideally be judged by ex about cars makes them difficult to hoodwink. perienced debate coaches." We have made the conq^etition relatively Debate is formal comijelition in the art of ethical, because now it will re
capitalizes on a tight sweater, and the the art of persuasion is not confined to per pseudo-bashful boy who wrings the heart suading other rhetoricians. We address our strings of middle-aged women in the audi selves not to the other salesmen, but to ence, may be accurately compared to the car cu.stomers; not to other politicians, but to salesman who convinces a widow on relief voters; not to other attorneys, but to juries. that she can't afford not to own a car. Debate which develops the skill of persuad Between die two extremes of the sucker ing only debate coaches is surely an activity and tile sales manager, the gullible public in a vacuimi. and the debate coach, is the expert judge. Earlier 1 mentioned certain false analogies He knows cars, or international affairs, as about debate. It is often regarded as a sport the ca.se may be. He doesn't give a hang comparable to basketball or pole-vaulting. about sales or debate techniques. If you But obviously the basketball either goes want to sell him you must present facts in tlirough the hoop or it does not; tiie cross an orderly, intelligible fashion. Indeed, he bar is either 14 feet from the ground or 14 has already heard most of the facts: he feet two inches. These are objective, mea knows about compression and axle ratios, surable things. Nothing in rhetoric is sus about the Security Council veto and what ceptible to objective measurement—by defi happened in the Suez crisis. nition. Rhetoric, including debate, operates In a debate I judged recently my vote in the area of probabilities. But the prob- went to the affirmative, who presented a abilitie.s are backed hy facts. The layman is hicid, logical argument, simple in concep too likely to be ignorant of the facts, as tion, backed with undeniable facts. The were, for example, tiie people of Germany negative team spoke so much more rapidly who were persuaded by Hitler. Tlie debate that they must have presented twice as many coach, on the other hand, is likely to be so statements, of which five were, to my posi impressed by whether the pole vaulter—to tive knowledge, false. Although I was the mix the analogy—tjikes off from the proper official judge, members of the audience, foot, that he disregards how high the cros,s- experienced debaters, were also asked to bar was. give a verdict. With only one or two ex If you are persaiaded, you are persuaded. ceptions they voted for the negative, which, It doesn't matter, essentially, how it was with their rapid patter and embarrassing accomplished. The real qiusition is: who vehemence, conformed more nearly to the are you? Are you so ignorant of the facts audience concept of "skilled debaters." surrounding the question that you will vote "They had the techniques," one member of for the debater with the greatest sliow of the audience said afterwards. confidence or the sweetest smile? Or is the In tiiis instance I feel confident that a lay question debated one you have previously audience would have voted as I did. The given a good deal of consideration? higli-pressiire delivery and unwarranted in Let'.s recognize the possibility tliat the tensity of the negative would, I am sure, ideal judge is neither the neutral debate have alienated the "man on the street." Yet coach nor the mass audience, but the exj^iert I can ea.si!y imagine a situation in which an in the .subject area. Depending upon the .spe unscnipulous team, using heavily emotional cific question, tliis is likely to be tire teacher appeals, could have taken the \'erdict of this of political science, economics, or history, or hypotheticjil lay audience from eitiier of tiie the new.spapennan, or the weU-informed teams I heard. But they could not have layman. His judging instructions should be done .so if judged by political scientists, or to award the decision to the team which most by any judges in possession of tlie general influenced his opinions in the area of the facts of the situation involved. subject. If he is a reasonable aird thought On the oire hand teachers of speech, in ful individual he will be influenced not only cluding debate coaches, must recognize their by the quantity of facts but by their honest, ethical obligations not to encourage sophistry. orderly and agreeable presentation. What On the other hand, they must recognize that more than tliis should debating be? THE GAVEL 69
SECRETARY'S REPORT
Apeil 1961
Gavel Subscriptions: University of North Carolina 3 Yearly 86 Brown University 4 Libraries and Organizations 12 Frerlonia Teaebers College .. 1 Sponsor 18 Univer«itv of Wirbitfl 3 Lifetime 77 Iowa State University - 1 1958-59 Members 78 Amerirnn University 4 1959-60 Members 132 Colgate University 1 Chapter Lil)raries 85 Univ«»r>;itv r.f MiohijMn 1 Chapter Sponsors (4cc) 340 University of Nebr;i':lfa 3 University of Pennsylvania 1 Total 828 Stanford University 2 Washington tlniversitv 1 New Memljers from September, 1960, College of Wooster — - 5 through April, 1961: University of Wyoming 4 University of Hawaii 4 Oregon State College . 5 Total New Members® . .. 54 Bates College Loyola University 'Editor's Note; The hulk of D.S.R. chapten initiate between April and June. Therefore the Grinnell College _ total is not a true picture of the entire year. 70 THE GAVEL
INDEX TO VOLUME 43
SOCIETY BUSINESS SPECIAL
Annual Reports—-Delta Sigmo Rho, March, p. 44. The Fine Art of Being Ignored, May, p. 53. Attention Chopter Sponsors, November, p. 1. Henry Lee Ewbonk, A. T. Weover, Morch, p. 51. Biennial Delta Sigmo Rho Forensic Conference on Laboratory in Persuasion, Herold T. Ross, Novem National Issues, November, p. 9. ber, p. 2. Delta Sigmo Rho—Amherst College Chapter 1959 Letters to the Editor, March, p. 33. (picture), Jonuary, p. 27. Letter to the Editor, Lawrence D. Posner, Jonuory, Delta Sigmo Rho Forensic Tournament, March, p. p. 17. 42. President's Page, Herold T. Ross, March, p. 37; Golden Anniversary of Delta Sigmo Rho: May 13, May, p. 54. 1960, Jonuory, p. 28. Golden Anniversary of Delta Sigma Rho—Ohio INDEX OF AUTHORS State University (picture), January, p. 29. Installation of the Loyola (Chicago) University Barber, Williom S., Streamlining the Speakers' Chopter (picture), January, p. 32. Bureau, January, p. 18. New Members of Delta Sigma Rho, November, Behl, Williom A., A New Look at the Debate Brief, p. 13. May, p. 60. Secretary's Report, May, p. 69. Diem, W. Roy, Ohio Wesieyon Debote History, DEBATE AND DISCUSSION May, p. 64. Debate and Discussion.—A Holistic Approach, Remo Fausti, Remo P., Debote and Discussion—A Holistic P. Fausti, March, p. 49. Approach, Morch, p. 49. Have We Forgotten Quality?,Bruce M. Hoston, Giffin, Kim and Brad Loshbrook, An Evoluotlon of November, p. 5. "Group Action," January, p. 30. The Low in Debote: III—Hearsay Evidence, Robert and Kenneth Megill, Study of the Use of W. Smith, January, p. 23. Key Issues in Tournoment Debates, November, A New Look at the Debate Brief, William A. Behl, p. 3. May, p. 60. Hoston, Bruce M., Hove We Forgotten Qualityf, The Nixon-Kennedy Debates and the Freeley Com November, p. 5. mittee, Raymond K. Tucker, March, p. 47. Juleus, Nels, Arom's Defense, March, p. 38. Ohio Wesleyan Debate History, W. Roy Diem, Klopf, Donold W., Practical Experience in Humon Moy, p. 64. Relotions for Deboters, May, p. 55. A Postscript to the History of Debating in the Phillips, Gerald M., Totoi Forensics Programming American Colleges, Dovid Potter, Moy, p. 57, at Washington State University, Moy, p. 62. Procticol Experience in Human Relations for De- Posner, Lawrence, Letter to the Editor, January, boters, Donald W. Klopf, Moy, p. 55- p. 17. Resolved: Thot Debaters Should Learn to Listen, Potter, David, A Postscript to the History of De Robert G. Smith, March, p. 35. bating in the American Colleges, May, p. 57. Study of the Use of Key Issues in Tournament Debates, Kim Giffin and Kenneth Megill, Ross, Herold, Loborotory in Persuasion, November, p. 2. November, p. 3. President's Poge, Morch, p. 37. Total Forensics Programming at Woshington Stote University, Gerald M. Phillips, Moy, p. 62. • President's Page, Moy, p. 54. Tournoment Audiences, Robert O. Weiss, Novem Smith, Robert G., Resolved; That Debaters Should ber, p. 7. Learn to Listen, March, p. 35. Smith, Robert W., The Law in Debote: III, Jan GENERAL uary, p. 23. Arom's Defense, Nels Juleus, March, p. 38. Stevens, Walter W., Incidence ond Choracteristics An EvoluQtion of "Group Action," Kim Giffin and ... for Speech Majors, January, p. 25. Brad Loshbrook, Jonuory, p. 30. Tucker, Raymond K., The Nixon-Kennedy Debates Incidence and Choracteristics . . . for Speech and the Freeley Committee, Morch, p. 47. Majors, Walter W. Stevens, Januory, p. 25. Weover, A, T., Henry Lee Ewbonk, March, p. 51. Streamlining the Speakers' Bureou, William S. Weiss, Robert O., Tournament Audiences, Novem Barber, Jonuary, p. 18. ber, p. 7. •T 1 , Delta Sigma Rho . . . Chapter Directory
Chapter Dote Faculty Code Nome Founded Sponsor Address
A Albion 191 ] J. V. Garland Albion, Mich. AL Allegheny 1913 Nels Juleus Meadvitle, Penn. AM Amherst 1913 S. L. Garrison Amherst, Mass. AMER Amerkon 1932 Dale E. Wolgomuth Woshington, D. C. AR Arizona ]922 G. F. Sparks Tucson, Ariz. B Botes 1915 Brooks Quimby Lewiston, Maine BE Beloit 1909 Carl G. Bolson Beloit, Wise. BK Brooklyn 1940 William Behl Brooklyn, N. Y. BR Brown 1909 Anthony C. Gosse Providence, R. 1. BU Boston 1935 Woyne D. Johnson Boston, Moss. CA Corleton 19 il Ada M. Harrison Northfield, Minn. CH Chicago 1906 Delta Sigma Rho Advisor Chicogo, III. CLR Colorado 1910 Thorrel B. Fest Boulder, Colo. COL Colgate 1910 Robert G. Smith Homilton, N.Y. CON Connecticut 1952 Charles McNomes Storrs, Conn. COR Cornell 1911 H. A. Wichelns Ithoco, N. Y. CR Creighton 1934 Harold J. McAuliffe, SJ. Omoha, Nebr. D Dartmouth 1910 Herbert L. James Hanover, N. H. DP DePauw 1915 Robert O. Weiss Greencostle, ind. EL Elmira 1931 Geraldine Quinlan Elmiro, N. Y. GR Grinnell 1951 Wm. Vonderpool Grinnell, lowo GW George Woshington 1908 George F. Henigon, Jr. Washington, D. C. H Homilton 1922 Willard B. Morsh Clinton, N. Y. HR Horvord 1909 Harry P. Kerr Cambridge, Mass. HW Hawaii 1947 Orlond S. Lefforge Honolulu, Hawaii I Idaho 1926 A. E. Whiteheod Moscow, Idaho ILL Illinois 1906 King Broadrick Urbona, III. IN Indiona 1951 E. C. Chenoweth Bloomlngton, Ind. ISC Iowa Stote 1909 R. W. Wilke Ames, Iowa IT Iowa State Teachers 1913 Lillian Wagner Cedar Foils, Iowa lU Iowa 1906 Orville Hitchcock Iowa City, Iowa JCU John Carroll 1958 Austin J. Freeley Cleveland, Ohio K Kansas 1910 Dr. Wilmer Linkugel Lawrence, Kansas KA Kansas State 1951 Manhottan, Kansas KX Knox 1911 Donold L. Torrence Goiesburg, III. L Loyolo University 1960 Donald J. Stinson Chicago, III. LU Lehigh University I960 H. Borrett Davis Bethlehem, Penn. MQ Morquette 1930 Joseph B. Laine Milwaukee, Wise. M Michigan 1906 N. Edd Miller Ann Arbor, Mich. MSU Michigan State 1958 Dr. Murray Hewglll East Lansing, Mich. MN Minnesoto 1906 Robert Scott Minrteopolis, Minn, MO Missouri 1909 Robert Friedmon Columbia, Mo. MM Mount Mercy 1954 Thomos A. Hopkir« Pittsburgh, Penn. MR Morehouse 1959 Robert Brisbane Atlanta, Ga. MU Mundelein 1949 Sister Mary Irene, 6.V-M. Chicago. III. N Nebrasko j 906 Don Olson Lincoln, Nebr. NC University of North Carolina 1960 Donold K. Springen Chapel Hill, N. C. NEV Nevada j 948 Robert S. Griffin Reno, Nevado ND North Dakota 1911 John S. Penn Grand Forks, N. D. NO Northwestern 1906 Fronk D. Nelson Evonston, 111. O O^io State 1910 Paul A. Cormock Columbus, Ohio OB Oberlln 1936 Paul Boose Oberlin, Ohio OK Oklohoma 1913 Roger E. Nebergall Norman, Oklo. OR Oregon 1926 W. Scott Nobles Eugene, Ore. ORS Oregon State 1922 Earl W. Wells Corvollis, Ore. OW Ohio Wesleyon 1907 Ed Robinson Delaware, Ohio P Pennsylvonio 1909 G. W. Thumm Philodelphio, Penn. PO Pomona 1928 Howord Mortin Cloremont, Calif. PS Pennsylvania State 1917 Clayton H. Schug University Park, Penn. PT Pittsburgh 1920 Bob Newmon Pittsburgh, Penn. R Rockford 1933 Mildred F- Berry Rockford, III. SC Southern Colifornio 1915 James H. McBath Los Angeles, Calif. ST Stonford 1911 Jon M. Ericson Polo Alto, Calif. SY Syracuse 1910 J. Edward McEvoy Syracuse, N. Y. TE Temple 1950 Delto Sigma Rho Advisor Philodelphio, Penn. T Texos 1909 Mortin Todaro Austin, Texos TT Texas Tech 1953 P. Merville Larson Lubbock, Texos TU Tulone University 1960 Dr. E. A. Rogge New Orleans, Lo. UNYF University of New York ot Fredonio I960 Alan L. McLeod Fredonio, N. Y. VA Virginia 1908 Robert Smith Chorlottesville, Vo. W Washintgon 1922 St. Louis, Mo. WA University of Washington 1954 Laura Croweil Seattle, Wosh. WAY Wayne 1937 Rupert L. Cortright Detroit, Mich, WES Wesleyon 1910 MIddleton, Conn, WICH Wichita 1941 Mel Moorhouse Wichito, Kansas WIS Wisconsin 1906 Winston L. Brembeck Madison, Wise. WJ Washington end Jefferson 1917 Frederick Helieger Woshington, Penn. WM Williams 1910 George R. Connelly Witliamstown, Moss. WO Wooster 1922 J. Gorber Drushol Wooster, Ohio WR Western Reserve 1911 L. W. Kuhl Cleveland, Ohio WSU Washington State University 1960 Gerald M. Phillips Pullmon, Wo^. WVA West Virginia 1923 F. A. Neyhort Morgontown, W. Vo. WYO Wyoming 1917 Patrick Marsh Loramie, Wyo. Y Yoie 1909 Rollln G. Osterweis New Hoven, Conn. DELTA SIGMA RHO Second Class Postoge Paid ot Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.
THE ALLEN PRESS Lawrence, Kansas
Return Postage Guoronteed