Freedom Fighters and Lean on Me

Erin Gruwell’s altruistic dedication to her students is alike to Joe Clarke, the protagonist from the movie Lean On Me (1989).  Clarke was appointed as the principal of a declining school called Eastwood High School in New Jersey, as a last resort for salvaging it from the state overtaking it. While Clark has a very different demeanor than Gruwell, they shared a genuine passion for educating and uplifting the students they worked with. Initially, Clarke presented himself as an angry and aggressive man but as the movie progressed, his attitude transformed as well. It was also evident that Joe and Erin were not interested in the money of their careers but in the wellbeing of their students. 

While Gruwell had a positive attitude from the beginning, she, just like Joe, was both assertive and vocal about their beliefs to students, colleagues and their superiors. Like Gruwell, he faced resistance from his superiors about their ideologies of educating his students but had the confidence to persist and eventually prevailed. Erin and Joe had both been discouraged about their methods of educating; however, they had the self-confidence and determination to see it through. 

Although Joe had an unorthodox way of educating, he and Erin seemed to have shared the same philosophy when it came to the importance of education. In the beginning of the movie, Erin shares this thought upon meeting her department head “...by the time you’re defending a kid in the courtroom, the battle’s already lost. I think the real fighting should happen here, in the classroom”(LaGravenese, 2007). When speaking to his students, Joe has tried to ingrain a respect for the law into his students, also warning them that if they do not receive a decent education, most of them are at risk to end up in jail or dead because many students at Eastwood were involved with drugs and gangs. Just like Erin, he realized that a preventative measure of keeping students out of trouble and out of the courtroom begins in the classroom. Educators have the agency to prevent this from happening. In addition to this, both of these educators believed that if the student fails, whether in the classroom or in a future courtroom, the students are not at fault for this - but rather the educator themselves for not finding a way to make that student succeed. 

Gruwell and Clarke were both cognizant that how the students were treated by their teachers determined how they behaved. When Clarke first arrived at Eastwood and noticed cages in the cafeteria, he said “you treat them like animals, that’s how they will behave” and then had these cages removed (Avildsen, 1987). Erin said something similar to her department head when she was given tattered, old and lower-level books for her students, declaring that the students know they are given these books because they know their teachers do not think they are smart enough. This was Erin’s way of implicitly informing her superior that the students are acting according to their teacher’s beliefs about them. While the context of these statements were different, Gruwell and Clarke knew that their beliefs and treatment of the students could potentially hinder or nurture their students’ growth. 

Both of these educators put in extra time and gave open-ended offers to help ensure the wellbeing of their students. Gruwell did it for almost all of her students, especially Eva, who took Gruwell up on her offer to help her after her trial. Kanesha, one of Joe’s students, took him up on his offer for help as well. Clarke showed up on the doorstep of Kanesha’s home with the vice-principal to talk to Kanesha’s mother after she was kicked out of her home. Kanesha’s mother confessed she was a recovering drug addict with no job and did not want her daughter to see her in a compromised position. Joe took it upon himself to help Kanesha’s mother find a job and better place to live so that Kanesha could thrive. Like Gruwell, Clarke is showing qualities of determination for the best interest of his student. 

Erin took the liberty and responsibility of taking her students on field trips. She invested the time into funding for admission and transportation in places that will benefit her students. As she had resistance from her superiors, she took her students to these trips over the weekend. For Eastwood, their educational needs focused on state literacy tests. He extended literacy classes on Saturdays, his personal time, to provide extra assistance for students. Both of these educators have taken personal responsibility for their students and invested their time and effort into transforming their students. 

Gruwell and Clarke mainly have their philosophies in common. Although the majority of Clark’s actions have aligned with ethical practice, he has had moments of questionable methods. As mentioned earlier, Clarke started off as an angry man. His primary method of instilling respect and behavior management was discipline. Erin did not resort to disciplinary action but she sought a deeper understanding of her students and intrinsically motivated them to succeed. At the beginning of the film, Sam, one of the students that he expelled, returned to school and asked Clarke if he could come back. Clarke took him to the roof of the school and aggressively, and very dangerously, intervened by telling Sam that he was aware Sam was a drug user. He also said that if Sam continues using drugs, he may as well just jump off the roof because drugs slowly kill you. Whereas Gruwell does not condone threats and would not have resorted to this unconventional means of getting through to her students. 

On the surface both of these educators appear to be very different from each other. However, upon further analysis, they share a strong dedication to educate and to improve the lives of their students. Although his manner was debatable, Joe connected, engaged and motivated his students to do better. When his principal position was compromised, his students fought for him. Many of them interpreted him as a father figure and realized that his aggressive methods of leading were for their own good. For example, when chaining the school doors, other adults saw this as threatening and trapping the students in. However, his motivation was to keep his students safe because drug dealers and gang members were intruding on a daily basis, causing harm and disruptions to his students. Like Erin’s students, they realized that their leader’s actions were for the good of them. They both managed to create a safe space and community for their students. They both believed that their students have the ability to succeed.