Recently I competed in Toastmasters International’s annual humor speech contest.  I wrote and delivered a speech titled “39-1/2 Winks,” which was based on my polyphasic sleep experiment.

The Toastmasters humor speech contest has 4 levels:  club, area, division, and district.  I won at the club level but lost the area contest.  Technically I came in last place because I was disqualified for running over the time limit.  If you go even one second overtime in these contests, you lose automatically.

Public failure, private victory

Despite the official outcome, this speech was a private success for me because the humor worked really well — too well in fact.  The audience laughed so much that their laughter forced me to run way long.  Even after cutting some material on the fly to adapt, I still couldn’t bring it to a close on time.  I could have delivered a joke-free speech of the same length in about 5 minutes, but with about two dozen laughs, the delivery time increased by more than 50%.

Competing to improve

In Toastmasters many people say the speech contests are the best way to rapidly improve as a speaker, and I tend to agree.  This is the third time I’ve competed in a contest cycle, and I improve much more rapidly doing the contests than I do delivering non-competitive speeches.  The competition pushes me to do my best.  With respect to moving up the competitive ladder, this was my worst official finish, but with respect to what I learned, this was my best contest ever.

After the speakers were done but before the results were announced, I turned to Erin and said, “You know — I’m not sure whether I want to win or not.”  The irony of competing in a speech contest like this is that if you win, you’re rewarded with more hard work as you refine your speech for the next level.  I felt I already took this particular speech as far as I wanted to, and if I managed to make it to the district level, I’d have to travel hundreds of miles to Fresno, California to compete in the district contest, which wasn’t particularly appealing.  So when the results were announced, I noticed what an ideal outcome it was with respect to my intentions for this contest.

Humor speech analysis

I didn’t record the speech, but I gave a written transcript of it to my friend and humor mentor John Kinde.  John posted the text of the speech on his blog and wrote an analysis of the humor techniques.  His post is titled “A Toastmasters Speech Contest” if you want to read it.  There are a few Toastmasters-specific jokes that won’t be funny unless you’re a Toastmaster, and the humor loses some punch without the visual act-outs and tone of voice, but most of the humor should still make sense in written form.

The art and science of humor

Before I joined Toastmasters in June 2004, I’d never given a humorous speech before in my life.  I never knew there was so much art and science behind making people laugh.  Writing effective humor is a lot like designing computer games.  When you do a good job, the final result may appear simple, elegant, and perhaps even obvious, but it takes a lot of hard work and practice to create something like that.

What I especially enjoy about humor is that it requires an effective blend of left-brain and right-brain thinking.  Maybe it’s because I’m left-handed, but I’ve always been drawn to activities where logic and intuition must work in cooperation.  Learning the technical skills of humor like premises, punch words, act-outs, mixes, callbacks, and so on only gets you so far.  Brainstorming jokes that are intuitively funny will also get you part way.  But it’s the combination of logic and intuition that can turn a polite chuckle into a compulsory, drink-spitting outburst.

Discuss this post in the Steve Pavlina forum.

© 2007 by Steve Pavlina. If you find these ideas helpful, please leave a donation for Steve so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.

Today Oxfam released a new study entitled “Africa’s Missing Billions”. Analysts estimate that the cost of conflict, across the continent, is a staggering $300 billion dollars for the past 15 years. The Oxfam press release is here, and the full report here. Here is an excerpt from the report:

Compared to peaceful countries, African countries in conflict have, on average:

• 50 per cent more infant deaths;
• 15 per cent more undernourished people;
• Life expectancy reduced by five years;
• 20 per cent more adult illiteracy;
• 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient; and
• 12.4 per cent less food per person.

….Thus there is an urgent need to address the international supply of arms and ammunition. An effective ATT, based on the ‘golden rule’, is vital to reduce the human and economic costs of armed violence in Africa and across the world. Such an ATT would need to come with support and capacity-building to ensure effective implementation.

Economic growth and the lives and livelihoods of people in Africa are being held back by armed violence. In failing to control the arms trade, the international community has let Africa down. The disarmament community must play its part to help Africa achieve the MDGs and lift people out of poverty.

We are now at a crucial stage. As well as sustaining dynamic arms control efforts at national and regional levels, African governments, arms-producing countries, and the rest of the international community, must vigorously and proactively support international discussions to achieve a robust ATT, to protect Africans from the daily effects of armed violence.

Cheers,
Colin

I read the headline; Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied and then perused on.  After my probe, I can offer no authentic assessment.  I, as do we all, only have my impressions, biased as they may be. 
As I read the title of this article, I was appalled.  Might First amendment Rights be threatened beyond what I imagined.  I recognize much has changed since September 11, 2001.  As the Twin Towers fell so did our right to Privacy.  The Patriot Act has defined each of us as potential or possible terrorist.  Telephones are legally tapped without warrants and people are herded through airports, scanned as they go. 

In the name of Protection, the President has invoked Executive Privilege and Americans have lost theirs.  We remove shoes and stroll barefoot through metal detectors.  Liquids are confiscated, and do not dare say the word bomb, be it in an airport, a library, or a school.  Even mention of the war might cause chaos.

However, as I read on, my mind was filled with memories.  Teachers, Preachers, Accountants, and Property Assessors, all demonstrate questionable performance in their chosen profession.  Managers and subordinates alike can be cruel, calculating, conniving, and competent.  An individual worker can be wondrous as a person and less than profound in their career.

Perchance, the Monroe County, Indiana School District had numerous concerns in regards to Deborah A. Mayer and her performance.  Possibly, her discussion of the Iraq War did not prompt her dismissal.  There seems to be much to consider.  The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case; therefore, we might never know what the District, the parents, the Principal and all others involved might have said or done. 

Actually, even when information is shared, we must be sensitive to interpretations.  Our own history shades our truth.  Nevertheless, Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied.

For details, please see the submission below.  The details are scant.  Still, the subject stimulates much thought and perchance discussion.

Teacher’s Free Speech Case Denied
By Mark Walsh
October 5, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom.

The appeal was one of hundreds turned down by the justices on Oct. 1, the first day of their new term.

The case was notable because it led to a fairly broad ruling by a federal appeals court that teachers have virtually no First Amendment protection for statements made in the classroom, even on a topic of such public importance as the war.

Deborah A. Mayer was a first-year teacher in the 11,000-student Monroe County, Ind., school district in January 2003 when she used an edition of TIME for Kids in a current-events discussion about the then-impending war.

According to court papers, the magazine reported on a peace march in Washington to protest the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Ms. Mayer was asked by a student in her multiage classroom of 3rd through 6th graders if she would ever participate in such a peace demonstration.  She told them that when she had driven by recent peace marches in Bloomington, Ind., related to the Iraq situation, she had honked her horn in response to a sign that said, “Honk for Peace.”

“And then I went on to say that I thought it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war, and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems,” Ms. Mayer said in a deposition in the case.

I understand and have no problems with this posture.  As an educator, I often shared my personal views, each time with a qualifier, “I am extremely biased.  My opinion is my own.”  I invite students to share their beliefs and impressions.  Indeed, some of the best and broadest conversations, instructive experiences were the result of calmly discussions.  Our differences helped pupil and professor to learn and grow. 

I often muse, if I know only what is within the limits of my own mind, I understand nothing at all.  As a mentor, I appreciate  . . .

Some parents complained to the principal about the brief discussion, and the principal barred Ms. Mayer from discussing “peace” in her classroom, according to court papers.  The principal also canceled the school’s traditional “peace month.”

“We absolutely do not, as a school, promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation with Iraq,” Principal Victoria Rogers said in a memo to school personnel at the time.  “That is not our business.”

Parents question and that is good.  This can be expected and is as it must be.  Parents have concerns and must express these.  Moms and Dads are the primary instructors.  Nonetheless, I believe to bar talk of peace is far more serious than a violation of Free Speech.  If we as a nation to not  consider and verbally exchange our thoughts than we are ignorant by our own accord.  Do not discuss peace at a time of war, for me, promotes the combat.

Every individual says they long for domestic tranquility; our constitution affirms and avows this commitment; yet, if we act aggressively to quell all possibility of peace then what might we truly advocate.

The school district decided in April 2003 not to renew Ms. Mayer’s contract for the next school year.  The teacher alleged that it was because of her comments on Iraq, and she sued the district on First Amendment and related grounds.

On the surface, this dismissal seems reprehensible, without reason.  Indeed, it appears the Right to Free Speech was denied.  However, as I read on, I realized there was more to consider.  How might the teacher communicated in the classroom.  What might she have said separate from her sentiments as they pertain to war and peace.

A Captive Audience
A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis granted summary judgment last year to the school district.  In a Jan. 24 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, ruled unanimously for the district as well.

“The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system,” the appeals court said. . . .

While an observer may surmise, students, seated quietly in a classroom, are a “captive audience,” in my experience, this cannot be true.  Even a teacher that commands her class to be still cannot close a mind.  A pupil, fearful of punishment may not orally challenge a teacher; however, in his or her mind, he or she argues when they disagree.

An academic in a room with an instructor open to dialogue, will share aloud each and every thought.  I actually invite and welcome disparate comments.  I think it is best for young minds to understand that my opinion is mine alone and need not be theirs.  Apparently, the Justices acknowledged such a possibility.

The justices had expressed some interest in the case.  When the school district initially declined to file an answer to the teacher’s appeal, the high court requested a response.  The district’s brief may have convinced the justices that the case would not be suitable for deciding the teacher-speech question.

According to the Monroe County district, some parents had complained about Ms. Mayer’s “demeanor, conduct towards students, and professional competency” even before the discussion of Iraq.  During the second semester, the principal had placed Ms. Mayer on an improvement plan, but the teacher’s “job performance progressively deteriorated,” the district said in its court papers.

“Ms. Mayer’s speech was not the motivating factor for the nonrenewal of her teaching contract,” the district said.

The justices declined without comment to hear the teacher’s appeal in Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corp. (Case No. 06-1657).

Perchance there was much to consider, most of which remains hidden.  The casual comment cannot be made with certainty.  Circumstances are complex, as are the individuals involved.  I suspect there are numerous problems with this case on both sides.

For the District to forego “Peace Month” activities.  To forfeit all discussions of foreign policy, particularly as these relate to global harmony, this is a frightening paradox.  If there were grounds for dismissal separate from the classroom comment, why were these not highlighted consistently so as to leave no question.

I cannot answer any of these concerns.  I know too little.  With thanks to the Courts refusal to hear the case, I, we have access to less information.

I invite you to feel free to share your thoughts.  If you are an educator, might you empathize with the instructor or the implication.  As an employer, what might you surmise.  Parent, please ponder, and share your experience.  May we each contemplate, cogitate, and conclude.  Without sufficient evidence to the contrary, we must accept that our opinions are merely moot.

References . . .