I had an epiphany this weekend. It happened while I watched an old movie favorite called, “To Sir With Love”. The movie was released in 1967 and has since become a classic. It is, to this day, considered an icon of progressive thought. And it is right that it is considered a true progressive landmark since it deals with the momentous issues of its time; racism, moral decline, poverty and so on. It stands to reason, then, that this is a movie that Liberals should adore. Well in 1967 Liberals did adore it – but Liberals ain’t what they used to be.
The story is set in an economically depressed area of a large city in England. The main character (Sidney Poitier) is an inexperienced teacher who is assigned to teach a class of mostly white, dysfunctional high school seniors. These kids are out of control. They have no direction in life, no proper role models at home and no prospects for their futures. They have no respect for themselves and cannot, for that reason, have any respect for others. For their personal amusement and as a show of bravado amongst their peers they set out to make Poitier’s life a living hell.
Soon enough a cruel prank by the students brings the teacher to his breaking point. He despairs of ever finding a way to reach “these kids”, of ever making them understand that they have arrived at a turning point in their lives in which they will have to face the harsh realities of life. Then he has an epiphany of his own.
These “kids” are already adults. They have had their chance to learn the three R’s and any further efforts made by him in that direction would be wasted. In front of the group he dumps all of their required study materials in the trash. He declares that for the rest of the semester they will have open discussion. No subject will be off limits so long as they maintain proper adult behavior at all times during these discussions.
In 1967 this kind of approach to education was shockingly radical. Progressive? Definitely. But Liberal? That’s another question entirely. Show this movie to a group of Liberals today and they will tell you that it’s pure cornball conservatism. That must be why I loved it.
Two things about this movie turned it into the paradox of progressive conservatism that it represents today. It is first of all progressive in that it broke society free of restrictive orthodoxy in teaching. But at the same time it is conservative in the message that it delivers to the students and the audience; each of us is responsible for his own success or failure and the ultimate outcome is based entirely on one’s ability to face reality objectively and deal with it accordingly.
Perhaps the best feature of the movie is its British talent for understatement. Racism seeps all around the subsurface of the story. It never smacks the audience in the face; it’s not wielded like the righteous sword of Liberalism. It exists as a fact in reality and is dealt with as a fact of reality. Those who are guilty of it are shown the error of their thinking. Those are victims of it are given a model for how to deal with it.
“To Sir With Love” was a powerful motivator that moved education in wild new directions. The experimentation continues as every teacher gives the process his own personal touches. To present educational alternatives was the progressive part of the message of the movie. Liberals got that. What they did not get was the message of self-determination and personal responsibility. They continue to run madly about preaching half a message. As a result one of the morals of the story goes widely unnoticed. The teacher overcame all the obstacles of racism and his students ceased to be racists.
This movie should be shown to every high school freshman as a balance to the whiney victimization that drones endlessly from the mouths of liberal educators.
6 comments on To Sir with Hindsight
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
The last thing any politician wants is a voter who can think. I doubt if this is definable by the regular liberal/conservative arguments.
You are actually quite correct in saying we'd be better off allow the human rejects to O.D. and be rid of them. They are polluting the gene pool and tampering with nature's design. We will have to pay for that audacity sooner or later.
It's comments like this that make me think that you can step out of your indoctrination from time to time and do a bit of free thinking - politically incorrect thinking. Bravo.
As a Ron Paul Constitutional Conservative, I believe in a small government that protects the citizens from ogres of all ilk. Under the Second Amendment our good citizens should bear concealed weapons to execute would-be muggers, rapists and other degenerates on the spot.
Since prisons don't reform anyone, I submit we should release the inmates who are there for non-violent mostly drug-related offenses. We save a lot of money if we put them in a controlled rehabilitation environment. All three-time losers should be executed.
These measures would reduce the prison population by seventy percent.
Explain for me how you measure the incarceration of children in dollars. And if the dollar amount you cite is correct ($217,000) wouldn't that make the US a model for the world? Hell, I don't make $217,000 in a decade!
The number you're tossing around is a pure fabrication. Which is not to say you don't believe it's accurate. You just believe what you want to believe.
The high cost includes the amount to pay back building costs. When we figure 70% are in prison for non-violent drug-related offenses, it would pay us to release them into a rehab program.
They are more likely to overdose outside prison another saving to the taxpayer. The war on drugs is a boondoggle.
It's one reason I haven't paid taxes since 1978.[LOL]