Hickey One-Week Campaign Result of Missed Voice Mail

Kevin Woster's article today on the GOP horserace for South Dakota's lone House seat is chock full of little goodies. Pastor Steve Hickey tells Woster R. Blake Curd's contributions to Tom Daschle should concern Repbulican voters. Hickey says he entered the race to give GOP voters a better choice.

But Hickey reveals he wouldn't have thrown in if he had just checked his voice mail:

Some looked to Hickey, and he entered the race. But within hours of his announcement, he learned of Noem’s. Hickey said he wouldn’t have run if he had known her plans.

“She left me a voice mail a couple of days earlier, and I just didn’t get it,” he said.

Less than a week after he entered the race, Hickey withdrew. He also endorsed Noem, saying he didn’t want to divide the vote that would go to her [Kevin Woster, "Long After Abortion Wars, Resentment Toward Chris Nelson Lingers," Rapid City Journal, 2010.02.28].

Note to candidates: before a big announcement, always check your voice mail (and your e-mail, and your Facebook, and your blog comments, and whatever the heck else you're connected with). And Kristi, maybe next time, if you call the guy Sunday, and you know he's announcing Tuesday, try calling again Monday!

I've told Pastor Hickey that I will do everything in my blogging powers to ensure he doesn't win whatever public office he runs for. But I'll still give him credit: the man can change his mind, and he's willing to admit a mistake. And to soothe my fundagelicophobia, Pastor Hickey shows he can defer to a woman seeking a leadership position.

RC Stevens Debate Program Threatened by Budget Cuts

As Madison High School continues to scale back its support for speech activities by ending its 40+ years of hosting the Karl E. Mundt Debate Tournament, our neighbors in Rapid City are preparing to scuttle the Stevens High School debate program. To eke out a 5% in the district budget, Rapid City administrators are considering a 50% cut in the Stevens debate budget. The cut would eliminate a teaching position and the beginning and advanced debate classes from the curriculum.

I highly recommend reading the comments section to the RC Journal story. A number of Stevens debate alums have joined parents and other interested parties to state their support for a strong, vigorous debate program. There appears to be a general recognition that debate provides one of the most challenging and profitable educational experiences that our kids can get in high school. When effective communication skills are critical to almost every good job in every field, it defies explanation that school administrators continue to treat debate as an expendable frill (and debate tournaments as an "overwhelming" bother).

For years Stevens debate was a powerhouse. in the late 1980s and 1990s, coaches like Kim Maass, Ron Grimsley, and Steve Bartholomew led Stevens debaters on grand marches across the state to come beat up on us East River debaters. But in the past few years, rapid coaching turnover (three coaches in three years, and one this year who resigned two months in) has left the team in decline.

A strong debate team requires a strong coach. Without lots of home games and arena spectacles to give the activity prominence, debate teams require a vocal, dedicated coach to be their advocate before the administration and school board. Without such a voice, the debate program becomes an easy target for budget cuts by administrators who fail to grasp how vital debate and debate tournaments are to the best education possible.

The Stevens debate program has already done its part to save money, making significant cuts in travel to East River tournaments (thus reducing its competitive advantage at big tournaments against its rivals from Sioux Falls et al.). Asking Stevens debate to shoulder another 50% cut and eliminating the curricular component of the program is unfair and unwise.

Obama, Reagan, and What We Teach Our Kids

Flying Tomato switched her garden hat for English instructor's cap to discuss how Senator Barack Obama's superior communication skills should be viewed as an asset for leadership of the free world, not a liability. When we send our President to meet with foreign leaders to represent our interests, we should want to send the strongest communicator, someone who can make clear where we stand but also listen and relate to the others at the table. A president who speaks well is better equipped to rally the American people and the world to solve national and global problems. You can't lead without effective communication.

I find that message reinforced as I attend the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association of South Dakota in Yankton this weekend. Even though I'm a couple years out now from teaching speech, coaching interp and debate, and directing plays, I still judge lots of speech and drama contests and manage DSU's interp invitational. I thus enjoy coming to the SCASD convention every September to reconnect with teachers and coaches to find out what's going on in their classrooms and in the many activities they direct.

While I am treasurer of the SCASD, I am not authorized to endorse Obama on behalf of the organization. However, as a citizen in his twentieth year of working in some form or other in teaching the art of communication, I can say that criticizing Obama or any candidate for having great oratorical skills contradicts the principles the SCASD was founded to uphold. We—not just the SCASD,but all teachers, all parents—push our kids to be good communicators. Baby's first word is a momentous occasion. We thrill to our toddlers' mastering the recitation of their ABCs and learning to read Good Night, Moon aloud. We tell our kids, "Speak up!" and "Don't mumble!"—that's teaching good communication. Even when we say, "Be quiet a moment!" "Listen to your father!"—that's still communication. (Remember, communication is always an interactive event, involving sending and receiving, speaking and listening.)

One of the first activities our kindergarten teachers have our kids do is Show and Tell: that's public speaking. We suffuse the curriculum with communication activities: for example, we expect students to give oral reports in history class, create posters and demonstrations in biology and chemistry, conduct group projects in math (that takes all sorts of communication, negotiation, and verbal leadership), and write essays all across the curriculum. Communication is more central to what we teach our kids than any other academic discipline. (Consider: how often do we teach algebra in the English classroom, or music in government class, or health in art class?)

We integrate communication in our education system because we know our kids have to communicate to succeed as adults. Getting almost any job hinges on a communication event: an interview. Communicate with intelligence and confidence, and you get work. Effectively represent your views through public statements, letters to the editor, comments at commission meetings, maybe even blogs, and you have a better chance of convincing your neighbors and your elected officials to supports actions you think will help your community. Speak rudely or sloppily or fail to communicate your understanding of a problem or process (or the Bush Doctrine), and you put yourself at a disadvantage in getting people to hire you, trust you, or follow you.

Yet after trying to teach our kids how important it is to communicate well, we are going through an election year where people turn "good speech" and "gifted orator" into insults.

Ronald Reagan made good speeches. Almost every observer, Republican, Democrat, or in between, will acknowledge that Reagan's ability to communicate was an asset to this country. He could rally the country, talk tough, and negotiate. Calling Reagan "The Great Communicator" is no insult.

We should hold up all great communicators as examples our children should follow. To mock any person—Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, or the local debate team captain—for being able to communicate well undermines a vital message that folks like my friends in the SCASD and all responsible parents teach our kids every day: you've got to communicate effectively to get things done.