Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 1

Kierstin Siefring, Erin Sullivan, Cal Kurtz, Tommy Matysik

Dr. McLaughlin
Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric
2 November 2015
Satire Video Companion Paper
As part of our freshman orientation, it was a requirement that each student beginning
their studies at the University of Notre Dame watch a list of videos named Building a
Community the Notre Dame Way (BCND). These overzealous videos preached about the
prestige of Notre Dames campus community, and how the students build relationships within
and between different dorms. In Overview of Rhetoric, Herrick states that, rhetors address
audiences with goals in mind, and the planning and adaptation processes that mark rhetoric are
governed by the desire to achieve these goals (10). BCND clearly understands who their target
audience is (prospective students) and what their audience wants, namely, to feel like they will
be welcomed into the Notre Dame community without judgment. However, the way that the
rhetors go about addressing the target audience does not effectively communicate the intended
message. Many students believe that these videos seemed to deliver an unrealistic and grossly
exaggerated message, meaning that the BCND introduction videos were just a complete waste of
time. Part of what made the video so bad is that the lady that recited the main monologue in the
video never looked at the camera directly, almost like she was reading off of a screen. Even
worse, she spoke very slowly and a little too sincerely. Once students arrived on campus, they
quickly realized that Notre Dame wasnt exactly a judgment-free community, as there are many
widespread, borderline offensive stereotypes. Since the freshman class bonded over these

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 2

laughable videos, we thought that it would be a good target for satire, and we could warn future
students about the deception from the administration.
The intended audience of our video is the student body of Notre Dame, particularly those
who have seen the BCND videos. In order to appeal to this audience, we formed the video to
concepts that everyone could relate too. As every incoming freshman at Notre Dame had to
watch the Building a Community the Notre Dame Way videos, we hoped to make the
spokesperson of our video appear like the spokesperson in the BCND videos. The general
feeling from the BCND videos is that the spokesperson is overly zealous for topics that dont
require this level of enthusiasm. The theme for our videos is how Notre Dame preaches general
acceptance to togetherness (as highly expressed in the BCND videos). Thus, in the introduction,
our spokesperson acts overly enthusiastic while delivering the same lines as in the introduction to
one of the BCND videos. We did this in the beginning of our video so that the audience realizes
right away what this video is meant to poke fun of. We used lines that were similar to the lines
used by the BCND video for our introduction so that the viewers can see where we are drawing
our ideas from.
When we were deciding on what dorm stereotypes we were going to use (as there are
many different known stereotypes on campus), we posted a poll on yik yak to see what the most
well known stereotypes are. This also shows how we tried to appeal to our audience, as Yik Yak
is a common college social media application. Thus, we know that our audience, the student
body of Notre Dame, will be more than familiar with the dorm stereotypes we use.
We also used actual Notre Dame students to also appeal to our audience of choice. The
vulgar language (i.e. F*ck you Zahm) and the ways that we present the over exaggerated
stereotypes (which helps make this video more satirical) also helps to keep in touch with the

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 3

Notre Dame student body audience. Thus, Notre Dame students will not only recognize the
different dorm stereotypes that we use, but also recognize how much we exaggerated them to get
our point across.
The overall concept of our piece is to satirize and critique the well-known dorm
stereotypes of Notre Dames student body. At Notre Dame, each dorm has a different stereotype
of how all guys or girls in a certain dorm supposedly act. For example, dorm stereotyping says
that Alumni is basically a fraternity in which guys are obsessed with partying and acting like
douchebags, especially when it comes to getting the attention of as many girls as possible.
Conversely, Ryan Hall is filled with spoiled, rich, bratty girls who only got to live in such a nice
dorm because someone at Notre Dame got the girls in as a favor to the girls rich, alum fathers.
Carroll guys have really strong leg muscles because they have to trek so far to get to classes.
Breen-Phillips girls, as their mascot is the Babes (pigs), are well-known for being overweight
and Zahm guys are really sketchy, never let guys from other dorms into their parties, and are
rumored to have taken advantage of girls.
In general, these stereotypes can seem to be true at times, depending on the situation.
However, our project aimed to critique these stereotypes and the effects they have on students in
each dorm. Our project tried to show how these stereotypes can be harmful in that they often
make students assume different fallacies about one another. These stereotypes often put pressure
on students to act a certain way to adhere to their dorm stereotypes. Zahm guys feel the need to
cross their arms above their heads in protest when all other students chant profanities at them
during the Celtic Chant during home football games. Alumni guys feel pressured to act like
fraternity guys. Thus, we really tried to emphasize the point of his these stereotypes negatively
affect students by over-exaggerating them. Additionally, our project really aimed to highlight

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 4

how hard Notre Dame tries to convince others that we have random housing, when most students
will agree that our dorms are anything but random.
One of the main responses we hope to garner from our viewers is laughter. The reason
why people should laugh is because all the dorm stereotypes are so blown out of proportions to
prove our point. In the beginning, we utilize the format of the Building Community the Notre
Dame Way video in order to generate such sharp contrast between what is presented to us and
how it really is on campus. This, in it of itself, creates a type of almost indecent humor because
satire mentions the unmentionable as defined in Types of Humour (44 Monro). Everyone
knows the stereotypes of the dorm, but it is not necessarily the most common topic of discussion
especially because it can be very offensive to the people who live in the dorm especially if they
are nothing like the stereotype. For example, the people in BP are not all supposedly fat and the
girls would take offense if they heard someone saying that about them. Thus, people are more
careful when they discuss other dorms.
Yet, our particular video embellishes the dorm stereotypes in order to get the point across
that these dorm stereotypes exist and they demean the people that they characterize. This
generates not only shock but also a sense of repulsion due to the absurd assumptions made about
each dorm represented in our satirical video. Hopefully, this will cause people to be more
cognizant of what they are saying about each dorm and remember that their snide comments
impact the people in the dorm not the dorm building. Within this satirical production, rhetoric is
embraced in order to achieve the goal which is to produce action or change in the world as
noted as one of the elements of The Rhetorical Situation (4 Bitzer). Although this film might
generate some animosity from potential viewers, the feelings brewed can be transformed to
energy used to break down the stereotypes. By breaking down the dorm stereotypes, a greater

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 5

sense of community could truly exist as people could live together in peaceful harmony rather
than tearing each other down.

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 6

Works Cited
Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.1 (1968): 1-14. Print.
Herrick, James A. "An Overview of Rhetoric." The History and Theory of Rhetoric. 2nd ed. N.p.:
Allyn and Beacon, 2001. 1-30. Print.
Monro. "What We Laugh At." Types of Humour. 40-52. Print.

Siefring, Sullivan, Kurtz, Matysik 7

Our Contributions:
Kierstin Siefring: We all played similar roles in writing the script. I acted as the main
spokesperson in our video. We also split up the essay into four sections and each wrote a page
about our section. My section was about what audience our video was intended to appeal to and
how we portrayed our video to fit into this audience.
Tommy Matysik: We wrote the script as a group, kind of bouncing ideas off of each other. I
helped find actors and filmed many of the scenes, and appeared as an actor in one of them. I also
did most of the editing on the film, including placing and adjusting the video, audio, and music.
We split the essay into four parts, and each wrote a one-page section. I wrote the first page, and
edited the essay after each person had completed their part.
Erin Sullivan: We all collaborated on the script and came up with the jokes for each dorm. I
asked a few of my friends to act in the film and filmed a couple scenes. I even appeared in the
Zahm portion of the video, acting with Chris. With the paper, it was divided into 4 equal parts,
and I wrote the section of the essay about the responses of the viewers.
Cal Kurtz: We all figured out the best dorm stereotypes by collaborating what we each knew and
what we heard from other students. I acted in one of the scenes and found a few of my friends to
be actresses. We all helped to write the script and each wrote a page in the Satire Video
Companion Paper. I wrote the page about the overall concept of our piece.