So as watched this episode, a few questions came to my mind, that kind of sparked my curiosity, as to how things wrapped up in this episode, that didn't make 100% sense to me (and maybe that's the way the writers wanted it set-up as...to be a topic of conversation).

Why was it that it was the teacher that was asked to resign and face the punishment, rather than Jo, who should have been suspended because she wrote something with malicious intent? Why did Eastland make the decision to make him resign even though there was no evidence that he was doing coke? Was it just so they could keep their reputation as a good school and wanted to protect their students from a potential "bad influence"? Also, why do you think that the teacher didn't sue the school for libel? Do you think he was a martyr for the school, in order to teach Jo and the school a lesson?

Personally, I feel that the way this episode was handled was a little unsettling, but I realize that's the emotion that the writers wanted the audience to feel, because they just really wanted to make a statement to young journalists that it's not to libel someone. I would have liked the teacher to stay, and have Jo get some kind of punishment or suspension, or see this episode open up to a two-partner where the teacher DID sue the school. It definitely would have made for some interesting drama! But like typical sitcom fashion, everything had to get bundled-up and resolved in 30 minutes. I think this topic could have been better handled in a two partner, but maybe the writers didn't see it as serious as they did with the teenage marriage episode? Because it got a two-partner. Well, those are my thoughts anyway. I'd be interested to know your thoughts!

I'm not sure if this was discussed already, but I'd like to revisit it, rather than pulling up an old topic!

So as watched this episode, a few questions came to my mind, that kind of sparked my curiosity, as to how things wrapped up in this episode, that didn't make 100% sense to me (and maybe that's the way the writers wanted it set-up as...to be a topic of conversation).

Why was it that it was the teacher that was asked to resign and face the punishment, rather than Jo, who should have been suspended because she wrote something with malicious intent? Why did Eastland make the decision to make him resign even though there was no evidence that he was doing coke? Was it just so they could keep their reputation as a good school and wanted to protect their students from a potential "bad influence"? Also, why do you think that the teacher didn't sue the school for libel? Do you think he was a martyr for the school, in order to teach Jo and the school a lesson?

Personally, I feel that the way this episode was handled was a little unsettling, but I realize that's the emotion that the writers wanted the audience to feel, because they just really wanted to make a statement to young journalists that it's not to libel someone. I would have liked the teacher to stay, and have Jo get some kind of punishment or suspension, or see this episode open up to a two-partner where the teacher DID sue the school. It definitely would have made for some interesting drama! But like typical sitcom fashion, everything had to get bundled-up and resolved in 30 minutes. I think this topic could have been better handled in a two partner, but maybe the writers didn't see it as serious as they did with the teenage marriage episode? Because it got a two-partner. Well, those are my thoughts anyway. I'd be interested to know your thoughts!

I'm not sure if this was discussed already, but I'd like to revisit it, rather than pulling up an old topic!

Mr. Gideon says he'd have to prove malicious intent. He decided, instead, to leave the school. He did, after all, choose to be at the party knowing that there was coke, there. I think he realized he didn't have much of a case against the school: they didn't have any knowledge of Jo's story, and he was, after all, arrested.

A two-parter would have been cool, but I think the writers decided to make the episode about the consequences of not following good journalistic integrity, rather than the fight of a teacher against The System.

(The biggest thing I wonder after watching "Front Page" is WTF happened to Sue Ann and Cindy in the cafeteria? They were sitting right there with Jo, and then... poof, they're gone! For the next five years, even!)

Why did Eastland make the decision to make him resign even though there was no evidence that he was doing coke?


I think it was more him being arrested that got him forced to resign than being at a party with drugs. However, school districts do thorough background checks every six months where I work at. Being arrested at a party where drugs are involved is grounds for an employer to fire you even if you aren't using them. If you're going to work in a professional industry with minors, your personal life has to be professionally clean as well.

biggest thing I wonder after watching "Front Page" is WTF happened to Sue Ann and Cindy in the cafeteria? They were sitting right there with Jo, and then... poof, they're gone! For the next five years, even!)

:lol:

I think it was more him being arrested that got him forced to resign than being at a party with drugs. However, school districts do thorough background checks every six months where I work at. Being arrested at a party where drugs are involved is grounds for an employer to fire you even if you aren't using them. If you're going to work in a professional industry with minors, your personal life has to be professionally clean as well.

That's a good point. And while I think things were a bit "looser" in the 1980s, a school like Eastland wouldn't want their reputation soiled by even the rumor of drug use by Eastland teachers. Heck, Mr. Bradley expelled students on a first offense pot bust.

That's a good point. And while I think things were a bit "looser" in the 1980s, a school like Eastland wouldn't want their reputation soiled by even the rumor of drug use by Eastland teachers. Heck, Mr. Bradley expelled students on a first offense pot bust.

True but Tumpy was clearly a pothead :lol:

That's a good point. And while I think things were a bit "looser" in the 1980s, a school like Eastland wouldn't want their reputation soiled by even the rumor of drug use by Eastland teachers. Heck, Mr. Bradley expelled students on a first offense pot bust.


Remember when Mr. Parker was freaking out over Natalie's article about the student who had an abortion? They couldn't dare have a student who had an abortion. Eastland came across as a preppy high class school at times. Reputation meant a lot to them. I could be wrong, but I would assume all private schools are like this though. It's how they make money off the parents.

Remember when Mr. Parker was freaking out over Natalie's article about the student who had an abortion? They couldn't dare have a student who had an abortion. Eastland came across as a preppy high class school at times. Reputation meant a lot to them. I could be wrong, but I would assume all private schools are like this though. It's how they make money off the parents.

Yep. I believe in the 1970s and 1980s, even the rumor of an abortion at Eastland could have caused some parents to withdraw their girls from the school. Reputation was everything. Private schools were known, even cherished, for their homogeneity. It was a different time. There were, like, four black girls at Eastland. That was "progressive" at that time.

You all made some great points. It really put this into perspective! I understand that Eastland is a rather conservative school, so it makes sense that they draw the line at the teacher attending the party. It kind of makes me wonder why the teacher would knowingly attend a party with coke. I mean he didn't even seem like the type that would do that. He seemed a little too uppity and straight-laced to do that, so I will say that kind of surprised me when I re-watched.

I can also understand why the writers would not want to do an episode on the teacher suing the school, I mean that would probably take the show into a completely different direction, that would have been too risky, even if this was a purely dramatic show.

And yeah, it's kinda weird that is the last we see of Sue Ann and Cindy, until well, the season 8 reunion. But as we know, the show was never did a good job explaining why certain supporting characters leave the show. They could have done way better. Also, if I was cut from the show after season 1 and reduced to basically background noise/an extra and then cut AGAIN, with absolutely no explanation, well, that would be awkward and insulting. I'm kind of surprised that Nancy, Cindy, and Sue Ann were kept around in this fashion. Like I said, if it happened to me, I'd be kind of insulted, but maybe they just wanted to hang on to their roles a little bit longer, but that's a topic for another discussion.

You all made some great points. It really put this into perspective! I understand that Eastland is a rather conservative school, so it makes sense that they draw the line at the teacher attending the party. It kind of makes me wonder why the teacher would knowingly attend a party with coke. I mean he didn't even seem like the type that would do that. He seemed a little too uppity and straight-laced to do that, so I will say that kind of surprised me when I re-watched.

Mr. Gideon definitely doesn't seem like the type to attend a party with drugs, but maybe he didn't know until after he'd arrived, and as he admits, he didn't leave when he found out.

When I was a kid, Mr. Gideon seemed sooooo mature, but looking him up on IMDB, the actor playing Mr. Gideon was only 26 when the episode was taped. I know I was still making a lot of stupid mistakes when I was 26! Actually, still am...


I can also understand why the writers would not want to do an episode on the teacher suing the school, I mean that would probably take the show into a completely different direction, that would have been too risky, even if this was a purely dramatic show.

I actually thought this was one of FOL's best episodes, as it has a pretty devastating ending. Yeah, there's still the "don't do drugs, kids, it will ruin your life" message that every US sitcom had in the 1980s, as a result of the War on Drugs effort spearheaded by the Reagan Administration, but I felt it was cleverly nuanced, with shades of gray we don't often see on '80s sitcoms, and an ending we didn't see coming.


And yeah, it's kinda weird that is the last we see of Sue Ann and Cindy, until well, the season 8 reunion. But as we know, the show was never did a good job explaining why certain supporting characters leave the show. They could have done way better. Also, if I was cut from the show after season 1 and reduced to basically background noise/an extra and then cut AGAIN, with absolutely no explanation, well, that would be awkward and insulting. I'm kind of surprised that Nancy, Cindy, and Sue Ann were kept around in this fashion. Like I said, if it happened to me, I'd be kind of insulted, but maybe they just wanted to hang on to their roles a little bit longer, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Molly definitely viewed her guest spot as insulting, and refused to do another episode after one guest spot, which she felt was humiliating, according to a 1986 interview.

Julie Pie, however, has always had the attitude that "the show must go on". All three girls continued in guest roles on FOL while working on other projects, so I guess they viewed it as steady work. At the time, their appearances would have given them quite a lot of visibility, in an era when there were only three networks, and even if they only appeared on camera for one or two minutes per episode, they would be seen by ten or twenty million people per episode. Plus, they could use the appearances to build their resumes.

Honestly it was nice of them to write the lost girls into the eps, you may think they're gone once season 1 ends but thats truly not the case!

Yep. I believe in the 1970s and 1980s, even the rumor of an abortion at Eastland could have caused some parents to withdraw their girls from the school. Reputation was everything. Private schools were known, even cherished, for their homogeneity. It was a different time. There were, like, four black girls at Eastland. That was "progressive" at that time.

I went to a private college from 1983-87. Many students were graduates from private schools and boarding schools. We had about 4 black students out of 1,500 students. So Eastland was truly representative of what private schools were back then.

I went to a private college from 1983-87. Many students were graduates from private schools and boarding schools. We had about 4 black students out of 1,500 students. So Eastland was truly representative of what private schools were back then.

Thanks for sharing your experience. It's crazy to think of how segregated things were back then. I do like that they had some students of color at Eastland, but I wish we had seen them more often.

In that recent YouTube video with Kim and 3 other African-American people video chatting with her I've shared a couple of clips from on here (they may be actors or Hollywood folks, but I'm unfamiliar with them), one of the girls says to Kim that every black girl loved Tootie because there just were not black girls on TV back then, so she was representing this whole demographic. And the other girl tells Kim she got herself a "mushroom" haircut because Tootie had one! :lol:

In that recent YouTube video with Kim and 3 other African-American people video chatting with her I've shared a couple of clips from on here (they may be actors or Hollywood folks, but I'm unfamiliar with them), one of the girls says to Kim that every black girl loved Tootie because there just were not black girls on TV back then, so she was representing this whole demographic. And the other girl tells Kim she got herself a "mushroom" haircut because Tootie had one! :lol:

The mushroom haircut looks so odd, in retrospect, but I can see why girls would want their haircuts to be just like Tootie. She was not just an influence on African-American girls, but on girls in general. But I can see how she would be an inspiration to black girls in particular.