The Return of Eloquence
By Galen Pizzorno | Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Cicero once said, “I find that many cities have been founded, that the flames of a multitude of wars have been extinguished, and that the strongest alliances and most sacred friendships have been formed not only by the use of reason, but also more easily by the help of eloquence.” The art of speech—rhetoric—is unlike any other. Here is another description, courtesy of Dr. Jim Kuypers, one-time Dartmouth rhetoric professor: “Speech has at its heart the clash of ideas and the construction of an argumentative case. It marshals assertions and then backs them with evidence, all designed to influence a particular audience.”
Quite simply, rhetoric “is the art of ruling men’s minds” (Plato). If recent political trends—and the tactics driving them—are any indication, the importance of speech in today’s captive society is absolute. Which, given Dartmouth’s new Institute for Writing and Rhetoric, is good news for us here in Hanover, because now we can all take a crack at it. But memory reveals that this isn’t the first time rhetoric was taught at Dartmouth. In fact, the study of rhetoric has had a long and eventful history at Dartmouth—that is, until its untimely death in 2005. What caused its departure, and what did it used to look like? How will it look upon its return, and for that matter, why is it returning now?
At the turn of the 19th century, when Daniel Webster walked the Green, the art of speech was already an established part of campus. In 1920, President Hopkins formalized rhetoric into the Department of Speech, one of the first—and most highly regarded—in the nation. Yet despite the department’s subsequent success, the 80s and 90s saw its decline, first being downgraded to the Office of Speech in 1979, and then suffering numerous resignations and retirements due to the administration’s neglect.
Following mandates by the Board of Trustees to maintain “the instruction of speech at [its 1979] level,” plans were made to hire two new professors in the mid-90s. But continued lack of follow-through by the College took its toll, and by 1995, the office consisted of only one man: Professor Jim Kuypers. A staunch advocate of rhetoric’s centrality in a liberal education, Kuypers taught five classes a year and wrote five books over his decade at Dartmouth—but was never given tenure.
With support from faculty like future Provost Barry Scherr, Kuypers consistently fought for recognition from an unsympathetic College. In 1999, a faculty blue-ribbon panel was organized to assess Kuypers’s situation. It immediately decided a department “consisting of one individual is intrinsically flawed” and recommended the college “reactivate what was once a distinguished field of study at Dartmouth.” This included giving tenure to Kuypers, hiring two additional professors, and creating a minor in Rhetorical Studies. The panel concluded that “in order to face the world beyond college, students must speak effectively, be able to organize cogent arguments, and be ready to function in an increasingly team-oriented workplace.” Suggestions that rhetoric be subsumed by the Classics or English Departments were considered inadequate and short-sighted.
Complete disregard followed. Even rhetoric-enthusiast Dean Scherr’s promotion to Provost failed to topple the silent but stalwart opposition emanating from the highest levels of the administration. By 2005, the abysmal situation finally forced Kuypers’s resignation. In his controversial farewell, Kuypers voiced frustration over meetings with Dartmouth’s higher-ups, labeling Dean Carol Folt “utterly ignorant of the role of rhetoric within a liberal arts tradition.” He stated, “[Folt] went so far as to say that she taught speech in her science classes, so it was presumptuous of me to imply I was the only one teaching speech at Dartmouth College.” Though sad to see the well-loved professor go, students and faculty alike found it hard to blame Kuypers for accepting a tenured position at Virginia Tech, where a large and popular speech program resided; instead, community irritation focused on the administration—which seemed a little shocked by the reaction.
Now, less than three years later, the College has emphatically changed its tune. In late January, officials unveiled the new Institute for Writing and Rhetoric. Proclaiming “the ability to communicate ideas clearly and persuasively is an essential feature of a liberal arts education,” the College listed the following priorities of the new department: eliminating all exemptions from the writing requirement, ensuring all incoming students take two courses; adding two faculty positions in public speaking; introducing upper-level writing instructing in non-writing intensive disciplines; offering a wider array of more sophisticated writing courses; and, finally, expanding student support services, with emphasis on assistance for foreign languages. At the top of the to-do list are hiring an institute director and two new public speaking professors.
The real emphasis of the Institute seems to be revamping the existing writing program. The practical considerations of eliminating the writing exemption (which, according to Dean Lindsay Whaley, will require approximately 19 more writing classes) are nothing to scoff at. Still, the College has sent a clear message: rhetoric is important, and will once again be taught at Dartmouth. Interestingly, the College plans to tie together speech and writing, a source of both excitement and controversy in the modern academic community. The nature of this relationship has yet to be decided though, and according to Dean Lindsay Whaley, it will probably take “another couple years of discussion” to officially do so.
Professor Kuypers was kind enough to offer The Dartmouth Review his happy take on the news. Despite several concerns this paper has over the future of the Institute, Kuypers’s upbeat spin was heartening: “I’m thrilled to see that Dartmouth has revived the formal study and teaching of rhetoric at the College,” Kuypers commented. “I was a passionate advocate for this from my arrival in 1995 to my departure in 2005. So many Dartmouth students are hungry for this very type of instruction and practice.”
Indeed, revitalizing rhetoric is an important step towards continuing Dartmouth’s decorated history in the liberal arts. Yet, is the administration truly serious about rhetoric’s return? So far, most signs point to “yes.” The Institute has been promised a recently-renovated, ground-floor wing in Berry Library, prime territory on a crowded campus. It has also been decided that the Institute’s director will report to Dean Whaley, whom Kuypers commends. Others in the academic community have extolled the Institute on Higher Education’s webpage, which publicly summarized the changes.
Yet while plans to hire two lecturers for next year have already been put into motion, there is no word so far on whether the College will offer tenure positions in the Institute. Such a commitment would go a long ways towards rectifying the injustice Kuypers experienced—and convincing skeptics of the administration’s sincerity.
An equally important question is whether rhetoric’s independence in the Institute will be compromised by the already-established writing program. As mentioned, the official connection between the two has not been established. Karen Gocsik, Executive Director of the Writing Program, remarked “the Institute for Writing and Rhetoric will add breadth and depth to an already excellent writing program.” An admirable goal; but, one would hope, not the only one garnering attention: for speech to successfully return, it must not become a subsection of the existing writing program, but rather must reestablish its own unique place on campus. As emphasized by the 1999 faculty panel, rhetoric cannot return to prominence by being folded into another department.
Obviously, our worst fears cannot be absolved until the program is in place. In the past, basic courses on rhetoric included Informative Speaking, Persuasive Speaking, and Public Advocacy, as well as specialized courses in African American Oratory, Southern Oratory, Criticism of American Post-War Public Address, and Criticism of Conservative Rhetoric in America: Post WWII. Hopefully, next year’s public speaking courses will do justice to this past curriculum, which was enormously popular with students.
The Institute seems like good news, and good news is always welcome. Yet, we just have to ask: why the change of heart? With the Institute’s unveiling, Dean Folt stated the program will “provide Dartmouth students with an exceptional opportunity to develop vital skills that will last them a lifetime.” Yet in 2004, Folt and Kuypers came head to head when Folt “resolutely stated that…were she to have extra [resources], she would not give any to speech.”
Dare we ask, what is Kuypers’s opinion of the Folt of 2004 versus the Folt of today? Surprisingly, it’s quite positive: “I know it might appear strange to some that the administration has suddenly decided to support Speech, [but] I’m not so certain this is sudden at all,” said Kuypers. “I know Dean Lindsay Whaley has a great deal of knowledge about rhetoric. With his appointment as Dean, this knowledge is now part of the administration’s knowledge. And why can’t others change their minds when presented with new evidence, or old evidence in new form? I think it a sign of robust health in the administration when such can occur, and I respect this greatly.”
In other words, mistakes happen. Though it is a touch too optimistic to expect an open apology for three years without speech, at least the administration is willing to walk a new path in the face of community directives and a belated review of the evidence. Whether rhetoric’s several-decade fall from grace involved hidden agendas or foul play may never be known, but pointing fingers for its ultimate demise doesn’t seem right.
Still, it’d be nice to know why it took decades of neglect, considerable disregard for faculty opinions, and three speechless years to recognize a mistake. Kuypers has an explanation: “I think sometimes one has to lose something before one realizes what one had. This might just be the case of speech. Once it was gone, its absence was more noticeable than its actual presence was… an Office of one is easy to ignore.” Were one to compare Dartmouth’s substandard treatment of rhetoric to that of rival institutions over the last few years, the contrast would have been stark.
In the end, it’s not easy to forget recent history—despite some determined attempts to do so. The administration has stated, for example, that the “current changes are the culmination of six years of discussion coming out of multiple faculty committees and councils.” As we well know, discussion goes back almost a decade. That is, unless the well-known 1999 panel does not meet “discussion” standards.
Such discrepancies are hard to swallow for the more cynical among us. But weighed against the considerable improvements being made—and the commendations that have followed—learning to forgive and forget seems the best rhetorical strategy. Assuming speech is given a fair chance, the Institute for Writing and Rhetoric promises new hope to a dying Dartmouth legacy.
“I’m glad [rhetoric is] back,” commented Professor Kuypers. So should we all be.
|
