SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

The Media and the Law and Order Myth
in American Political Discourse

Mark Meister

Abstract

A significant topic in American political discourse is that of law and order. Politicians, civic leaders, and policy makers often propose a hard-line towards crime so that "law and order" is maintained. In this essay, I contend that the discourse of "law and order" has taken on mythic properties in American political discourse, and that the media, in large part, has contributed to the creation of a "law and order" myth. The "law and order" rhetoric of J. Edgar Hoover, Estes Kaufaver, George C. Wallace, and Richard Nixon all have been greatly aided by a media presence that extends the topic of "law and order" beyond the realm of political discourse and into the realm of political myth. This essay discusses the influence of Hoover, Kefauver's, Wallace's, and Nixon's "law and order" rhetoric, and points out the media coverage, in each of these cases, aided in creating a powerful cultural and political "law and order" myth.

Introduction

Crime in America has at its foundation, a "law and order" myth that warrants strategic political action. Public officials, policy makers, law enforcement officials, political candidates, and civic leaders all address the issue of crime in American society as a way to promote their political clout (if not for purposes of capturing a vote) (Trent & Friedenberg, 1991). Such political responses to crime are necessary because public opinion demand that those in leadership roles protect "law and order" (Pepinsky & Jesilow, 1984, O'Keefe, 1985, O'Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987). Thus, the prominence of crime in American public discourse is due, in large part, to the various rhetorical functions generated by a "law and order" cultural myth. As a mythic symbol, "law and order" tells a story that includes both ideological and mythic representations of society. As the story of crime in America has evolved and changed, so too has the influence of "law and order" on different contexts. Among these "law and order" contexts are the images associated with organized crime, protests, demonstrations, riots, and, of course, street crime. Each of these contexts are personified in American culture by popular crimefighters and gangsters such as J. Edgar Hoover and Al Capone; while the conservative personae of President Richard Nixon and Senator George C. Wallace demonstrate intolerance for war and civil rights protesters.

Additionally, street crime is one of the most significant contexts addressed by the media's touting of "law and order." Mediated images of "diseased" streets

Mark Meister, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of in the Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105. The author wishes to thank Dr. Ron Lee for his helpful comments during the development of this essay.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 36 (1999), 1-18

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

littered with crime and filth are captured in innumerable television dramas, tabloid and talk shows, and documentaries. Often the images of street crime and violence are mediated messages that reinforce the need for, if not the lack of, law and order. The NBC television series titled Law and Order, for example, tells the "real-life" stories of the crime investigators and prosecutors in New York City, while ABC's NYPD Blue focuses on the tragedies experienced by those directly involved with street crime. Among the assumptions representing "law and order" in these and other contexts is one that is potentially discriminatory. The assumptions in many of these mediated programs is that those who disturb the peace and interrupt the social order are generally members of ethnic and minority groups who must be punished in order to re-establish social order (Pepinsky & Jesilow, 1984).

In this essay, I critically evaluate the mediated manifestations and contexts of "law and order" and how they potentially contribute to the often discriminatory nature of the American criminal justice system. I contend that the creation and evolution of the "law and order" has at its foundation the television and film coverage directed at Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover during the 1930s, and 1951 senator and Crime Committee Chairman Estes Kefauver. To illustrate this influence, I will discuss how the "law and order" myth takes shape as its focus is transformed from fighting organized crime (Hoover and Kefauver's influence of the 1930s and 1950s) to street crime. U.S. Presidential candidate and senator, George C. Wallace, and President Richard Nixon both demonstrated intolerance for the street crimes associated with anti-war protests and civil rights demonstration.

Although there are many other examples in American history of bold crimefighters, arguably Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon represent those whose crime rhetoric was highly mediated. Hoover's glorified "G-Man" image, Kefauver's widely watched televised crime hearings, Wallace's cankerous positions on crime during his presidential campaign, and Nixon's intolerance for crime both as a presidential candidate and as president were highly visible precisely because Americans watched "law and order" take shape. The "law and order" myth, I contend, did not evolve and shape American ideals because of policy or legislative warrants about crime. Rather, "law and order" evolved into a mythic rhetorical manifestation because of the highly mediated and visual "anti-crime" images that Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon communicated and that the media happily broadcasted. In the examples of Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon, we witness how the media embraced law and order as a significant cultural issue, and glorified or vilified those associated with it.

Aiding my analysis of the American "law and order" myth is the provocative notion of the "rhetoric of other" as discussed by critical discourse analysist Stephen Harold Riggins (1997). According to Riggins (1997), critical discourse analysists are "more interested in dissecting texts than in theorizing about the interpretive practices of readers and listeners" (p. 3). A text, in this vein, is not only limited to the realm of spoken or written discourse explicitly, but can include the symbolic constructions that permeate spoken and written discourse in implicit ways. One such manifestation of implicit dynamic is the symbolic force prescribed to cultural myth. Cultural myth becomes part of the ingrained consciousness of a culture be

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

cause it is reinforced both discursively and non-discursively. I am interested in critically analyzing the cultural myth of "law and order" as I see it created by Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon and reinforced and maintained by the media. Thus, the "rhetoric of othering" is of particular interest to those interested in the critical discourse analysis of cultural and political myth (Riggins, 1997).

Many rhetorical critics engage the "other" construct in their scholarship (Berkowitz, 1997; Engnell, 1993; Gaonkar, 1993; Hasian, 1994; McKerrow, 1989). The term Other, as a rhetorical construct, can be traced back to the Plato, who used it to represent the relationship between an observer (the Self) and an observed (the Other) (Riggins, 1997). Presently in rhetorical scholarship, the Other refers to all people the Self perceives as mildly or radically different. McKerrow (1989) discusses "othering" in his notion of critical rhetoric that seeks to "unmask or demystify the discourse of power. The aim is to understand the integration of power/knowledge in society—what possibilities for change the integration invites or inhibits and what intervention strategies might be considered appropriate o effect social change" (p. 91). Basically, there are two aspects of the Other that facilitate its tendency to define peoples in terms of dominance and submissiveness.

First, Riggins (1997) points out that language reveals boundaries that separate the Self and Other. Othering happens because languages are bound by grammatical rules and standards that include "inclusive and exclusive pronouns and possessives such as we and they, us and them, and ours and theirs" (Riggins, 1997). For example, Carbo's (1997) analysis of political discourse in Mexico shows that an elite speaker's claim to believe in inclusiveness may be undermined by contradictions between words and syntax. A close reading of political speeches in Mexico reveals that the identity of "we" fluctuates depending on the particular rhetorical point the speaker or writer is trying to make. The term "we" may refer in on sentence to the whole Mexican population, both aboriginal and European, whereas in another sentence the aboriginal population may be implicitly excluded (Carbo, 1997).

Second, the Other is evidenced by the repetitious and contradictory nature of stereotypes (Riggins, 1997). Stereotypes are fantasies, "a substitute and a shadow" of the Other (Bhabha, 1994, p. 82), and ensure that differences between people are recognized. Through stereotypes, the Self expresses ambivalence toward Others, expressing not just derision but derision with desire (Riggins, 1997). For example, Jan Mohamed (1985) believes that the perception of difference is influenced by economic and political motives. Because the functioning of Othering is exploitation, the political and economic consequences contribute to a rhetoric of Othering that dehumanizes and diminishes groups.

Because of our dependence on the media for the formation of perceptions concerning crime, the term "law and order" has come to have many connotations. Symbolically, "law and order" represent a "straight-line"—a line, when crossed, exemplifies disorder and chaos. Laws are implemented to perpetuate order, and function to gauge appropriate actions from those considered inappropriate. Part of the problems associated with the "law and order" myth are a result of how American culture gauges appropriate actions from those actions generally associated with the "other." The "eye-for-an-eye" assumption that is used for the basis of

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

punishment for crime is generally associated with length of incarceration. As French Philosopher Michel Foucault (1975) has pointed out: "[w]hat a remarkable achievement it has been for Americans to decide that harm can be measured in days, months, and years" (p. 36). In this way, the criminal justice system has come to equate law and order with social order—distinguishing the "other" from the law abiding society. The system assumes that unless a strong governmental agency uses law enforcement to control the citizenry into line, the citizens will carry out a war among themselves. It is this chaos that laws are intended to prevent. Law and order is intended to reduce uncertainty and to reduce confusion, thus insuring the comfort and stability associated with "peace." With law, one assumes that order will follow, and that peace is insured, and that those potential threats for the "other" will be stopped. Laws become policies guaranteeing the maintenance of social order by distinguishing the "other" from the lawful.

If the phrase "law and order" is rearranged to read "order and law," the assumption is that a virtuous time existed where no law was needed. No laws were needed because peace was firmly established. Various forms of hierarchical systems that insured order and maintained a peaceful environment dominated social, public, and political order. What becomes apparent is that the phrase "law and order" is a response to the violent incidents that have displaced "peace" and order. In essence, the law and order myth discriminates because the images of crime, as portrayed by the media, are of those who do not necessarily "fit the order." The assumption is that society has become diseased through the actions of "others." Television screens light-up with images of the whacked-out drug addict stealing and killing for money to buy his next fix. "Real world" crime television shows like Top Cops and Rescue 911 reinforce the images of discrimination, because the focus of these shows is on breaking-up crimes generally committed by young, black men who are part of a corrupt society. According to Pepinsky and Jesilow (1984) television illustrates the poor as breeders of violence and corruption because they do not have the resources to protect themselves against eventual prosecution. Where the rich have these protections against prosecution, Pepinsky and Jesilow contend that "the poor are less likely to get out of jail before trial, more likely to get convicted, and more likely to be imprisoned if convicted" (p. 15) which reinforces both that crime is committed by the poor, and that the criminal justice system of authority is inherently discriminatory. "Equity," according to Pepinsky and Jesilow, "would require that almost all police resources be needed to look for crime in the business suites rather than crime in the streets" (p. 15).

A persistent myth throughout history that perpetuates itself in society after society is that a populace can be forced to behave as those in authority seem fit. In instances of violent crime, the same myth exists—that people can be made to behave the way a superior armed authority would have them behave (Pepinsky & Jesilow, 1984). Inherent within the "law and order" myth and demonstrated throughout history by Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon, for example, is the notion that those in authority must react with force in order to stop isolated instances of crime. But because the citizenry accepts the myth that minority groups who inhabit the inner-city perpetuate crime, the once virtuous community has been transformed into one that further distinguishes between "us" and the "other."

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

The influence of the media and the dissemination of images associated with a corrupt society are part of a culture whose perceptions about crime are formed by the media. Television projects two contradictory images that flood the airways concerning street crime. The first image illustrates those in authority as strong, powerful, and intolerant "tough cops" who fight street crime generally started by minorities. The second image reinforces the discriminatory nature of the criminal justice system because television illustrates criminals as morally corrupt minority groups who resort to street crime in order to buy or sell drugs. The amount of time allotted by television in the coverage of crime both in programming and newscasts suggest that street crime is a rampant and uncontrollable force in society.

The Law and Order Myth

In his book Mythologies, Roland Barthes (1988) contends that a myth "hides nothing and flaunts nothing: it distorts; myth is neither a lie nor a confession: it is an inflexion " (p. 129). Stated metaphorically, "myth illuminates and projects a light in the darkness of reality and the haze of misperception over the glow of truth" (London & Weeks, 1981, p. 17). "American values" are very much supported by myth (Edelman, 1988, Rushing, 1986). This myth is influential in the reinforcement of an American value system because it illustrates a relationship between politics and virtue (Dorsey, 1997). The virtuous citizen exemplifies American values because they support the notion of "law and order." This representation of virtue illustrates the emotive influence that myths have on perception, and ultimately, cultural formation. Myths provide legitimacy to a culture because the stories they tell are timeless "lessons" which serve as emotive forces for maintaining social order (Osborn, 1990, Hart, 1990, Hocker Rushing, 1990, Rowland, 1990, Solomon, 1990).

Like myths, ideologies are "capable of binding people together, not through a set of immutable truths, but through references to historical and political events, and appeals to a material orientation of the world" (Bass & Cherwitz, 1978, p. 215). Ideologies are a collection of beliefs, but where myths attempt to transcend social divisions, ideologies express the interests of the dominant group that provides plausible interpretations of political realities (Bass & Cherwitz, 1978, Lucaites & Condit, 1990). McGee (1980) calls these references "ideographs" and purports that "[t]he significance is in their concrete history as usages, not in alleged idea-content" (p. 10). In order for myths to evolve, the expectations and demands of historical (traditional) audiences must be met (O'Leary & McFarland, 1989).

The joining of mythic and ideological elements does not take place spontaneously. According to Ellul (1973) "myth and ideology wed via a complicated mixture of ideas and sentiments which entails the grafting of irrational onto the political and economic" (p. 31). Kenneth Burke (1989) notes that "ideology is to myth as rhetoric is to poetry," (p. 303) since, "ideology, like rhetoric, gravitates to the side of ideas, and myth, like poetry gravitates to the side of image (p. 303). The result of this fusion of myth and ideology becomes a political myth because it entails both cognitive and emotive appeals that greatly impacts various aspects of culture (Hart, 1990, Lucaites & Condit, 1990). Barthes (1988) comments on the power and expansiveness of myth in reinforcing the image of the virtuous culture:

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

"all aspects of the law, of morality, of aesthetics, of diplomacy, of household equipment, of Literature, of entertainment" (p. 148) are related to myth. The joining of myth as a cultural and political force, and ideology as a logical expression of these forces, creates a political myth that may rhetorically support the American manifestation of "law and order." For example, the uniquely American story of the strong-willed and virtuous western sheriff who protects his town and its citizens from harm is a popular American narrative and exemplifies the prominence of the "law and order" myth in American culture. Here the sheriff-hero character protects the community from the outside lawlessness that infiltrates the culture from an untamed wilderness. The sheriff protects the community from exterior dangers that penetrate the inherent interior virtues of the moral small town.

The "law and order" myth functions rhetorically because it recalls a virtuous, yet mythical time, when crime did not exist and social order was not threatened. As Dorsey (1997) argues, myths often do not represent reality and they generally have a violent and evil counter-part that threatens the virtuous core. Dorsey (1997) contends: "[m]ythic stories depict an ancient, dream-like, uncharted, and many times, dangerous universe with which the hero must then violently contend" (p. 453). The story of the small town, for example, with its pleasant images of "Main Street," church steeples, and afternoon barbecues, tends to reinforce the notion that social order is paramount in the creation of American values (Lee, 1993). Yet, as the myth evolves, the virtuous small town often faces the threat of an evil outsider who manipulatively infiltrates and corrupts the virtuous core of the community. The "strength" and "character" of the small town citizen lies in her willingness to fight for what is virtuous. Here the virtuous citizen combats intended evil with a clear and well-intentioned conscious. Thus, the small town survives because of the fortitude of its citizens.

In sum, an effective political myth includes those qualities that have emotive connotations (virtue vs. evil), while its ideological qualities recall a unrealistic time when "law and order" literally was not threatened. The influence of the "law and order" myth in the American value system is expressed through cultural symbols (London & Weeks, 1981) and evolves as the political ideologies associated with the myth recall emotive and logical instances. Thus, the presence of a "law and order" myth in the American value system narrative becomes an element of a larger, master story supporting the cultural myth of American values. I argue that during the 1930s, the "law and order" myth reinforced the American value system through television and film coverage that glamorized the "mythic" figures associated with crime and law enforcement (with specific reference to J. Edgar Hoover). Later, during the 1950s, this glamorization is replaced by Senator Estes Kefauver's fight against a "corrupt insider" who threatened the virtues associated with the American system of law and order. Finally, the political discourse of George Wallace and Richard Nixon illustrates a vilification, whereby the law breaker is the immoral and corrupt "other."

Law and Order: Glamour and Corrupt Core
The media and its impacts on the formation of public opinion about crime is often reflected in public perceptions concerning the causes and fear of crime

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

(Pritchard, 1994, Sherizen, 1978). Since the majority of people have little direct experience with crime (and especially its causes), it seems reasonable to assume that public perceptions of crime are, to some degree, formed on the basis of information received from media presentations (McQuail, 1994. Page, Shapiro, & Dempsey, 1994). Stroman and Seltzer (1985) suggest that mediated crime messages help fuel perceptions of crime by arguing that the mass media is a primary source of information about crime, that the media provides details about crimes which enable users to discuss the causes of crime and solutions to the crime problem, and that crime, in comparison to other topics, is a well-covered topic. Additionally, governmental agencies concerned with the proliferation of violent crime on American streets have established crime prevention programs which advise parents to limit the amount of violent programming children watch on television (O'Keefe, 1985). Arguably, the perceptions of crime by the people who watch television frequently are more likely to express a generalized fear of crime than those who watch less frequently (Stroman & Seltzer, 1985).

Because the media, particularly television, has a profound impact on perception formation, the "law and order" myth of crime is fueled, reinforced, and solidified within the American culture's psyche. Of specific interest here is the J. Edgar Hoover "G-Man" image portrayed in popular films during the 1930s and 1940s. These films helped symbolize an intolerance for organized crime, yet they also glamorized both the criminals associated with organized crime and crime fighters intent on stopping it. Crime fighters during the 1930s in pursued the likes of "Greasy Thumb" Guzik, Rocco Fischetti, "Scareface" Al, and "Tough Tony" Capezio, all of whom enjoyed significant popularity because the media aided in the promotion of these characters as cultural icons. Later, the gangsters, hooligans, and convicts investigated by Crime Committee Chairman Senator Estes Kefauver in 1951 were no longer glamorous because these criminals were corrupt law enforcement and justice officials. The "notoriety" and popularity of "Scarface" Al, or Rocco Fischetti no longer warranted media attention during the 1951 Crime Committee Hearings. Instead the media focused on the corruption that existed within the once virtuous community. During the 1920s and 1930s prohibition made otherwise law-abiding citizens into racketeering law-breakers. Breaking the law by consuming, distributing, and selling alcohol became a national pastime (Kefauver, 1968). What had began as simple bootlegging organized itself into powerful gangs which associated themselves with gambling, robbery, prostitution, and dope peddling (de Toledano, 1973). What was needed to stop the crime movement was "a symbol of law and order that could dish it out to the underworld exactly as they dished it out—only better. An individual who could toss the hot iron right back at them along with a smash in the jaw thrown in for good measure" (Powers, 1987, p. 22). This individual was FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 1930s was one of the New Deal's political triumphs and J. Edgar Hoover was one of President Franklin Roosevelt's most valuable and trusted lieutenants (Powers, 1987). The New York Times described the FBI under Hoover as "one of the government's formidable crusaders against crime," and claimed that "law-breakers of high and low estate have come to have a wholesome respect for the Bureau" (Powers, 1987, p. 48). Prior to Hoover's

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

leadership of the FBI, no hero of the law existed that was charismatic and powerful enough to counterbalance the anarchic power, defiance, and popularity of the criminal. Al Capone's gang in Chicago, for example, was estimated at more than a quarter of a million dollars, and as a result of Capone's charismatic and certainly his financial prowess, he became a cultural enigma of corruption and wealth. Films showed an America in which the underworld had overpowered legitimate society, and exposed its protectors as incompetent (Powers, 1987). Movies featured gangster heroes modeled after celebrity criminals like Capone as illustrated by the 1931 movie Public Enemy starring James Cagney. Fifty other movies were released in 1931 that seemed to follow an amoral "crime without punishment" formula. The challenge to the legitimacy of traditional authorities, as illustrated by a cycle of money-making prison pictures with sensational titles like The Big House (1930), Convict's Code (1930), and Ladies of the Big House (1931), symbolically portrayed criminal gangsters who laughed in the face of law and order authorities.

As director of the FBI during the 1930s, Hoover wielded a power that also grew from an incredible popularity during a decade that seemed fascinated with the celebrity and hero. Hoover, himself, became a popular and glamorous symbol of law and order for his fearless work against organized crime. The Lindbergh case and the man-hunt illustrated Hoover's "tough" attitude toward organized crime for car thief and cop killer Martin James Durbin. These cases projected the FBI and Hoover onto the national stage, and for the first time, gangsters became fearful of law enforcement officers. Newspapers sensationalized the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh's son from his crib by organized gang members, and the pursuit of Durbin through Illinois, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Hoover recounts one such sensational instance:

Back in September of 1933, a group of special agents surrounded a house in Memphis where George `Machine Gun' Kelly was hiding out. For two months the FBI had been trailing this gangster and his wife. As the FBI agents and local police surrounded the house and entered, one of them called out, `We are Federal officers. Come out with your hands up.' `Machine Gun' Kelly's hands were trembling as he reached for the ceiling he screamed, `Don't shoot G-Men, don't shoot. (de Toledano, 1973)

The "G-Man" abbreviation for "Government Man" became a symbol for the renewed law and order emphasis that Hoover brought to the FBI. This "G-Man" character resembles the sheriff-hero character associated with the American western myth. In the "G-Man" manifestation of the American western myth, the hero is a bureaucrat who provides safety for the virtuous community from the gangsters who try to infiltrate the culture. Hoover took pride in the fearsome reputation that the FBI had among members of the "outside" underworld. This reputation again caught the attention of popular entertainment. The movie G-Men had marked the beginning of a new era for Hoover. Hollywood aided in creating the G-Man myth and Hoover fueled this glamorization by creating an agency strong on regulations and low in tolerance (Theoharis & Cox, 1988). The social forces that once challenged the legitimacy of law enforcement later coalesced into the myth of the G-Man projected a renewed interest in the maintenance of law and order. The popular fascination with rituals of crime and punishment, an interpretation of crime as

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

an attack on the nation and its values, and a hunger for mass involvement in anti-crime action became the battle cries of a nation who once glamorized organized crime, and who now whole-heatedly denounced it by glamorizing the crimefighter.

Crime during the 1950s was still propelled by racketeers associated with organized crime gangs. The popularity of anti-crime measures introduced by the mediated glamorization of Hoover and the "G-Man" myth did not stop violent crimes in America from rising. Corrupt law enforcement officers joined organized crime groups by taking "kick-backs" from crime bosses for not interrupting their crime business. Here the virtues of the society are threatened internally. Frustrated with the corruption within the law enforcement community, Senator Estes Kefauver introduced in 1951 Senate Resolution 202, calling for an investigation of organized crime in the United States. This investigation propelled Kefauver's career and lifted him from a relatively obscure and conscientious and hard-working junior senator, to a position of national prominence that made him one of the most famous and respected supporters of law and order and a serious contender for the Presidency a few years later (Gorman, 1971).

The 1951 Senate Crime Committee Hearings conducted by Kefauver, was a series of televised investigative hearings in several American cities. Millions of people were drawn from their daily activity to the television screen to view the proceedings of the Senate Crime Committee. Moreover, previously obscure politicians participating in the hearings found themselves suddenly transformed into popular national symbols of law and order (Garay, 1978). Kefauver, the most celebrated member of the committee, was transformed by the influence of television as a "video knight in armor," and in 1951 Kefauver was awarded two Emmy's from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for best public affairs program and special achievement. The special achievement award was a symbolic boost for Kefauver's career. According to Look magazine, Kefauver deserved the Emmy's "for bringing the workings of our government in the homes of the American people" (Gorman, 1971).

The influence television had on the committee hearings not only effected Kefauver's political career, but also it significantly effected the lives of the millions of people who watched the hearings. Public response to the televised New York City hearings, if measured in both volume and manner of attention given the daily telecasts, was nothing short of spectacular. Because of the televised crime hearings:

housewives formed listening clubs and held television parties while they delayed shopping until after the hearings had recessed. Public officials, business executives, and secretaries were found crowded around any available television set. Several motion picture theaters in the city canceled regularly scheduled movies and instead projected the Crime Committee hearings onto their screens while admitting the public free of charge. (Garay, 1978)

Because of the popularity of the televised committee hearings, Kefauver's "law and order" image became a battle cry that propelled his bid for the 1952 presidency. Kefauver's candidacy demonstrated his initial interest in investigating organized crime. In his book Crime in America, Kefauver explains how his passion for "law and order" became the reason for calling the investigation:

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

for some years . . . I had been troubled by the unpleasant realization that there was a tie-up between crime and politics . . . Later, as a member of the House of Representatives, I was named chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee to investigate the conduct of a crooked federal district judge in Pennsylvania. In the process of gathering evidence . . . the full import of what rottenness in public life can do to our country came home to me. From then on the subject never was far from my mind. (p. 1-2)

Kefauver's bid for the presidency demonstrated this commitment, and combined with his honest and hard-working image, Kefauver was leading Adali Stevenson for the Democratic nomination for president going into the national convention. Although Stevenson received the nomination for President by the end of the convention, Kefauver's honest and hard-working law and order image—an image fueled by television—helped shape the law and order myth. But television was not solely responsible for Kefauver's popularity. America's system of law and order was threatened by internal corruption. The American public saw Kefauver as the virtuous American citizen capable cleaning up the threat to America's virtual core (Garay, 1978).

The influence of television and film on the on the careers of "law and order" supporters Hoover and Kefauver, demonstrates examples of a long tradition in mass communication research investigating the effects of media, particularly television and newspaper, with the formation of public opinion (Stroman & Seltzer, 1985; Carlson, 1983; O'Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987; Prichard, 1985; Ammons, Dimmick, & Pilotta, 1982). Paramount in these research studies is the assumption that the public utilizes information appearing in the media for the formation of opinions about and perceptions of a given phenomenon (Stroman & Seltzer, 1985). More importantly however, is how the media rhetorically communicates the "law and order" myth while at the same time reinforcing the American value system by illustrating crime threats as external factors not part of the virtuous society. In essence, the media coverage about Hoover's "G-Man" image and Kefauver's leadership role in ending law enforcement corruption illustrates how law and order differentiates the "other" from the virtuous citizenship. Hoover's though image and Kefauver's rhetoric of intolerance exemplifies how distinctions are made between the law-abiding and the law-breaking. It is in this distinction that the "law and order" myth takes root. Law and order becomes a symbolic and mediated manifestation of difference; invoking and reinforcing a perception of "other."

Law and Order and the "Other"

Wallace and Nixon on Street Crime

The political success of Hoover and Kefauver can, in large part is due, to the coverage of each by television and film. During the 1960s, however, the glitter and glamour associated with "law and order" was tarnished by media coverage of street crimes resembling anti-war riots and civil rights protests. In this context, those who participated in street crime included college students, corrupt law enforcement officials, and "peace" activists. What is distinct about the response to law and order during the 1960s, was that members within and from the virtuous community threatened the virtues of the small-town. The "other" came from within the

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

community.

While law and order during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s was fueled by Hoover's symbolic portrayals in film, and Kefauver's televised crusade against corruption, during the 1960s, an era riddled with violent riots and demonstrations against traditional authority, Senator and 1968 presidential candidate George C. Wallace called for putting lawbreakers in prison, "until their hair turns white or they go to the electric chair" (Carlson, 1981, p. 36). Wallace's discourse is the most vivid example of how hard-line law and order must be reinstated in order to counterbalance the actions of those "others" that threaten the "American way." In Wallace's view those who rioted and demonstrated represented a small group of revolutionaries, anarchists, and communists ("others"), and the reason for their existence and cause for their dissension was the permissiveness on the part of the federal government (House, 1969). Wallace asserted:

Well, it's a sad day in the country when you can't talk about law and order unless you want to be called a racist. I tell you that's not true and I resent it and they gonna [sic] have to pay attention because all people in this country, in the great majority, the Supreme Court of our country has made it almost impossible to convict a criminal. And if you walk out of this building tonight, and someone knocks you in the head, the person who knocked you in the head will be out of jail if you don't watch out. (Armstrong, 1970)

Wallace is intolerant for civil disobedience and for "others" who break laws because they do not follow the "American way of dissent," which he defines as picketing and voting (Carlson, 1989). Wallace stated: "A good crease in the skull would stop some of this lawlessness" (Carlson, 1981, p. 42). Wallace called his supporters "law-abiding," and asserted that tolerance for "others" who remain lawless is neither logical nor reasonable. In touting the issue of law and order as a presidential candidate, Wallace concentrated on "common criminals," and complained about lenient courts that made it almost impossible to convict those criminals. Court leniency, according to Wallace, threatened the rights of the "common man." The "common man" lost his own rights to the rights of the criminal. Wallace warned that "unless law and order is restored in this country and people can walk on the streets safely, there may come a time in which civil rights will have to be abrogated" (Carlson, 1981, p. 44).

For Wallace, hard-line law and order became a major issue in his bid for the presidency. If elected president, Wallace promised to "clean-up" the streets, and unlock the closed doors which "millions of our citizens are locked behind . . . captives in their own homes, because they are not safe on the streets of American cities" (Carlson, 1981, p. 79). According to Wallace, only through hard-line law and order can a resurgence in those traditional American values that make America great can crime be prevented. While campaigning for the presidency, Wallace promised: "You elect me the president, and I go to California or I come to Tennessee, and if a group of anarchists lay down in front of my automobile, its gonna [sic] be the last one they ever gonna [sic] want to lay down in front of" (Carlson, 1981, p. 68). Wallace's rhetoric clearly distinguishes between what is "accepted" by the majority, and what the "other" rejects. In the years following Wallace's hard-line stance, Richard Nixon vehemently displayed his intolerance for the "others" who

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

disobeyed his plea for law and order.

Wallace's hard-line responses to these crimes helped shape the "law and order" myth, but in terms of illustrating an absolute tough and strong position of law and order, Nixon, became the image of how a government's intolerance toward crime helped shape the myth. Nixon's tough anti-crime stance during the campaign consisted largely of leftover proposals from the Johnson Administration, but upon election to the presidency, Nixon came in direct conflict with street violence and crime. During the 1970 presidential campaign in San Jose, California, a hostile crowd tried to interrupt Nixon's speech and chanted "One, two, three, four, we don't want your fucking [sic] war" (p. 637). As Nixon walked to his limousine, instead of making a rapid exit—Nixon jumped up on the hood of the limousine and stood there for a moment in the television lights—flashing the victory sign at the noisy crowd (Wicker, 1991). This instance implicitly demonstrates Nixon's "toughness" on not accepting the beliefs and values of the "other" protesters. Through this act of defiance, Nixon defies the rebellious "other" of any opportunity for acceptance in virtuous society. Nixon, with the media capturing his every move, defies the positions and arguments held by the protesters, and in an attempt to further vilify the protesting "others," Nixon flashes the victory sign implicitly illustrating his staunch and virtuous social position.

Later as president, Nixon continued to come into direct contact with crime. During his inauguration parade, sticks, stones, and beer cans were hurled at the presidential limousine (Wicker, 1991). Nixon did not forget or forgive those who had interrupted his inaugural parade. In a speech at General Beadle State College in South Dakota, he offered the pointed warning that students and demonstrators had better begin to exercise some self-restraint or "we have the power to strike back and prevail" (Wicker, 1991, p. 617). Nixon spoke at this obscure college because rioting and demonstrating were unlikely, while on major campuses they were commonplace. Additionally, Nixon described the demonstrations on college campuses during a press conference at, of all places, the Pentagon:

You see those bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities, and here they are burning up the books, storming about this issue. You name it. Get rid of the war, there will be another one. (Wicker, 1991, p. 632)

Here, Nixon further alienated the "other" from the law abiding. By labeling the protesters as "bums" and "boys," Nixon displayed his attitude toward the protesters. The protesters were inconsiderate ("bums") and immature ("boys"), who because of their ignorance and corruption, were not able to realize how "lucky" they were to be going to the world's greatest institutions. Instead, the protesters are made out as "others," intent on corrupting the intellectual tradition and virtue associated with the U.S. university system.

Nixon's direct contact with street crime, both as a candidate and as president, directly influenced his responses to crime. Nixon's definition of street crime included a disrespect for authority . Like Wallace, Nixon's responses were hard-line, and his responses helped shape the "law and order" myth as one that does not tolerate disrespect of governmental authority. Inherent within these responses is

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

the notions that the war protesters and rioters were not part of the virtuous society. They are "others" whose beliefs and positions present a direct threat to the virtuous community's moral core.

In Nixon's discourse, the influence of "law and order" takes on mythic proportions. The "law and order" story is part of the mythic narrative, and Nixon tells this story by reinforcing "American values" and contrasting these values with the immoral actions of the protesting "other." Nixon's stories about patriotic, law abiding young American men sailing off to Vietnam are a means to further vilify the "other." Likewise, Ronald Reagan later demonstrates his commitment to "American values" with his "small town" mythic discourse (Morreale, 1991). In Reagan's rhetoric, the small town is celebrated because it symbolizes law and order. The images of green lawns, afternoon barbecues, church steeples, and town halls illustrate a virtuous, orderly, and law-abiding white citizenry (Lee, 1993) that Reagan uses to distinguish between the virtuous and the "other." So influential is the small town myth in our civic ideals that "the small-town ethos," "is one of the most interesting cultural creations of the American nineteenth and twentieth-century experience, having left and indelible imprint on urban attitudes, political practice, hero models, popular culture, and more generally, on American values" (as cited in Lee, 1993, p. 63). These tales have in their plots an inherent need for order and the rejection of chaos. Furthermore, the settings of these stories are by no means inner-city slum neighborhoods and projects. Notice that the characters in these "virtuous" mythic stories do not account for the "others" whose stories are told in the less "acceptable" stories of Native American folklore, those stories about black slavery, nor the images of the teenage prostitute soliciting herself outside the inner city liquor store. Rather, the "American value" story reinforces the order and values associated with a predominant white culture and the virtuous community, and exclude those stories from the street and of the "other."

Moreover, the "law and order" myth generally illustrates how minority ("other") groups commit crime. It is hard to find examples about white-collar crimes in daily and weekly newspapers and magazines. It is rather easy, however, to find examples of how the "other" participates in crime. In this vein, the "other" represents those groups who are subverted by a white dominant culture. Quite possibly the places where we "place" "other" groups in American society is a result of the mythic stories that reinforce predominately white American values (Grossberg, 1993). For example, consider the areas where the U.S. federal government "reserves" for Native Americans. images of poverty, drug addiction, and dysentery are rampant in these places, while the symbols of suburban America, generally inhabited by white, upper class families, include manicured lawns and gardens, homes with basketball courts in the garage driveways, and automatic sprinkler systems. The places reserved for minority groups further distinguish them as "others" distinct from dominant groups (Carbaugh, 1996, Kirby, 1996, Rose, 1993). This discrimination prompts a frustration that results in strong violent, and often times, criminal reactions to the system (Foucault, 1975, 1980, Rose, 1993).

Establishing order is a characteristic generally associated with dominant white culture. It is for this reason that many Americans fear street crime. Street crime is associated with danger, randomness, and chaos of a diseased society. The opposite

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

image, I assume, of the diseased society is that of a healthy garden. According to Garrett (1993) "[g]ardens are mirrors of ourselves, sometimes representing safety from the threat of wild nature..." (p. 307). Gardens are symbols of order and beauty—tranquil places where people can arrange flowers and plants in symmetrical designs—and whose propieter's sole intention is to stop weeds from choking her plants and invading the garden. The garden resembles a clean suburban street, with fruit stands, barber shops, and hardware stores lined and labeled in "Main Street" fashion, just as the vegetables and flowers are patterned in an order dictated by the gardener. The gardener and virtuous white police officer are the law enforcement authorities of the garden and of "Main Street" and both maintain law and order to the street or garden while picking out the "weeds."

It is this same "picking-out-the-weeds" philosophy that dictates how our system of criminal justice responds to street crime. In essence, the dominant authorities pluck those from the street those who are not part of the dominant system—the discriminatory nature of these policies—sets off a rebellious reaction by those being subverted by the system. As a "place" where crime exists, the street represents and encompasses all the fears that Americans have of crime. In the Golden Age of the small-town myth, the story of American values did not include tales about street crime in suburban America, or small-town America. Crime, particularly the danger associated with street crime, has always been a city problem. The city's danger and mystique is encompassed within the contradictory stories found within the urban-city myth. The city has always been a place of progression, industrial strength, and danger. The steel-outline of a skyscraper in construction, and the sharp-dressed Wall Street broker in the Armani suit carrying a brief-case full of important documents, are both images that illustrate the growth and progress related with the city. But there are other images. Consider the dark alleyways, the littered sidewalks, and the filthy park-bench. Recall those movies like Taxi Driver, Batman, and Chinatown that tell the stories of crime, mental illness, and drug addiction that is associated with the city. Although the city represents progress, it is also a fearful and ominous place. It is this "place"—his street—where our system of criminal justice targets those who are not part of the authoritative and dominant culture. On the city street, the progressive elements of the urban myth are destroyed by the images of oppression that include the confused homeless person who mumbles for a handout, the teenage gang member who leans against a condemned office building waiting for his drug dealer, and the young child who purchases a handgun to carry to school. images of street crime, ultimately, encourage the distinction between the law-abiding and the "other."

One other point needs to be addressed concerning how images of street crime reinforce the perception of the "other." The street, arguably, is a uniquely male place (Rose, 1993). Young men are able to escape from the trials and perplexities of life, by escaping to the street, where other males surround them. Men have a physical security when they are in the street. The street encompasses, what Rapp Reiter (1975) describes, as male leisure practices. City streets are crowded with young males loitering on street corners and playing stick ball. In essence, the street is a place where male-bonding occurs. The cultural mystique associated with "cruising" is dominated by a male presence. Young males cruise city streets in their

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

customized, low-rider vehicles, listening to loud music and squawking at the few women who are walking down the street. Conversely, the street is not a place typically associated with women (the "other"). Women, generally, are scared of the street. For women, the street represents many threats of physical danger including murder and rape. It is as though the fear women have of the street is due to the male dominance that crowds city streets. The street is dangerous for women because it is perceived as a male dominated "place of crime." Those women who do occupy the street are "street-walkers"—women ("others"), who because of a desensitized relation with the street—are able to "handle themselves" in this male dominant place. The women who inhabit the city street are seasoned veterans of the street; they are "street-wise" and are knowledgeable of the male authoritative rules and procedures of the street.

The mythic tale of "American values" illustrates how street crime once was a social problem that occurred within the system. For example, the pristine community, illustrated by the small-town myth, threatened by the gangster, organized crime boss, and the corrupt police officer, describes circumstances that do not tarnish the image of the small-town. Under these threats of street crime, the society was still perceived as basically a good and virtuous place where law-abiding citizens freely walked the street unconcerned with being physically harmed. If corruption entered the community, the town sheriff, personified clearly by the Matt Dillon character in the western television series Gunsmoke, and the "G-Man" character exemplified by Hoover, functioned to rid the community of the "outside" threats presented by the "other."

Conclusion and Implications

My hope is that this essay contributes to a further understanding of how myth and ideology help shape culturally salient discourses. It is my hope, also, that this essay illustrates the effectiveness and usefulness of a focus on the rhetoric of "other" and how cultural myths contribute to a further alienation between the social dominant and the social "other." I have illustrated and critically analyzed some discourse by Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon about crime. I have discussed crime discourse in relation to the media coverage it generated. Thus, I have argued that the "law and order" myth is a culmination of mythic characteristics, ideological assumptions, and media attention. Through the glamorization of Hoover's "G-Man" image in Hollywood films, the televised coverage of Kefauver's crusade against corrupt law and justice officials, and Wallace's and Nixon's hard-line toward the "others" associated with street crime, the "law and order" myth has shaped cultural perceptions toward crime.

I have illustrated how the media functions to shape, reinforce, and maintain how prominent cultural myths "other." Although my analysis is limited to discursive examples from Hoover, Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon, it does illustrate how discourse becomes mediated. The media remains a significant contributor to how discourse is transmitted, yet as I have illustrated, the media's shaping function is what contributes to "othering." When discourse, like that which is as powerful as discourse about "law and order," the media contributes to shape this discourse into mythic constructs that arguably discriminate and alienate. Thus, as I have pointed

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

out, "law and order" is not a serious topic in political debate. Rather, it is an ambiguous myth with rhetorical threads that romanticize and glamorize "law and order." Yet as this rhetorical thread (glamorization) continues to weave the fabric of the "law and order" myth, other threads, as illustrated by Kefauver, Wallace, and Nixon, contribute the threads of corruption, intolerance, and defiance—threads that arguably work to "other" those who are considered "law-abiding" and "law-breaking." It has been my contention that the media potentially shapes how this "law and order" fabric is displayed to the public.

Hoover's Hollywood "G-Man" image, Kefauver's mediated crusade against corruption, and Wallace's and Nixon's intolerance for street crime function as rhetorical threads that the media weaves into the mythic "law and order" fabric. The media in this way, does not function in a linear way, rather, its function is more subtle—it shapes discourse and reinforces an attitude of "us versus them."

References

Ammons, L. Dimmick, J. & Pilotta, J.J. (1982). Crime reporting in a black weekly. Journalism Quarterly, 310-313.

Barthes, R. (1988). Mythologies. New York: Noonday Press. (Original work published 1957).

Bass, J.D. & Cherwitz, R. (1978). Imperial mission and manifest destiny: A case study of political myth in rhetorical discourse. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43, 213-232.

Berkowitz, S. (1997). Empathy and the "Other": Challenging U.S. Jewish ideology. Communication Studies, 48, 1-18.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Brummett, B. (1990). How to propose a discourse. Communication Studies, 41, 128-135.

Burke, K. (1989). On symbols and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identities in American scenes. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Carbo, T. (1997). Who are they? The Rhetoric of institutional policies toward the indigenous populations of postrevolutionary Mexico. In S.H. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse, (pp. 88-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, J.M. (1983). Crime show viewing by preadults: The impact on attitudes toward civil liberties. Communication Research, 10, 529-552.

Carlson, J. (1981). George C. Wallace and the politics of powerlessness: The Wallace campaigns for the presidency, 1964-1976. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

de Toledano, R. (1973). J. Edgar Hoover: The man in his time. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Dorsey, L. G. (1997). Sailing into the `wondrous now': The myth of the American Navy's world cruise. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 447-465.

Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action. Chicago: Markham.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ellul, J. (1973). Propaganda and the formation of man's attitudes. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

Grossberg, L. (1993). Cultural studies and/in new worlds. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 1-22.

Kefauver, E. (1968). Crime in America. New York: Greenwood Press.

Kirby, K. M. (1996). Indifferent boundaries: Spatial concepts of human subjectivity. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lee, R. (1993). Electoral politics and visions of community: Jimmy Carter, virtue, and the small town myth. A paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, November 8-12, Miami, FL.

London, H.I. & Weeks, A.L. (1981). Myths that rule America. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Lucaites, J. L. & Condit, C. M. (1990). Reconstructing <equality>: Culturetypal and counter-cultural rhetorics in the martyred black vision. Communication Monographs, 57, 5-24.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The `ideograph': A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1-16.

McKerrow, R.E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91-111.

McQuail, D. (1994). The influence and effects of mass media. In D. A. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 7-24). Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Morreale, J. (1991). A new beginning: A textual frame analysis of the political campaign film. Albany: State University of New York Press.

O'Keefe, G.J. (1985). "Taking a bite out of crime": The impact of a public information campaign. Communication Research, 12, 147-178.

O'Keefe, G.J. & Reid-Nash, K. (1987). Crime news and real-world blues: The effects of the media on social reality. Communication Research, 14, 147-163.

O'Leary, S. & McFarland, M. (1989). The political use of mythic discourse: Prophetic interpretation in Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 443-452.

Osborn, M. (1990). In defense of broad mythic criticism. Communication Studies, 41, 121-127.

Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y., & Dempsey, G. R. (1994). What moves public opinion? In D. A. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 123-138). Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Pepinsky, H.E. & Jesilow, P. (1984). Myths that cause crime. Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press.

Powers, R.G. (1987). Secrecy and power: The life of J. Edgar Hoover. New York: The Free Press.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

Prichard, D. (1985). Race, homicide, and newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 500-507.

Prichard, D. (1994). Homicide and bargained justice: The agenda-setting effect of crime news on prosecutors. In D. A. Graber (Ed.), Media power in politics (pp. 313-324). Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Reiter, R.R. (1975). Men and women in the south of France: Public and private domains. In R.R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women, (252-282) Monthly Review Press.

Riggins, S. H. (1997). The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rowland, R. C. (1990). On mythic criticism. Communication Studies, 41, 101-116.

Rushing, J. H. (1986). Mythic evolution of `the new frontier' in mass mediated rhetoric. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 265-296.

Rushing, J. H. (1990). On saving mythic criticism. Communication Studies, 41, 136-149.

Sherizen, S. (1978). Social creation of crime news: All the news fitted to print. In C. Winick, (Ed.), Deviance and Mass Media. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Solomon, M. (1990). Responding to Rowland's myth or in defense of pluralism. Communication Studies, 41, 117-120.

Theoharis, A.G. & Cox, J.S. (1988). The boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the great American inquisition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wicker, T. (1991). One of us: Richard Nixon and the American dream. New York: Random House.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

Diversity of Academic Areas of Interest

Among Forensic Participants

Scott G. Dickmeyer

Travis Boerboom

Introduction

Forensics, as an educational laboratory, attempts to bring the learning enterprise to life by having students consistently demonstrate their abilities in a number of areas, interpretation of literature, research skills, analytical skills, poise and confidence. Students are evaluated by their effective demonstration of the abilities at tournaments. The student is rewarded for their work in several ways, including receiving complimentary comments from evaluators, receiving awards, and by qualifying for national competitions. The forensics community provides a unique educational experience for students, yet the criticisms of the activity are often not unique. Forensics education, like many other academic activities, has received a degree of criticism. Specifically, criticism of forensics education taken aim on the diversity of activity.

Diversity is a constant in the realm of American education. After all, America is the land of the immigrant. The issue of diversity, however, goes deeper than the ethnicity of the student. A student at an academic institution has the opportunity and is often asked to diversify his/her life on many different levels. A student may expand her horizons through different emphasis in academic study, exposure to a wide variety of cultures and participating in extra/co-curricular activities. Diversity and higher education go hand in hand. Not only is a student encouraged to diversify endeavors while attending college, a student is expected to encounter a variety of ideas.

We need to recognize, as forensic educators, the diversity of the college community. We must ask ourselves what diversity means to competitive forensics. Moreover, we need to ask ourselves how educators may better relate to the variance in students' lives and how forensics experience may become more applicable/more "realistic" to the population participating in competitive forensics. Diversity allows us the opportunity to enrich our activity through a number of different perspectives. Furthermore, we have responsibility to examine forensics' diversity and have the courage to determine whether we are successfully meeting the wide educational needs of all the forensic community.

Literature Review

Our project was developed in order to examine one aspect of diversity: academic emphasis. More specifically, we examine whether collegiate forensics/individual events fulfills academic needs. We believe a need exists to highlight the degree to which competitive speech serves as an educational activity. In order to examine the level of diversity in competitive forensics, we first investigate literature addressing the competition versus education debate, in particular the growing schism between competition and education. Second, we dissect the debate by

Scott G. Dickmeyer is an instructor and director of individual events at Concordia College in Moorhead Minnesota. Travis Boerboom is a graduate student assistant in the Department of Speech Communication at Minnesota State University, Mankato. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the National Communication Association National Convention, Chicago, Illinois, November 1997 We wish to thank Daniel Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State University, Mankato, and Kirstin Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State University, Mankato, for suggestions to the manuscript.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL, Vol. 36 (1999), 19-29

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

looking exclusively at trends toward competition and discussing how to restore 1the delicate balance between competition and education. Third, we use the competition versus education debate as a lens to view the diversity of forensic competitors. Precisely, we detail the notion of forensics as a laboratory. Finally, we address the lack of literature addressing diversity of forensic competitors.

Education v. Competition Debate

The first issue is the education versus competition debate. Forensics has been and will continue, by its very nature, to be a competitive activity. Forensics is often perceived as an extension of the classroom. Forensics has been defined as a co-curricular activity in which students use competitive opportunities to practice skills learned in the classroom (Herbeck, 1990). The goals of competition appear complementary to the forensics as "an educational activity primarily concerned with using an argumentative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people" (McBath, 1984, pp. 5-11). The speakers, as in any educational activity, receive expert feedback from critics recommending ways of improving their work (Herbeck, 1990). The laboratory of forensics is based on the assumption the competitive experience drives students to greater levels and ultimately leads to deeper and richer educational experiences.

However, in recent years, forensic educators have asserted a definite shift between the competitive and educational goals of forensics (Herbeck, 1990). The inconsistency between education and competition has had repercussions from oral interpretation to public address to Lincoln-Douglas debate. Gernant (1991) posits oral interpretation has the potential to be, as McBath described, an argumentative, communicative and decision-making tool, yet competitive norms have diminished the goals of oral interpretation. Gernant (1991) limits her analysis to oral interpretation, yet we recognize the same arguments of a shift in competitive norms and educational goals may cross all genres of forensics.

The problems associated with a shift from education as the primary goal to competition as the ultimate goal is illustrated when considering the role of the coach/forensics educator. The activity is based on educational principles and principles do guide forensics today. The coach, however, has specific reasons to emphasize competition. At present, the role of coach/forensic educator is a rather turbulent one. Specifically, the field of speech communication is maturing and more individuals are acquiring Ph.Ds, while at the same time, the requirements for tenure are becoming more stringent. Additionally, forensics teams are expensive and are extremely vulnerable in times of financial crisis (Herbeck, 1990). The obstacles the coach faces (e.g. job security, financial restrictions) lead to an individual having to decide on which role to play—coach or forensic educator—and the internal debate may become tumultuous. The coach and the forensic educator are both evaluated on success. However, coaches often find winning easier to demonstrate than a claim to education. Many individuals will, therefore, describe their success by counting trophies instead of discussing the educational experiences of their students. Herbeck (1990) reminds the forensics community of the tendency to place competitive success over the educational needs of the student. He offers a scenario of the tendency toward competition by how we prepare and coach our students: "everyone can recount instances in which a topic or a selection of literature was dismisses because it `could not win.' The win-or-leave scenario has several repercussions on the students, our teams, and, ultimately, the activity.

One of the most obvious problems associated with the "success scenario" is provided by McGee (as qtd. In Herbeck, 1990) who claims, "we are concerned with `performance' opposed to `substance'" (p. 5). A coach opts toward the "performance paradigm" (Dickmeyer, 1994; 1995) as the most important aspect of the forensics experience leads Herbeck to posit individual events has slipped to nothing more than "intellectual athletics"— a situation in which one institution tries to

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

establish supremacy over another institution on the intellectual battlefield. Herbeck (1990) states:

the "best" speakers are those who can amass the highest number of trophies during their careers. The "best" coaches are those who can consistently produce winners. The "best" programs are those that earn sweepstakes award at major tournaments. (p. 4)

The intricacies of the coaching quandary has led some to believe competition has taken precedence over education. Fortunately, an abundant amount of literature exists implying a student with a strong forensics education may excel in individual events competition and the education may extend to the classroom.

The literature discussing the extension to the classroom, however, is often category specific. The literature, in other words, addresses one aspect of forensics in relation to gained classroom skills. Geisler (1985) argues students should take a hermeneutic approach to oral interpretation. Geisler notes dangers occur when competition is emphasized in oral interpretation. "Students in competitive forensics have cut and pasted texts, changed the sex of major characters and rewritten portion of text which did not `flow right'" (Geisler, p. 75). The practices of current oral interpretation would not be acceptable manipulations of the text in other performance arts situations. Geisler (1985) contends the student is better served and more challenged when they dig deeper into the text, as it is meant to be read, and come to understand what the author is attempting to accomplish. We should note, Giesler's (1985) approach does indicate the importance of "learning" the most from a text. The aforementioned approach may not be practical (in light of current competitive practices).

Swarts (1988) asserts an introduction is a students opportunity to establish vital descriptive data and a chance to encourage the audience to be active, analytical evaluators of the literature. The introduction, according to Swarts (1988) is bigger than the performance. In other words, literature should be more than performance (e.g., literature is not simply meant to be performed, but appreciated) and thus, the introduction should coincide with the literature—either should not be dictated by the performance. A proper introduction brings the audience to a deeper understanding of the literature and a greater appreciation for the performer's knowledge of and attachment to the work.

Williams (1996) claims the individualized form of debate, Lincoln-Douglas (LD), has a number of transferable advantages to other aspects of an educated individual's life. Some of the aspects Williams discusses include increased development of communication skills, diversity in analytical skills and different insights on the audience. Williams continues the discussion by addressing the additional benefits to a student by "crossing over," or doing both public speaking and LD. The qualities of Lincoln-Douglas debate help the student of public speaking achieve the six standards of public address as described by the Second National Developmental Conference on Forensics:

1. The speaker's presentation should identify a thesis or claim for which the speech is developed

2. The speaker's presentation should provide a motivational link between the topic and the audience

3. The speakers presentation should develop a substantive analysis of the thesis using appropriate supporting materials.

4. The speaker's presentation should be organized in a coherent manner.

5. The speaker's main presentation should use language that is appropriate for the topic and the audience.

6. The speaker's presentation should be delivered using appropriate vocal and physical presentational skills. (p. 61)

The concern for education described in this base of literature is a vitally im

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

portant issue. Again, we should note the preceding research is application based. All of the research is based, in other words, on speeches presented, perspectives on how to make the speech better, the elements one must include in a specific type of speech, ways in which the speaker can make the speech clearer, and academic positions on whether the speech making process is educational in nature. Ultimately, the greater concern for us is how the array of literature regarding specific individual events does not address the individual. We see a distinct gap in the literature when considering the educational diversity of forensic competitors. Education in forensics and transfer of education to the classroom has been addressed. The literature on education, however, has dealt the benefit of the activity in the classroom, not how the activity benefits the individual in the classroom.

We do not mean to imply forensic professionals are not concerned with the education they are providing students. However, the literature indicates there are stresses which lead the coach/educator into making decisions that are not indicative of the educational perspective of the activity. The literature addressing the educational aspects of specific individual events shows a growing concern for maintaining the educational benefits forensics presents. Research indicates competition does complement education in forensics, yet the literature also expresses a concern for the dangers competition presents.

A plethora of research has been done in a diverse number of areas addressing the educational values of forensics. The research, as one can easily see, is focused on the events themselves. Unfortunately, amidst the diverse range of literature emphasizing education in forensics, the research has not explicitly addressed the educational diversity of the contemporary competitor.

We examine the diversity of the literature by first, considering the tournament as a laboratory, and second, examining how forensics benefits communication students as well as noting the shortcomings of literature regarding non-communication majors.

The forensics laboratory

Several researchers have argued forensics is an excellent laboratory for communication research. Harris, Jr., Kropp, Jr., and Rosenthal (1986) assert the intercollegiate forensic community "traditionally has emphasized the pedagogical nature of the activity while often neglecting the research opportunities inherent in forensic education" (p. 13). Forensic tournaments are the perfect opportunity to conduct research. A tournament may be a place to research the relationship between communication, rhetorical theory and practice: "A potential laboratory for inquiry which could add much to the field of speech communication" (Harris, Jr. et. al., p. 15).

Swanson (1992) posits, however, that during the last two decades a schism has widened between forensic programs and the speech communication field. Nonetheless, the 1990s are displaying a new interest in forensics:

Because of the diverse features of a forensic program, it can provide an exceptional laboratory experience in communication for undergraduate students. In particular, forensic programs provide and opportunity for communication studies majors to apply principles they learn within their curriculum. (Swanson, p. 49)

Friedley (1992) examined value of interpersonal communication in forensics. She focuses her discussion on "the coach-competitor dyad found in every facet of the forensic activity" (p. 52). Friedley asserts the importance of exploring forensics as a communication context with vital interpersonal elements, including rule-based communication, disclosure, confirming communication and empathetic communication. "The interpersonal nature of the forensic activity can provide an ex

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

cellent training laboratory for the observation, development, practice and eventual mastery of those skills" (p. 56).

Zeuschner (1992) considers forensics as a laboratory experience in small group communication. Zeuschner asserts, using Mills' quasi-mechanical, organismic, conflict, equilibrium, structural-function and cybernetic growth models, "the opportunities of team or group focused on communication activities delineates this activity from others" (p. 59). Zeuschner concludes, "the combination of being a small group, spending extended amounts of time together, longitudinal requirements, the presence of a teacher probably trained in a small group communication create a unique experience and setting for the forensics laboratory not found elsewhere" (p. 64).

Swanson (1992) argues forensic educators may enable a program to become a laboratory in organizational communication. All of the complex elements of an organization are present on a forensic team, particularly when one considers Goldhaber's (1990) definition of organizational communication: "organizational communication is the process of creating and exchanging messages within a network of interdependent relationships to cope with environmental uncertainty" (qtd. in Swanson, 1992, p. 65). Swanson posits several educational benefits to studying forensics from an organizational point of view. First, studying organizational communication in relation to forensics provides an applicable extension of the classroom for organizational communication students. Second, forensics programs may benefit from the constructive criticism of an organizational perspective. Third, educators and competitors in forensics are typically not the same group actively studying organizational communication. Ultimately, forensicators may benefit by bringing diverse elements of communication together.

Rhetoric/argumentation students will see the relevance and contributions of social science/organizational communication perspectives to their focus" (Swanson, 1992, p. 74). Conversely, students applying organizational communication to forensics may appreciate the value of argumentation strategies, public performance techniques and aesthetic sensibilities.

Research focusing on communication major

One can see by examining the literature that a competitor who is not a speech communication major is not really considered in the education-forensics-equation. Dean (1990) argues "forensics pedagogy should be, in some way, to enrich the educational experience of the activity" (p. 33). Pedagogy, to some degree, is moving in this direction (e.g., interpersonal, small group and organizational perspectives to study forensics). The trend toward pedagogy, however is not the norm:

Attention has focused more on judging/performance standards (e.g. "Are Women More Successful in Extemporaneous Speaking Than Men?" and "What Judges Look For In After Dinner") and philosophical arguments (e.g. "Must There Be A Need To Know Informative Speaking" or "Crossing The Fine Line in Oral Interpretation.") than on articles to instruct. (Dean, p. 32)

Furthermore, even if forensics pedagogy is able to enrich educational components of the activity (which does not always happen) we are still not addressing the real issue—enhancing the educational experience for forensic competitors. We, as forensic and communication educators, need to question how we can enrich the educational experience of the activity considering educational diversity of the competitors. We need to investigate the educational factors we are teaching; whether these factors or benefits are limited to the speech communication discipline; and most important, if we hindering or complementing the diverse needs of forensic competitors. Harris Jr. et al. (1986) argue a need "to study the relationship between what we teach in forensics and the knowledge we need to succeed in the

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

`outside world'" (p. 15). Much of the literature at least implies support for applying forensics to the outside world. Furthermore, a distinct gap in the literature exists in defining the outside world, and, save for the literature addressing competitors who are speech communication majors, no effort has been made to define the educational diversity of the competitors (i.e., non-speech communication majors).

The void in the literature regarding the educational diversity of the competitors is, as Dean (1990) stated, "both a concern and an opportunity. It [lack of diverse competitors] is a concern because the forensics activity is weakened without it. It [lack of literature dealing with educational diversity] is an opportunity because it is a "wide open" field ready and eager for scholarship" (p. 35). The range of literature addressing the general educational benefits of forensics is diverse, yet too often the literature establishes a broad set of objectives and then discusses how competitors are not meeting these objectives. Moreover, we need to define what is "educational" considering the educational diversity of the competitors. We need to reevaluate the competition versus educational debate and decide whether the current educational situation is meeting the educational diversity of the students. The forensics community has always prided itself on its ability to attract and provide benefits to all students across college and university campuses.

We, as forensic educators, need to question not only what we are teaching, but who are we teaching. We need to be sure, for the health of forensics, we are meeting the needs of our students by appealing to their diverse education needs.

Research Questions

Our study was intended to investigate the degree of diversity existing in the academic interests of student competitors. Additionally, the study describes the academic attributes of the national-level competitor in forensics. Finally, the study allows students access to express their views on whether forensics helped or hindered their academic performance. Considering these concerns, four questions guided the study.

RQ1. Does forensic competition attract a wide range of academic majors?

RQ2. What is the mean grade point average of forensic competitors at the AFA- NIET?

RQ3. Do competitors at the AFA-NIET feel forensics competition helps their educational endeavors?

RQ4. In what ways do forensic competitors feel their involvement in this activity is beneficial to their education?

Method

The method used for the gathering of data was a survey consisting of several open and closed-ended questions. The survey is an appropriate method of data gathering (Bailey, 1987). The national tournament brings a representative sample from across the nation and the choice of the students to return the survey provides a randomness to the sampling. The survey was administered at the 1997 American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament. Surveys were offered to every student at the tournament by way of the packet of information and tournament-related materials which each team receives when they register for the tournament. Each director/coach was asked to have their students fill out the surveys and have them returned to a box at the ballot table. Approximately 550 surveys were distributed and 67 were returned. We realize the number of returned

and usable surveys is small, however, Frey, Botan, Friedman, & Kreps (1991) posit: "The most important characteristic of a sample is not its size, but the extent to which it is representative of the population" (p. 131).

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

The purpose of the survey was to identify the diversity of academic areas of study in which forensics competitors are involved. The surveys required respondents to identify their major area(s) of academic study, their minor area(s) of study, their cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA), whether they felt involvement in collegiate forensics helped them succeed in their academic area, and if so, to identify the ways in which forensics involvement helped.

The data analysis is descriptive. The number and types of majors and minors were recorded, the GPA was calculated for a mean score, and the answer as to forensics being helpful to classroom performance was calculated. A thematic analysis was used for the opened-ended question regarding the identification of the ways in which forensics proved helpful to the students classroom performance.

Results

The results of the study are based on the 67 completed and returned surveys. The small percentage of returned surveys (12%) was not ideal. We strongly believe, however, the diversity of the majors represented was enough to draw conclusions specifically about the educational value of forensics for different areas of academic emphasis. Thirty-five different major areas of study are indicated in the responses (see table 1). The number of different majors provides an answer to our first question, indicating a healthy diversity of academic interests were facilitated by forensics competition.

Table One

Academic Majors

Major # in Major Major # in Major

Anthropology 1 Law 1

Biology 4 Law Enforcement 1

Broadcasting 1 Management 1

Business Administration 1 Marketing 1

Communication Studies/ Music Performance 1

Speech Communication 25 Philosophy 1

Economics 2 Political Science 9

English 4 Pre-Law 1

Environmental Studies 1 Pre-Med 1

French 1 Psychology 6

German 1 Public Relations 1

History 2 Russian 1

History of Science 1 Secondary Education 13

Industrial Engineering 1 Sociology 1

Interdisciplinary Studies 1 Telecommunications 1

International Business 1 Theatre 4

Justice Studies 1 X-Ray Technician 1

Language Arts 1

The GPA spanned from a low of 2.33 to a high of 4.00. The mean score for GPA among the students at the AFA-NIET was 3.4. The GPA is quite good, especially for an activity which takes students away from campus often and for extended periods of time. The individual events student seems successful in his/her academic endeavors, given the GPA. The GPA, however, might also be misleading because the type (or difficulty) and number of classes comprising the GPA were not questioned.

Three of the 67 respondents did not believe forensics helped them succeed in

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999

their areas of academic interest (a surprising note: two of these three were communication majors, the third a political science major). The answer to question three, then, indicates students generally believe their involvement in collegiate forensics helps them perform well in the classroom. Additionally, students offered several responses to question four (what ways do forensic competitors feel their involvement in this activity is beneficial to their education). Table two summarizes the responses to the ways in which forensics helps in the education of students.

Table Two

Themes to Academic Advantages of Forensics Participation

Helps public speaking skills Provides an edge over other students

Improves writing skills Helps overcome fears in life

Improves research skills Develops thought processes/organization

Improves reasoning and analysis Illuminates knowledge in diverse disciplines

Helps create time management skills Active involvement in group processes

Provides networking opportunities Improves social skills

Increases self esteem/confidence Increases exposure to literature

Improves understanding of literature Improves critical thinking skills

Provides life lessons Helps for graduate school

Teaches responsibility to group Pushes you to excel in all aspect of life

Gains respect from professors & administrators

The results of the study provide several reasons for forensics educators to be enthusiastic about their contributions to the education of college students. Students at the very highest level of competition come from very diverse ends of the academic spectrum. Additionally, national level forensics competitors are excellent students in the classroom. The GPA mean of 3.4 would be strong enough to graduate with honors from many colleges in the United States. We think we should note the students generally believe forensics has helped them in their academic endeavors. In answering the open-end questions students indicated forensics experience has helped them become more educated individuals. One student remarked:

Every aspect of forensics helped me better myself not only academically, but as an individual. Forensics has contributed to my ability to organize thoughts into a logical, organized, cohesive format and express them effectively (a skill that instructors not only appreciate, but point out periodically) . . . . I feel obligated to point out that forensics is an activity that has helped me not only academically, but in all aspects of my life. It teaches some of the most important lessons that life has to offer and I wouldn't exchange my experiences or the friends I've made for all the world.

Obviously, the student believed collegiate forensics provided a great educational experience. However, the experience was not the only positive evaluation of the forensics value to education.

One of the concepts previously discussed was competition being an compliment to the educational process (e.g., Herbeck, 1990; McBath, 1984). One of the respondents indicated forensics (specifically the esteem gained in competition) has directly impacted his/her academic performance:

My G.P.A. was .8 when I began working with the forensics team at my Junior College. Since that time I have increased my G.P.A. to 2.6. I think that forensics gave me a place for my talents to build so that they could take me in a positive direction.

The dramatic example above explicitly suggests competition can and does

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 1999