The
motivational styles of Jaime Escalante in Stand
and Deliver and Melvin Tolson in The
Great Debaters share some similarities but are different at their
roots. The classroom style of Escalante
attempts to hit at humor while also maintaining an element of toughness that
demands respect. He tries to bring
laughter into the classroom, at times by his own expense though he is does not
shy away from opportunities to mock students.
In fact, mocking students is one of his primary motivational tactics,
using it combined with peer pressure to keep students in line and doing their
work. Escalante also brings a physical
toughness that he is not afraid to utilize in the rough school district where
he finds himself working. Tolson on the
other hand does not need to resort to physically toughness. Instead, he can use his superior intellect
and speaking ability to quell any challenges to his authority. Confidence oozes out of Tolson in every word
he speaks. Whether he is right or wrong,
the way he speaks inspires you to believe him and want to follow him either
way. He also is a man of strong though
controversial moral convictions. Tolson
stands up for what he believes in and expects his students to do the same for
their own beliefs.
What
the two approaches have in style is that they both push students to a level
that they have never been pushed before.
Escalante in Stand and Deliver firmly
believes that if he challenges the students, they will rise to meet the
challenge. Despite numerous hesitations
from his peers and significant doubt of his students at times, those students
do push themselves well beyond what society as a whole expected of them. Though it meant throwing away their summer
and working late every night, the students continued to meet the challenges
being thrown at them by their demanding professor. Tolson in The
Great Debaters also challenges his students, but he focuses on overcoming
the challenges faced before them. In a preseason
motivation tool, Tolson requires his students to repeatedly answer that “the
judge is God,” that their opponent “doesn’t exist” and is “merely a dissenting
voice to the truth I speak.” In essence,
these words are trying to inspire the confidence that, despite whatever their
debate opponents are arguing, they cannot distinguish their true voice in the
debate. The opponent, therefore, is an
obstacle which can be overcome.