Today, less than 20 of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts have policies about testing prospective employees for drug use. However, when this testing was proposed to three of our local districts, Dallas and Crestwood and Pittston Area, only Dallas and Crestwood agreed to adopt the testing. Both districts pay for the tests, which typically look for marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, PCP and cocaine. Test prices range from $35 to more than $100, depending on the number of drugs tested.
These drug tests should be considered crucial for all teachers in Pennsylvania, especially in Luzerne County, with it’s high crime rate and excessive drug trafficking. So why is Pittston Area at such a level of hesitation to adopt the process of testing it’s teachers? Pittston Area’s school board attorney Mark Singer expressed that the schools highest concerns are: the amount of time the tests will take, test results becoming a public matter and if mistakes in the lab that may ruin an individual’s reputation.
I’m sure Mr. Singer believes that his reasons behind not adopting this drug-testing policy are relevant, but when it comes right down to it, the safety of Luzerne Country’s students is of most importance here. Local residents pay consistently raising taxes so that these students can go to school and receive a proper education, which does not include being taught by a teacher who is under any type of influence.
If Pittston Area truly has nothing to hide, then they should decide to undergo the drug-testing process before any more suspicions arise. By joining other local schools in the drug-testing policy, Pittston Area will be putting any discussion to rest as to why they haven’t already underwent the testing. Teachers are hired to not only guide students academically, but to work as a role model to their students and prepare them for their future. Any teacher who would actually undergo any type of drug use should not be working in the profession where their job is to mold and shape the mind’s of growing students.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Save Scranton School for the Deaf!
The Scranton State School for the Deaf, the only state-owned school of its kind, may close at the end of this school year; what is the reason behind this? Just ask Governor Ed Rendell, for he has chosen to cut the school’s funding in his 2009-10 budget, which he on released Wednesday February 4th.
The SSSD is located on a ten acre campus in the Green Ridge section of Scranton, and has been a major landmark in the town for 127 years. SSSD provides a comprehensive program for children who are deaf and hard of hearing from birth through age 21. The school is set up so that all programs are provided without cost to families residing in Pennsylvania. Being one of kind in it’s area, the SSSD has been assisting 100 students a year with they’re hearing and speech deficiencies; therefore can be considered crucial to many members of the community.
It is only with the utter most annoyance that I can express how terrible I believe this act truly is. And now, to make matters worse, the Department of Education officials attempted to exclude Scranton teachers from a meeting at Unit 19 headquarters in Archbald P.A.?! What’s next, attempt to take away their freedom of equality as well?
Scranton residents, as well as parents and teachers of the SSSD students have already began petitioning throughout the Scranton/Green Ridge area with faith to save this monumental landmark. What SHOULD happen here is the people in “high authority” should take a step back and take a serious look at what they’re taking away from the SSSD. A school so crucial to the Lackawanna County deserves as much funding as it can receive.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The SSSD is located on a ten acre campus in the Green Ridge section of Scranton, and has been a major landmark in the town for 127 years. SSSD provides a comprehensive program for children who are deaf and hard of hearing from birth through age 21. The school is set up so that all programs are provided without cost to families residing in Pennsylvania. Being one of kind in it’s area, the SSSD has been assisting 100 students a year with they’re hearing and speech deficiencies; therefore can be considered crucial to many members of the community.
It is only with the utter most annoyance that I can express how terrible I believe this act truly is. And now, to make matters worse, the Department of Education officials attempted to exclude Scranton teachers from a meeting at Unit 19 headquarters in Archbald P.A.?! What’s next, attempt to take away their freedom of equality as well?
Scranton residents, as well as parents and teachers of the SSSD students have already began petitioning throughout the Scranton/Green Ridge area with faith to save this monumental landmark. What SHOULD happen here is the people in “high authority” should take a step back and take a serious look at what they’re taking away from the SSSD. A school so crucial to the Lackawanna County deserves as much funding as it can receive.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Separation of church and gays?
In the recent news of the wonderful “Valley”, there has been much talk over the recent decision made by Bishop Joseph Martino of Misericordia University. In what Martino refers to as, “absolute disapproval” with the diversity club brining in activist Keith Boykin, even going as far to say that the University is failing to maintain the Catholic belief and image. So what is so terrible about Boykin? Well he’s gay.
Boykin was asked by the University’s Diversity institute to speak at a annual dinner, about Black History, and to discuss how he and President Obama were once classmates in college. While seeming like a reasonable and understandable request (also accepted by Boykin), Bishop Martino thought otherwise. Martino was not interested in what Boykin was coming to the school to discuss, but in his sexual background. The bishop had a big problem with Boykin’s past three books that were nominated for the Lambda Literary Award, which is given on behalf of homosexual causes. The diocese also labeled Boykin as an “avid supporter” of same sex marriage, which many of us know is against Catholic religion.
These statements made by the Bishop and Diocese, have sent shockwaves through the media, and now even college students. Recently, I came across a Facebook group that was all about having Bishop Martino removed from the University because of his words and decisions. Many callers on the local radio station WILK were also outraged with the decision and were not afraid of addressing their opinions about the Bishop.
So who is in the right? As a follower of the Catholic religion, I would have to agree with the Bishop’s decision. However, my reasons are not as radical as the Bishops. While I personally see no problem in diversity and equal rights, I understand where the Bishop is coming from. It is a private University, which is also a religious school and I could see how the decision of the Diversity Institue would upset someone who has been practicing religion their entire life. I also feel the speaker chosen was more than qualified to speak, and would probably have a great amount of knowledge to share with the students. It is a shame that circumstances, and the way the whole situation was approached, became the focus. If anything, I feel the Bishop should have been more open to discussing the scenario, and perhaps meeting in the middle with the Diversity Institute.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Boykin was asked by the University’s Diversity institute to speak at a annual dinner, about Black History, and to discuss how he and President Obama were once classmates in college. While seeming like a reasonable and understandable request (also accepted by Boykin), Bishop Martino thought otherwise. Martino was not interested in what Boykin was coming to the school to discuss, but in his sexual background. The bishop had a big problem with Boykin’s past three books that were nominated for the Lambda Literary Award, which is given on behalf of homosexual causes. The diocese also labeled Boykin as an “avid supporter” of same sex marriage, which many of us know is against Catholic religion.
These statements made by the Bishop and Diocese, have sent shockwaves through the media, and now even college students. Recently, I came across a Facebook group that was all about having Bishop Martino removed from the University because of his words and decisions. Many callers on the local radio station WILK were also outraged with the decision and were not afraid of addressing their opinions about the Bishop.
So who is in the right? As a follower of the Catholic religion, I would have to agree with the Bishop’s decision. However, my reasons are not as radical as the Bishops. While I personally see no problem in diversity and equal rights, I understand where the Bishop is coming from. It is a private University, which is also a religious school and I could see how the decision of the Diversity Institue would upset someone who has been practicing religion their entire life. I also feel the speaker chosen was more than qualified to speak, and would probably have a great amount of knowledge to share with the students. It is a shame that circumstances, and the way the whole situation was approached, became the focus. If anything, I feel the Bishop should have been more open to discussing the scenario, and perhaps meeting in the middle with the Diversity Institute.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Hate flyers on Wilkes Campus
Ironically, after a Thursday morning Rhetorical Communication class, I was walking to the Sub parking lot to go to my truck. As I walked closer to the side entrance of the parking lot, I saw a shaved head man, wearing a flannel shirt, black jeans, black boots, a chain wallet, and he looked no older than 23 years old, hanging a flyer on a telephone pole. When he finished I walked over to the flyer, trying not to stereotype the man as a racist, I read the flyer. On the top of the flyer in big white letters read, “NYC & PHILLY.” I assumed it might be a flyer promoting a band or a party at one of Wilkes Barres hot spots; however, that turned out to be the complete opposite.
The flyer continued, “Coming to a neighborhood near you, drugs, crime, graffiti, gangs, and violence” were littered about the small white piece of paper. The small flyer talked about how “our” beautiful neighborhood is being destroyed by drugs, gangs and violence. That this trouble has reached the heart of ever “decent” community (decent was in quotations on the flyer as well). At the bottom in big bold letters the flyer reads, “What are you going to do about it?” Underneath that, the text continues to read, “It’s time to take responsibility for the great neighborhood we’ve created… it’s time to stop moving away and push back!” Finally at the very bottom of the flyer is reads in large capital letters, “IT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BACK!”
I decided to go on their website as well, because the flyer never stated, who the “our” was and “who” was ruining the neighborhood. The website describes the group as a, “militant White Nationalists.” The group also believes, “That integration was forced upon the unwilling American people at the direction of our own elected government, paving the way for the failed multicultural experiment we now live in. That multiculturalism is not a celebration of different cultures but an unnatural destructive experiment that eventually eliminates the unique characteristics of every group forced to take part in it. That racism is the direct result of multiculturalism and caused by an unnatural struggle between races with extremely different cultures that are forced to live within the same community/nation.”
It is easy to see, that this group is in fact a racist group, and more alarming it has found its way on to our college campus. I find it sad, that Wilkes University school a wide diverse group of students and those we must all have to deal with ridiculous flyers like the one that I discovered on campus. More ironically, I find it funny, that this group is hanging up flyers on Wilkes campus, claiming that other races are ruining our neighborhood, when these other races are in school, working on bettering themselves and their education so they can make the community better.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The flyer continued, “Coming to a neighborhood near you, drugs, crime, graffiti, gangs, and violence” were littered about the small white piece of paper. The small flyer talked about how “our” beautiful neighborhood is being destroyed by drugs, gangs and violence. That this trouble has reached the heart of ever “decent” community (decent was in quotations on the flyer as well). At the bottom in big bold letters the flyer reads, “What are you going to do about it?” Underneath that, the text continues to read, “It’s time to take responsibility for the great neighborhood we’ve created… it’s time to stop moving away and push back!” Finally at the very bottom of the flyer is reads in large capital letters, “IT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BACK!”
I decided to go on their website as well, because the flyer never stated, who the “our” was and “who” was ruining the neighborhood. The website describes the group as a, “militant White Nationalists.” The group also believes, “That integration was forced upon the unwilling American people at the direction of our own elected government, paving the way for the failed multicultural experiment we now live in. That multiculturalism is not a celebration of different cultures but an unnatural destructive experiment that eventually eliminates the unique characteristics of every group forced to take part in it. That racism is the direct result of multiculturalism and caused by an unnatural struggle between races with extremely different cultures that are forced to live within the same community/nation.”
It is easy to see, that this group is in fact a racist group, and more alarming it has found its way on to our college campus. I find it sad, that Wilkes University school a wide diverse group of students and those we must all have to deal with ridiculous flyers like the one that I discovered on campus. More ironically, I find it funny, that this group is hanging up flyers on Wilkes campus, claiming that other races are ruining our neighborhood, when these other races are in school, working on bettering themselves and their education so they can make the community better.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Karl Rove is Full of IT!
As far as political campaigns are concerned, Karl Rove is probably one of the best guys to have in your corner if you are running for some type of office. Let’s face it, if he can make George W. Bush look like the better candidate for two consecutive elections, then the man must know something about running a good campaign. However, as an aspiring bull-shitter myself (one who works at the act of persuasion), I feel it is my responsibility to call out Karl Rove on a few important issues that he failed to acknowledge in a speech/Q&A session at Wilkes University, April 15 2009. And since I was dealing with the brains behind former President Bush’s operations, I hoped that I could finally get some answers to these important questions regarding the conspiracies of Bush/Cheney 00’-08.’
Unfortunately, I have to admit that my hopes were crushed when I said this man was the “brains” behind Bush’s operations. Rove’s intelligence applied well to his theories concerning political campaigns and advising, but it failed dramatically when it came time for him to speak of matters outside the discipline. For example, when asked by a man in the audience if he had seen the movie which was meant to document former President Bush’s life before, during, and after the White House known as “W,” he answered “no.” After making what he thought was a funny remark about the movie industry he then proceeded to ramble on once again thinking he was funny about how the character the producers picked the to play him was a bad pick because according to Rove, “everybody knows I am taller than Cheney,” implying that Toby Jones, the character picked to play him, represented him negatively. He was also able to talk about Jones’ role in “W” to a small extent which made me along with several of my colleagues agree that Rove definitely saw the movie.
Given this small example of how Karl Rove displayed brainless rhetoric I would like to now assert that Toby Jones was a good pick to represent Rove.
Jones is small, similar to Rove’s insight to the working class families of America which was limited. During his Q&A session, he made what he probably thought was a defense of the conservative method of the tax system in America. During his justification for Bush’s tax-cuts we saw from the White House 00’-08,’ he made sure to acknowledge all of those who he felt deserved these passes: business owners, those who are self-employed (like him), big companies. He failed to acknowledge the people who are responsible for keeping all the big corporations of this country alive, the people who work them! His failure to acknowledge the working (middle-lower) class American leads me to believe he was responsible for Bush’s tax-cuts for the highest 1% annual income bracket of Americans.
Rove also presented financial information concerning how much more Democrats spent on their campaigns compared to George W. Bush when he ran twice. The insignificance of this figure only further solidified Toby Jones as a better representation of Rove, in that I could clearly see him on my shoulder with a pitchfork trying to convince me that his opinion is correct.
Karl Rove may have significant contributions readily available for the field of communications, but as far as contributing to the bettering of America through whatever method he chooses goes –either through literature or The Wall Street Journal-, I hope that he realizes how much he does not know about America. I got the impression that Rove thinks that he knows how America should run and consequently also the world. Unfortunately, based on my hour of listening to him speak of his deeds I realized that men like him lead large countries into what history refers to as “dark ages” and us few who have been hegemoniously pushed to the side by his ideas know very well that he was responsible for a lot of the “bad” that came from the Bush administration: 9/11, Iraq, debt.
Even if Karl Rove called upon me during the Q&A session, there is no guarantee that he would have answered me. But I hope it would have at the very least, let him know that there are people out there who know that he is a bum and should stop using political campaign knowledge to try and tell people how to rule the country.
David Lewis
Wilkes University 11'
Unfortunately, I have to admit that my hopes were crushed when I said this man was the “brains” behind Bush’s operations. Rove’s intelligence applied well to his theories concerning political campaigns and advising, but it failed dramatically when it came time for him to speak of matters outside the discipline. For example, when asked by a man in the audience if he had seen the movie which was meant to document former President Bush’s life before, during, and after the White House known as “W,” he answered “no.” After making what he thought was a funny remark about the movie industry he then proceeded to ramble on once again thinking he was funny about how the character the producers picked the to play him was a bad pick because according to Rove, “everybody knows I am taller than Cheney,” implying that Toby Jones, the character picked to play him, represented him negatively. He was also able to talk about Jones’ role in “W” to a small extent which made me along with several of my colleagues agree that Rove definitely saw the movie.
Given this small example of how Karl Rove displayed brainless rhetoric I would like to now assert that Toby Jones was a good pick to represent Rove.
Jones is small, similar to Rove’s insight to the working class families of America which was limited. During his Q&A session, he made what he probably thought was a defense of the conservative method of the tax system in America. During his justification for Bush’s tax-cuts we saw from the White House 00’-08,’ he made sure to acknowledge all of those who he felt deserved these passes: business owners, those who are self-employed (like him), big companies. He failed to acknowledge the people who are responsible for keeping all the big corporations of this country alive, the people who work them! His failure to acknowledge the working (middle-lower) class American leads me to believe he was responsible for Bush’s tax-cuts for the highest 1% annual income bracket of Americans.
Rove also presented financial information concerning how much more Democrats spent on their campaigns compared to George W. Bush when he ran twice. The insignificance of this figure only further solidified Toby Jones as a better representation of Rove, in that I could clearly see him on my shoulder with a pitchfork trying to convince me that his opinion is correct.
Karl Rove may have significant contributions readily available for the field of communications, but as far as contributing to the bettering of America through whatever method he chooses goes –either through literature or The Wall Street Journal-, I hope that he realizes how much he does not know about America. I got the impression that Rove thinks that he knows how America should run and consequently also the world. Unfortunately, based on my hour of listening to him speak of his deeds I realized that men like him lead large countries into what history refers to as “dark ages” and us few who have been hegemoniously pushed to the side by his ideas know very well that he was responsible for a lot of the “bad” that came from the Bush administration: 9/11, Iraq, debt.
Even if Karl Rove called upon me during the Q&A session, there is no guarantee that he would have answered me. But I hope it would have at the very least, let him know that there are people out there who know that he is a bum and should stop using political campaign knowledge to try and tell people how to rule the country.
David Lewis
Wilkes University 11'
Burkean Analysis on President Obama’s speech on “Race”
In Philadelphia, at the National Constitution Center on March 18, 2008 the future President Barack Obama gave his empowering speech called, “A More Perfect Union” based on race in the United States. In terms of Kenneth Burke’s, Dramatism Pentad, I will evaluate the act, agency, agent, scene and purpose of this historically significant speech. What I intend to figure out, is whether or not this speech was relevant in terms of time (when he gave this speech) and location. Could anyone else have given it? And if so, who?
The scene physically takes place at a monumental site, the National Constitution Center, where hundreds of years ago our founding fathers set in motion the democracy of America. The future President stood at a wooden podium with two American flags standing behind him on each side and a simple blue background. He stood stationary for the entirety of the speech and merely glanced back and forth at his audience. The seriousness of this speech became evident before I even pushed play on the website.
The fact that our Constitution was written at this site, historically says so much about the speech that President Obama was about to give. It became in a sense, another historical site due to the power of this speech. Not only will it be remembered now by the history that was made at this site two hundred and twenty two years ago but also now because the first African American President gave his speech on race at this very location.
The connection that can be made between the two has so much significance on the location. The Constitution itself bears the idea of equal citizenship; something that we as American’s know was not always the case. The scene was, that in his campaign for presidency, Barack Obama was under attack for various racial reasons. As much as we would like to take pride in the fact that racial discriminaccy is much lower than it used to be, we cannot state that it has disappeared. Therefore, the place that he gave his speech was significant in that it represented the argument that was once written in our Constitution.
The agent was future President, and an African American himself, Barack Obama. He, along with Jesse Jackson in the 80’s, was one of the only candidates for Presidency to confront directly the issues of race being used against him in his campaign and he did so by beginning his speech with his own historical background. Barack Obama himself could only tell the drama of this story. It is his story after all. He stresses the idea of unity in a nation that had become more separate, than equal. The significance of a black Presidential candidate giving a speech on race is outstanding and appropriate for this time. Had Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin or anyone else at this time, tried to give this speech, it would have been severely less significant. President Obama was at a point in his campaign where it was appropriate and necessary to indentify and rearrange the questions being brought in front of him. He stated, “This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough"… And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.” If anyone else were to address these issues, it wouldn’t have had the same impact.
The agency of this speech was an address to the nation about all topics of race that had come up this far in his campaign. He addressed all aspects, his friends, his family, his staff, his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the nation as a whole, on the issues that had been brought to light in terms of race, throughout his campaign for presidency. What could have been a better time for unity to shine through? The future President nipped every issue in the bud by bringing them all to light and addressing each one personally. He needed to explain his background. He needed to explain his thoughts on Reverend Wright’s remarks. He needed to tell personal stories of experiences with racism that he had had. He needed to bring to light that it exists within everyone. (Which he did.) And he did so in a way that was least offensive. Thus far in his campaign it was stated that he was “too black” or “not black enough” as he said, however these needed to be addressed by him, without interruption. It was vital that he come right out and address it head on, in front of the nation.
The purpose was to was to better his campaign. By addressing the nation about issues that are presently being brought to light during his candidacy he was about to better his image in running for President. By giving this speech he was able to identify with many races.
Another purpose that makes sense in my own opinion was his many references to his pastor, Reverend Wright. I believe many expected him to dismiss the reverend, and if he had he would have been doing what the media wanted him to do. It would have chalked one up for the media and zero for the running candidate. I was glad he didn’t do what was maybe expected. He brought light to the idea that racism touches everyone. Instead of giving in and saying, “What Mr. Wright said was wrong”, he simply stated he disagreed. He brought out the idea that even his own grandmother had racial thoughts that he disagreed with. He made everyone equal, which was tough to go about.
The act of President Obama’s speech ties in with the purpose. He was doing this to address the constant criticism at that time about his childhood pastor, and race (in general) in America. He broadened the thought and made it equal to all American’s no matter their racial background.
This speech was not only delivered at an appropriate time, not only delivered by the right person but delivered in such a way that made the speech unique to each listener in their own way. Burke’s elements of the Pentad help me organize my opinions in a way to allow me to understand purposeful meaning of the speech.
Danielle Hritzak
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The scene physically takes place at a monumental site, the National Constitution Center, where hundreds of years ago our founding fathers set in motion the democracy of America. The future President stood at a wooden podium with two American flags standing behind him on each side and a simple blue background. He stood stationary for the entirety of the speech and merely glanced back and forth at his audience. The seriousness of this speech became evident before I even pushed play on the website.
The fact that our Constitution was written at this site, historically says so much about the speech that President Obama was about to give. It became in a sense, another historical site due to the power of this speech. Not only will it be remembered now by the history that was made at this site two hundred and twenty two years ago but also now because the first African American President gave his speech on race at this very location.
The connection that can be made between the two has so much significance on the location. The Constitution itself bears the idea of equal citizenship; something that we as American’s know was not always the case. The scene was, that in his campaign for presidency, Barack Obama was under attack for various racial reasons. As much as we would like to take pride in the fact that racial discriminaccy is much lower than it used to be, we cannot state that it has disappeared. Therefore, the place that he gave his speech was significant in that it represented the argument that was once written in our Constitution.
The agent was future President, and an African American himself, Barack Obama. He, along with Jesse Jackson in the 80’s, was one of the only candidates for Presidency to confront directly the issues of race being used against him in his campaign and he did so by beginning his speech with his own historical background. Barack Obama himself could only tell the drama of this story. It is his story after all. He stresses the idea of unity in a nation that had become more separate, than equal. The significance of a black Presidential candidate giving a speech on race is outstanding and appropriate for this time. Had Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin or anyone else at this time, tried to give this speech, it would have been severely less significant. President Obama was at a point in his campaign where it was appropriate and necessary to indentify and rearrange the questions being brought in front of him. He stated, “This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough"… And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.” If anyone else were to address these issues, it wouldn’t have had the same impact.
The agency of this speech was an address to the nation about all topics of race that had come up this far in his campaign. He addressed all aspects, his friends, his family, his staff, his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the nation as a whole, on the issues that had been brought to light in terms of race, throughout his campaign for presidency. What could have been a better time for unity to shine through? The future President nipped every issue in the bud by bringing them all to light and addressing each one personally. He needed to explain his background. He needed to explain his thoughts on Reverend Wright’s remarks. He needed to tell personal stories of experiences with racism that he had had. He needed to bring to light that it exists within everyone. (Which he did.) And he did so in a way that was least offensive. Thus far in his campaign it was stated that he was “too black” or “not black enough” as he said, however these needed to be addressed by him, without interruption. It was vital that he come right out and address it head on, in front of the nation.
The purpose was to was to better his campaign. By addressing the nation about issues that are presently being brought to light during his candidacy he was about to better his image in running for President. By giving this speech he was able to identify with many races.
Another purpose that makes sense in my own opinion was his many references to his pastor, Reverend Wright. I believe many expected him to dismiss the reverend, and if he had he would have been doing what the media wanted him to do. It would have chalked one up for the media and zero for the running candidate. I was glad he didn’t do what was maybe expected. He brought light to the idea that racism touches everyone. Instead of giving in and saying, “What Mr. Wright said was wrong”, he simply stated he disagreed. He brought out the idea that even his own grandmother had racial thoughts that he disagreed with. He made everyone equal, which was tough to go about.
The act of President Obama’s speech ties in with the purpose. He was doing this to address the constant criticism at that time about his childhood pastor, and race (in general) in America. He broadened the thought and made it equal to all American’s no matter their racial background.
This speech was not only delivered at an appropriate time, not only delivered by the right person but delivered in such a way that made the speech unique to each listener in their own way. Burke’s elements of the Pentad help me organize my opinions in a way to allow me to understand purposeful meaning of the speech.
Danielle Hritzak
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
HANG UP THE PHONE & DRIVE!!!
In the United States as of October 2008, over 266 million people subscribed to wireless phone services such as Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel, compared with approximately 4.3 million in 1990, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.
Since the purchasing of cell phones has increased, so has the number of people using their cell phones while driving either in a car, or some other type of mobilized vehicle. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell phone use, including text messaging. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing and/or typing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the road is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of people in other vehicles and pedestrians.
According to The Governors Highway Safety Association, New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey and Washington have all banned the use of cell phones while driving. With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place. Pennsylvania on the other hand has no laws whatsoever prohibiting any type of cell phone use while operating a vehicle.
A researcher of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis said around 2,600 people die each year as a result of this use of the technology, another 330,000 are believed injured. According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) survey released in March 2005, eight percent of drivers, or 1.2 million people, are using handheld or hands-free cell phones at any given time during daylight hours. That's double the number from just four years ago. A survey of dangerous driver behavior was released in January 2007 by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. The survey of 1,200 drivers found that 73 percent talk on cell phones while driving. Cell phone use was highest among young drivers.
I’m not saying, I never use my cell phone while driving, because sometimes I do. What I am saying is it’s not safe to become so wrapped up in the conversation that you lose all concentration on the road. Technology keeps advancing and we’re producing cell phones with full keyboards and touch screens that are ultra sensitive, all it takes is just a second for your eyes to wander away from the road, and your life could end. All because of a call you couldn’t miss or an urgent text message that couldn’t wait.
Ruth Whispell
Wilkes University 11'
Since the purchasing of cell phones has increased, so has the number of people using their cell phones while driving either in a car, or some other type of mobilized vehicle. There are two dangers associated with driving and cell phone use, including text messaging. First, drivers must take their eyes off the road while dialing and/or typing. Second, people can become so absorbed in their conversations that their ability to concentrate on the road is severely impaired, jeopardizing the safety of people in other vehicles and pedestrians.
According to The Governors Highway Safety Association, New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey and Washington have all banned the use of cell phones while driving. With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place. Pennsylvania on the other hand has no laws whatsoever prohibiting any type of cell phone use while operating a vehicle.
A researcher of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis said around 2,600 people die each year as a result of this use of the technology, another 330,000 are believed injured. According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) survey released in March 2005, eight percent of drivers, or 1.2 million people, are using handheld or hands-free cell phones at any given time during daylight hours. That's double the number from just four years ago. A survey of dangerous driver behavior was released in January 2007 by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. The survey of 1,200 drivers found that 73 percent talk on cell phones while driving. Cell phone use was highest among young drivers.
I’m not saying, I never use my cell phone while driving, because sometimes I do. What I am saying is it’s not safe to become so wrapped up in the conversation that you lose all concentration on the road. Technology keeps advancing and we’re producing cell phones with full keyboards and touch screens that are ultra sensitive, all it takes is just a second for your eyes to wander away from the road, and your life could end. All because of a call you couldn’t miss or an urgent text message that couldn’t wait.
Ruth Whispell
Wilkes University 11'
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Burke's Dramatistic Pentad Critique
Act, Scene, Agent, Agency, Purpose. These are the five main parts of Kenneth Burke's "pentad," which make up his drama oriented critical methodology. Simple yet effective, these five parts are an effective way to understand and explain rhetorical situations.
This methodology is centered around the critical technique developed by Burke, dramatism, and is essentially based off the concept of motive; i.e. the reasons why people do the things they do. According to Burke in his book, "Grammar of Motives," published in 1945, "Motives are the particular way people understand events and the recommendations for response inherent to the discourse that it presents for its audience. Burke's theory and understanding that our life is essentially drama teaches us about persuasion and rhetoric and their effect on our lives as well as, effectiveness within them.
Understanding how to apply Burke's pentad to rhetorical situations can be an efficient way to identify persuasion and it's effectiveness and help us to inevitably understand particular rhetorical events. More generally speaking, the pentad can be used to explain and analyze almost any thing that happens in the world, whether it is a physical action or even what someone would say or think.
For this assignment we will examine, Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall's discussion/ lecture on "What America's First Woman President Should Learn from the 2008 Campaign" and use Burke's drama oriented critical methodology to determine the overall effectiveness of this rhetorical situation and understand the basic concepts of this rhetorical situation.
First and foremost, we'll identify the Agent. In this case it is clear that there is one person mainly driving this rhetorical situation and communicating with the audience, which would be Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall. All the ideas and topics discussed come from her own opinion and knowledge of the situation as well as her intellect on the subject matter. In some instances however, the act can identify more than one person and/or a group of people, such as the examples of women in history who have sought the position of commander in chief Dr. Elmes-Crahall provided throughout the discussion.
Second, we will identify the Scene. Dr. Elmes-Crahall gave her lecture in a rather spacious room that was similar to that of a classroom. There were long tables lined with chairs at which were a group of roughly 20 to 30 people. Amongst her audience were students, peers and colleagues. There was a decent mix of men and women however, the women did outnumber the men, which could possibly be in direct correlation to the topic of her discussion. Although the men were outnumbered, they seemed to more fully engage in the Q&A section of the lecture.
Considering she was talking about a "future female President," males may not have been as open or interested in the idea as females were, therefore causing the turnout to be more saturated with women. Given the amount of men that were there did possibly affect the nature of the speaker's need to persuade the audience. Although this was not prevalent in the Agent's rhetoric, it is something to be considered.
Next is Agency, or how the agent acted and/or by what means did they act. In this particular rhetorical situation, the Agent used a predetermined, yet subtly structured and free flowing speech style to speak to her audience. While it was apparent that preparation measures were taken to formulate the basic organization and fluency of the lecture, it still maintained a conversational tone, even without the open exchange of dialogue until the very end.
The Agent used video clips to strengthen her persuasion tactics and reinforce her main points. Also, the visual aspect of the videos broke up the monotony of hearing the message portrayed only by the Agent. Verbal as well as non-verbal communication were both key in portraying the message in this rhetorical situation.
Also, her main ideas and argument which she emphasized with the examples of the potential female presidential candidates in the history of our country, spoke within itself about her message. Women are becoming more and more prevalent in major roles of leadership and it’s only a matter of time before we have one in the head of the white house.
Followed by Agency, there is Act. In this lecture style discussion, the audience intently listened to the speaker without interruption or participation, until the end where the floor was open to discussion for questions and feedback. This particular style of rhetoric controlled the interaction and gave the Agent the chance to send her message uninterrupted yet still engage in dialogue with her audience.
Speaking on the topic of female Presidential candidates and what they can learn from the most recent election, the Agent reflected on how the candidates incorporated new technology and the internet to promote a more effective campaign. The main lesson pointed out here was that the Internet will now frame future elections. Privacy will be almost completely diminished and everything you do and have done is public domain.
She also talked about the likelihood of a future female President based on women in the past who have ran and been in positions of leadership, such as Victoria Woodhull and Belva Ann Lockwood. Citing examples of how over time the odds of females in roles of leadership, especially one of the most supreme importance, is becoming more and more likely and widely accepted.
Now before we continue, the relationship between the Agent and the Act must be addressed. Identifying a ratio here shows how the act flows from the nature or qualities of the agent, who may then, in turn, be modified by the act. In this instance, being that the Agent is a prominent and respected female within her field, this fuels her passion to speak on the topic and on behalf of other respected women in leadership positions, essentially performing the Act.
Due to the nature of the Act, her language was more emotional and her style a bit formal as to demand attention respectably from some of the males in the audience. In this ration, it can be seen that the act is indeed shaped by the Agent, and had the Agent been someone else it may not have been as effective.
Lastly, we will discuss Purpose. The purpose of this particular act was to inform and enlighten everyone about women in prominent leadership positions and what they need to recognize and embrace in the future to be effective in their campaigns. It was a way of recognizing those who have paved the way and how far females have come in the role of leadership, specifically emphasizing the 2008 campaign as a benchmark for females in today's society.
By analyzing this rhetorical situation through Burke's pentad, we can better identify the motives behind it and thus understand the rhetoric and means of persuasion more effectively. In this case it is clear that bringing light to females as prominent leaders is becoming more and more important and being the agent is a prominent leader herself, her means of portraying this message was bridged by the logic of her knowledge and the persuasive intent of her strong emotional and gender based appeal.
Her ability to impress with the use of examples and the analysis of the progress of women in leadership, shows her passion about the topic and the desire to inform and empower the movement. All in all, this rhetorical situation was successful in it's own light, and on a grander scale would be interesting to see it's effect against the lingering inequality in genders.
Allison Kulik
Wilkes University, '09
Communications
This methodology is centered around the critical technique developed by Burke, dramatism, and is essentially based off the concept of motive; i.e. the reasons why people do the things they do. According to Burke in his book, "Grammar of Motives," published in 1945, "Motives are the particular way people understand events and the recommendations for response inherent to the discourse that it presents for its audience. Burke's theory and understanding that our life is essentially drama teaches us about persuasion and rhetoric and their effect on our lives as well as, effectiveness within them.
Understanding how to apply Burke's pentad to rhetorical situations can be an efficient way to identify persuasion and it's effectiveness and help us to inevitably understand particular rhetorical events. More generally speaking, the pentad can be used to explain and analyze almost any thing that happens in the world, whether it is a physical action or even what someone would say or think.
For this assignment we will examine, Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall's discussion/ lecture on "What America's First Woman President Should Learn from the 2008 Campaign" and use Burke's drama oriented critical methodology to determine the overall effectiveness of this rhetorical situation and understand the basic concepts of this rhetorical situation.
First and foremost, we'll identify the Agent. In this case it is clear that there is one person mainly driving this rhetorical situation and communicating with the audience, which would be Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall. All the ideas and topics discussed come from her own opinion and knowledge of the situation as well as her intellect on the subject matter. In some instances however, the act can identify more than one person and/or a group of people, such as the examples of women in history who have sought the position of commander in chief Dr. Elmes-Crahall provided throughout the discussion.
Second, we will identify the Scene. Dr. Elmes-Crahall gave her lecture in a rather spacious room that was similar to that of a classroom. There were long tables lined with chairs at which were a group of roughly 20 to 30 people. Amongst her audience were students, peers and colleagues. There was a decent mix of men and women however, the women did outnumber the men, which could possibly be in direct correlation to the topic of her discussion. Although the men were outnumbered, they seemed to more fully engage in the Q&A section of the lecture.
Considering she was talking about a "future female President," males may not have been as open or interested in the idea as females were, therefore causing the turnout to be more saturated with women. Given the amount of men that were there did possibly affect the nature of the speaker's need to persuade the audience. Although this was not prevalent in the Agent's rhetoric, it is something to be considered.
Next is Agency, or how the agent acted and/or by what means did they act. In this particular rhetorical situation, the Agent used a predetermined, yet subtly structured and free flowing speech style to speak to her audience. While it was apparent that preparation measures were taken to formulate the basic organization and fluency of the lecture, it still maintained a conversational tone, even without the open exchange of dialogue until the very end.
The Agent used video clips to strengthen her persuasion tactics and reinforce her main points. Also, the visual aspect of the videos broke up the monotony of hearing the message portrayed only by the Agent. Verbal as well as non-verbal communication were both key in portraying the message in this rhetorical situation.
Also, her main ideas and argument which she emphasized with the examples of the potential female presidential candidates in the history of our country, spoke within itself about her message. Women are becoming more and more prevalent in major roles of leadership and it’s only a matter of time before we have one in the head of the white house.
Followed by Agency, there is Act. In this lecture style discussion, the audience intently listened to the speaker without interruption or participation, until the end where the floor was open to discussion for questions and feedback. This particular style of rhetoric controlled the interaction and gave the Agent the chance to send her message uninterrupted yet still engage in dialogue with her audience.
Speaking on the topic of female Presidential candidates and what they can learn from the most recent election, the Agent reflected on how the candidates incorporated new technology and the internet to promote a more effective campaign. The main lesson pointed out here was that the Internet will now frame future elections. Privacy will be almost completely diminished and everything you do and have done is public domain.
She also talked about the likelihood of a future female President based on women in the past who have ran and been in positions of leadership, such as Victoria Woodhull and Belva Ann Lockwood. Citing examples of how over time the odds of females in roles of leadership, especially one of the most supreme importance, is becoming more and more likely and widely accepted.
Now before we continue, the relationship between the Agent and the Act must be addressed. Identifying a ratio here shows how the act flows from the nature or qualities of the agent, who may then, in turn, be modified by the act. In this instance, being that the Agent is a prominent and respected female within her field, this fuels her passion to speak on the topic and on behalf of other respected women in leadership positions, essentially performing the Act.
Due to the nature of the Act, her language was more emotional and her style a bit formal as to demand attention respectably from some of the males in the audience. In this ration, it can be seen that the act is indeed shaped by the Agent, and had the Agent been someone else it may not have been as effective.
Lastly, we will discuss Purpose. The purpose of this particular act was to inform and enlighten everyone about women in prominent leadership positions and what they need to recognize and embrace in the future to be effective in their campaigns. It was a way of recognizing those who have paved the way and how far females have come in the role of leadership, specifically emphasizing the 2008 campaign as a benchmark for females in today's society.
By analyzing this rhetorical situation through Burke's pentad, we can better identify the motives behind it and thus understand the rhetoric and means of persuasion more effectively. In this case it is clear that bringing light to females as prominent leaders is becoming more and more important and being the agent is a prominent leader herself, her means of portraying this message was bridged by the logic of her knowledge and the persuasive intent of her strong emotional and gender based appeal.
Her ability to impress with the use of examples and the analysis of the progress of women in leadership, shows her passion about the topic and the desire to inform and empower the movement. All in all, this rhetorical situation was successful in it's own light, and on a grander scale would be interesting to see it's effect against the lingering inequality in genders.
Allison Kulik
Wilkes University, '09
Communications
A Burkean Analysis: Jane’s Speech on the First Woman Presidency
The world has seen its share of women in power, from rulers and queens to CEO’s of prominent corporations, from military leaders and suffragists to Senators and other political figures. While women in America have conquered most territories, one still has yet to be claimed by a female, the Presidency. The question is not whether we will see a woman President in our time for we have seen the tip of that iceberg and know now that the idea of a female in the White House is no longer imaginary but a great inevitable reality. The question she will need to face is what will it take for her to get there?
Before this question is answered, we need to take a Burkean view of the whole rhetorical act taking place. The Burkean Pentad consists of 5 parts: act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. The act in this case is a speech addressing women in political power in America in the past and what kind of woman will become the first lady President. The speech may have emotional undertones but for this speech to be effective it would really have to present evidence and logic to make a sound argument.
Jane Elmes-Crahall, a respected professor and rhetorician, served as the best agent for the speech on the future of a woman Presidency. Not only was she fluid in delivery and easy to understand but it was also very important for this speech to be given by a credible woman who is knowledgeable in current events and modern politics. If a man were to try and give this speech, it would most likely not have the same effect and may actually make the speaker come off as sexist and the speech would have carried a whole different meaning.
It is important that Jane critiqued the footsteps on the female path to power and politics because although men and women now more than ever have come to be almost completely equal, women are still not completely there and it is women who must empower other women to keep striving forward. Feminist issues are in the hands of both genders for support and refute but on this issue it is truly the woman who must critique her fellow woman because she understands better than the male, exactly what it’s like to be a female in power. If a man were to tell of how a woman is to reach the high place of Presidency it would almost be as though he is the one who is still in power and leading the way for females.
According to Burke, we attach meaning to symbols. Jane as the agent, served as a greater symbol than just someone who was giving a speech. She served as an empowered woman proving that females have a strong voice through not only her examples in the speech itself but through herself as well.
The next part of the pentad would look at the agency of the rhetorical event. The speech was delivered in a more conversational manner than rigid mainly because the agent did not use any notes. Although there was no script, the agent still managed to have an organized order of thoughts. If the speech were to be given from note cards or a teleprompter or anything else where it was scripted, it may not have held the attention of the audience quite as well.
Furthermore, the visual images help a great deal when keeping an audiences attention. The use of technology intertwined in the rhetorical event helped to present the argument in two different ways to the audience: verbally and visually. In an age where technology is so advanced and used as a key tool for politicians as well as anyone else, the inclusion of Youtube clips in the speech was not only a good idea but probably necessary. It made the speech more exciting and put faces to the names and stories of past women in American politics so that it was easier to relate what was going on then to what was happening now in the speech and in politics.
The scene for the rhetorical event allowed for the use of technology but it shaped the speech in other ways as well. Although there was a podium readily available, the agent did not make use of it. The more comfortable approach of walking around gave the agent range and made the act more interactive. It was less formalized and put the agent on an equal level with her audience. But let us not forget that this is still an important and serious speech to be made. The camera rolling in the back of the room, and the agent having a microphone clipped to her blouse are undertones of that importance.
The broader scene is framed by history. Intelligent, driven, and politically powerful women including Gracie Allen, Victoria Woodhall, Margaret Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Geraldine Ferraro, and Belva Ann Lockwood, and Hilliary Clinton were all cited in the speech as evidence that women have been so close to the Presidency for so long and that it is only a matter of time. These women have exhibited bravery and determination throughout the last century and are great examples of what it will take for the first woman President to get elected. Mrs. President will surely have to use many of these historical figures’ actions as guidelines to help get her there.
The final part to the Pentad is purpose. The purpose of this rhetorical event was to analyze women’s roles in politically powerful positions in the past, present, and future. The speech generated thought and ideas as to what it will take to become the first female President. For example, she must realize that anyone running for President will be stripped of privacy. Their private life becomes the business of the media and the property of the public. She must absolutely be technologically savvy in this day and age and ready to use the internet in her campaign. She must have a good life story that crosses generations that will be unforgettable and so that both young and old voters can identify with her. And she must have a singular message to get across to the American people.
It is very important for Americans to discuss the idea of a female President because it is truly inevitable. We are all affected by politics in our everyday lives whether we realize it or not and still many eyes need to be opened up to see change coming in the status quo of the American Presidency. President Barack Obama’s election into the White House was a racial ground breaking campaign and now that America has seen our first black President, the nation must realize it will soon see its first female.
Whitney Roper
Wilkes University, '11
Communications
Before this question is answered, we need to take a Burkean view of the whole rhetorical act taking place. The Burkean Pentad consists of 5 parts: act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. The act in this case is a speech addressing women in political power in America in the past and what kind of woman will become the first lady President. The speech may have emotional undertones but for this speech to be effective it would really have to present evidence and logic to make a sound argument.
Jane Elmes-Crahall, a respected professor and rhetorician, served as the best agent for the speech on the future of a woman Presidency. Not only was she fluid in delivery and easy to understand but it was also very important for this speech to be given by a credible woman who is knowledgeable in current events and modern politics. If a man were to try and give this speech, it would most likely not have the same effect and may actually make the speaker come off as sexist and the speech would have carried a whole different meaning.
It is important that Jane critiqued the footsteps on the female path to power and politics because although men and women now more than ever have come to be almost completely equal, women are still not completely there and it is women who must empower other women to keep striving forward. Feminist issues are in the hands of both genders for support and refute but on this issue it is truly the woman who must critique her fellow woman because she understands better than the male, exactly what it’s like to be a female in power. If a man were to tell of how a woman is to reach the high place of Presidency it would almost be as though he is the one who is still in power and leading the way for females.
According to Burke, we attach meaning to symbols. Jane as the agent, served as a greater symbol than just someone who was giving a speech. She served as an empowered woman proving that females have a strong voice through not only her examples in the speech itself but through herself as well.
The next part of the pentad would look at the agency of the rhetorical event. The speech was delivered in a more conversational manner than rigid mainly because the agent did not use any notes. Although there was no script, the agent still managed to have an organized order of thoughts. If the speech were to be given from note cards or a teleprompter or anything else where it was scripted, it may not have held the attention of the audience quite as well.
Furthermore, the visual images help a great deal when keeping an audiences attention. The use of technology intertwined in the rhetorical event helped to present the argument in two different ways to the audience: verbally and visually. In an age where technology is so advanced and used as a key tool for politicians as well as anyone else, the inclusion of Youtube clips in the speech was not only a good idea but probably necessary. It made the speech more exciting and put faces to the names and stories of past women in American politics so that it was easier to relate what was going on then to what was happening now in the speech and in politics.
The scene for the rhetorical event allowed for the use of technology but it shaped the speech in other ways as well. Although there was a podium readily available, the agent did not make use of it. The more comfortable approach of walking around gave the agent range and made the act more interactive. It was less formalized and put the agent on an equal level with her audience. But let us not forget that this is still an important and serious speech to be made. The camera rolling in the back of the room, and the agent having a microphone clipped to her blouse are undertones of that importance.
The broader scene is framed by history. Intelligent, driven, and politically powerful women including Gracie Allen, Victoria Woodhall, Margaret Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Geraldine Ferraro, and Belva Ann Lockwood, and Hilliary Clinton were all cited in the speech as evidence that women have been so close to the Presidency for so long and that it is only a matter of time. These women have exhibited bravery and determination throughout the last century and are great examples of what it will take for the first woman President to get elected. Mrs. President will surely have to use many of these historical figures’ actions as guidelines to help get her there.
The final part to the Pentad is purpose. The purpose of this rhetorical event was to analyze women’s roles in politically powerful positions in the past, present, and future. The speech generated thought and ideas as to what it will take to become the first female President. For example, she must realize that anyone running for President will be stripped of privacy. Their private life becomes the business of the media and the property of the public. She must absolutely be technologically savvy in this day and age and ready to use the internet in her campaign. She must have a good life story that crosses generations that will be unforgettable and so that both young and old voters can identify with her. And she must have a singular message to get across to the American people.
It is very important for Americans to discuss the idea of a female President because it is truly inevitable. We are all affected by politics in our everyday lives whether we realize it or not and still many eyes need to be opened up to see change coming in the status quo of the American Presidency. President Barack Obama’s election into the White House was a racial ground breaking campaign and now that America has seen our first black President, the nation must realize it will soon see its first female.
Whitney Roper
Wilkes University, '11
Communications
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE TO BINGHAMTON TRAGEDY
“In Binghamton, someone…allegedly shot and killed up to 12 or 13 people...” explained Vice President Joe Biden today to a crowd which answered him with a clear, pronounced, and collective gasp laden with shock and disbelief.
The reaction observed at the National Action Network’s convention in New York City reminded me of how classmates and faculty at Wilkes University reacted. Much like those listening to Vice President Biden, we had spent our day in a conference, ironically discussing the importance of journalism and mass media, only to find that the world of journalism and mass media had frantically been trying to inform us, since 10:30 that morning, of these events. We gasped to express our shock and our disbelief.
The shock and disbelief felt did not stop at college students and civil rights activists. It extended to the highest figures, both locally in Binghamton, as police chief Joseph Zikuski explained the press, “[t]his is Binghamton, and we don’t have these tragedies,” as well as nationally and internationally as President Barack Obama explained in a statement given from France, "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, NY today."
Prayer services are being held at churches and on campuses in Binghamton, and I can name more than a few people in Wilkes-Barre who have turned to their faith to react to this tragedy. President Obama and Vice President Biden both asked the nation to pray for Binghamton.
And that is exactly what we’ll do. So how does a presidential administration react to a national tragedy? The same way we all do, perhaps the only way we, as Americans, know: with shock, disbelief, and, of course, prayer.
Monica Turner
Wilkes University, '10
Communications
The reaction observed at the National Action Network’s convention in New York City reminded me of how classmates and faculty at Wilkes University reacted. Much like those listening to Vice President Biden, we had spent our day in a conference, ironically discussing the importance of journalism and mass media, only to find that the world of journalism and mass media had frantically been trying to inform us, since 10:30 that morning, of these events. We gasped to express our shock and our disbelief.
The shock and disbelief felt did not stop at college students and civil rights activists. It extended to the highest figures, both locally in Binghamton, as police chief Joseph Zikuski explained the press, “[t]his is Binghamton, and we don’t have these tragedies,” as well as nationally and internationally as President Barack Obama explained in a statement given from France, "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, NY today."
Prayer services are being held at churches and on campuses in Binghamton, and I can name more than a few people in Wilkes-Barre who have turned to their faith to react to this tragedy. President Obama and Vice President Biden both asked the nation to pray for Binghamton.
And that is exactly what we’ll do. So how does a presidential administration react to a national tragedy? The same way we all do, perhaps the only way we, as Americans, know: with shock, disbelief, and, of course, prayer.
Monica Turner
Wilkes University, '10
Communications
Why Dr. Kinney’s Lecture on Heroes Touched Listeners: A Rhetorical Analysis
Kenneth Burke believed that all of life was drama. He believed we could discover the motives behind people by watching how they motivate others in their actions and communication. He set up what he called the “pentad”, which are five questions to ask of any discourse to begin discovering the motive behind it. The five parts of the Pentad are as follows: the act, the scene, the agent, the agency and the purpose.
The act is what happened. What is the action and what exactly is going on. The scene accounts for where the act is taking place and what is the background of the situation. The agent is who is involved in this action and what roles to they play in it. Agency is how the agents act and the purpose is why do the agents act? What is their motive; what do they want from the situation?
For this paper I will specifically be concentrating my analysis on Dr. Bradford Kinney’s speech given on March 19, 2009 entitled “In Search of a Hero.” First, I will discuss the act. On that Thursday night around 6:60p.m Dr. Jane Elmes Crahall took the stage to introduce Dr. Kinney as well as to inform the audience about Dr. Kinney’s remarkable teaching career. She mentioned his impressive credentials which allowed the audience to believe that he is well informed and knowledgeable about the subject which he is lecturing. He then gave his speech in front of about twenty - twenty-five people. His speech concentrated on defining what exactly a hero is, as well as what it’s like to search for a hero in this day and age of war, trying times and the worst economic situation since the depression. He spoke about how there has been an upsurge of hero worship since September 11, 2001 because people are just looking for someone to help them deal with that tragic, life altering event. He gave many examples of real life heroes dating back to the beginning of this great nation, up to the 20th century heroes. Dr. Kinney’s speech ended in a very inspiring way that actually brought me to tears. He talked about how we all have to take that first step to becoming our own hero’s because we deserve to be. He reminded his audience that complaining will not accomplish anything, and ended by saying “let yourself become tomorrow’s hero, today.”
Although it was mentioned that Dr. Kinney had given a similar speech at the prestigious Chautauqua Institute in New York, he was giving this modified speech at the Marts Center on the campus in which he teaches, Wilkes University. As I sat in the back of the room I couldn’t help but be distracted by the numerous pictures that were hanging behind Dr. Kinney. He was very interesting and I’m not saying his speech wasn’t interesting enough to hold my attention; it just seems to me that my attention as well as others could have been more easily held had there not been a wall full of plaques hanging in the background. Like I stated above, Dr. Kinney had given this speech in 2000 at the Chautauqua Institute in New York. As part of Zebra’s 10th Anniversary, it was decided for Dr. Kinney that he would be delivering a speech to the public and so he decided to revise his old speech and update it to fit the times of today.
Because Dr. Kinney was delivering the speech, it would seem to me that he would be considered the main agent in the speech. However, I could argue that the many people he mentioned in his speech could also act as co-agents. For example, he mentioned American heroes such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the men and women of the armed forced, and many more. At first, I didn’t necessarily agree with some of the people Dr. Kinney mentioned as heroes because in my opinion, the word “hero” is a relative term and can only be defined on a personal level. I don’t think that everyone can share one common hero because actions can be interpreted in many different ways, therefore if someone does some “act” it can be seen as heroic by some, but not by others. However, after listening to the lecture and the discussion after, I realized the point Dr. Kinney was trying to make. Although he did mention many specific heroes, I think the point he was trying to make was that we all need to be our own hero therefore even including us as agents.
Agency refers to how the person acts. Dr. Kinney has been a speech and debate teacher for many years and all his experience has lead him to be a fantastic public speaker. His performance was energetic, lively and entertaining. As far as the purpose of his speech, I think Dr. Kinney’s purpose was to inspire those to be their own hero. To take action and not only be their own hero, but try to be the best person you can possibly be and maybe one day be a hero to someone else. Overall I loved Dr. Kinney’s speech and it did everything a speech should do. It was definitely inspiring and motivational.
Maureen Iskra
Wilkes University, '10
Communications
The act is what happened. What is the action and what exactly is going on. The scene accounts for where the act is taking place and what is the background of the situation. The agent is who is involved in this action and what roles to they play in it. Agency is how the agents act and the purpose is why do the agents act? What is their motive; what do they want from the situation?
For this paper I will specifically be concentrating my analysis on Dr. Bradford Kinney’s speech given on March 19, 2009 entitled “In Search of a Hero.” First, I will discuss the act. On that Thursday night around 6:60p.m Dr. Jane Elmes Crahall took the stage to introduce Dr. Kinney as well as to inform the audience about Dr. Kinney’s remarkable teaching career. She mentioned his impressive credentials which allowed the audience to believe that he is well informed and knowledgeable about the subject which he is lecturing. He then gave his speech in front of about twenty - twenty-five people. His speech concentrated on defining what exactly a hero is, as well as what it’s like to search for a hero in this day and age of war, trying times and the worst economic situation since the depression. He spoke about how there has been an upsurge of hero worship since September 11, 2001 because people are just looking for someone to help them deal with that tragic, life altering event. He gave many examples of real life heroes dating back to the beginning of this great nation, up to the 20th century heroes. Dr. Kinney’s speech ended in a very inspiring way that actually brought me to tears. He talked about how we all have to take that first step to becoming our own hero’s because we deserve to be. He reminded his audience that complaining will not accomplish anything, and ended by saying “let yourself become tomorrow’s hero, today.”
Although it was mentioned that Dr. Kinney had given a similar speech at the prestigious Chautauqua Institute in New York, he was giving this modified speech at the Marts Center on the campus in which he teaches, Wilkes University. As I sat in the back of the room I couldn’t help but be distracted by the numerous pictures that were hanging behind Dr. Kinney. He was very interesting and I’m not saying his speech wasn’t interesting enough to hold my attention; it just seems to me that my attention as well as others could have been more easily held had there not been a wall full of plaques hanging in the background. Like I stated above, Dr. Kinney had given this speech in 2000 at the Chautauqua Institute in New York. As part of Zebra’s 10th Anniversary, it was decided for Dr. Kinney that he would be delivering a speech to the public and so he decided to revise his old speech and update it to fit the times of today.
Because Dr. Kinney was delivering the speech, it would seem to me that he would be considered the main agent in the speech. However, I could argue that the many people he mentioned in his speech could also act as co-agents. For example, he mentioned American heroes such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the men and women of the armed forced, and many more. At first, I didn’t necessarily agree with some of the people Dr. Kinney mentioned as heroes because in my opinion, the word “hero” is a relative term and can only be defined on a personal level. I don’t think that everyone can share one common hero because actions can be interpreted in many different ways, therefore if someone does some “act” it can be seen as heroic by some, but not by others. However, after listening to the lecture and the discussion after, I realized the point Dr. Kinney was trying to make. Although he did mention many specific heroes, I think the point he was trying to make was that we all need to be our own hero therefore even including us as agents.
Agency refers to how the person acts. Dr. Kinney has been a speech and debate teacher for many years and all his experience has lead him to be a fantastic public speaker. His performance was energetic, lively and entertaining. As far as the purpose of his speech, I think Dr. Kinney’s purpose was to inspire those to be their own hero. To take action and not only be their own hero, but try to be the best person you can possibly be and maybe one day be a hero to someone else. Overall I loved Dr. Kinney’s speech and it did everything a speech should do. It was definitely inspiring and motivational.
Maureen Iskra
Wilkes University, '10
Communications
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Burkean Analysis: On the Anniversary of Candidate Obama’s “Race Speech”
Kenneth Burke believed that rhetoric/symbols are embedded in all human beings and events. His fundamental methodology, “The dramatistic pentad,” is used as a guide for discovering motive and uniqueness in each rhetorical event. The pentad includes act, agency, agent, scene, and purpose. This is not a “cookie cutter” method, is a flexible means of “framing” rhetorical events, and conclusions are drawn about the motive, uniqueness of the message and purpose. (Then candidate for president) Obama’s speech on Race delivered across from Constitution Hall in Philadelphia is an excellent speech to analyze using this message in order to unfold the drama happening in March 2008 and take into account the 5 major aspects of the pentad in order to have a more thorough interpretation of the speech and what it meant.
An outline of the dramatistic pentad framing the speech is as follows:
Act: Candidate Obama delivering a speech about race, March 18, 2008 in Philadelphia, PA.
Agent: Candidate Obama
Agency: A nationally televised speech
Scene: In the midst of the primary elections. People are focusing in on Obama’s race as a strength and deterrent when considering him for the presidency. Scandal involving Obama’s reverend saying anti-white comments in his sermon—thus could possibly harm his campaign because Obama “associates” with this man.
Purpose: To put the “race” issue to bed in order to move on with his campaign and also to combat the bad comments made by his reverend and spin it in order to play down the hype. Also to unify the nation regardless of race in order to better the country.
The act is rather simple, it is candidate Obama giving a speech about race in March 2008 in Philadelphia and the agency is that it was a nationally televised speech. What makes it more complex is when one examines the 4 other elements of the pentad which give the event a deeper meaning.
Starting with agent, candidate Obama is a strong-willed individual with a turbulent childhood, who persevered through the hard times coming from nothing to make a successful politician of himself. Obama, to many people, is symbolic of the “American dream”—people who come from a very modest background and achieve more than anyone could have imagined for them based on their upbringing. What was refreshing about Obama was that he set himself apart early in the race as not following the “same old Washington politics” and trying to keep his campaign from being too negative. He is straightforward, thoughtful, and smart. If he doesn’t know an answer he will admit it and also admit where his opponents are right, as he did in the debates with John McCain in the fall of 2008. He wanted to unify Washington so all parties can co-exist and work in harmony to get things done. He was a breath of fresh air to the otherwise stale politics of the past. Also being half-black/African, he had the issue of race to overcome since he would be the first African American president if elected.
Looking at the scene, it was not the best atmosphere. Obama was battling the issue of race being brought up by everyone from his opponents and reporters to average citizens. Could a man of color really be the next president of the United States? And to add fuel to the fire, his reverend had made anti-white comments in his sermons which the media took and ran with spinning it and his opposition using it against him. So there were many hurdles Obama had to clear with this speech as well as advancing himself in the primary in hopes to beat Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination.
Obama’s overall purpose of the speech seemed to be to put the issue of race “to bed” so it was not a factor and he could be looked at for his ideas and proposals rather than his physical attributes. Also it was a great PR tactic in order to spin off the negative comments made by the reverend. He was sincere, honest, and straightforward when delivering the speech as if to say to America, “Look everyone makes mistakes and while I may not look like a typical president my ideas are valid and I can move this country forward.” It’s this straightforward, dealing with conflict head on that drove many people to support him in the primaries and in November. He built credibility by not running away from scandals and problems but addressing them and then moving on.
It was interesting to note how much Obama used narrative in his speeches and particularly in this speech as well. In the beginning of the speech he references Constitution Hall and how the Declaration of Independence was signed “unfinished.” Then he remarks how we struggled to get equality through “protests and struggle.” It was almost as if he was saying this one document did not solve all the problems our country had at the time and therefore electing him wouldn’t be a quick fix, but he was willing “to continue of long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal more free….America.” Then he launches into a quick autobiography about himself. I noticed how he mentioned he has family of “every hue,” thus saying that he is well rounded and not “black-centric.” Also at the end of his short autobiography he remarks, “…that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” Here he builds the morale of Americans up and sets us apart while being humble and saying to the people that he realizes that this country is the reason he was able to become something great and realize the American dream.
The overarching theme of this speech was unity. He starts with remarking about forming a “more perfect union” and ends the speech with the reference to Constitution hall and our forefathers trying to form a more perfect union. In a way his speech was saying to the people that while he is a different color, we all are different and we need to band together to form a “more perfect union” in order to get through the hardships that face our country.
He directly addresses Rev. Wright’s remarks by explaining the bitterness and memories of humiliation that have not passed since he grew up during the civil rights era. Also in the speech he remarks that if all one knew about Rev. Wright were the clips of his offensive sermon played over and over by the media then it would cause them to draw fallacious conclusions too. Here he really hit the media and his competitor’s with logic and reasoning as well as a hefty dose of common sense. He does acknowledge that there is hate that still exists within the black community but also points out the white community harbors similar resentment since they are descendents of immigrants that worked hard to get ahead and seeing a black person get a good job instead of them does cause hatred and resentments over time. The he ties the two together by saying that both hatreds are counterproductive and have distracted us from the “real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed…” Here he shifts the blame and focus from race to economy and business. It is interesting to note how this unifies everyone in this one statement eradicating the race issue and focusing instead on the class issue and how it is more urgent that we take care of this problem instead of squabbling about race.
Back to the use of narrative in Obama’s speeches, he closes out this speech much like his others before and after by using a story about a 23 year old woman, Ashley Baia who organized his campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She organized an African American roundtable and shared her story about when he mom got cancer when she was 9 and how she ate mustard and relish sandwiches so they could afford her mother’s cancer treatments. When she asked an elderly black gentleman why he was there he said he was there because of Ashley. This is Obama’s punch line that hit hard and again stresses his goal of unity by dismissing racial tensions. A black man caring about a white girl is a start of what we could do as a nation to overcome the struggles that face the nation.
No other candidate could give this speech for obvious reasons. But also Obama’s life experience and who he is as a person is the driving force behind what made this speech so powerful and a pivotal turning point in the election. By looking at the major elements of Burke’s pentad it sheds light on the greater meaning behind the speech which was unity of all American regardless of race in order to solve the problems facing the nation.
Michele Flannery
Wilkes University, '10
Communication Studies
An outline of the dramatistic pentad framing the speech is as follows:
Act: Candidate Obama delivering a speech about race, March 18, 2008 in Philadelphia, PA.
Agent: Candidate Obama
Agency: A nationally televised speech
Scene: In the midst of the primary elections. People are focusing in on Obama’s race as a strength and deterrent when considering him for the presidency. Scandal involving Obama’s reverend saying anti-white comments in his sermon—thus could possibly harm his campaign because Obama “associates” with this man.
Purpose: To put the “race” issue to bed in order to move on with his campaign and also to combat the bad comments made by his reverend and spin it in order to play down the hype. Also to unify the nation regardless of race in order to better the country.
The act is rather simple, it is candidate Obama giving a speech about race in March 2008 in Philadelphia and the agency is that it was a nationally televised speech. What makes it more complex is when one examines the 4 other elements of the pentad which give the event a deeper meaning.
Starting with agent, candidate Obama is a strong-willed individual with a turbulent childhood, who persevered through the hard times coming from nothing to make a successful politician of himself. Obama, to many people, is symbolic of the “American dream”—people who come from a very modest background and achieve more than anyone could have imagined for them based on their upbringing. What was refreshing about Obama was that he set himself apart early in the race as not following the “same old Washington politics” and trying to keep his campaign from being too negative. He is straightforward, thoughtful, and smart. If he doesn’t know an answer he will admit it and also admit where his opponents are right, as he did in the debates with John McCain in the fall of 2008. He wanted to unify Washington so all parties can co-exist and work in harmony to get things done. He was a breath of fresh air to the otherwise stale politics of the past. Also being half-black/African, he had the issue of race to overcome since he would be the first African American president if elected.
Looking at the scene, it was not the best atmosphere. Obama was battling the issue of race being brought up by everyone from his opponents and reporters to average citizens. Could a man of color really be the next president of the United States? And to add fuel to the fire, his reverend had made anti-white comments in his sermons which the media took and ran with spinning it and his opposition using it against him. So there were many hurdles Obama had to clear with this speech as well as advancing himself in the primary in hopes to beat Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination.
Obama’s overall purpose of the speech seemed to be to put the issue of race “to bed” so it was not a factor and he could be looked at for his ideas and proposals rather than his physical attributes. Also it was a great PR tactic in order to spin off the negative comments made by the reverend. He was sincere, honest, and straightforward when delivering the speech as if to say to America, “Look everyone makes mistakes and while I may not look like a typical president my ideas are valid and I can move this country forward.” It’s this straightforward, dealing with conflict head on that drove many people to support him in the primaries and in November. He built credibility by not running away from scandals and problems but addressing them and then moving on.
It was interesting to note how much Obama used narrative in his speeches and particularly in this speech as well. In the beginning of the speech he references Constitution Hall and how the Declaration of Independence was signed “unfinished.” Then he remarks how we struggled to get equality through “protests and struggle.” It was almost as if he was saying this one document did not solve all the problems our country had at the time and therefore electing him wouldn’t be a quick fix, but he was willing “to continue of long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal more free….America.” Then he launches into a quick autobiography about himself. I noticed how he mentioned he has family of “every hue,” thus saying that he is well rounded and not “black-centric.” Also at the end of his short autobiography he remarks, “…that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” Here he builds the morale of Americans up and sets us apart while being humble and saying to the people that he realizes that this country is the reason he was able to become something great and realize the American dream.
The overarching theme of this speech was unity. He starts with remarking about forming a “more perfect union” and ends the speech with the reference to Constitution hall and our forefathers trying to form a more perfect union. In a way his speech was saying to the people that while he is a different color, we all are different and we need to band together to form a “more perfect union” in order to get through the hardships that face our country.
He directly addresses Rev. Wright’s remarks by explaining the bitterness and memories of humiliation that have not passed since he grew up during the civil rights era. Also in the speech he remarks that if all one knew about Rev. Wright were the clips of his offensive sermon played over and over by the media then it would cause them to draw fallacious conclusions too. Here he really hit the media and his competitor’s with logic and reasoning as well as a hefty dose of common sense. He does acknowledge that there is hate that still exists within the black community but also points out the white community harbors similar resentment since they are descendents of immigrants that worked hard to get ahead and seeing a black person get a good job instead of them does cause hatred and resentments over time. The he ties the two together by saying that both hatreds are counterproductive and have distracted us from the “real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed…” Here he shifts the blame and focus from race to economy and business. It is interesting to note how this unifies everyone in this one statement eradicating the race issue and focusing instead on the class issue and how it is more urgent that we take care of this problem instead of squabbling about race.
Back to the use of narrative in Obama’s speeches, he closes out this speech much like his others before and after by using a story about a 23 year old woman, Ashley Baia who organized his campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She organized an African American roundtable and shared her story about when he mom got cancer when she was 9 and how she ate mustard and relish sandwiches so they could afford her mother’s cancer treatments. When she asked an elderly black gentleman why he was there he said he was there because of Ashley. This is Obama’s punch line that hit hard and again stresses his goal of unity by dismissing racial tensions. A black man caring about a white girl is a start of what we could do as a nation to overcome the struggles that face the nation.
No other candidate could give this speech for obvious reasons. But also Obama’s life experience and who he is as a person is the driving force behind what made this speech so powerful and a pivotal turning point in the election. By looking at the major elements of Burke’s pentad it sheds light on the greater meaning behind the speech which was unity of all American regardless of race in order to solve the problems facing the nation.
Michele Flannery
Wilkes University, '10
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)