Pearl Cohn And Hume Fogg's Analysis

Lastly, the opposing morale and school atmosphere between Pearl Cohn and Hume Fogg can be considered a result of each of the schools’ composition as well as goal. Pearl Cohn’s presentation seemed as though they were attempting to battle stereotypes and prove themselves. The ambassadors were well put together and articulate. The tour was formulated and somewhat closed off. However, the math class was quite poorly behaved. On the other hand, Hume Fogg was very natural and carefree in terms of its presentation delivery. They opened up their school and almost every class was focused and on task. In terms of school resources, Pearl Cohn was well equipped with state of the art equipment from local businesses, whereas Hume Fogg had less impressive
resources but more parent based funding (“Pearl Cohn”). This highlights the idea that student background is a larger determinant of success than are school resources. The raw emotions elicited by the atmosphere of each school are also able to be contextualized by All Deliberate Speed.
The divide between the morale of the schools was a direct response to what each group must combat. The remedial measures included in Pearl Cohn’s approach to battle stereotypes should not need to exist and it is possible the United States “will reach a stage of maturity where action along this line is no longer necessary” (Ogletree 163). Pearl Cohn’s route to remedial action outlines one outcome of the failures of Brown. Ogletree also discusses affirmative action as “socially necessary” because past and current discrimination has made it so (Ogletree 164). Ogletree’s discussion of reparations also represents another option of a remedial path. He explains, “that America owes a debt for the enslavement and segregation of African Americans” (Ogletree 274). Due to the perception explained by Ogletree that America is on the verge of creating an uneducated underclass defined predominantly by race, Pearl Cohn seemed to feel a need to denounce this view. This has great implications. For a student to be at school and feel the need to prove not only themselves, but their entire race adds a heavy burden. Ogletree experienced a similar feeling evidenced by his statement, “it was now our time to advance the movement, but to also prove, contrary to what many suspected, that we were going to excel in the classroom too” (Ogletree 44). The stereotypes about African Americans in education have been established partly due to Brown. Brown made it difficult for the race to break stereotypes because of educational and economic gaps. The burden of not fitting a stereotype explains why Pearl Cohn students and administrators worked to make the presentation a sort of ‘advertisement for the school.’ Students at Hume Fogg enter the school knowing they are successful and intelligent. Thus, they seemed to have less enthusiasm about the school in general. Their opinions about
the school were more self-motivated and academically focused. In conclusion, the discrepancies between Pearl Cohn and Hume Fogg are impossible to understand without examining the groundwork and intricate networks that formed in the educational arena as a result of the society’s handling of racial equality in the 20th century. Ogletree’s discussion of the failure of Brown explains why both Pearl Cohn and Hume Fogg look and act as they do. Once the connection between the present and past is understood, it reveals two things. Firstly, society, the school and the teacher are not independent structures, rather they intimately react to one another. This requires citizens to consider the implications of each community decision and action in the context of the other facets of a complex society. Additionally, it is crucial to question ‘approach.’ Should schools adjust their approach and alter standards to create remedies for past injustice or does this further propagate inequality by way of the self-fulfilling prophecy?