As a member of Penn’s illustrious Parliamentary Debate Society
I have been exposed to some of the country’s best debaters at work and at play. Penn Parli prides itself on teaching its members how to craft the perfect speech, margarita or pick-up line, and as such, people often solicit my advice on when they need to get their rhetoric on.

President Bush “exuding emotion” during his State of the Union address. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

So, you see, I’m not just an idle observer when I watch our nation’s most eloquent cowboy at work. The State of the Union address last night inspired me so much, I felt compelled to share the do’s and don’ts of public speaking.

Speaking in Public

1. Get excited about your speech. Whether you’re pontificating about Lindsay Lohan’s trip to rehab or eliminating the flat tax, exude some emotion. Even if you’re confronted with an entire room of people determined to bring you down (let’s say you’re a College student in a Finance class, or George Bush in a room of Dems), don’t let their attitudes get to you. Be confident: even if your approval ratings are in the 2 percent range, you can still go out with a bang.

2. Do not avoid the elephant in the room. If there’s a huge issue that you fail to address (say, Iraq), people will notice. It’s better to bring it up and spend a little bit of time defending your actions and outlining a proper plan than to step gingerly around it the entire evening. Chances are, your audience has already decided what they feel about the issue anyway, so not talking about isn’t going to get anyone on your side.

3. Do not present two options as if they’re the only ones possible. If you’re separating people into “with us” or “against us,” that’s what’S known as a false dichotomy If you refer to a group of people (say, terrorists) 22 times in your speech, the distinction you’re trying to make is pretty clear- and blatantly wrong.

Just because someone doesn’t support your plan to address the issue doesn’t make them an enemy.

4. Lastly, pay off people before the evening to cheer for you. No, seriously. It looks pretty bad if your own supporters can barely muster a “hoo-rah” from time to time.

Follow these tricks, and I can guarantee the state of your union will be much “stonger” than ours.

There seems to be a consensus among current college students that the prevalent baby boomer/Generation X accusation — that our generation doesn’t care enough about what’s happening in the world — is false. I fully believe all issues — Social Security, debt relief in sub-Saharan Africa, the war in East Timor — have champions on campuses across the country. These activists are proof that student apathy is nothing more than a highly-sensationalized rumor (and an unfair one, at that).

Luckily, a study was just released That’s beginning to debunk this sentiment. Researchers at The University of California at Los Angeles came out with a survey that concluded students are not only becoming more politically-minded, but are choosing stances on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

The researchers interviewed 270,000 incoming freshmen at 400 universities across the country and came up with some relevant statistics in light of today’s global realities: 28 percent identified themselves as liberal, 28 percent considered themselves conservative, and less than 50 percent said they were “middle of the road”- the lowest percentage since 1970s.

Clearly, if students in 1970 were more likely to be middle of the road than students in 2007, we’re doing something right. While those who pioneered sit-ins in the 1960s can tick off reasons on their fingers for their involvement (women’s rights, Vietnam, racial discrimination) so can we: immigrant’s rights, Iraq, racial discrimination. And though it’s not a competition to see who’s more fired up in what decade, the point is, contemporary students care just as much as their predecessors because They’re taking firm positions on issues that matter.

The November 2006 election is a perfect example of students getting involved. Penn decided to lead the way with its election campaign “Penn Leads the Vote.” Over 200 students signed up to pass out flyers, monitor polling places, and raise awareness on campus. And because of their efforts, students came out in droves to cast their votes.

“Student turnout tripled this past election,” College senior and Penn Leads the Vote organizer Bren Darrow said. “Over one thousand more votes were cast in this election than in the 2002 election.”

So if Generation X wants to castigate Generation Y for not making a difference, I’ll happily listen, but later — I have to run to a meeting about saving the Amazon from deforestation.

For Penn students, the right to protest is as fundamental as the right
to make fun of Princeton (for any reason, even when we lose to them at
Homecoming).

From discussions about the controversial href="http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2006/11/07/News/One-Blog.Set.Off.Coverage.Avalanche-2443765.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com"
target="_blank"> Gutmann halloween photos to makeshift graves on College green, Penn
students are employing productive ways to speak out.

Penn protesting prompts two important questions when thinking about
the art of protest in a global context: what are the most effective
methods of protest, and are some causes more demonsration-worthy than
others?
Consider the protests that ensued in target="_blank"> November 2005 when President Bush hosted an
economic summit in Argentina to discuss the expansion of free trade in
the region. Angry residents took to the streets, throwing Molotov
cocktails and setting a bank on fire. While the protesters may have
had good reason to demonstrate against increased globalization, their
tactics proved reckless and futile, as the conference went on as
planned.

Even when violence isn’t involved in a protest, it’s still worth
asking whether the cause itself is worth the demonstration.

The reaction to the Pope’s
planned visit to Turkey last year can serve as an example of a
country choosing to react to rhetorical slurs instead of actual
violence. When the Pope quoted a medieval text that said Muhammed
spread Islam through violence, a Turkish political group organized
mass demonstrations throughout the country, calling for the
cancellation of the Pope’s visit. The protests went on for days, even
after the Pope issued a statement that expressed his regret at having
used the quote.

Though the outrage at such comments is understandable, where is that
outrage at the atrocities being committed in Iraq, Sudan, or Iran?
Where are the protests against people blowing up mosques in Baghad,
toppling Buddha statues in Afghanistan, and shooting each other in the
streets of Gaza? Why is Turkey so quick to organize demonstrations
against the Pope for a few, albeit ill-advised, comments, but when it
comes to condemning its Muslim brethren for carnage in the streets,
the leadership is reluctant to speak out?

I’m not advocating pulling the plug on protest as a means of
engendering much-needed change. What I do caution against, however, is
two fold.

First, protest should used more selectively. Why do seemingly-less
important issues send ripples throughout the international community,
and others that should receive special attention get less time on CNN
than Michael Jackson’s trial wardrobe? Second, protest should be
restored to its status as a spoken tool, not a demonstrably dangerous
one.

The good news is, Penn students have recognized legitimate causes and
how to protest most effectively. When Penn’s chapter of Students
Taking Action Now: Darfur gathered 1200 student signatures and flooded
administration inboxes, Penn President Amy Gutmann felt it necessary
to reaffirm divestment from any companies operating in Sudan. Though
largely a symbolic gesture as Penn has no investments in such
companies, the affirmation was welcomed as a result of peaceful
student efforts.

Clearly some causes are more salient than others. And it’s also
obvious that protesters shouldn’t have to resort to violent means to
get their point across- even if the Tigers prove more indefatigable
than we would like.

Ask any Penn student about his/her plans after obtaining a B.A., and you’ll most likely get a mumbled response about graduate school (if you’re not talking to a Whartonite, that is).

But if so many Penn students want to go to graduate school, why is it that undergrads know so little about the graduate student community?

Last semester, I had the unique opportunity to get an inside look at the graduate and professional student’s way of life. As the Graduate Schools beat reporter, I met with leaders of the graduate student government, attended meetings, and got to find out about the burdens of getting a PhD when the job market is so tiny–your best bet is to apply for a job at the local high school.

Yet the gulf between undergrads and grad students is enormous. According to Lee Shaker, the current chair of the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, an umbrella organization for graduate student governments, undergraduate students don’t really understand what graduate school is all about because the two groups rarely coincide.

Aside from begging their TAs to reconsider that A minus, undergrads don’t really have the opportunity to learn about stipends, dissertation woes, lack of adequate health insurance, etc. Conversely, grad students don’t get to relive their college glory with undergrads, mentoring them along the way.

In the end, that’s unfortunate for both groups, because they’re missing out on a chance to connect.

“Most undergrads walk around in a kind of fog about potential career paths,” English graduate student Rosemary O’Neill said. “They don’t always know where to turn for
help.”

So what can be done to bridge the divide?

Erica Fruiterman, a spokeswoman for GET-UPenn, Penn’s unrecognized student union, has lots of ideas, ranging from information nights for each major to pizza parties for students interested in more basic issues like salaries, marriage while in school, etc.

These ideas are a good start, and should be implemented. But there’s a lot more to be done. Perhaps Greek grad students could hold a happy hour at Pod for those undergrads in their respective frats/sororities. Or maybe the annual Rock, Paper, Scissors contest, usually held for graduate students, could be open to undergrads as well.

Ultimately, what type of event doesn’t really matter. All that does is the chance for undergraduate and graduate students to get to know one another–and realize they’re not so different, after all.