This article is in response to Michael Burgoon's call in "Communication Education," October 1989, for the divorcing of speech education from the discipline of communication. It is argued that the lack of isomorphism between speech education and behavioral research in communication reflects a serious imbalance within the discipline, one that has already divided the discipline along media-specific contexts. But rather than concluding that a divorce between speech and communication is desirable, this paper calls for a greater effort by educators to correct an imbalance within the discipline by focusing less on the media of communication and more on the action of communicating. This focus on media has evolved through an increasing awareness of and concern for communication media primarily as a result of the proliferation of electronic communication media in the 20th century. This has resulted in a fragmented discipline, with the study of communication being conducted within numerous subdivisions based on media-specific modes of communication. While theoretical views of communication have largely rejected the tenets of logical empiricism, the discipline's structure continues to reflect reductionist thinking. The various media-specific subdisciplines within the field of communication should strive for a common central focus on communicating. (Thirty-six notes are included.) (Author/PRA)