Junior Grant Gussman won the 134th Baldwin Oratorical Contest Monday night by focusing on self-ownership and critical thinking.
Mr. Gussman, a rhetoric major, competed against four other contestants who each responded to this year’s prompt: “Get Rich or Die Trying?” Although all participants incorporated creative elements into their presentations, Mr. Gussman’s speech, entitled “Gangster Existentialism,” won over judges Jim Bond ’64, Dean Emeritus at Seattle University School of Law; John Lamborn, Head Librarian and Director of Lilly Library; and Phillip Mikesell ’63, long serving Professor of Political Science.
“It feels great [to win],” said Gussman, who won second place last year. “I love this competition. I think we have some really great people doing it. It’s been one of my goals since I was a freshman to get into these finals. I couldn’t be happier. There were some fantastic speeches. Everybody really impressed me, and I think everyone next year should look into doing it. It’s a great experience.”
The Baldwin Oratorical Contest began in 1873 and has continued in honor of longtime trustee Daniel Pratt Baldwin, whose endowment funds the cash prizes and complete works of William Shakespeare given each year to finalists.
Using examples of the Atkins diet, pyramid schemes, and cult leader Jim Jones, Gussman utilized humor and impassioned appeals outside the realms of material wealth to argue for self-ownership.
“People today want the shortcut, the fast track, to understanding how we’re suppose to live our lives, what we’re suppose to do in life, and how we should be happy,” he said. “People are happy trading their search for happiness for spoon-fed generalized life advice. You have to be willing to ask yourselves questions and to admit that sometimes it’s okay not to know. It’s okay to wait to think about what you believe because it’s only in understanding ourselves that we can truly be happy.”
Seniors Richard Roomes and Jeremy Burton placed second and third, respectively. Sophomores Victor Nava and Daniel King also competed in the oratorical challenge.
Mr. Roomes used American consumer-driven addiction to argue for moderation in his presentation, “The Semblance of Happiness.” Mr. Roomes confessed his own addictions, which began with a Nintendo, then progressed to the Xbox. His need for Abercrombie and Fitch advanced to Polo. When his parents refused him a flashy car, he was sadly disappointed. But he had a realization.
“Like little rats we hoard everything we can, and leave nothing for any unfortunate soul in our wake,” said Roomes. “We all know it’s better to indulge rather than to serve. We mask it behind the guise of industry, commerce, and the most precious world of the American vocabulary system, capitalism. The elixir for our anguish lies in the understanding that a car will eventually rust, an Xbox will eventually short circuit. Happiness does not come as a result of monetary gain. The next step in the recovery process is moderation. The second…is perspective. Has our love for money surpassed our love for another?”
While Mr. Roomes critiqued American consumer culture, Jeremy Burton argued for a completely new standard of wealth.
Burton’s presentation, “The Good Samaritan,” focused on the meaning of being rich. Arguing against a conventional definition linked to money, Burton called for a new paradigm assessing.
“I say we are not rich unless we care for others,” Burton said. “I say we are not rich unless we are members of a community. I say we are not rich unless we give. The power of caring, the power of community, and the power of charity, separately and combined are more powerful, more impacting than the power of all the material worth of the world put together.”
Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Department Chair Todd McDorman thought the contest was fair, creative, and intellectually stimulating.
“I thought that the competition was very even amongst the competition,” McDorman said. “I thought all five competitors did very well, and they offered us a diverse group of different and interesting perspectives to challenge how we think about our lives, our society, and the values of our society.”