The Freedom Writers Diary
Larry J. Fontana
For my sociological movie review I selected “The Freedom Writers Diary,” a provocative movie based on real characters and current-day events. The movie begins with images of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots: buildings burning, overturned cars on fire, people running, yelling and shooting guns, while dead and wounded bodies lie helpless on the street. The opening scene sets the backdrop for an emotionally charged multicultural story which brings us into a classroom of students brought together through a voluntary integration program. Within this classroom of perceived criminals and deviants all the major groups (gangs) in the community are represented: Latinos, Hispanics, African American, Asians and one white boy; a community of young adults who describe themselves as living within an “undeclared war zone” each and every day.
There are numerous sociological concepts and theoretical perspectives in this movie including: multicultural, functionalist theory, conflict theory, symbolic interactionist theory, bureaucracy, cultural norms, values, sanctions, social institutions, conformity, ethnography, role conflict and role strain, feminist theory, status-quo, gender and race equality, power theory, expressive leadership, instrumental leadership, agents of socialization, social diversity, deviants, rationalization, stratification, prestige, power, self-fulfilling prophecy, prestigious reputation, labeling theory, social aggregate, social group, in-group, out-group, primary relationship, secondary relationship, Muzafer Sherif’s “Robbers” summer camp experiment and more (Thio.)
The story begins with the main character Ms. Erin Gruwell (Ms. G.) played by Hilary Swank interviewing for her first teaching assignment; a class of freshman “at-risk” students, AKA the “un-teachables,” AKA the “dumb kids” at Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach California.
Ms. Gruwell is bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and has come to teach at this particular school by choice. Her enthusiasm and innocence was challenged on her first day of class as she stood at the front of her classroom nervously straightening her new red dress and pearl necklace awaiting the arrival of her students. The start-bell rang and for a very long anticlimactic moment the classroom remained silent, until her quiet-confusion was interrupted with a fury of noise and activity as the students entered the room en-mass. They immediately and forcefully formed into their respective in-groups by dragging desks around, bumping and shoving, while threatening their respective out-groups, whom from their perspectives were everyone else in the class including the teacher!
Ms. G. realized she needed to somehow take control of this class, and as luck would have it she was pushed to her breaking point fairly quickly. In a stern and almost yelling voice she took bold action by separating the groups and moving students around the room, against strong opposition. She firmly stated what she would and would not tolerate in her classroom! One of the main trouble makers, Jamal Hill, eventually settled into a smirk of approval as he took his newly assigned seat and said “there you are – I wondered when you were going to loose that smile!” This was the first step of a deepening trust and respect that would develop between Ms. G. and the students.
This movie demonstrates how quickly in-groups and out-groups can form within multicultural environments, and also how power and authority can play an important role in social stability. Ms. G. presented herself generally as an expressive (democratic) leader even though she had to initially draw upon her instrumental (autocratic) leadership skills to gain control and respect of the class.
One of the interesting elements throughout this story was Ms. G’s ability to adapt her beliefs, strategies and actions in support of the particular needs of this class. Although she may not have initially set out with a sociological mindset, she implemented sociological knowledge and perspectives brilliantly. I consider her approach to be ethnographical based upon her focus on the students from their own perspective, thoughts and beliefs, rather than their obvious and difficult behavior. This was highlighted many times throughout the movie, in particular during a profound impromptu sharing by the students describing their personal experiences of street life and how many of them did not even expect to be alive by the time they were eighteen years old. Ms. G. realized that until their time with her had practical relevance for them, she had to bridge the gap between their very precarious day-to-day lives and their experiences in the classroom.
A key turning-point in the movie was when Ms. G. intercepted a drawing that was circulating around the room, within a backdrop of laugher, of an African American student in the class with giant lips and a big nose. Ms. G. became furious when she saw this drawing, comparing it to how the Nazi’s used this method to shame and reduce the status of the Jews. After an impassioned monologue and some very telling questions and answers, she was astonished to find out that the entire class had never heard of the Holocaust, with the exception of the white student. In a very poignant statement she criticized their gang activities of “taking over neighborhoods” as “amateur” when compared to the most powerful gang in the world, the Nazi’s, a gang that “took over countries” and killed anyone they did not like. This seemed to touch a nerve with the class. While Ms. G. paused to catch her breath one of the students sheepishly raised his hand and asked her about this “halo-cause.” This social aggregate of hostile out-groups was beginning to form into a cohesive social group.
To expand on the curiosity around the Holocaust, Ms. G. set up a field trip in spite of resistance from the bureaucratic status quo of the school administration. She brought the entire class to a Holocaust Museum and included a follow-up surprise dinner at the Marriott hotel where she worked. The dinner party included survivors of the Holocaust who were willing to share their stories and speak with the students. In some touching displays of compassion, empathy and emotion these hardened street kids began to soften. They were touched that Ms. G. would do all of this for them!
Ms. Gruwell invented something called the “line game.” She drew a line down the center of the room with half the class on one side of the line and half on the other side. She then asked provocative questions and if their answer was yes they would step up to the line, nose-to-nose with the students on the other side of the line, and then stepping back between questions. She asked how many knew of certain popular musicians; how many had been shot at; who knew how to get drugs; and who knew people in gangs. The scene cultivated into a heartwarming breakthrough by the students who remained on the line as she asked how many had lost a friend to gang violence; how many lost two friends, three friends, four or more friends. As some of these hardcore adversaries remained facing each other on the line, contemplating the loss of four or more friends to gang violence, emotional bonds were forming between arch-rivals through watery-eye-contact. The line game ended with all the students paying respect to their lost friends by closing their eyes and speaking their names out loud, together!
The line game was brilliant processes helping the students recognize the commonalities they had with each other. On this particular day they were forming a social bond; on another day they could just as likely killed each other. This reminded me of Muzafer Sherif’s “Robbers” summer camp experiment. In his study he showed how quickly the camp kids could become competitive and hostile rivals, and when challenged with a common goal, in this case to repair the camp’s water system, they quickly dropped their hostility, became friends, and formed a new social group.
Ms. G. had another great idea by supplying each student a journal so they could write their stories and experiences. They could write anything they wanted and they would not be graded, however, they had to write something every day. She promised she would not read them unless they wanted her to. She offered them a lockable cabinet to place their journals in if they wanted her to read them. To her surprise every student presented their journals for her to read.
The relationship between Ms. G. and her husband Scott also displayed some interesting sociological insights. As the movie progressed she became more and more involved with her role as a teacher which became a problem for Scott. He could not understand how she could devote so much time, energy and personal resources to her students while neglecting their marriage (him.) Her commitment to the role as a dedicated teacher and as a committed wife was causing her to experience significant role conflict and role strain. Even with her best efforts explaining this as “a perfect time to develop their individual careers” she could not enroll him in the enthusiasm of her journey. He demonstrated an aspect of the feminist theory by his lack of willingness to support her in the way “a wife typically supports a husband.” Their marriage ended shortly thereafter.
One of the great sociological challenges for Ms. G. throughout this movie was the overpowering norms, values, sanctions and conformity that were deeply entrenched within the administrative culture of the school. This speaks loudly to the rationalization and defense of the status quo by most large institutions, in this case an educational institution.
The majority of the staff resisted Ms. G’s unorthodox teaching style and continually attempted to discredit and derail her efforts, most adamantly by the department chair Margaret Campbell. It seems that prior to the voluntary integration program this school was ranked as one of the highest in the state. Now, there was a deeply held resentment and belief throughout the entire staff that the influx of these “problem kids” was responsible for the loss of their prestigious reputation and position of notable stratification.
Before Ms. Gruewell, the students were treated with contempt, blame and an expectation of failure, as demonstrated by Margaret Campbell only providing them old, torn and worn out remedial workbooks rather than grade-level books that were sitting on the shelves collecting dust. Ms. G’s passionate commitment and belief in her students clearly demonstrated the validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy theory. With her support the students quickly came to learn “when Ms. G. wants something there is no stopping her.” They believed her when she told them “she was not going to let them fail.” They followed suit and also came to believe they would not fail, and that they could do it!
Ms. G’s understanding of power theory was very astute as portrayed by her decision to go over the head of Margaret Campbell and met with Dr. Cohn, the head of the school board. She requested his support and defended against his politically correct attempts to re-direct her back to Ms. Campbell’s authority. Ms. G. insisted that she needed to deal with someone in power because she was not receiving the support she needed at the local level, and she could not promise these kids anything she could not deliver or it would be exactly what they expect. Cautiously, Dr. Cohn agreed to support her, possibly because the voluntary integration program was initially his idea. In exchange for his support Ms. G. agreed that any books, materials or field trips would not come from school resources, and would not interfere with school activities or testing schedules.
The students each received a school bag that included four books, which Ms. G. purchased with her own money, one being the Diary of Anne Frank. One of the students whispered to another “these books are brand new” with a sense of astonishment and pride. The students became more and more enthusiastic about reading and writing. With the support of their teacher they took it upon themselves to orchestrate a fundraiser so they could invite and finance a visit from Miep Gies, one of the Dutch citizens who hid Anne Frank from the Nazis during World War II. Miep also discovered and preserved Anne Frank’s diary after the Franks were arrested (“Miep Gies”.) Her visit and discussions inspired the students in very unique and significant ways.
In a shocking revelation near the end of the freshman year the students learned they were not going to be together as a class next year because Ms. G. could not teach juniors. The students were resolute about staying together as a class since this had become their “kick-it-spot,” the only place any of them could freely be themselves. They felt they could not continue without Ms. G. as their teacher. They insisted that she do something, however, this would prove to be her biggest hurdle yet. Her request to Dr. Cohn was denied and she had to report back to the class that she could not be their teacher next year.
The news of Ms. G’s success with these students, including a significant improvement in their grades and a first draft of their writing project, caught the attention of Karin Polachek from the Board of Education. She called a meeting with Dr. Cohn, Margaret Campbell, Mr. Gelford, the Principle of Wilson High, and Ms. G. The meeting was professional but a bit tense within an exchange of ideas, principles, values, passions, norms and biases; a literal smorgasbord of snippets from the functionalist theory, conflict theory and symbolic interactionist theory. In a very contemplative and considerate decision by Karin Polachek, under protest of Margaret Campbell, Ms. G. was granted permission to continue to teach her students for both the junior and senior years. When the students heard the news you would have thought they won the million dollar lottery!
The students went on to compile and publish their stories into a book titled: “The Freedom Writer’s Diary.” They derived this name from the “The Freedom Riders,” a group of civil rights activists in the 1960’s who set out to challenge the status quo by riding various forms of public transportation in the South to challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation (“Freedom Rides”.)
Most of her students graduated high school and for some they were the first in their families to do so. Many went on to college and some even became teachers. Others continued to work with Ms. G. in the creation of a seminar and program to share their success with other schools.
Watching “The Freedom Writers Diary” through the eyes of sociological theories made it even more interesting and provocative than the times I enjoyed it prior to obtaining this knowledge. There are a handful of people in this world whom I truly respect, and Ms. Erin Gruwell is definitely one of them!
Works Cited:
“Freedom Rides.” WikiPedia 21 Apr 2010: n. pag. Web. 22 Apr 2010.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Rides>.
“Miep Gies.” WikiPedia 21 Apr 2010: n. pag. Web. 22 Apr 2010.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miep_Gies>.
Thio, Alex. Sociology: A brief Introduction. 7th Ed. Pearson Education, Inc, 2009. Print.
