Research Project (Powerpoint)

LGBTQ+ and Music Education

NAME

LTED 380

FALL 2019

Connell, C. (2012). Dangerous disclosures. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 9(2), 168-177. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-011-0076-8

This ar ticle discusses the issues surrounding LGBT+ employees, specifically teachers, within their work place. Through qualitative analysis, this ar ticle focuses on the experiences of teachers in the gay- friendly state of California and the gay-hostile state of Texas. Teachers who identify as LGBT often have to consider many factors when entering a workforce and look at the conditions they are placed with. Are there nondiscrimination policies in place? Regionally, what is the sociocultural life like? Teachers are especially vulnerable in that they work with children and have to deal with not only their coworkers, but the administration, parents, as well as their community as a whole. Since there is no federal protection against discrimination for LGBT employees, states are the ones who call the shots in how much protection they are going to offer their employees (Connell 2012).

This ar ticle also describes the coming out process a continual life journey as LGBT community members stake a public claim to their sexual identity. Some may feel the need to return to the “closet” due to circumstances involving raced, classed, and gendered hierarchies that make their sexual and gender expression difficult. The abstract concept of the closet is flawed because depending on the context and environment, one can easily return to their closet in hopes to not make themselves a target. It can also be difficult for some LGBT members to remain closeted because their outward appearance and/or mannerisms can be deemed as “queer”. Some teachers are describes as using “passing” strategies to avoid bringing attention to their sexual identities whilst in the workplace. Others can be described as being in a “glass closet”, where they do not inform others of their sexuality, but others can see right through them and view them as queer individuals (Connell 2012).

The relationship between being closeted and job satisfaction can be described as a negative as LGBT teachers feel the stress and anxiety of having to hide their identities. One of the biggest fears is having their teaching cer tificates or contracts revoked on the grounds that their identities are considering “immoral conduct”. Melissa, a 44-year-old white lesbian Texas teacher expressed her fear of coming out as her district was strict on their “immoral conduct” clause in their employees’ contacts. Melissa exclaimed that she witnessed an unmarried pregnant teacher be fired under this clause. She also recalled how a teacher was fired and the newspaper described him as the “homosexual teacher” and made the assumption that gay identifying people are all pedophiles. Melissa felt like she had to be careful about how much her identity she would expose, despite it causing her emotional pain and stress (Connell 2012).

Some teachers have viewed nondiscrimination policies as their incentive of pursuing and accepting a teaching position. Rufus, a 31-year-old white gay California teacher explains that he has had a lot of tension from his students but explains to his classes that it is actually against the law for them to harass and belittle him as their teacher because of him being gay. He explains that he is teaching there in California and not his bir thplace, Wisconsin, because they do not have the AB 537, a California Educational Code that protects their LGBT employees. Rufus is a model gay teacher as he not only is open about his identity but educates his students about LGBT policy protections and helps them understand that any fur ther harassment will not be tolerated or accepted by him, the school, and the district administration. Rufus describes his goal as an educator to promote fairness, respect, and equality within his curriculum (Connell 2012).

What came as a shock but should not have surprised me so much was the instance where even though some of these teachers work in gay-friendly contexts, they were still hesitant to out themselves to their students, administrators, and staff. Georgia, a 37-year-old white lesbian teacher in Texas that worked in a school that offered nondiscrimination protection on the grounds of sexuality, but she was not out to her coworkers and was anxious about coming out. Georgia felt that even though her contract said one thing, does not mean it will not happen. She also described an instance where a coworker, Ms. Cleveland, a special education teacher, made a statement regarding how boys liking girls and vice versa were the default identities of people. Georgia makes the safe assumption that a majority of her colleagues are conservatives and manages her personal life with her professional (Connell 2012). Picking up on comments such as Ms. Cleveland’s is a way to test the waters, and to understand the school’s overall microculture.

Overall, the experience of coming out in a workplace of education can be varied depending on an array of factors. Are you legally protected? What is the general region like? What is the school’s environment like? Do you need to be “passing” to keep your job and stay safe? Are you “passing”? There needs to also be a clear understanding of teachers’ legal rights and more awareness of our rights as people and educators.

Loutzenheiser, L. W. (1996). How schools play "smear the queer". Feminist Teacher, 10(1), 59.

This article discusses how public school systems sometimes are contributing factors to the culture of homophobia through avoidance of the topic as well as lack of inclusion and awareness of LGBT issues. The game “smear the queer”, as referenced in the article’s title, is in reference to the game where a group of children will dog pile onto a student they deem weaker or less popular. In terms of schools, this “piling” regards to how LGBT students can be physically or verbally harassed while at school. It describes this relationship as mutually toxic for both the victim and antagonists as they are also “damaged” as they remain ignorant to their world and community (Loutzenheiser 1996).

One of the biggest issues with why schools have an issue with enforcing policies on homophobic actions is that they fear the threat of religious retaliations. Religion is one of the many boulders that prevent conversations about LGBT issues within schools. It has been described as something that is dangerous and nerve-wracking. The double standard remains though that people are quick to passionately fight for women’s rights, but when it comes to LGBT matters people do not seem to bat a lash. Those who do not talk about such matters usually have so much fear of the consequences that come with being an ally or someone who wants to be enlightened about worldly issues (Loutzenheiser 1996).

One of the things this article stresses is the importance of student-teacher relationships. Teachers learn just as much from their students as their students do from them. Teachers who witness homophobia should be able to see the instances of “othering”, where students are isolated on the basis of their outward presence and self representation. “The homosexual” is often considered an “other” as they are seen as odd, different, and not conforming. These are warning signs and triggers to horrible occurrences such as suicide or school shootings. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has made an estimate that nearly 30% of youth suicides are of those in the LGBT community. This makes them three to five times more likely to attempt suicide and succeed compared to those that identify as straight. Along with this, they are more likely to be drug abusers and risk being homeless. To top it off, being of color, working class, disabled , and going against gender roles are just more risk factors that can add additional stressors and targets on LGBT youth (Loutzenheiser 1996).

Creating a safe environment is one of the most important things a teacher can do. The goal as a teacher is not just to teach a lesson, but rather to create a welcoming and nurturing environment. Actions that can be taken is to alter the curriculum to be more inclusive, change the school environment, and train teachers and staff about the issues LGBT students, families, and coworkers might face. Heterosexism is a phenomenon that is perpetuated through a culture that makes heterosexuality seem like the “default” sexuality and makes the assumption that everyone is straight or should be straight. Even instances of students having to give their parents forms to fill out and there is a mother and father space to sign, meanwhile not every family consists of a mother and father; sometimes there are two moms, sometimes there are two dads (Loutzenheiser 1996). Small things like this begin to snowball and create this feeling of “othering”.

Homophobia is an issue that too often goes unaddressed or accepted within school cultures. Homophobia will take form as physical or verbal harassment. Words such as fag, dyke, or the classic phrase “oh, that’s so gay”, are the common pieces of vernacular that students will use causing a negative stigma towards their LGBT peers. The tragic irony of closeted and out of closet students is that those that are still closeted are forced to still listen to homophobic remarks while out students have to face the heat directly. The verbal harassment is painful, but the physical danger is a very high statistic that people need to be more aware of. 40% of LGBT students experience physical violence in their schools and 40% say their school work was affected by their school environment. For LGBT adults nationwide, 90% have reported being verbally and physically harassed, and one in five lesbians and one in two gay men reported that they were victims of hate crimes when they were in school (Loutzenheiser 1996).

Homophobia and hate crimes can lead to a dangerous chain of events. Suicide and school shootings are just a few events that can take place. A student named Steve mentioned in the article was expelled from his school The overall main solutions to the conflicts presented by this article are to have more representation and personalization to the school environment and curriculum. Rules and protective policies need to be enacted in order for LGBT students to feel safe and welcome. Ignoring the issues at hand will only worsen them and it is important to give voice and attention to those that are being isolated and attacked. Teachers should also feel a connection with their LGBT students and take the time to go through professional development to understand LGBT issues and teachers that are LGBT should feel comfortable enough in their workspace to be out and act as role models for their students. These are the everyday issues of LGBT students and they do not pick and choose what affects them. It is the education systems job to make their school of quality and worthwhile.

Lester, T. (2008). "Talking about sexual orientation, teaching about homophobia"- negotiating the divide between religious belief and tolerance for lgbt rights in the classroom1. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 15(2), 399-417.

This article discusses the author’s approach and experiences of teaching an inclusive curriculum within their class which focuses on the issues of LGBTQ+ and religious groups. The author introduces the concept that homosexuality has been seen as an immoral act and that conservatives believe it should be illegal to have equal marriage rights, but also introduces the idea that younger generations are recently displaying more behaviors and views of acceptance. The author cites that a 2005 survey conducted by the Boston Globe found that people under the age of 35 are more pro-gay and that those over the age of 35 are more opposed to gay marriage. The demographics of this survey also displays that conservative groups such as the Republican party, Protestants, people who regularly attend church, and people from the South, are more likely to be anti-gay. Democrats and people who are not super religious are more likely to support gay rights (Lester 2008). These defining niches are the author’s explanations as to why people are conditioned a certain way and hold specific values. Homophobia is typically held by those that have set their standards in conjunction of that of their religious groups. The Vatican responded to Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage stating “marriage exists solely between a man and woman…while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”(Lester 2008) The Bible defines homosexuality as a sin and this often makes people bias towards those that define themselves as religious. It’s almost a double standard in a way. Churches that are welcoming of all people, including LGBT+ members, acknowledge the presence of ignorance and fear people reflect on the church, though many aim to be inclusive and provide a welcoming spiritual community to all. The author describes the divide of religious groups as some within a niche are more liberal than others. For example, the author mentions how within the Reformed Judaism community, there are 1.7 million members that support gay members and even rabbis, while even endorsing same sex commitment ceremonies. In juxtaposition with this group, the Conservative Judaism community stands at 1.4 million members going against gay rights (Lester 2008). This divide is nearly even and comes to show that not all religious groups are anti-gay. Lester has four types of classroom activities in which students get to interact and challenge their perspectives. The first is expert panels; this is where students are selected to be the “experts” of the readings for that day. They are to answer prompted questions first and require the participation of those students that are typically reserved, especially girls, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ students. The goal of the expert panel approach is to have everyone be able to speak and listen, and those who are not assigned to being the daily expert is expected to be a better listener. The next activity is working in small groups. Lester states that this is the most helpful for LGBTQ+ students who want to voice their thoughts, but might not feel comfortable to do so in a large group in front of the entire class. These activities are one of the author’s favorites because they understand that students might feel the need to say what the teacher wants to hear rather than what they truly think. Next is written assignments, where students are given the chance to reflect openly on paper without the worry of having to write out a full “proper” essay. This is more so an opportunity to get thoughts and feelings out on paper in response to current materials. Lastly, debates are another opportunity for students to engage and examine LGBTQ+ topics. With debates, they are meant to aide students in being well versed in either position of the debate, regardless of their personal views (Lester 2008).

Deych, M. (2018-19). On behalf of their name. Rethinking Schools, 33(2)

This article begins with the author discussing how they and about 100 staff members of their school attended a professional development seminar led by the school’s Queer-Straight Alliance (QSA), which the author is the advisor for. Only about 3 percent of these people showed interest while the rest were glass-eyed, and arms crossed, much like a student who has to sit through a boring lecture. The school is described as being urban and on the larger size, hence why there were so many staffers attending. The school’s QSA group had pushed for this clinic to be initiated, and it finally got approved just a few weeks before the author was supposed to receive their permanent contract with the school (Deych 2018-19).

The author described their feeling as anxious and uneasy, as they were scared of losing their job because they were in fact a queer and transgender educator who taught queer and transgender students. They describe their school’s community as “liberal”, yet it can be arguable as parents were wealthy and demanding which made the author nervous of what they could do to their job position if something they did not agree with arose. The author’s main fear and concern was having parents come for them like a witch hunt, claiming they are not fit to be an educator because of their identity. An interesting point is that the author describes the LGBTQ+ community as being a marginalized minority that is “villainized and degraded”, which ultimately means that their safety and wellbeing is a “privilege” that is not always instantly granted. Even more so, they go to the extent of mentioning that even whiteness can be a factor that is not so protective, although they do acknowledge that whiteness does act as a shelter for some that are more passing in comparison to those of color (Deych 2018-19).

At the event, the students are described as being irate and upset with their educators as they have had enough with their ignorance and lack of understanding of the LGBTQ+ community. Students take ownership of their teachers, and for them to no accept and use their preferred pronouns and address them in the manner they are asking, it hurts like an inflicted wound because the issue of young adults growing into their skin and coming to terms with their identities is not easy. A teacher had made a comment to their vice principal that they wanted to know what their student was biologically (Deych 2018-19). Teachers like this could care less about their students’ feelings and want to disregard their gender identity as they are more concerned with the genitalia between their legs, because that’s obviously what teachers should be concerned with as opposed to teaching actual meaningful content in their classes while respecting and honoring their students’ identities and senses of self. “No teacher should be thinking about children’s genitalia.” (Deych 2018- 19)

The QSA then teaches the staff a few techniques on how to be inclusive and sensitive to students that do not identify with the labels “boy” or “girl”. Instead of calling attention with gendered phrases such as “ladies and gentlemen”, they are encouraged to refer to them as scholars. It is explained that dividing students up by gender can cause internal conflict. They did a test where they tried to have the group separate by who likes cats and who likes dogs and some did not have a response as they liked both pets (Deych 2018-19). This is a similar sensation student’s feel in gendered separations in class.

After the groups come back together, one teacher asks how are they to be expected to know when and when not to use students’ preferred names and pronouns. Deych is baffled as they cannot help but scream in their mind that this is exactly why they are here (Deych 2018-19). This is the training that helps build student-teacher relationships and helps them get to know and understand their students. At the end, they finish the clinic with a panel to answer anonymous questions answered by Deych and QSA student leaders. The final question that was asked was a bit of a letdown as the teacher states “I just can’t use they/them pronouns, it’s wrong, and I just can’t. What do I do?” (Deych 2018-19). The simple response is that using they/them as pronouns is grammatically correct and people use it habitually without even noticing. The fact of the matter is that people who choose not to use it intentionally are ignorant and are not trying for the sake of their students. Deych finishes the article with a chilling statistic in hopes that we as educators can be the change we want to see in the system. “With 41 percent of transgender people attempting suicide (compared to 1.6 percent of the general population), we have to because they actually need us to.” (Deych 2018-19).

Themes/ Citations

Connell, C. (2012). Dangerous disclousures. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 9(2), 168-177. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s13178-011- 0076-8

Loutzenheiser, L. W. (1996). How schools play "smear the queer". Feminist Teacher, 10(1), 59

Lester, T. (2008). "Talking about sexual orientation, teaching about homophobia"-negotiating the divide between religious belief and tolerance for lgbt rights in the classroom1. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 15(2), 399-417.

Deych, M. (2018-19). On behalf of their name. Rethinking Schools, 33(2)

Politics play a role in the dynamic of teacher/system relationships

Policies can be protective factors that help queer educators feel more at ease in their workplace.

Schools are often scared to have conversations about LGBTQ+ issues as they are seen as “dangerous” topics that make people nervous. There is always this feeling of threat from communities and religious groups that do not want to hear about these issues.

Lester, the author, acknowledges the tensions that exist between religious groups, political groups, and the LGBTQ+ community which is why they assign works that challenge the traditional views that could have negative effects on one another.

Deych, the author, was especially nervous about coming out and talking on behalf of their QSA (Queer-Straight Alliance) because, although liberal, the district was filled with wealthy and high standard families that could potentially get them fired for being “immoral”.

Cultural norms can influence the effects on LGBTQ+ educators and/or students

Despite having set policies, cultural norms can be a driving factor within the social culture of the school and community which may still cause tension for educators to remain closeted and not live their truths.

Heterosexism is a major issue that alienates LGBTQ+ students because it makes them a part of an “other” group. Heterosexism is this cultural norm and concept that everyone is/should be straight, and anyone otherwise are the odd ones out.

Because religious and political groups define social and cultural norms, the author’s main intent is to educate and promote equality while being considerate of others’ opinions and beliefs.

Because using they/them pronouns was not ingrained in the vernacular of the staff members, as well as having an understanding of queer folk, the staff and educators of this district negatively impacted the feelings and wellbeing of queer students and the author.

LGBTQ+ educators support the concept of equality

Educators, such as Rufus, are able to educate their students on policies that protect LGBTQ+ students and educators. It builds the understanding that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated on the grounds of set legally protective policies.

Having LGBTQ+ educators creates more visibility of their community and eliminates this phenomenon of “othering”. Having representation is a way to foster an inclusive and accepting environment and curriculum.

Although not LGBTQ+, the author has stated that they include a personalized and diverse curriculum to demonstrate the value in works of minority scholars such as racial minorities, feminists, and queer folk who challenge traditional values of gender, race, and sexuality.

As an educator, the author was able to facilitate a meeting that has changed the perspectives and perceptions of the educators on their LGBTQ+ identifying students. They were also able to help students raise their voices to be heard in a respectful and controlled manner.

Students are greatly impacted by the presence of openly LGBTQ+ educators and LGBTQ+ issues within their curriculum

Students that are exposed to teachers that separate their identities from their teaching has a “deleterious impact”. It has been proven to lower their credibility and student knowledge retention.

Having and inclusive curriculum develops the feeling that LGBTQ+ issues matter, and that they should be discussed in conjunction with other worldly issues that happen daily.

Lester uses an inclusive curriculum to demonstrate the value is queer literature, as well as dealing with issues of religion and politics so that all students are represented accurately and respectfully. As an educator, the author facilitates and mediates discussion to help unpack prejudices in a safe environment so that they can learn from theirs and others perspectives.

Deych’s students were able to feel confident and empowered enough to stand up for their rights and articulate their feelings to make the change the wanted to see in their school system.

Connell, C. (2012). Dangerous disclosures. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 9(2), 168-177. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-011-0076-8.

Loutzenheiser, L. W. (1996). How schools play "smear the queer". Feminist Teacher, 10(1), 59.

Lester, T. (2008). "Talking about sexual orientation, teaching about homophobia"-negotiating the divide between religious belief and tolerance for lgbt rights in the classroom1. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 15(2), 399-417.

Deych, M. (2018-19). On behalf of their name. Rethinking Schools, 33(2)

Works Cited