Everyday Anti-Queer Speech
January 4, 2017
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Kareem – “You gay.” (to Khalil)
Redirect – That type of language isn’t ok. Do you get why? That word isn’t a bad word, but the way you used it, the context, isn’t ok. Cosign by City Year Corps Member Ms. Megan.
Kareem responded with “I was talking to Khalil!” and later “I apologize.”
Since this was my first day spending time with the 8/9 group, I was very tentative with them and with redirecting them. I don’t know them well at all and so my comfort with certain subjects is a lot different than with my other groups. However, I am somewhat familiar with Kareem, due to his notoriety as a difficult student, and perhaps that emboldened me in redirecting him. His apology was the type where a student realizes they have nothing more to gain from arguing and so are just trying to end it and move on.
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Kareem – “You gay.” (to Khalil)
Redirect – That type of language isn’t ok. Do you get why? That word isn’t a bad word, but the way you used it, the context, isn’t ok. Cosign by City Year Corps Member Ms. Megan.
Kareem responded with “I was talking to Khalil!” and later “I apologize.”
Since this was my first day spending time with the 8/9 group, I was very tentative with them and with redirecting them. I don’t know them well at all and so my comfort with certain subjects is a lot different than with my other groups. However, I am somewhat familiar with Kareem, due to his notoriety as a difficult student, and perhaps that emboldened me in redirecting him. His apology was the type where a student realizes they have nothing more to gain from arguing and so are just trying to end it and move on.
This event, which took place the first day back to school from break, is a fairly typical example of how anti-queer language is used in the classroom. One young man uses the word gay derisively, albeit jokingly, with a friend. Even if it is not meant to be taken seriously, the word itself is certainly considered an insult. This is a common use of the phrase because here the word gay seems to exist in a category almost removed from its history and literal meanings. Given the context, I do not think that Kareem was directly accusing Khalil of being a man who loves men. In fact, it’s likely that the insult is even funnier due to how far from the truth the accusation seems to be. When gay is used in these situations, it can seem harmless or good-natured, which is a dangerous way to consider language that is at its core violent.
Redirecting a student in this situation can be difficult for several reasons. First, students know that the word gay is not in itself a bad word. In fact, some students will point to the fact that the word actually means happy, or that it is used to identify homosexual men. As such, the context of the usage is very important. Gay is most often used as a synonym for stupid, or in a similarly insulting sense. This requires an explanation that identifies the context in which the word is used, although not necessarily the word itself, as unacceptable. This can be difficult, especially when conflicts and questions arise at a quick rate in the classroom. Another complication comes from the fact that students are often not conscious of how their use of the word gay is connected to hate or discrimination. For many, it is a word that has simply entered their lexicon without critical consideration, and so it is used just as flippantly. As with much of our slang and curse words, common usage of gay is generally far removed from the original context and meaning. However, it would be a mistake to let this excuse the use of a word like gay. Even if the student who uses the word is not explicitly aware of the connection, one can never be sure who had heard the word, and who may feel violated by its use.
In this particular example, Kareem was resistant to my redirection because he didn’t see it as any of my business. When I tried to intervene and have him reconsider his use of the word gay, he assured me that he was talking to Khalil, which seemed to signal that he should not have to answer to me. In order to provide as logical and concise a redirection as possible, I tried to explain that the word itself was not the problem, but he way that he used it. After a short exchange, Kareem acquiesced and apologized to me, a move I suspect was more due to the fact that he wanted to move on with his day than a result of a breakthrough related to his problematic use of the word gay.
Again, this was a fairly typical experience related to the use of this word. This was my first day with this particular group of students, and so they had not yet learned much about my classroom presence. For example, I would not be surprised if some of my students from my other two sections, with whom I had been working since September, had realized that they should avoid using the word gay in my classroom. However, since I was new to this classroom community, Kareem did not have the same experiences with my persistent and certainly annoying redirections related to that word. As such, this was a great opportunity to begin the same recursive process of redirection and explanation that had been going on for several months in the other sections.
This type of event, in its quick passing and its frequency, is an important marker of how my students relate to queer identities. In its false sense of innocence, it demonstrates that students are unaware of how their language affects others in their learning community, or that they believe that queer identified community members are uncommon or do not deserve to be included.
Redirecting a student in this situation can be difficult for several reasons. First, students know that the word gay is not in itself a bad word. In fact, some students will point to the fact that the word actually means happy, or that it is used to identify homosexual men. As such, the context of the usage is very important. Gay is most often used as a synonym for stupid, or in a similarly insulting sense. This requires an explanation that identifies the context in which the word is used, although not necessarily the word itself, as unacceptable. This can be difficult, especially when conflicts and questions arise at a quick rate in the classroom. Another complication comes from the fact that students are often not conscious of how their use of the word gay is connected to hate or discrimination. For many, it is a word that has simply entered their lexicon without critical consideration, and so it is used just as flippantly. As with much of our slang and curse words, common usage of gay is generally far removed from the original context and meaning. However, it would be a mistake to let this excuse the use of a word like gay. Even if the student who uses the word is not explicitly aware of the connection, one can never be sure who had heard the word, and who may feel violated by its use.
In this particular example, Kareem was resistant to my redirection because he didn’t see it as any of my business. When I tried to intervene and have him reconsider his use of the word gay, he assured me that he was talking to Khalil, which seemed to signal that he should not have to answer to me. In order to provide as logical and concise a redirection as possible, I tried to explain that the word itself was not the problem, but he way that he used it. After a short exchange, Kareem acquiesced and apologized to me, a move I suspect was more due to the fact that he wanted to move on with his day than a result of a breakthrough related to his problematic use of the word gay.
Again, this was a fairly typical experience related to the use of this word. This was my first day with this particular group of students, and so they had not yet learned much about my classroom presence. For example, I would not be surprised if some of my students from my other two sections, with whom I had been working since September, had realized that they should avoid using the word gay in my classroom. However, since I was new to this classroom community, Kareem did not have the same experiences with my persistent and certainly annoying redirections related to that word. As such, this was a great opportunity to begin the same recursive process of redirection and explanation that had been going on for several months in the other sections.
This type of event, in its quick passing and its frequency, is an important marker of how my students relate to queer identities. In its false sense of innocence, it demonstrates that students are unaware of how their language affects others in their learning community, or that they believe that queer identified community members are uncommon or do not deserve to be included.
January 20, 2017
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Jerome and Nick: “Hey gay…he a fag”
They were talking about a boy who was texting a boy, shouting across the room.
After I had intervened and told them that what they were saying was inappropriate, Jerome responded “So if he texting a boy?”
My redirection: It’s ok to acknowledge if someone is gay but that other word is unacceptable.
“It’s the same thing!” –Jerome
He kept talking. I tried to end it, but Jerome was angry at being called out.
“In my classroom…” –me
“This ain’t your classroom!” –Jerome
I said something lame about community and respect.
This exchange was very public in the classroom, due to the fact that Jerome and Nick were sitting on opposite ends of the room and having this conversation by shouting to each other. This necessitated a redirection in front of the entire class. It quickly shifted from a conversation about homophobia to a more general power struggle, which is common with Jerome lately. The part of this conversation that sticks with me the most is that he insisted that calling someone a fag is the same as calling them gay. In the moment, my instinct was to compare the words to referring to someone as Black vs. referring to them as the n-word. However, I didn’t think it would be appropriate and I didn’t feel prepared to have such a conversation on the spot. I will have to consider ways to illustrate the distinction between hate speech and more appropriate labels in the future. This situation also highlights a few possibilities. One is that Jerome thinks gayness is so deplorable that there is no way at all to talk about it favorably. Another is he’s never encountered the word gay in a neutral or positive sense, leading to his assertion that it’s the same as calling someone a fag. To put it simply, he has never been provided with the linguistic equipment needed to speak about homosexuality, especially in men. This is a very disheartening and complicated development in process of understanding how to affect a student’s perception of queerness.
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Jerome and Nick: “Hey gay…he a fag”
They were talking about a boy who was texting a boy, shouting across the room.
After I had intervened and told them that what they were saying was inappropriate, Jerome responded “So if he texting a boy?”
My redirection: It’s ok to acknowledge if someone is gay but that other word is unacceptable.
“It’s the same thing!” –Jerome
He kept talking. I tried to end it, but Jerome was angry at being called out.
“In my classroom…” –me
“This ain’t your classroom!” –Jerome
I said something lame about community and respect.
This exchange was very public in the classroom, due to the fact that Jerome and Nick were sitting on opposite ends of the room and having this conversation by shouting to each other. This necessitated a redirection in front of the entire class. It quickly shifted from a conversation about homophobia to a more general power struggle, which is common with Jerome lately. The part of this conversation that sticks with me the most is that he insisted that calling someone a fag is the same as calling them gay. In the moment, my instinct was to compare the words to referring to someone as Black vs. referring to them as the n-word. However, I didn’t think it would be appropriate and I didn’t feel prepared to have such a conversation on the spot. I will have to consider ways to illustrate the distinction between hate speech and more appropriate labels in the future. This situation also highlights a few possibilities. One is that Jerome thinks gayness is so deplorable that there is no way at all to talk about it favorably. Another is he’s never encountered the word gay in a neutral or positive sense, leading to his assertion that it’s the same as calling someone a fag. To put it simply, he has never been provided with the linguistic equipment needed to speak about homosexuality, especially in men. This is a very disheartening and complicated development in process of understanding how to affect a student’s perception of queerness.
This event, which happened in a class I had been teaching since September, was particularly illuminating while also frustrating. A student like Jerome, whose use of homophobic language was frequent throughout the year, was difficult to redirect in almost any situation. In general, he was a student who expressed defiance as a way to perform for his classmates. There were other instances where he used anti-queer language and immediately self-redirected or apologized, because it seems at times he is not up for a fight. Other times, such as this one, he cannot be deterred from his argument.
What is also immediately noticeable is that Nick dropped out of the interchange as soon as the boys were redirected. I did not record what his reaction was, because Jerome seized control of the conversation, so he must have simply backed down, potentially to stay out of the conflict.
Right away, Jerome expressed frustration about how he should speak about someone who is homosexual. His interchangeable use of the words “gay” and “fag” to describe a boy who was texting another boy (with the implication that it was romantic) demonstrated how Jerome was either unequipped or unwilling to speak about homosexuality in a neutral or positive light. Throughout the year, I’ve found it especially challenging to succinctly explain how the word gay can be problematic in some contexts but not others; it was especially challenging in this context because Jerome was so combative about being redirected.
The key aspect of this exchange was Jerome’s assertion that calling someone gay or a fag is “the same thing.” This type of confusion persisted with the use of both words throughout the year. In some cases, students were unwilling to use the word gay to neutrally label someone as homosexual. For some students there seemed to be shame attached to the word, while others were hoping to avoid being in trouble. Conversely, many students could not see how the word “faggot” in unacceptable in any context. In the case of both words, there seems to be uncertainty about their function in language.
This situation seems to support the idea that students should be exposed to queer identities in neutral or positive contexts in the classroom. Judging by Jerome’s insistence on using derisive language to talk about a gay peer, and his apparent misunderstanding or lack of care about the language he used, he did not have exposure to queer identities being described as anything but negative. Providing students with a queer figure that could serve as a benchmark for respectful language is a way to settle confusion related to how to appropriately describe someone who identifies as queer.
What is also immediately noticeable is that Nick dropped out of the interchange as soon as the boys were redirected. I did not record what his reaction was, because Jerome seized control of the conversation, so he must have simply backed down, potentially to stay out of the conflict.
Right away, Jerome expressed frustration about how he should speak about someone who is homosexual. His interchangeable use of the words “gay” and “fag” to describe a boy who was texting another boy (with the implication that it was romantic) demonstrated how Jerome was either unequipped or unwilling to speak about homosexuality in a neutral or positive light. Throughout the year, I’ve found it especially challenging to succinctly explain how the word gay can be problematic in some contexts but not others; it was especially challenging in this context because Jerome was so combative about being redirected.
The key aspect of this exchange was Jerome’s assertion that calling someone gay or a fag is “the same thing.” This type of confusion persisted with the use of both words throughout the year. In some cases, students were unwilling to use the word gay to neutrally label someone as homosexual. For some students there seemed to be shame attached to the word, while others were hoping to avoid being in trouble. Conversely, many students could not see how the word “faggot” in unacceptable in any context. In the case of both words, there seems to be uncertainty about their function in language.
This situation seems to support the idea that students should be exposed to queer identities in neutral or positive contexts in the classroom. Judging by Jerome’s insistence on using derisive language to talk about a gay peer, and his apparent misunderstanding or lack of care about the language he used, he did not have exposure to queer identities being described as anything but negative. Providing students with a queer figure that could serve as a benchmark for respectful language is a way to settle confusion related to how to appropriately describe someone who identifies as queer.
March 3, 2017
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Khalil and Andre explaining to Mike to not say faggot/gay because of the “long lecture” they got.
I missed the beginning of this conversation and I actually first thought they were talking about that day’s direct instruction when they talked about a lecture. Instead, the boys were correcting their peer for his language that he used to talk about Bayard Rustin. Although I don’t know what he actually said, it seems like he was using language that I had labeled as inappropriate. I was impressed with this peer-to-peer regulation, especially from Khalil, who was so adamantly oppositional during the conversation two days earlier. I suspect their motives were mostly to avoid my annoying redirection rather than concern for my feelings or desire to squash anti-queer sentiment. However, it’s hard to tell with these boys and in general it seems victorious that this regulation existed in any form or for any motivation.
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Khalil and Andre explaining to Mike to not say faggot/gay because of the “long lecture” they got.
I missed the beginning of this conversation and I actually first thought they were talking about that day’s direct instruction when they talked about a lecture. Instead, the boys were correcting their peer for his language that he used to talk about Bayard Rustin. Although I don’t know what he actually said, it seems like he was using language that I had labeled as inappropriate. I was impressed with this peer-to-peer regulation, especially from Khalil, who was so adamantly oppositional during the conversation two days earlier. I suspect their motives were mostly to avoid my annoying redirection rather than concern for my feelings or desire to squash anti-queer sentiment. However, it’s hard to tell with these boys and in general it seems victorious that this regulation existed in any form or for any motivation.
This short exchange took place two days after a longer, more complicated event involving this whole section of students about their use of anti-queer speech (March 1). In this moment, three young men who were sitting and working together engaged in a conversation in which they redirected a peer. I overheard Andre and Khalil correcting Mike for his use of what was likely anti-queer language. The boys framed the conversation by trying to keep their friend out of trouble or trying to avoid another “long lecture” from me. This approach to the conversation, while not necessarily the best motivation for avoiding anti-queer speech, shows an important moment of growth for these students. They had moved from students who fought with an authority figure about their use of language, to peers who supported one another in their learning process of how and when to speak appropriately about a queer person.
This is one of the clearest signals of a shift in my classroom from passive students who received redirection to ones who actively took part in the conversation. As their teacher, I was only an observer and was not directly involved in any part of the exchange. Hopefully, over time students would become even more comfortable with redirecting one another to promote a more peaceful learning space, thinking beyond avoidance of consequences when considering their motivation.
This is one of the clearest signals of a shift in my classroom from passive students who received redirection to ones who actively took part in the conversation. As their teacher, I was only an observer and was not directly involved in any part of the exchange. Hopefully, over time students would become even more comfortable with redirecting one another to promote a more peaceful learning space, thinking beyond avoidance of consequences when considering their motivation.
March 8, 2017
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Hector – Talking about Ms. Smith being out and who would be covering her class (Mr. Cooper, who is gay). Hector had forgotten his name and was trying to describe who he was talking about. I was an active participant in this conversation.
“I don’t wanna say what I wanna say…that boul that wear dress shirts and dress pants…he feminine.” I had a hunch who he meant, but I didn’t want to assume, so I instead urged him to find a different way to explain who he was thinking about. Eventually he remembered Mr. Cooper’s name.
I thanked him for showing maturity by choosing his words intentionally and not saying something inappropriate.
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Hector – Talking about Ms. Smith being out and who would be covering her class (Mr. Cooper, who is gay). Hector had forgotten his name and was trying to describe who he was talking about. I was an active participant in this conversation.
“I don’t wanna say what I wanna say…that boul that wear dress shirts and dress pants…he feminine.” I had a hunch who he meant, but I didn’t want to assume, so I instead urged him to find a different way to explain who he was thinking about. Eventually he remembered Mr. Cooper’s name.
I thanked him for showing maturity by choosing his words intentionally and not saying something inappropriate.
This event is an example of a student showing active avoidance of potentially problematic language when labeling someone as queer. Hector, who is not in the habit of thinking before speaking, shows an impressive level of restraint and thoughtfulness in this conversation. It is likely that he simply was avoiding redirection from me, as I was an active participant in the conversation, which might have been the mediating factor that encouraged him to try so hard to find a different way of expressing himself. However, Hector’s thought process (which he related out loud), and general search for alternative ways of expressing himself was striking. While I am aware of Mr. Cooper’s sexuality, I am not sure if he is out to many students or even this student in particular. Hector has never had Mr. Cooper as a teacher, and so I assume that Hector’s assessment of Mr. Cooper’s sexuality comes from passing interactions or the feedback of his peers.
What is unclear in Hector’s thought process is whether he was avoiding use of the word “faggot” or the word “gay.” While it is important that he may have been avoiding the more violent of these two terms, it would be interesting if he thought he was unable to use the word “gay” to refer to an apparently homosexual man. Regardless of which word he was avoiding, I was proud of the fact that Hector tried very hard to find different descriptors to talk about Mr. Cooper, such as the word “feminine.”
Hector never found a more effective way to express himself, and I resisted assuming which teacher he was talking about because I feared feeding into whatever rumors or negative opinions students might have of Mr. Cooper. I realize that I might have avoided this direction of the conversation out of fear and the fact that it did not feel appropriate to discuss the sexuality of a colleague. Eventually, Hector remembered Mr. Cooper’s name. At the end of class, I pulled Hector to the side to thank him for showing maturity in the way he expressed himself. Although it wasn’t a wholly successful way of communicating, his restraint was evident.
Hector is a student who seems to have seized the opportunity to correct peers and try to mediate the way they use queer-related language. Often, this means he is overcompensating by calling out classmates for using any queer-related language (such as using “gay” to refer to someone who may identify as homosexual), rather than only explicitly anti-queer speech. Again, this indicates the difficulty of navigating the ambiguous ways students use words such as “gay” that can take on different connotations. Hector, in his quest to avoid redirection and correct peers, has only been able to see queer related language as negative. This shows the shortcomings of the ways I’ve described connotation to students related to how they use words like “gay.”
What is unclear in Hector’s thought process is whether he was avoiding use of the word “faggot” or the word “gay.” While it is important that he may have been avoiding the more violent of these two terms, it would be interesting if he thought he was unable to use the word “gay” to refer to an apparently homosexual man. Regardless of which word he was avoiding, I was proud of the fact that Hector tried very hard to find different descriptors to talk about Mr. Cooper, such as the word “feminine.”
Hector never found a more effective way to express himself, and I resisted assuming which teacher he was talking about because I feared feeding into whatever rumors or negative opinions students might have of Mr. Cooper. I realize that I might have avoided this direction of the conversation out of fear and the fact that it did not feel appropriate to discuss the sexuality of a colleague. Eventually, Hector remembered Mr. Cooper’s name. At the end of class, I pulled Hector to the side to thank him for showing maturity in the way he expressed himself. Although it wasn’t a wholly successful way of communicating, his restraint was evident.
Hector is a student who seems to have seized the opportunity to correct peers and try to mediate the way they use queer-related language. Often, this means he is overcompensating by calling out classmates for using any queer-related language (such as using “gay” to refer to someone who may identify as homosexual), rather than only explicitly anti-queer speech. Again, this indicates the difficulty of navigating the ambiguous ways students use words such as “gay” that can take on different connotations. Hector, in his quest to avoid redirection and correct peers, has only been able to see queer related language as negative. This shows the shortcomings of the ways I’ve described connotation to students related to how they use words like “gay.”