Prof. Endres displayed an above average command of the facts concerning the Utes nickname. Throughout her presentation, she was able bring up all the angles of this topic, including the history of the relationship between the Ute tribes and the university, the modern actions of students and university administration regarding the Utes nickname, and similar university mascot controversies. In no place did she show a lack of familiarity with any source texts surrounding these topics. Her command of the facts was only tempered by two aspects: her conspicuous usage of notes during the talk and her lack of reference to specific rhetorical analysis of the source texts. During her talk, she seemed mostly to be reading directly from prepared notes, rather than relating these facts off the top of her head. This did not distract from the …show more content…
The other detracting aspect stems from her slide where she proclaimed she knew a lot about rhetorical analysis and that that is the focus of her research. As she moved through the texts, she did not make it obvious where she performed specific rhetorical analysis, which would have been accomplished by using terms we would usually hear in debate class like ethos, pathos, or logos, even though it was clear she used those skills. Thus her rhetorical skill was very well integrated into the talk, but the fact she has mastery of rhetoric beyond the typical university professor, which she took a whole slide to emphasize, could be missed if one did not look for it.
Invenio rank: lithium (3)
Prof. Endres’ choice to relate the broad history and scope of the conversation concerning the use of the Ute