By George D. Baker '74
Students from Hamilton College and the University of Virginia staged a debate April 14 over which of their respective patrons--Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson--was the greater and more deserving Founding Father of our nation. The battle was precipitated by a bold challenge served upon the Cavaliers' debate society by the upstart and brash Continentals. In good humor, the Cavaliers enthusiastically accepted the challenge and hosted the engagement on their historic and beautiful campus in Charlottesville, Va.
Traveling two hours from D.C. in the rain was well worth the effort to witness what proved to be a great day for Hamilton. As talented as were the Cavalier foursome, the Continental team of Joshua Agins '07, Michael Blasie '07 and Scott Iseman '07 were every bit their match. Conducted in the dramatic "vituperation" tradition and organized as a series of debates on four aspects of the lives of Hamilton and Jefferson--their early origins and personal lives, political theory, contemporary contributions and long-term legacy--each of the four "rounds" was scored independently.
For roughly an hour and a half the combatants went hammer and tong at one another, hurling insightful historical arguments leavened with sharp humor and eliciting gasps of laughter and smiles of admiration from the audience for the debaters' individual and collective intellectual acuity and rapier wit. While the war of words was fought with fusillades of sober and sophisticated historical analyses of each founder's personal and political legacy, the tenor of the vituperation form invited generous use of humor that bordered on outright ribaldry. One can imagine the delight with which Mike Blasie delivered his hilarious and deflating rejoinder to the Cavaliers' professed greater pride in Jefferson to the point where his visage even adorns their toilet paper at the university! You get the picture.
After impassioned, jovial closings by the students, the debate's judge, UVA Economics Professor Mike Moore, complimented both sides for a wonderfully entertaining yet scholarly performance. Professor Moore himself was well aware of Hamilton from his own youth in Utica as well as various relatives' matriculation on the Hill. Alas, he noted in conversation with me his disappointment in not having gone to Hamilton too, but allowed that he had somehow managed to achieve professional success nonetheless.
Indeed, the audience sensed that much had been learned about both founders and their many achievements, as well as their many "warts," and that we had witnessed seven extremely sharp young people performing at the very apex of the vituperation debate genre. Entertainingly walking us through his analysis of the teams' performance and his scoring of same, Professor Moore awarded each team a victory in one "round" and scored another round as a tie. But what of that fourth round?
Professor Moore dramatically delivered the judgmental coup de grace by hovering his hand agonizingly over the two schools' sports caps before him on the dais and then picking up the Hamilton cap and placing it on his head! All in the audience, Cavalier partisan or Continental fan, exploded with applause. Ever gracious in defeat, the Cavaliers entertained the Continentals that evening in celebration.
If this wonderful event was merely viewed narrowly as a success for our Continental debate team (and I would argue it was a success for the equally impressive Cavaliers as well), it would be valuable enough. But it reflects on a broader truth. As a student of the late, great Professor of Rhetoric Warren Wright and a winner of the McKinney and Clark prizes for public speaking as an undergraduate, I have a deep personal affection and appreciation for the tradition of debate, oral communication and public speaking on the Hill. I have also taught classes in rhetoric on the Hill in recent years for Visiting Professor of Communication John Adams.
As I have for almost 25 years now, I annually see scores of our Hamilton students on the Hill and young alumni at our regional alumni events and in my Washington, D.C., office as they come to our little southern province seeking their futures in government, law, public policy and the region's growing role in the nation's commerce.
From all I see, our Hamilton students have well upheld the College's beloved tradition and hallmark as a special place where oral communication is prized and valued, where it is effectively taught, where it is actually practiced and evaluated as an inherent element of the educational experience on the Hill.
Traditionalists such as myself should feel buoyed by the impressive capabilities that our Hamilton undergraduates demonstrate in conversation on serious subjects and in situations in which their performance is under pressure--is last Saturday's debate really much different than a job interview? If you want to have an enjoyable experience, go talk to a Hamilton student, or better yet hire one and see how impressive they are to others and how well they represent you in a professional setting.
To me, it is demonstrably evident that the College is continuing to educate our students in the process of effective oral communication. Surely the ways and the means have evolved from the days of "Swampy," "Bobo," "Digger" and the other giants of Hamilton's academic past. But the product appears to me--and with as much interaction as I have with our students and young alumni I certainly see a lot of the product--to be of the same historic quality as in years past: impressive, clear and effective. Something we all surely should be proud of.
With my eldest son a 2004 graduate of Jefferson's "academical village" in Charlottesville, I have many very warm memories of UVA's campus. But now I have one I never expected. As we walked from the debate into the rainy early evening last Saturday, my wife and I turned back upon hearing a jubilant noise behind us. Our eyes were met with the sight of Michael, Joshua and Scott walking down the picturesque brick-lined lane like three Continental soldiers in their matching blue blazers, khaki pants and "buff and blue" school ties, hoisting and waiving an 8x12 blue flag emblazoned with a huge, buff "H."
You would have thought they had just won the battle of Yorktown on enemy turf. If their reward had been securing old Alex's placement on Mount Rushmore, they could not have been more jubilant. Their body language exuded the pure joy evident in youngsters skipping down the block on a sunny day. Take that, Mr. Jefferson! Well done and Carissima!
__________
George D. Baker '74 is a senior partner specializing in natural resources law at Williams & Jensen PLLC, a Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm. He is significantly involved in the College's regional alumni activities and high school recruitment in the D.C. area and serves as a mentor to young Hamilton alumni seeking employment in the nation's capital. He was recently elected to serve as an alumni trustee of the College.
Students from Hamilton College and the University of Virginia staged a debate April 14 over which of their respective patrons--Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson--was the greater and more deserving Founding Father of our nation. The battle was precipitated by a bold challenge served upon the Cavaliers' debate society by the upstart and brash Continentals. In good humor, the Cavaliers enthusiastically accepted the challenge and hosted the engagement on their historic and beautiful campus in Charlottesville, Va.
Traveling two hours from D.C. in the rain was well worth the effort to witness what proved to be a great day for Hamilton. As talented as were the Cavalier foursome, the Continental team of Joshua Agins '07, Michael Blasie '07 and Scott Iseman '07 were every bit their match. Conducted in the dramatic "vituperation" tradition and organized as a series of debates on four aspects of the lives of Hamilton and Jefferson--their early origins and personal lives, political theory, contemporary contributions and long-term legacy--each of the four "rounds" was scored independently.
For roughly an hour and a half the combatants went hammer and tong at one another, hurling insightful historical arguments leavened with sharp humor and eliciting gasps of laughter and smiles of admiration from the audience for the debaters' individual and collective intellectual acuity and rapier wit. While the war of words was fought with fusillades of sober and sophisticated historical analyses of each founder's personal and political legacy, the tenor of the vituperation form invited generous use of humor that bordered on outright ribaldry. One can imagine the delight with which Mike Blasie delivered his hilarious and deflating rejoinder to the Cavaliers' professed greater pride in Jefferson to the point where his visage even adorns their toilet paper at the university! You get the picture.
After impassioned, jovial closings by the students, the debate's judge, UVA Economics Professor Mike Moore, complimented both sides for a wonderfully entertaining yet scholarly performance. Professor Moore himself was well aware of Hamilton from his own youth in Utica as well as various relatives' matriculation on the Hill. Alas, he noted in conversation with me his disappointment in not having gone to Hamilton too, but allowed that he had somehow managed to achieve professional success nonetheless.
Indeed, the audience sensed that much had been learned about both founders and their many achievements, as well as their many "warts," and that we had witnessed seven extremely sharp young people performing at the very apex of the vituperation debate genre. Entertainingly walking us through his analysis of the teams' performance and his scoring of same, Professor Moore awarded each team a victory in one "round" and scored another round as a tie. But what of that fourth round?
Professor Moore dramatically delivered the judgmental coup de grace by hovering his hand agonizingly over the two schools' sports caps before him on the dais and then picking up the Hamilton cap and placing it on his head! All in the audience, Cavalier partisan or Continental fan, exploded with applause. Ever gracious in defeat, the Cavaliers entertained the Continentals that evening in celebration.
If this wonderful event was merely viewed narrowly as a success for our Continental debate team (and I would argue it was a success for the equally impressive Cavaliers as well), it would be valuable enough. But it reflects on a broader truth. As a student of the late, great Professor of Rhetoric Warren Wright and a winner of the McKinney and Clark prizes for public speaking as an undergraduate, I have a deep personal affection and appreciation for the tradition of debate, oral communication and public speaking on the Hill. I have also taught classes in rhetoric on the Hill in recent years for Visiting Professor of Communication John Adams.
As I have for almost 25 years now, I annually see scores of our Hamilton students on the Hill and young alumni at our regional alumni events and in my Washington, D.C., office as they come to our little southern province seeking their futures in government, law, public policy and the region's growing role in the nation's commerce.
From all I see, our Hamilton students have well upheld the College's beloved tradition and hallmark as a special place where oral communication is prized and valued, where it is effectively taught, where it is actually practiced and evaluated as an inherent element of the educational experience on the Hill.
Traditionalists such as myself should feel buoyed by the impressive capabilities that our Hamilton undergraduates demonstrate in conversation on serious subjects and in situations in which their performance is under pressure--is last Saturday's debate really much different than a job interview? If you want to have an enjoyable experience, go talk to a Hamilton student, or better yet hire one and see how impressive they are to others and how well they represent you in a professional setting.
To me, it is demonstrably evident that the College is continuing to educate our students in the process of effective oral communication. Surely the ways and the means have evolved from the days of "Swampy," "Bobo," "Digger" and the other giants of Hamilton's academic past. But the product appears to me--and with as much interaction as I have with our students and young alumni I certainly see a lot of the product--to be of the same historic quality as in years past: impressive, clear and effective. Something we all surely should be proud of.
With my eldest son a 2004 graduate of Jefferson's "academical village" in Charlottesville, I have many very warm memories of UVA's campus. But now I have one I never expected. As we walked from the debate into the rainy early evening last Saturday, my wife and I turned back upon hearing a jubilant noise behind us. Our eyes were met with the sight of Michael, Joshua and Scott walking down the picturesque brick-lined lane like three Continental soldiers in their matching blue blazers, khaki pants and "buff and blue" school ties, hoisting and waiving an 8x12 blue flag emblazoned with a huge, buff "H."
You would have thought they had just won the battle of Yorktown on enemy turf. If their reward had been securing old Alex's placement on Mount Rushmore, they could not have been more jubilant. Their body language exuded the pure joy evident in youngsters skipping down the block on a sunny day. Take that, Mr. Jefferson! Well done and Carissima!
__________
George D. Baker '74 is a senior partner specializing in natural resources law at Williams & Jensen PLLC, a Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm. He is significantly involved in the College's regional alumni activities and high school recruitment in the D.C. area and serves as a mentor to young Hamilton alumni seeking employment in the nation's capital. He was recently elected to serve as an alumni trustee of the College.
