Association

Vol. xv i l l No. 3

Sciences • Public Address • Edu.

f- -.̂f EB 1 o

«adio-TV-Fiim • Arts

March, 1982

1981 PRESIDENTIALADDRESSAnita Taylor

Before starting, I want to say somethingthat is particularly relevant in my case. Iwant to say thanks. Holding this office is agreat honor—one I owe to many people,many of you here. It has been a real privi-lege, one I've very much enjoyed. Thanksto all of you.

An SCA President, as Jane Blankenshipsaid, begins to think about the Presidentialaddress as soon as when you are vice presi-dent you've finished planning the conven-tion. As I prepared, I didn't do what RonAllen did—read all the speeches of my pred-ecessors. 1 did, however, go back and readthe Presidential messages, those statementsof goals at the beginning of terms made byPresidents. I chose as the benchmark theadoption of our new constitution in 1970.It seemed to me that would give a bettersense of what each President tiiought oughtto be accomplished by the Association.

In reading those messages, I was struckby repetition of themes, and reminded of agreat speech by Jeff Auer in a 1978 speechto the Central States Speech Association.He quoted from the proceedings ofthe 17thconvention of the National Speech ArtsAssociation in 1908. He cited five themesas relevant when he spoke as in 1908, con-cluding that the challenge of yesterday isthe same challenge we face today—andprobably will be the same challenge facedtomorrow. How true that seemed as I readmessages of my recent predecessors. Theystated themes as relevant now as then—leaving us with an unfinished agenda. Ithink it important to address that unfin-ished agenda because for us the issue is sur-vival, and these items relate to that issue.

One of those items is the concern aboutour K-12 colleagues. Marguerite Metcalf,in the October 1974 Bulletin ofthe Associa-tion for Communication Administration,wrote of the shock of a high school teacherat her first SCA convention. (I understandthe feeling—my first SCA convention wasas an ABD graduate student—job hunting.Two hours of that in the cold gray of a Chi-cago Christmas break would depress any-one!) I doubt that Marguerite's shockwould be too much less today, though atleast now we have a K-12 Section with ac-cess to convention programming and the

continued, page 5

SCA JOURNALMANUSCRIPTS

Escalating postage costs have placed anincreasing burden on the Association and onthe universities where SCA journal editorsare based. To help control these costs theeditors of the Quarterly Journal of Speech,Communication Monographs, and Com-munication Education, working with theSCA Publications Board, have adopted auniform policy with respect to the returnof manuscripts. Effective immediately, edi-tors will return manuscripts only to thoseauthors who have provided a self-addressedreturn envelope bearing sufficient postage.This policy reflects the Board's beiief thatthe cost of returning manuscripts should beborne by authors and the Board's observa-tion that postage costs now sometimes ex-ceed the costs of making an additionalphotocopy.

Call for PapersThe Speech Communication Association

will sponsor a Conference on Communica-tion Apprehension to be held on November4, 1982, in conjunction with the Louisvilleconvention. The conference will include foursessions: I) conceptualization and measure-ment of CA and related constructs; 2) recentresearch on CA; 3) helping the CA student(with attention to different groups, K-6,7-12, college, foreign students, etc.); and4) a potpourri sharing session.

Attendance at the conference will be opento everyone at no charge. Individuals inter-ested in presenting papers in any of theabove areas should submit three copies oftheir paper or abstract to Professor ArdenWatson, Department of Communicationand Theatre, Western Kentucky Univer-sity, Bowling Green, KY 42101, by May 1,1982.

AFA CALL

AFA members with program ideas and/or specific papers for AFA convention pro-grams, contact immediately Jack Rhodes,Communication Department, University ofUtah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

Louisville, KY, site ofthe November 4-7,1982 SCA convention, is served by eightmajor airlines. Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland,Detroit, and Memphis are within an hour'sflying time.

RESEARCH EDITORIALEditorials are selected by the Research

Board for publication. Submissions of 500words or less should be made to the Boardchairperson: R. P. Hart, Dept. of SpeechCommunication, University of Texas,Austin, TX 78712.

THE SHAME OFSPEECH COMMUNICATION

Every scholarly profession with a researchheritage has a fringe element that exploitsthe research of the profession and drawsupon its substance for self aggrandizement:There are quack doctors, drive-in preachers,pop psychologists, and fraudulent publicservants. In speech communication we havethe organizational consultant, the publicrelations program, and the advertising de-gree. The shame is that the research in theseareas does not begin to warrant such a smor-gasbord of course offerings that stupefymore than they enlighten. I have beenwatching the growing numbers of studentsattracted to these activities and, frankly, Iam repulsed. I am repulsed by their moti-vations and by the boosterism that domi-nates academic departments who believethat they must pander to nineteen-year oldsraised in an era of declining quality ratherthan allow the extant scholarship and re-search to dictate pedagogical programs.The typical organizational and advertisingdegree is fueled by a lust for student credithours not by a research tradition.

At the risk of offending many, I will offermy assessment directly by saying that mostprograms in organizational communication,public relations, and advertising are narrow,theoretically vacuous, without a researchbase, and, just as an aside, morally degene-rate and politically naive. In the absence ofa long-standing research tradition or eventhe rudiments of a theory, these programsresort to reproducing themselves by con-vincing students (usually the weakest of theweak who are attracted to communication)that they can gain instant envy (not respec-tability) by donning three-piece suits andappearing to actually know something. Itis beyond me why some well-intentionedand capable university professors useGeorge Babbitt, P.T. Barnum, and DaleCarnegie as scholarly role models for their

continued

Spectra

Taylor, cont. from page 1formal structure ofthe organization. Thingshave to be somewhat better now. Still, aswe all know, it's the informal structure thatconveys satisfaction, and how many of ourK-12 people find themselves in that struc-ture? Yet it shouldn't be this way. As RonAllen wisely pointed out in 1975, "Hardlyanyone was ever born a college junior."'Nonetheless, it's true that those we hold inhighest repute at the moment (not ou/pa-triarchs and matriarchs of the past—yesthere were some, matriarchs that is—butthose we honor today) those folks seldomtalk to anyone younger than that unlessshe/he happens to be related to one.

Worse, most of us seldom talk to anyonewho teaches people younger than collegefreshmen. And worst ofall, most of us don'twant to. The fact that K-12 people aren'twelcome in the SCA is an issue still verymuch alive. Consistently, for example, onehears complaints about the LegislativeCouncil and the Nominating Committee—it's said they're too big to function effec-tively. (Of course, / can't imagine that any-one would find the Nominating Commit-tee's results unacceptable!) Notably, we'veopened up these groups to many persons"outside" the SCA mainstream.

Well, frankly, I just don't buy that thecurrent problems of this Association haveanything to do with adding non-universityteachers to our governing bodies. Where,in any way, has this limited what we do forour "maintstream?" What have we notdone as a result of the presence of K-12colleagues? Fewer convention programsfor public address, rhetoric and communi-cation theory, interpersonal and smallgroup interaction? Less access to high of-fice? Later journals? Fewer pages for jour-nal publication? Controversy over our "po-litical" actions? None of these are due topresence of high school and elementaryteachers in our midst.

And without strong speech programs inthe public schools at the K-12 level, wherewould the rest of us be? What would happento our Instructional Development Division?Our large graduate programs staffed byteaching assistants? Believe me, speechcommunication WILL be taught at theK-12 level. It's too vital not to be taught.And if not by speech teachers, it will betaught by English teachers, in Englishclasses, in English departments. Debate,theatre, mass communication, interpersonalcommunication—they will all be taught insecondary schools. The only questions are:Whether by our people or others? Whetherthe teachers' allegiance is to NCTE or tous?

Another item appears on that unfinishedagenda laid out by my predecessors. It, toomay be more relevant today than ever be-fore. This is our need to build links withother, like-minded organizations. This wasone of the four major goals Lloyd Bitzerset out for 1976. In this respect, I have al-ways liked a suggestion Gerald Miller in-

troduced at the Airlie conference on long-range goals in 1972. He suggested that theSCA should work "toward its own demise."

Well, by the time we rhetoricians gotthrough with his idea, it sounded quite dif-ferent. Preceded by two long paragraphs ofprose about the evolution of the SCA andthe fractionalization of the discipline since1914, the resolution read: we, the confereesat Airlie, "recommend that the SCA planfor its own structural and constitutional de-mise through the creation of a new organi-zational configuration that will draw mem-bership from a number of scholarly associ-ations and disciplines presently concernedwith the scientific and humanistic study ofhuman communication processes and withways to learn to improve one's skills atcommunication . . . ' And it went on withsome very divisive language about aban-doning orality as the central focus of the"association's concerns" and was to be im-plemented by a committee to define thecentral focus of the SCA. Can you imaginethat—a committee? To define what we areabout?

Most of you out there remember the nextfew years in which we argued about a cen-tral focus, established goals and prioritiesthrough various and sundry efforts, ex-amined how we might implement partici-patory decision-making in this large andunwieldy organization, and found variousimages to describe ourselves—ranging froman umbrella, to a constellation, to my moremundane (and borrowed) vegetable soup.

I certainly don't wish to reawaken allthose self-examination orgies. I do, how-ever, wish very much to unearth the wordsGerry suggested—regardless of what mayhave been his motivation, and quite di-vorced from any nonsense about a commit-tee to decide what we are all about. This As-sociation, this discipline, has not been bene-fited by fractionalization. Some individ-uals—able to get papers on several differentprograms—or elected to high office in morethan one association—these individualsmay have benefited. Our discipline has not.Instead of talking to each other, we haveseparated and talk about each other.

We are in a state that an evaluation teamat the University of Virginia can observeaccurately, as it did recently, that the fieldof speech communication is not "coherent,"and laud University of Virginia's depart-ment for limited emphasis because, "itprovides a force for coherence in the de-partment that the field of Speech Com-munication lacks on a national scale."'Many outsiders see us that way, and at leastpart of the perceived incoherence has tobe due to the fractionated nature of our as-sociations. Certainly, psychology is no morecoherent in subject matter scope or methodthan are we, but the APA has found a wayto keep most of the faithless in the fold,We have not. And we should.

If we have to give up a name and a struc-ture to bring dozens of communication-related associations together, that may be

a small price to pay for survival. It willprobably never happen—but just as I be-lieve in arms control, I still believe its agoal we should work toward.

Another item on our unfinished agendawe may think has been heard only in recentyears. But Jeff Auer noted from the historyof that earlier association—founded in 1892(which, of course, predated our immediateforebearer association)—that membershipin the National Speech Arts Associationwas open to "any teacher of the speecharts . . . or any author of works upon thesesubjects; any public reader, public speaker,or professional actor . . ." (Among the di-rectors of this group, are some names you'llrecognize: Thomas Trueblood, JamesWinans, Robert Fulton.) The NationalSpeech Arts Association disbanded in 19L5,after the National Association of AcademicTeachers of Public Speaking was foundedthe previous year. Trueblood wanted tocontinue the first organization, but Winansargued for the new one where the "chiefinterest would be education rather thanentertainment.'"

Seems to me we've come full circle onthis one. We have recently realized,AGAIN, that we must prepare our studentsfor non-academic careers—and we are be-ginning to do that fairly well. But wehaven't talked much about how we pre-pared them to quit saying they're "nolonger professionally active" when theyleave the academy. We have made no pro-gress at all in bringing our students to seethat they haven't left the profession whenthey go to work in industry, business orgovernment. And the reason is simple: It isbecause we think they have left the profes-sion. And if we continue to define the pro-fession as teachers and scholars, they haveleft the profession. And if they have—well,some interesting bits of data may be instruc-tive:

In Fairfax County—the county where Ilive—the fifth largest company—consid-erably larger than the university—only thefifth largest company—employs 2,000Ph.D's.

There is at least one communication as-sociation with rapidly rising membership:the IABC, the International Associationof Business Communicators. Its member-ship doubled from 1978-80. In February'80, membership was increasing at 150 permonth.

Today, all major industries have theirown education enterprises. Two percent ofthe budget of the Bell system is spent foreducation,' and the budget for educationin the armed services and Department ofDefense?—no one really knows.

The point is that the total number of per-sons in the field of communication is in-creasing. If we don't find a way to includethem in our midst, our future is as asmaller and smaller umbrella.

Overall though, what is most strikingabout those presidential messages of the

coniinued

March

past ten years, are the important items thatwere never mentioned. We have debatedthem in the Legislative Council and theywere the subject of some rather major ac-tions by this Association, but—never men-tioned by our presidents. Let me quicklyremedy that deficiency.

My transition to that task is a line fromwhat is surely one of the finest speechesever given in English, a line appropriate tothe issue since its author had much to sayabout the subject I'm about to address, andwas at the same time a skilled practitionerofthe art some of us claim to know.

"I have a dream," said Martin LutherKing, Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Me-morial in 1963. He dreamed that "one daythis nation will rise up and live out the truemeaning of its creed: 'We hold these truthsto be self-evident, that all men are createdequal.'" Well, I share his dream and fur-thermore hold the radical view that thisAssociation ought to do something about it.Oh sure, 1 know we aren't all created equal,but I do dream that someday we will liveup to the belief that all pieople should haveequal opportunity.

Indeed, I dream that one day this As-sociation will live up to its constitution. Letme quote from Article II of our constitu-tion: "The purpose of the Association shallbe to promote study, criticism, research,teaching and application of the artistic,humanistic and scientific principles of com-munication, particularly speech communi-cation." ". . . research, teaching AND ap-plication of the principles of communica-tion"—how is it, I wonder, that we havegiven so little attention to the application?Why have we concentrated on the tools, notthe issues of communication? Why is it,when we have concentrated on the issues (asthose of you in our Public Address andRhetorical and Communication Theory Di-visions will quickly tell me you do), we havebeen concerned with the study of how othersapplied the principles, not with the practiceof application?

Let me try to be clear. 1 have no interestin arousing any of those false dichotomieswe seem to be so fond of arguing over. Theissue is the AND in that sentence. We havenot, by and large, been interested in apply-ing what we know to issues—not even to theobvious issues of the preservation of publiceducation, the freedom of speech and as-sociation, and equality under the law. ANDwhen some of us HAVE discussed theseconcerns, we have always been chargedwith being political, and abandoning the"true" nature of this Association.

Sadly, in our concern with the principlesand tools of communication and the studyof what others do with them, we have dealtwith the easy part. "Rights," as we allknow, are earned only when one appliesthose principles effectively to an issue. Inour society, even those rights "guaranteed"in the constitution are fully enjoyed onlyby those with the power to insist on them.

And in our society, power comes from le-gality and from the money to have accessto legality—or from applying communica-tion well enough to mobilize the votes ofmany.

Let's do the easy one first. Power comesfrom legality. Freedom of speech and asso-ciation are First Amendment rights, right?Then tell me—in how many of our states iscomplete freedom of association betweenany consenting adults legal? Regardless ofsex? Clearly, First Amendment rights areabridged for many—and many in this As-sociation don't give what is vividly de-scribed down in Kansas where I grew up as"two hoots and a holler." No, more thanthat. Many in this Association are irateand some are no longer with us becausesome of us cared about that kind of free-dom for our colleagues who study and teachcommunication as well as for others.

We can study freedom of speech andcommunication, and we can study thespeeches of those who do—but let us seek toapply what we know of the principles ofcommunication to that issue, and we're nolonger being scholars and teachers: we'reviolating what some see as the heart andsoul of this organization.

Another issue of legality—equality underthe law—is also easy to discuss. It doesn'ttake much to see that for more than onehalf the population in many states it doesn'texist. And for the United States as a wholeit doesn't exist. And let's not be fooled.The symbolism ofa woman on the SupremeCourt (which is important), and the factthat we were spared that woman being Ms.Schlafly or someone like her (which is evenmore important)—that symbolism and thatfact won't put equality into the constitution.That equality will be put into the constitu-tion only when we and thousands like usAPPLY what we know about the principlesof communication—and especially those ofus who live in Virginia, Missouri, Illinois,Georgia, Florida, and a few other stateswhere our chances may not be as good.

I was shocked when 1 heard CharlesLarson speak of preparing for a debate onour ERA boycott. He contacted a numberof people in the Association who favoredthe boycott. You know what he found?None, not one, had contacted his or herlocal representative! And this Association,myself included, did nothing publicly tourge them to do so.

Now, let's turn to the more difficult issueof equality, the money to have equal accessto legality. Where, anywhere, do womenor minorities have equal access to money?When women do, in rare cases like MaryCunningham, they dare not use it toorapidly. They dare not be too young or tooattractive. In other cases—unfortunatelyless rare—they have achieved such accessby buying into the system so completelythey believe that we women ourselves areto blame for our exclusion. Some of theworst offenders in the travesty of belief that

women cannot manage mathematics or menare women, and women of great power andinfluence in business and industry.

The vast majority of us are neither asbeautiful nor as bright as Mary Cunning-ham. But neither do we play in such ahigh stakes world, and we are still deservingof our shot at equal opportunity in themarket place in which we do play.

But the current political and social cli-mate would assert to me that I'm display-ing a hangover from the 6O's. After all,with equal employment laws, affirmativeaction, title nine and all that we've madegreat progress. Right?

Wrong. Let me show you some figures.If you were the "average" employed fe-male 25 years ago, you made 65c for every$1.00 earned by the average male. Twoyears ago, you earned 59cf

Breaking those averages into more detailis even more revealing. In 1966, theaverage minority male earned 70c for every$1.(X) earned by white men, white womenearned 59c and minority women earned only41c. Ten years later great progress had beenmade! Minority men earned 79c, whitewomen 59c and minority women 55c foreach $1.00 earned by the average whiteman.'

It's also instructive to see the great in-come this all translates to. In 1976, theaverage incomes were as follows:

white men - $14,071minority men - 10,946white women - 8,285minority women - 7,825

Sometimes it's asserted that such low-paid women don't need to work—they'reonly "supplementing" a family income.1 think we all know the absurdity of that,but we may not know that in 1977 only 20%of working women lived in a home where aworking husband earned more than $ 15,000.Try adding those figures. It's easy to seethe income is necessity. And we should alsonote that 43% of those working women wereeither never married or were widowed, di-vorced, or separated.' How badly do theyneed that $8,000 income?

And, lest you think this a problem onlyof the poor, let me cite you some data re-ported by the Harvard Office of Institu-tional Research.' Seven years after earn-ing degrees from Harvard graduate schools,female graduates compared to male gradu-ates in the following way:

Men WomenPartners in law firms 25% 1 %

A verage AnnualIncome

Public Health graduates $37,800 $21,300Education doctorates 26,000 18,700All earned doctorates 30,000 23,000

Here's some final data, so we won't thinkwe speech communication professionalshave escaped. The April 1981 ACA Bulle-tin reported a survey of SCA members.69% of the men compared to 49% of the

continued

Spectra

women were in tenure track positions, while7% ofthe men and 19% ofthe women werein part-time positions. Nine per cent of themen compared to 24% ofthe women earnedunder $ I O,(XX)—this probably has somethingto do with that part-time data. In contrast,54% of the men earned over $19,000 whileonly 31 % of the women reached that salarylevel.'" C

There's one final agenda item that—tothe best of my knowledge—we've never dis-cussed in this Association. This is the issueof our part-time professionals. More andmore of the advanced degree holders in ourfield, people who want to teach and whomwe need to teach, are working only parttime. It's quite common for colleges tohave as many part-time faculty as full-time. A California law being consideredwill require that 50% of the sections taughtin colleges must be taught by full-time fac-ulty. Even this seems grossly inadequateas a standard, but many community col-leges will have trouble meeting it. Lots ofcommunity colleges across this countryhave two or three times as many peopleworking part time as full time. This is aserious issue we should address.

Well, there are other items on this un-finished agenda, but I've already talkedtoo long. It's a long agenda we're facing.Is it possible to complete? In my dream itis.

I dream of an SCA that puts aside paro-chialism and recognizes that teachers andscholars—at all levels, in and out of aca-demia—and practitioners are all communi-cation professionals, if they are interestedin the study and practice of speech com-munication.

This is an organization that doesn't es-tablish a hierarchy with university researchprofessors at the top, and doesn't ignorepeople because they understand adolescentsor spend their time advancing a politicianor the company president.

This is an Association that joins withother organizations to achieve importantpolitical goals for the support of its mem-bership, one that cares as much about whathappens to the K-12 public educational sys-tem in this country as it does when a uni-versity department is eliminated.

This is an Association that cares aboutthe people who teach or work at IBM,Xerox, and the Pentagon as well as thosein the universities. It cares about the girlsand boys in our schools, the women in allthose unpaid, low paid jobs, the minoritiesaffected by a society's pervasive racism.

Is this a possible dream? Or am I likeDon Ouixote tilting at windmills? I knowthat many people whose judgment I respectdo not share this vision. And others who'dlike to believe it possible assert with resig-nation that it's impossible. They may beright. For me, 1 cling to the dream. This As-sociation can be one that finishes its agenda.Whether we collectively possess the will

and wisdom to do so, only you can answer,not your presidents.

Notes

'Spectra, April, 1975.^Spectra, Apnl, 1973.'John Sullivan, "Quality Assessment:

An Insider's View," Bulletin of the Asso-ciation for Communication Administration,April, 1980, p. 38.

•"Unpublished manuscript, April, 1978.'Bruno O. Weinschel,"R & D and the New

National Agenda," remarks to Sixth An-nual A A AS Colloquim, June 26, 1981.

•Judy Mann, Washington Post, July 17,1981, p. C 7.'U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of

Labor Statistics and Wage and Hour Di-vision, 1978.

'Ibid.'Judy Mann, Ibid.

'"Artie Thrash and Keith Jensen, "A Sur-vey Profile of Women in Communication,"Bulletin ofthe Association for Communica-tion Administration, April, 1981, pp. 78-81.

NEWS AND NOTES

Robert N. Hall, Editor

Contributors to "News and Notes" arereminded that the copy deadline is six weeksprior to the month of publication. Insofar aspossible, contributors are urged to submitcopy in keeping with the categories andformat below. Information pertaining to anyone category should be submitted in double-spaced typing on a separate sheet of papwr;brevity and succinctness are encouraged.

CONVENTION CALENDARNational Forensic Association

April 22-26, ColumbusCentral States Speech Association

April 15-17, MilwaukeeEastern Communication Association

May 6-9, Hartford Parkview HiltonSouthern Speech Communication Associ-ation

April 6-9, Hot Springs, ARMichigan Speech Association

April 3, KalamazooWisconsin Communication Association

April 30-May l,OshkoshBroadcast Education Association

April 2-4, DallasInternational Communication Association

May 1-5, Boston Park Plaza HotelNational Association of Dramatic <$ SpeechArts

March 31 - April 3, Bowie, MDNorthwest Communication Association

April 15-17, Coeur d'AlenePhi Kappa Delta

April 13-16, Estes Park, COUS Institute for Theatre Technology

March 24-28, Denver

APPOINTMENTSSUNY, Albany

Dudley Cahn, Visiting Assistant Professor

PROMOTIONSUniversity of Alaska, Juneau

Susan Koester to Assistant Professor

PERSONALKeith Erickson has been named Acting

Chair of the Department of Speech Com-munication at the Texas Tech University.He replaces Professor William Jordanwho returns to full-time teaching.

Donald Cushman, Department of Rhet-oric & Communication, SUNY, Albany,was named a research fellow for January1982 at the East-West Communication In-stitute in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Joseph Woelfel has been named actingchair of the Rhetoric & CommunicationDepartment at SUNY, Albany, replacingDonald Cushman who returned to full-timeteaching.

NECROLOGYRupert L. Cortright, Professor Emeritus,

Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan,December 23, 1981. Professor Cortrightwas President of the SCA in 1948.

Joseph Mersand, Retired Teacher, Ja-maica High School, Jamaica, New York,December 21, 1981.

ACA AcceptingConsultant Nominations

The ACA is now accepting nominationsof persons to be considered for inclusionin its Consultant Service. The ACA Con-sultant Service reviews a persons credentialsand then recommends them when requestsarrive for qualified people to review collegeand university programs.

The ACA Consultant Service has beenoperating for four years. It receives annuallythirty to forty requests for information onpersons to review programs. Nominationsfor the Consultant Service should be sentto: ACA, 5105 Backlick Road #E, Annan-dale, VA 22003.

Spectra, a publication of the SpeechCommunication Association, is sent to allmembers each month except July. Copydeadline is six weeks before the first of thepublication month. The deadline for posi-tion vacancy listings and other "classified"advertisements is one month before the firstofthe publication month. Annual subscrip-tion rate for nonmembers: $12.00. Com-munications should be addressed to theEditor, William Work, Speech Communi-cation Association, 5105 Backlick Road,Annandale, VA 22003.