Abstracts

This dissertation conducts rhetorical criticism of the public controversy prompted by higher education reforms proposed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in his 2008 Seven Breakthrough Solutions packet and summit. The analysis begins by exploring topoi, or commonplace arguments, raised during the argumentation between Perry and his interlocutors (led by University of TexasAustin Dean Randy Diehl). Drawing from the rhetorical tradition, the study deploys a theory of hierarchical topos, where topoi within a text are interpreted vertically, as they relate to one another in terms of priority. Next, horizontal juxtaposition of competing topoi from the Seven Breakthrough Solutions and Diehls response reveal how interlocutors engaged one anothers claims. This process of uncovering the interactions between topoi is followed by an investigation of how arguments from the Texas controversy were later picked up by other stakeholders, most notably Florida State University and Florida Gulf Coast University. The studys key findings relate to assessments of the relative strength of arguments offered by both sides in the controversy, as well as identification of central points of agreement and disagreement. The dissertation concludes by reflecting on how otherwise disparate interlocutors agreed upon the educational value of training in argumentation and critical analysis, considering possible implications of this concurrence for future controversies over liberal arts education in U.S. institutions of higher learning.