SPEECH FOR THE MASSES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Associate Professor Packard recently revealed the inadequacy of the Harvard speech curriculum before a speech conference, as reported in the April 14th CRIMSON. An examination of our status quo in speech is in order. Five speech courses are available now--three in public speaking, one in dramatic interpretation, and another in oral interpretation, and another in oral interpretation of literature. If we assume these are properly taught, two questions are left. Are there other aspects of speech for which courses are needed? Are there enough classes to handle all the students who need speech training? I believe that both questions must be answered in the negative.

First, major loopholes exist in the speech curriculum. There is not even one half-course in argumentation; yet there certainly are hundreds going into government, law, and economics who could use such intensive training. There is not even one half-course in radio; yet Harvard and Radcliffe surely have students interested in radio vocations. There is no faculty member available to coach debate and other extra-curricular speech activities; yet Harvard has debate councils and there are probably students interested in other types of speech contests. In fact, there isn't even a field of concentration in speech, even though Harvard could attract gifted students who are interested in a speech major. A need exists for expansion of the speech curriculum in at least these areas.

More Classes Needed

Second, too few classes are available even in some of the currently offered courses. English Q, Advanced Public Speaking, presents a tragicomic situation which admittedly is the worst. It is limited to fifteen students and offered only in the spring! Assume that future lawyers and the like would only need to polish their skill in an argumentation course which did exist. Then only the future clergymen, teachers, and businessmen would have need of English. It is impossible for this one class to be adequate. Other existing courses could be criticized similarly.

Let's face the facts. Competence in public speaking--in discussions, symposiums, debates, and other types of assemblies--does not come naturally to most people. It is unfortunate that some of our professors unintentionally bear witness to this fact. Varied courses ought to be available in sufficient number for those who need speech training at Harvard or Radcliffe. Note that I don't say--for those who want speech training. For I believe that if more courses were offered both qualitatively and quantitatively, and their desirability made known, a great many more students would be taking speech. As the result, abler citizens would be graduating from these institutions.

Will the Administration face reality and act to remedy the drawbacks of the status quo? Associate Professor Packard has offered it the opportunity to turn over a new leaf in the issuance of a policy statement this week. Joseph Frank '56