Film Summary

Melvin B. Tolson, new to the Marshall Texas

community, begins his new position as a professor at Wiley
College in 1935. Upon his arrival, Mr. Tolson decides to
establish a debate team at the predominately black college.
During this time period, an all black debate team was
something nearly unheard of. While working through
multiple political issues in his new community, eventually
he is able to form a team of strong-minded and intelligent
young students.
The debate team is comprised of Samantha Booke,
Henry Lowe, and James Farmer Jr. As black students living
in Texas during 1935, racism, oppression, and hate crimes
are consistently present in their daily lives. Although many
obstacles are before these young students, they are able to
achieve greatness by defeating all but one debate team
during the debate season.
This outstanding debate season gains the Wiley
College debate team national attention throughout their
nearly undefeated season. Due to their success, Harvard
invites them to a debate against their debate team, becoming
the first black debate team to ever challenge Harvard's
prestigious debate champions. Against all odds, they are
victorious against Harvard, also becoming the first black
debate team to beat Harvard University.

Chickerings Theory of Identity

Development Model Overview
Chickerings vectors of development contribute to the
overall formation of an individuals identity. This theory of
identity development is broken down into seven vectors that
align with the development of each individual. The vectors
are linear and follow this order: Developing Competence,
Managing Emotions, Moving Through Autonomy Toward
Interdependence, Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships, Establishing Identity, Developing Purpose,
and Developing Integrity (Evans et al., 2010). For the
purposes of this analysis, we will focus on vectors three,
four, and five. This is where it is assumed that Henry Lowe
is placed within Chickerings theory. Those three stages are
summarized below:
Moving through Autonomy to Interdependence:
Increased emotional independence, which results in a
reduced need of reassurance, affection, and approval from
others. Student develops ability to problem-solve, provide
self-direction, and mobility. They also acknowledge and
accept the importance of interdependence and
interconnectedness with others (Evans et al., 2010).
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships:
Developing an intercultural appreciation and creating a
capacity to sustain long lasting relationships. Accept
people for who they are. Respect difference and appreciate
commonalities amongst people (Evans et al., 2010).
Establishing Identity: Developing comfort around ones
identity including, race, gender, sexual orientation, and
body/appearance, etc. Has a clear concept of who they are,
personally stable, and feels comfortable with themselves as
a whole (Evans et al., 2010).

Kevin Krauskopf

King and Kitcheners Reflective

Judgement Model Overview
King and Kitcheners reflective judgement model provides a
glimpse into how a student formulates an opinion, comes to
a conclusion, or may act upon a particular controversial
subject. It is believed that ones reflective judgements are
made in an attempt to bring closure to situations that arise
any uncertainties or controversy. Ones reflective judgment
model is expressed in seven stages, including three substages, pre-reflective, quasi-reflective, and reflective
judgment. The first three stages fit in the pre-reflective substage, the middle two stages fit within the quasi-reflective
sub-stage, and the final two stages fall within the reflective
judgement sub-stage. (King & Kitchener, 2004). For the
purposes of this analysis, we will focus on stage four, five,
and six. This is where it is assumed that James Farmer Jr. is
placed within King and Kitcheners theory. Those three
stages are summarized below:
Stage Four (Quasi-Reflective Stage): Knowledge is
uncertain and understanding of knowledge is specific to
each individual and situation. Knowledge/beliefs are
justified by giving reasoning (King & Kitchener, 2004).

Henry Lowe

James Farmer Jr.

Placement in Theory- Chickerings Identity Model

Henry has clearly moved past vector three prior to the story shared
throughout the movie. He displays multiple examples of
interdependence. He is not reliant upon others support, approval, or
affection. Mr. Tolsons reliance upon Henry to lead the team to
victory at Harvard is proof that Henry is a problem solver. He does
show a common bond with the other group members and is open to
interconnectedness amongst the group.

Placement in Theory- King and Kitcheners Judgement Model

It is easy to determine that James Jr. is a highly intelligent student
from the initial observations of this movie and beyond stage four.
With his father having a Ph.D., it is clear that higher thinking and
education have been strongly influenced in this young mans life. A
strong presence of mind is clear when he is able to develop his own
reasoning and justification, supported by his own knowledge. For
example, when his father runs over the hog and is forced to overpay.

Where we find Henry most present within his identity development

is in vector four, developing mature interpersonal relationships.
Throughout the movie you witness Henry longing for the connection
of women. These connections are brief and usually involve alcohol
consumption. While he seeking and creating romantic/sexual
relationships, they are not long lasting. His inability to sustain a
romantic relationship with Samantha indicates that he has room to
grow within vector four.

In order to make proper arguments on the debate team, James Jr.

understands that intellect is not absolute, supporting my claim in
confidence that James Jr. is at the least in stage five. During his
debate he clearly understands that either perspective can be seen as
correct and recognizes that they best debaters are able to articulate
their interpretations persuasively in addition to evidence based
arguments. James Jr. is able to use his perspective as a foundation to
gain leverage over his competitors.

Although we witness Henry working through his identity in vector

four, there are glimpses of him making strides in vector five,
establishing identity. The consciousness of his racial identity is clear
when he questions what his worth is as a black man, wondering if his
education will benefit him. Through his sexual interactions, he is
seeking comfort within his gender and sexual identity. Henry also
displays a lot of confidence in himself during debates, but questions
himself early on, asking Mr. Tolson if he wants someone like him on
the debate team.

Transcending into stage six is where I would place James Jr. within
the model. The evidence of reflective judgement is present when he
argues with Henry about the opening statements that should be made
in the debate at Harvard, after comparing various sources to come to
this conclusion. James Jr. is able to win the debate by bringing in
evidence from his personal experience to disprove his opponents
arguments. He was able to utilize a significance experience of his
own instead of using evidence from his research. During the moment
he was able to personally construct and articulate the knowledge of
his experience, while weighing it against his own research and
opponents arguments.

Limitations of Theory
The most obvious limitation of this theory is its lack of consideration
of diverse backgrounds. The researched used to support this theory
was developed at Goddard College, which is currently and
historically a predominantly white institution. I can confidently
assumed that not many students of color were considered in the
research during the 1960s. Also, this theory was developed in a time
of stability and security, while the students in this film were facing
immense amounts oppression and obstacle within society. I doubt
these outside factors were considered in Chickerings research. A
lack of attention around the surrounding environment neglects the
way in which the students must adapt to their everyday reality.

Limitations of Theory
One limitation in this theory is that controversial subjects could
vary from one population to the next. A controversial topic could
just be a regular part or custom of someone's daily life in a different
part of the country. The initial stages of this theory are based upon
the knowledge and opinions of authority figures. Authority figures
can be looked at in many different ways and hold many different
perspectives or come from different educational backgrounds.
Someones judgements can be stunted by the knowledge authority
figures obtain.

Stage Five (Quasi-Reflective Stage): Knowledge is seen as

contextual and subjective. Being that knowledge is filtered
through different perspectives and principles for judgment,
many interpretations may be known. Evidence is not an end
in itself, but is used to construct interpretations (King &
Kitchener, 2004).
Stage Six (Reflective Stage): Knowledge is personally
constructed from a variety of sources, based on one's own
and others evaluations of evidence, others' conclusions, etc.
Beliefs are justified by comparing evidence and opinions on
different sides (King & Kitchener, 2004).

Interventions
Henry- is still acting upon immature sexual desires and remains
guarded with others. In order to completely recognize vector four I
suggest that he work on expressing his frustrations without the use of
alcohol. Also establishing deep intimate relationships without the
presence of alcohol. In order to accept and respect others, he must
embark upon a journey to find such within himself. Finding
commonalities with people around him may help him find comfort
within his personal struggles and identity.
James Jr.- is in a great place to reach the final stage of the reflective
judgement model. As a scholar and debater, he has paved a road to
intellectual freedom. Retaining strong influences such as his father
and fellow scholars, James Jr. will sustain the reflective status.
Already considering many opinions or evidence before coming to a
conclusion, James Jr. has no limits to his moral judgement.

References
Evans, N. J., Foerney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., Renn, K.A.
(2010). Psychisocial identity development. Student
Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2.
47-81.
King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory
and research on the development of epistemic assumptions
through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.