PressEthic

Cameron Crowe did it years ago and the product, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, became a sensational cult classic.

Fifteen years later, a 24-year old Stanford graduate enrolls undercover in a local public high school and chronicles what he sees. The result is High School Confidential, a new book by Jeremy Iversen.

In a Q&A with Iversen on Salon.com David Kent Randall unearths the 24-year old’s perception of all that is wrong with the education system and teenagers today.

According to Randall:

Iversen sets himself apart from his predecessor by writing not just about teen drug use and parties but also about the far weightier issue of American education policy. From the inside, he casts a critical eye on the pressures and hurdles facing his peers, and tries to initiate a tough discussion about why schools still fail to produce passionate learners.

Iversen admits he was raised amidst affluence and never had a typical high school experience. Still he feels competent enough, only months after his ivy league graduation, to critique our nation's public school system:

Iversen started to feel like he was becoming trapped by the adult world, without any real adolescence to look back on. So shortly after graduating from college, he began meeting with assorted school boards and principals -- and soon found himself enrolled in a public high school in Southern California with a fake name (Jeremy Hughes), pretending to be a senior transfer student while taking notes for the book that became "High School Confidential." Only the principal knew that he was an impostor. And he was bound by only two rules: He would initiate no illegal activity, and he would have no intimate contact with any student.

This topic reignites controversy over the violation of ethical principles when a journalist chooses to hind intent in pursuit of a story. According to some theories of ethics, such an occasion can only be tolerated if the product of such indiscretion is for the greater good.

Did Iversen invade the privacy and earn the trust of impressionable teenagers and uncover anything truly pertinent? Given that he pursued this endeavor with little to no professional journalistic experience and with no apparent guidance from any experts on sociology or education, are his assertions even relevant?

Iversen paints an unflattering portrait of the bureaucracy of the school he investigated and of its faculty and staff. He raises questions about the education system as an entity, of youth today and of status but ignores the role of family.

Given that the principal was the only person aware of Iversen’s mission, she is responsible for her school’s portrayal. But what about the young kids profiled? The depictions in the novel are alleged “composites” but will certainly cause rampant gossip amongst the students at that school. I feel sympathy for those who befriended Iversen, as they are surely portrayed in his book and the students will easily deduce identities.

I feel Iversen’s findings lack credibility and I wonder about his intent. I question whether he truly sought to uncover the truth about these students or if they were exploited in Iversen’s attempt to make a name for himself through a book that was certain to cause controversy, sensation and garner its author a bevy of TV interviews.

While it is probable that his assertions carry truth, the author lacks credibility due to inexperience and a questionable motive.

Was Iversen in the pursuit of truth … or fame?