User Reviews

Joe Friday is taking a night class to improve his mind and to get a masters degree in criminology. This episode consists almost completely of Joe's involvement in a psychology class where the members of the class "rap"--talk about what they think and feel. As long as they are actively involved each week, they are guaranteed a good grade. However, during one particular session, Joe notices that one member of the class is carrying a bag of marijuana. And, since he's a cop and required to enforce the laws (even when off duty), he arrests the man. As a result, the professor wants to throw Joe out of the class--but agrees to let the class decide if he can remain. How the episode ends is wonderful--it really packs a great punchline, so to speak.

When I saw this episode a long time ago, I wasn't that impressed. I remembered this particular show as being preachy and trite. However, seeing it once again, I think my first impression was wrong. Some of the drug episodes on "Dragnet" ARE trite and preachy--like "The Big Prophet" and "Public Affairs - DR-07". These episodes consisted of Friday debating the use of illegal drugs with gurus, eggheads and hippies and it just came off as fake--like a recruitment film for the LA Police Department. However, while this one does have some debate concerning the drug laws, I missed the point--this episode really is NOT about drugs--though they become the bone of contention. The real point is free speech--something I value dearly.

Well written and something different, this one deserved a second viewing.

This is the Cancel Culture if ever I saw it. I've seen Leonard Stone in dozens of Westerns as well as several Perry Mason shows. He never fails to play a slimeball of the first order - and he certainly doesn't disappoint here, either. To show his students how hip he is, he completely stomps on the rights of anyone with opinions different from his...and indoctrinates his students in the bargain. "Carl," the low-rent pot pusher who Joe Friday arrests, is no better.

Friday has far more patience than I would have had under these circumstances. It was also gratifying to see some of the students stick up for him. Quite a moving episode.

This episode, like so many others from Dragnet, was written during an era, but written such that it remains apropos to any era. In today's so called cancel-culture, it remains especially relevant.

Ultimately, the episode comes down to a cabal, led by one out of control ringleader, abusing his power, trying to impose his personal views on the group, and in so doing scapegoat an individual for simply living by the laws that society has agreed to.

The concluding scene sees a masterfully written and acted soliloquy that cuts to the heart of the issue. That one scene puts this episode into a special class of quality television.

The lesson of tolerance and civility is brought home, with the core point being that civility is primarily about adhering to one's obligations to society, and not merely tolerating, but also defending, everyone's right to live by that civil creed.

A previous poster stated that the guy Joe arrested was 'Carl'. But Joe called him 'Jerry'. This was a good episode, I just couldn't figure out why he put a bag of maryjane in his folder and took it to class!

I can remember this episode from decades ago, but it seems like only recently have I gotten to a complete understanding (and wondering if I might say that same thing in a few years). I am roughly the age of Joe and Prof. Grant in this ep, and the man played by Sidney Clute, who talks about being able to get Jerry Morgan killed for $5 in Africa and how most of the world is of necessity too concerned if they'll make it another day to be like those in that group that talk about "their own thing" and having fits if anybody tries to prevent them from their own thing, no matter what their own thing does to somebody else's own thing.

But I think the real topic is finely disguised. Like the other reviewer has said, it's not about drugs, but about free speech. I'll agree, but I think it goes deeper into the police officer being the "enemy," or at least the symbol of what the radical-minded young people hated. As that circumstance is largely what made the "pigs" the targets of the rioting, racial and otherwise, in the 60's era, it's reflected in this episode. If liberals were really concerned with the rights of the individual, Joe being ejected from the class would not have happened-- they would, as Joe himself urged, be trying to change the laws and the system. But an object that is manifest in the physical senses is needed, and thus the police officer was like the hated mascot of your school's chief rival that you love kick around, stick pins in, or hang in effigy. So Joe was considered "fair game" to be the object of hatred after he made the arrest, followed by Grant's propaganda-filled speech to kick him out.

But this quickly leads to the unanswered questions. Would a LAPD sergeant not have known that a college class cannot just vote somebody out? If a student is to be expelled, he is entitled to a hearing by the administrative authorities. But Joe doesn't even question the professor's or the class's right to kick him out; he's just upset that they refuse to understand his point of view and his responsibility to his badge. When Bill Gannon advised him to talk to the captain, Joe refused and said "It's not my way." Maybe if it had been, he could have learned then that the class was overstepping any legal prerogative-- supposing he wouldn't have known that, which he should have. And finally, how would the class have responded to Joe after the lawyer finally gave it them straight? If Joe had to participate in the discussion to make his grade of B, it's easy to imagine the radicals ignoring anything he said, or else never failing to address him as "pig" if they did respond, and Prof. Grant would have loved it. If he and the class succumbed to the fact that they couldn't vote him out, then they would have tried to harass him out. Then the right-wingers would have come to Joe's defense, and the conflicts between them we see would be dwarfed by the fights after that. And would the prof give Joe a B regardless of whether or what he then said in class? It's hard to see that Joe and that lawyer could have a case based on the prof's negative opinion. If it really anything like that, that would surely be one class to remember. But I tend to think the real incident was much simpler-- that a cop made an arrest of a classmate in a discussion group, that the prof and the class wanted to kick him out, but he told them he would sue if they tried it.