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 Texas-Austin 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 Diehl's response reveal how interlocutors engaged one another's 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 study's 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. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]