What moves the story forward are a) a racially motivated shoot-out involving members of the class and b) the interception by Erin of a racially-loaded drawing in the classroom board. This is a crucial juncture in the movie from where the students will embark on a creative, developmental journey. Instead of indulging themselves in gang-wars and wasting their lives, by recording and exchanging their experiences they would gain insights into other perspectives and viewpoints. Erin struggles to procure necessary stationary for students’ writing projects – since the class is largely comprised of minority students, their lower socio-economic background meant that they cannot buy stationary supplies with their own money. Erin’s out-of-the-box thinking helps her to transform the attitude of her pupils. The proof of her methods is that every one of her original 150 students went on to graduate from high school, and then to university, she says, and that every one of them has put their life as a gang member behind them. Beyond the movie, Erin Gruwell has also advocated a more compassionate approach toward juvenile delinquency. The following words from her truly capture her steadfast commitment and purposeful character:
“We have to stop expecting disaffected teenagers to fit into the traditional education system, and instead tailor the system so they can connect to it. We need to show how every great piece of literature – essentially about the triumph of the human spirit over adversity – is their story, every journey their journey. And we have to free them as writers – letting them tell their story without worrying about spelling, grammar or it being graded. Writing validates what they’ve been through – just like it did for Anne Frank – and can help pull kids out of a spiral of violence.” (Gruwell, as quoted in Cohen, 2007, p.4)
I personally admire the fact that Erin has continued to advocate her liberal and compassionate methods of teaching. She also strongly believes that government policy both in countries such as the UK and US is “failing disaffected teenagers because it’s reactive rather than proactive. The idea of putting more police on the streets and making membership of a gang an aggravating factor in prosecutions is not the solution. In America it costs $40,000 a year to incarcerate someone and just $8,000 a year to educate them, and the relative costs are similar in the UK. It’s a shame, because after they’re incarcerated, they become hardened criminals.” (Gruwell, as quoted in Cohen, 2007, p.4)
As I watched the movie, I was able to reflect the relevance of the Holocaust in the plot. It then occurred to me that her employment of the Holocaust itself can be seen as the result of historical economic disparities leading up to Weimar Germany. That is, the systematic rounding up and extermination of millions of Jews by the Third Reich was in part economically motivated (for folklore and religious dogma portray Jews as the usurpers of wealth in which ever region they inhabit) and in part racially motivated (for Jews are also perceived to be of an inferior race to the Aryans). So within the main cinematic theme of economics of race and gender, the Holocaust provides us with a thematically consistent sub-plot as well. Adding poignancy to Erin’s allusions of the Holocaust is the usage of The Diary of Anne Frank as a model for students’ exercises. Erin Gruwell inspires her students to follow the example of 13-year old Anne Frank, the heroic historical figure, who resorted to writing down her feelings and thoughts, when forced to live in an attic for fear of being rounded up by the Nazis. (Mayo, 2007, p.43)