Impromptu Questions and Discussions Related to Queerness
January 31
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Period ¾: Sandra Cisneros – “Only Daughter”
What might we predict about someone if they were the only daughter?
Student responses: They tough. They a tomboy. They might like girls.
Tried to steer the conversation away from sexuality. However, there was persistent chattering from Teresa, Lauryn, Eric, and Daijah. I busted in with “What’s going on here?!” because I was frustrated with the situation. Turns out they were asking questions about sexuality or what makes someone gay. We had a long discussion. Ranged from asking what makes someone “turn gay/lesbian” (especially in reference to who a person spends time with as they grow up), the definition of queer and LGBTQ, hate speech (dyke and faggot), liking or not liking someone who is LGBTQ, “fake gays,” being attracted to an individual rather than a gender, fluidity of identity (I compared it to changing career aspirations from high school to the future), heteronormativity, coming out, asking someone why they are gay/straight.
Standout questions/comments:
This was an intense and exhausting conversation for me. It was unexpected, as I didn’t think they’d take the prediction about Cisneros in that direction. I had a very physical reaction to the situation: dry mouth, shaky hands, racing heart. However, I was overall very impressed with the thoughtfulness and attention most students demonstrated. There was a lot of energy and desire to contribute, as is typical with this group. It was difficult at first to have students patiently contribute and listen. It seems like the students were either very engaged or entirely disengaged. I was struck by Hector’s genuine curiosity about whether it was wrong to not like someone because of their identity. In general, it confirms that students certainly have questions about LGBTQ identities but don’t often find themselves in a space where those questions are accepted or answered. They were not totally foreclosed on negative opinions. Rather, they were willing to hear each other and me out. This is very reassuring, and shows that there is a lot of space for discussion and growth going forward. I can assume that the other students have similar questions or confusion but may be less forthcoming with their questions. I’ll take these ideas into consideration in the future as I select materials for class.
I felt seconds away from abruptly coming out throughout the conversations. However, Ms. Esposito and Mr. Josh were right in saying that that would have been a distraction and would have derailed the conversation that was necessarily more general. I’m glad I managed to keep the conversation centered on student questions and experiences.
Observation of the same discussion by Mr. Josh (City Year Corps Member):
“My overall impression was definitely positive. In terms of classroom “climate” (change), I noticed an initial surge of energy as all students wanted to blurt out and share their opinions. I think you handled those situations very well: making sure students felt heard, trying to direct the scattered comments, and keeping the conversation moving in a positive, safe way. After the early rush, it seemed that energy tapered off. Those that were interested stayed engaged (Daijah, Lauryn, Naomi), but some (Raul, Walter, Raymond) stopped paying attention. I was disappointed to observe those individuals shut down as I believe they might add an interesting opinion to the conversation.
Some prevailing questions & comments (from a place of curiosity)
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Period ¾: Sandra Cisneros – “Only Daughter”
What might we predict about someone if they were the only daughter?
Student responses: They tough. They a tomboy. They might like girls.
Tried to steer the conversation away from sexuality. However, there was persistent chattering from Teresa, Lauryn, Eric, and Daijah. I busted in with “What’s going on here?!” because I was frustrated with the situation. Turns out they were asking questions about sexuality or what makes someone gay. We had a long discussion. Ranged from asking what makes someone “turn gay/lesbian” (especially in reference to who a person spends time with as they grow up), the definition of queer and LGBTQ, hate speech (dyke and faggot), liking or not liking someone who is LGBTQ, “fake gays,” being attracted to an individual rather than a gender, fluidity of identity (I compared it to changing career aspirations from high school to the future), heteronormativity, coming out, asking someone why they are gay/straight.
Standout questions/comments:
- Daijah: I think if a woman goes through something, like if she is raped, it might make her turn away from men.
- Teresa: Fake Gays, possibly a reference to bisexual people or people who are experimenting with their sexuality. It also became a question of the fluidity of sexuality. Asking people about coming out is because they’re curious about something they haven’t experienced.
- Raymond: My friends that go to another school have a gay friend and as long as he doesn’t talk about “gay stuff” (like his relationship) then he’s cool and I think that’s good.
- Hector: Is it wrong to not like someone because they are gay?
- Lauryn: My step-mom doesn’t like the word dyke.
- Naomi: My step-mom has a lot of gay friends. One of them got called a dyke and said, “thank you very much.” My dad has learned not to say certain things around my step-mom’s friends. My dad would prevent my brothers from being gay if he could but he would support them if they were gay.
- Someone asked about kids getting kicked out of the house.
This was an intense and exhausting conversation for me. It was unexpected, as I didn’t think they’d take the prediction about Cisneros in that direction. I had a very physical reaction to the situation: dry mouth, shaky hands, racing heart. However, I was overall very impressed with the thoughtfulness and attention most students demonstrated. There was a lot of energy and desire to contribute, as is typical with this group. It was difficult at first to have students patiently contribute and listen. It seems like the students were either very engaged or entirely disengaged. I was struck by Hector’s genuine curiosity about whether it was wrong to not like someone because of their identity. In general, it confirms that students certainly have questions about LGBTQ identities but don’t often find themselves in a space where those questions are accepted or answered. They were not totally foreclosed on negative opinions. Rather, they were willing to hear each other and me out. This is very reassuring, and shows that there is a lot of space for discussion and growth going forward. I can assume that the other students have similar questions or confusion but may be less forthcoming with their questions. I’ll take these ideas into consideration in the future as I select materials for class.
I felt seconds away from abruptly coming out throughout the conversations. However, Ms. Esposito and Mr. Josh were right in saying that that would have been a distraction and would have derailed the conversation that was necessarily more general. I’m glad I managed to keep the conversation centered on student questions and experiences.
Observation of the same discussion by Mr. Josh (City Year Corps Member):
“My overall impression was definitely positive. In terms of classroom “climate” (change), I noticed an initial surge of energy as all students wanted to blurt out and share their opinions. I think you handled those situations very well: making sure students felt heard, trying to direct the scattered comments, and keeping the conversation moving in a positive, safe way. After the early rush, it seemed that energy tapered off. Those that were interested stayed engaged (Daijah, Lauryn, Naomi), but some (Raul, Walter, Raymond) stopped paying attention. I was disappointed to observe those individuals shut down as I believe they might add an interesting opinion to the conversation.
Some prevailing questions & comments (from a place of curiosity)
- Do the (types of) people you grow up around affect your sexuality? (Hector + Eric, responded by Daijah + Lauryn)
- Do you choose your sexuality? (Hector)
- Can there be fake gay people? (Teresa)
- How are certain words be derogatory: dyke, butch? (Jada, responded by Naomi)
- (echo of Walter’s comments in our past conversation) What if a gay person comes on to me?
- Is gender tied to sexuality?”
Watch the lesson on "Only Daughter" with another section of students.
These observations are taken from a class discussion that was unplanned and unanticipated. This particular group of students had always been differently engaged than the other sections of the same class, so I had come to realize that their reactions and discussions would often take other turns their peers’ had not taken (video of lesson above). However, I did not anticipate that our discussion of “Only Daughter,” which hardly addresses sexuality and centers on gender in familiar, binary ways, would lead to this conversation with students. I had realized that my students’ persistent side conversations about queerness were a signal that it was a ripe time to talk about the topic, and so I did what is often very hard to do as a teacher: I set my plans aside and allowed them to steer the conversation with their relevant questions and concerns. Ideally, such a conversation could be planned and implemented intentionally, with the terminology defined and ideas scaffolded in a way that made them accessible to the whole classroom community. However, it almost felt like I had entered into survival mode as a teacher as well as an individual.
What was most striking about this discussion was that my students were genuinely curious. Even when my students expressed beliefs about LGBTQ identities that are problematic or hurtful, they did not seem completely committed to these ideas. Rather, they were asking questions so that they may better understand how they see queerness. What was most evident to me was that my students had limited experiences of confronting LGBTQ identities, and so were doing their best with that they had. That approach allowed me to confront the ways students have considered gender and sexuality, and although the entire conversation was a very short introduction to queerness, I think some students were willing to reconsider what they know or have been taught.
The question that stood out the most to me came from Hector, who asked if it was wrong to not like someone because they are gay. His question, which could have been asked in a way that showed disregard for impact, seemed to come from a place of genuine curiosity and willingness to engage with a different viewpoint. Hector, along with several of his classmates, was beginning to reconsider the “truths” about gender and sexuality that he had internalized.
One phenomenon that is not easily observable is what of this situation allowed for the conversation to emerge and progress. This is especially pertinent because of the three classes that experienced the same lesson only this section of students interpreted it this way. Of course, if it weren’t for the first initial connection between a person’s sexuality and with whom they grew up, the seed would not have been planted. However, I wonder how else my classroom environment facilitated, or perhaps limited until this point, a line of questioning about queer identities. I have a hunch that my own positionality is linked to this question. Perhaps some students have seen me handle related questions, noticed my response to the use of homophobic language, observed the way I talk about myself, or have connected the way I dress to the way I may identify. If it is the case that my position as an outwardly presenting queer woman was a factor in this conversation, I wonder how another straight or straight-passing educator might facilitate the same queer-friendly environment. Furthermore, how else can we prepare students to share themselves in ways that may be uncomfortable? I feel that there was mutual risk-taking in my classroom in this discussion; it certainly felt like I was taking personal risks as I spoke to my entire class. So, what aspects of my class, or the class on that day, allowed for such risky lines of investigation?
Overall, this was a significant day in my teaching. Not only was I able to directly address an issue that has felt omnipresent yet hidden since September, I was able to encourage curiosity and handle a situation that I was not necessarily formally prepared for. It also provided me with important evidence of my students’ willingness to learn, even about identities that I assume are non-normative in their lives. Although all my students live in a society that promulgates heteronormativity, they are not completely foreclosed upon traditional identities.
What was most striking about this discussion was that my students were genuinely curious. Even when my students expressed beliefs about LGBTQ identities that are problematic or hurtful, they did not seem completely committed to these ideas. Rather, they were asking questions so that they may better understand how they see queerness. What was most evident to me was that my students had limited experiences of confronting LGBTQ identities, and so were doing their best with that they had. That approach allowed me to confront the ways students have considered gender and sexuality, and although the entire conversation was a very short introduction to queerness, I think some students were willing to reconsider what they know or have been taught.
The question that stood out the most to me came from Hector, who asked if it was wrong to not like someone because they are gay. His question, which could have been asked in a way that showed disregard for impact, seemed to come from a place of genuine curiosity and willingness to engage with a different viewpoint. Hector, along with several of his classmates, was beginning to reconsider the “truths” about gender and sexuality that he had internalized.
One phenomenon that is not easily observable is what of this situation allowed for the conversation to emerge and progress. This is especially pertinent because of the three classes that experienced the same lesson only this section of students interpreted it this way. Of course, if it weren’t for the first initial connection between a person’s sexuality and with whom they grew up, the seed would not have been planted. However, I wonder how else my classroom environment facilitated, or perhaps limited until this point, a line of questioning about queer identities. I have a hunch that my own positionality is linked to this question. Perhaps some students have seen me handle related questions, noticed my response to the use of homophobic language, observed the way I talk about myself, or have connected the way I dress to the way I may identify. If it is the case that my position as an outwardly presenting queer woman was a factor in this conversation, I wonder how another straight or straight-passing educator might facilitate the same queer-friendly environment. Furthermore, how else can we prepare students to share themselves in ways that may be uncomfortable? I feel that there was mutual risk-taking in my classroom in this discussion; it certainly felt like I was taking personal risks as I spoke to my entire class. So, what aspects of my class, or the class on that day, allowed for such risky lines of investigation?
Overall, this was a significant day in my teaching. Not only was I able to directly address an issue that has felt omnipresent yet hidden since September, I was able to encourage curiosity and handle a situation that I was not necessarily formally prepared for. It also provided me with important evidence of my students’ willingness to learn, even about identities that I assume are non-normative in their lives. Although all my students live in a society that promulgates heteronormativity, they are not completely foreclosed upon traditional identities.
March 1
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Jerome touched Khalil and Khalil responded with “You gay, you a faggot.”
I tried to intervene and disrupt use of those words but it turned into a free for all with Jerome, Kwame, Alaina, and Khalil. Jerome kept putting his hands on Khalil and Khalil kept lashing out with faggot, gay. I asked Esposito to call dean of students Mr. Brown and remove Jerome from the room because he wasn’t allowing any conversation to happen.
Several minutes of trying to calm the room and have a conversation.
At one point Khalil said “So if a woman rubbed on you and…” Alaina came back with “It’s not gay to her, look at her.”
When things got settled finally I explained that the word “faggot” was never acceptable. It is a word that represents violence and dehumanizes people. I compared it to the use of the N-word. Then, moving onto the word “gay,” I said that it may be ok to use that word when someone self-identifies (such as when we were learning about Bayard Rustin), but the connotation and context of the word communicates hate.
If someone violates personal space then it’s ok to express being upset with other words. Khalil was completely unwilling to listen to or understand perspective about language. Brown was there backing up and confirming what I said. Kwame kept saying, “It’s how we’re raised.” I acknowledged that it is a long and difficult process to learn how to do things differently. I told them that that’s how we spoke when I was younger and I had to unlearn a lot of things too. When I brought up that we had to create a space and community that’s safe for everyone, Alaina kept saying, “I feel safe. Everyone’s good.” I told her that we can never see exactly how everyone is feeling or what they are thinking. I addressed it by saying I don’t feel safe and I don’t feel like I’m doing my job as a teacher if that language is being used. Kwame seemed to hear and acknowledge it but kept saying, “It’s how we were raised.” Alaina said “It’s hard if you were raised Muslim” and I brought up that I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic high school where I learned every day that certain things (being LGBTQ, having sex before marriage, breaking traditional gender roles) were wrong. I told them that we were all part of a classroom community even if we didn’t want to be and that meant we were responsible for one another. Alaina was concerned about the word “safe,” remarked that when someone calls you a name, that’s when you square up. I said you may do that in the streets or at home but not at school or at a job or in the real world. Had to reiterate a few things a lot.
Brown jumped in to confirm that faggot/gay was wrong but he connected it to weird things. Kept saying “gender” to refer to sexual orientation. Referred to a spate of LGBTQ suicides that led to the criminalization of harassment and hate speech.
Alaina also said “You always gotta take one little thing and turn it into a whole big thing” to which I responded it was not a little thing to me.
I never explicitly came out but a lot was implied in what I said and how I positioned myself. I felt very vulnerable. I think many students did hear me.
The class felt very difficult to get through and with continued disruptions from Raphael, Kwame, Alaina, Khalil. I was surly and rude to all of my students in ways that were unfair.
"Notes from Ms. Esposito from the same event:
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
Jerome touched Khalil and Khalil responded with “You gay, you a faggot.”
I tried to intervene and disrupt use of those words but it turned into a free for all with Jerome, Kwame, Alaina, and Khalil. Jerome kept putting his hands on Khalil and Khalil kept lashing out with faggot, gay. I asked Esposito to call dean of students Mr. Brown and remove Jerome from the room because he wasn’t allowing any conversation to happen.
Several minutes of trying to calm the room and have a conversation.
At one point Khalil said “So if a woman rubbed on you and…” Alaina came back with “It’s not gay to her, look at her.”
When things got settled finally I explained that the word “faggot” was never acceptable. It is a word that represents violence and dehumanizes people. I compared it to the use of the N-word. Then, moving onto the word “gay,” I said that it may be ok to use that word when someone self-identifies (such as when we were learning about Bayard Rustin), but the connotation and context of the word communicates hate.
If someone violates personal space then it’s ok to express being upset with other words. Khalil was completely unwilling to listen to or understand perspective about language. Brown was there backing up and confirming what I said. Kwame kept saying, “It’s how we’re raised.” I acknowledged that it is a long and difficult process to learn how to do things differently. I told them that that’s how we spoke when I was younger and I had to unlearn a lot of things too. When I brought up that we had to create a space and community that’s safe for everyone, Alaina kept saying, “I feel safe. Everyone’s good.” I told her that we can never see exactly how everyone is feeling or what they are thinking. I addressed it by saying I don’t feel safe and I don’t feel like I’m doing my job as a teacher if that language is being used. Kwame seemed to hear and acknowledge it but kept saying, “It’s how we were raised.” Alaina said “It’s hard if you were raised Muslim” and I brought up that I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic high school where I learned every day that certain things (being LGBTQ, having sex before marriage, breaking traditional gender roles) were wrong. I told them that we were all part of a classroom community even if we didn’t want to be and that meant we were responsible for one another. Alaina was concerned about the word “safe,” remarked that when someone calls you a name, that’s when you square up. I said you may do that in the streets or at home but not at school or at a job or in the real world. Had to reiterate a few things a lot.
Brown jumped in to confirm that faggot/gay was wrong but he connected it to weird things. Kept saying “gender” to refer to sexual orientation. Referred to a spate of LGBTQ suicides that led to the criminalization of harassment and hate speech.
Alaina also said “You always gotta take one little thing and turn it into a whole big thing” to which I responded it was not a little thing to me.
I never explicitly came out but a lot was implied in what I said and how I positioned myself. I felt very vulnerable. I think many students did hear me.
The class felt very difficult to get through and with continued disruptions from Raphael, Kwame, Alaina, Khalil. I was surly and rude to all of my students in ways that were unfair.
"Notes from Ms. Esposito from the same event:
- 'That’s gay. That’s faggot stuff.' (Khalil)
- 'So if a girl rub on you…' (Khalil)
- 'It’s ok to feel like your space has been violated, I respect that, but you don’t need to use that language.' (me)
- 'That’s the language I use…I was using it in a different context.' (Khalil)
- 'That’s too many words.' (Khalil, when I told him to express himself by saying 'you’re violating my space' or 'get off of me')
- 'That’s how I was raised. If somebody touches me, that’s their name. That’s what I call them.' (Khalil)"
This event is another example of an impromptu, whole-class discussion centering on LGBTQ issues. However, this one began and was framed in a more negative way, stemming from the root of the discussion as well as how the discussion was directed. It was very much a “lecture” to the students, initially shaming them for their behavior. While there were questions from students, they seemed to come from a less curious place and instead were posed as a challenge to authority and rules. This particular group of students had already had a fairly conflict-ridden week, and so student-teacher interactions were perhaps more antagonistic than they may have been in another situation. This discussion also began from a point of redirection rather than response to a student question, and so the entire tone of the class session was affected by this approach.
I intended to limit this conversation to a one-on-one redirection for Khalil. However, the involvement of Alaina and Kwame as well as the public nature of the initial event between Khalil and Jerome necessitated the involvement of the whole class. It also means that the conversation was more chaotic than I would have hoped, and I struggled to maintain control of the interaction.
I was pushed by student reactions to position myself at the center of this issue. Because I used subjective terms such as “safe/unsafe” to describe how the use of homophobic language affected the class community, I had to prove the validity of these qualifications by centering my own experience. In response to Alaina’s repeated assertions that she felt fine and that she perceived that everyone else in the class did too, I was required to take responsibility for being vulnerable in a way that made the idea of a safe or unsafe space real. I felt drawn to this approach because I sensed that no student would be willing to put themselves at the center of this conflict in order to show Alaina that they cared about the way homophobic language was being used, nor was I willing to ask for student participation in such a risky situation. Instead, I seized the opportunity to model risk by making myself vulnerable to students and naming my own feelings, being sure to use “I” statements as a way to keep the conversation under control and sidestep the specific challenges raised by Alaina’s comments about safety.
I feel this approach was the right choice, but it was another situation where my closeness to the issue presented a personal challenge to confronting it. There were several moments where I felt very emotional when speaking and noted that my voice was wavering. Like the conversation that had happened a month before, it seemed I was seconds away from coming out to my class. In fact, I felt in some moments that what I was saying was as good as coming out, although I still never explicitly did so. I imagine my emotional reaction showed some students that my investment in the situation was about more than just a general concern for classroom climate.
This class discussion was certainly mediated by its disciplinary nature, and by the fact that I was laying down rules rather than leading a true discussion. It also was affected by the presence of Mr. Brown, whose support was important to me during this conflict because of his rapport with specific students as well as his positionality as a Black, middle-aged man who favors a direct, warmly demanding approach with students. Mr. Brown usually interacts with students in disciplinary situations, and I had originally called on him for this type of presence, first to speak to Jerome, and later to reiterate my positions on homophobic language. However, there were moments where it seemed that Mr. Brown’s involvement with the conversation included a confusing approach to policing homophobic language. He seemed inexperienced in dealing with this issue in the classroom, but his support and varied approaches were welcome in that he was coming from a different perspective with the same end in mind.
The vocal participants in this discussion (Khalil, Kwame, and Alaina) repeatedly invoked their upbringing and cultural backgrounds as reasons for their language use and by extension their beliefs about queer identities. All three students are Black; Khalil and Kwame are traditionally masculine young men, and Alaina is a young woman with a masculine presentation and a tough personality. Their insistence that their upbringing or cultural identities created a concrete excuse for their use of homophobic language proved hard to navigate. Although I countered their invocation of cultural contexts with my own that I had overcome to arrive at my current beliefs, it was not a direct equivalence. I mentioned my own experiences for the end of helping them understand that it was both possible and favorable to change one’s positions related to language. This approach did not seem immediately effective, however, as they repeated their positions that their use of homophobic language was linked inextricably to the culture of their upbringing.
This culturally focused resistance to redirection complicates the process of confronting homophobia in the classroom. My students are rightfully conscious of the differences between us, and even when it is not explicitly stated as it was in this conversation, it is a constantly present dynamic in my classroom. I have had to repeatedly assert the similarities that do exist, such as the fact that I grew up in Philadelphia, that I live in the neighborhood, and that I speak Spanish. However, the outwardly evident differences outnumber the similarities. Given this dynamic, I feel that students may have referred to their upbringings as an easy out in this conversation. Perhaps they hoped I would balk at confronting something like cultural differences. Of course, students are also right in asserting that they were raised to use homophobic language to police each other’s behavior as well as view queerness as an undesirable other. What they, and many people, fail to note is that everyone is raised and exists within a heteronormative environment that means we have to actively unlearn homophobia and heterosexism. Nevertheless, it is important to name the common belief that urban communities of color are generally more homophobic than their white counterparts. I do not personally agree, though I recognize the prevalence of this narrative.
At the time, this extended discussion did not seem effective in curbing use of homophobic language. It sidetracked regular class activity for a significant amount of time, and was riddled with conflict. It was centered on teacher, positioned as moral expert, telling students, positioned as receptacles of a moral lesson, how they should behave in a community. I did not name any student-designated norms or allow for any peer-to-peer sharing. The discussion remained between me and Khalil, Kwame, and Alaina, with the entire class as an audience. I think it was the right decision to name the homophobic language, describe why it is unacceptable in a classroom community, and respond to questions from these students. However, I think this type of teacher-centered discussion can be avoided by creating more collaborative, student-centered, and student-moderated norms. By fostering a more collective classroom environment, it is possible that students may feel a greater investment in the learning climate. It may also eliminate the challenging ways that students used their own positionalities, which differ from my own, to derail the conversation.
I intended to limit this conversation to a one-on-one redirection for Khalil. However, the involvement of Alaina and Kwame as well as the public nature of the initial event between Khalil and Jerome necessitated the involvement of the whole class. It also means that the conversation was more chaotic than I would have hoped, and I struggled to maintain control of the interaction.
I was pushed by student reactions to position myself at the center of this issue. Because I used subjective terms such as “safe/unsafe” to describe how the use of homophobic language affected the class community, I had to prove the validity of these qualifications by centering my own experience. In response to Alaina’s repeated assertions that she felt fine and that she perceived that everyone else in the class did too, I was required to take responsibility for being vulnerable in a way that made the idea of a safe or unsafe space real. I felt drawn to this approach because I sensed that no student would be willing to put themselves at the center of this conflict in order to show Alaina that they cared about the way homophobic language was being used, nor was I willing to ask for student participation in such a risky situation. Instead, I seized the opportunity to model risk by making myself vulnerable to students and naming my own feelings, being sure to use “I” statements as a way to keep the conversation under control and sidestep the specific challenges raised by Alaina’s comments about safety.
I feel this approach was the right choice, but it was another situation where my closeness to the issue presented a personal challenge to confronting it. There were several moments where I felt very emotional when speaking and noted that my voice was wavering. Like the conversation that had happened a month before, it seemed I was seconds away from coming out to my class. In fact, I felt in some moments that what I was saying was as good as coming out, although I still never explicitly did so. I imagine my emotional reaction showed some students that my investment in the situation was about more than just a general concern for classroom climate.
This class discussion was certainly mediated by its disciplinary nature, and by the fact that I was laying down rules rather than leading a true discussion. It also was affected by the presence of Mr. Brown, whose support was important to me during this conflict because of his rapport with specific students as well as his positionality as a Black, middle-aged man who favors a direct, warmly demanding approach with students. Mr. Brown usually interacts with students in disciplinary situations, and I had originally called on him for this type of presence, first to speak to Jerome, and later to reiterate my positions on homophobic language. However, there were moments where it seemed that Mr. Brown’s involvement with the conversation included a confusing approach to policing homophobic language. He seemed inexperienced in dealing with this issue in the classroom, but his support and varied approaches were welcome in that he was coming from a different perspective with the same end in mind.
The vocal participants in this discussion (Khalil, Kwame, and Alaina) repeatedly invoked their upbringing and cultural backgrounds as reasons for their language use and by extension their beliefs about queer identities. All three students are Black; Khalil and Kwame are traditionally masculine young men, and Alaina is a young woman with a masculine presentation and a tough personality. Their insistence that their upbringing or cultural identities created a concrete excuse for their use of homophobic language proved hard to navigate. Although I countered their invocation of cultural contexts with my own that I had overcome to arrive at my current beliefs, it was not a direct equivalence. I mentioned my own experiences for the end of helping them understand that it was both possible and favorable to change one’s positions related to language. This approach did not seem immediately effective, however, as they repeated their positions that their use of homophobic language was linked inextricably to the culture of their upbringing.
This culturally focused resistance to redirection complicates the process of confronting homophobia in the classroom. My students are rightfully conscious of the differences between us, and even when it is not explicitly stated as it was in this conversation, it is a constantly present dynamic in my classroom. I have had to repeatedly assert the similarities that do exist, such as the fact that I grew up in Philadelphia, that I live in the neighborhood, and that I speak Spanish. However, the outwardly evident differences outnumber the similarities. Given this dynamic, I feel that students may have referred to their upbringings as an easy out in this conversation. Perhaps they hoped I would balk at confronting something like cultural differences. Of course, students are also right in asserting that they were raised to use homophobic language to police each other’s behavior as well as view queerness as an undesirable other. What they, and many people, fail to note is that everyone is raised and exists within a heteronormative environment that means we have to actively unlearn homophobia and heterosexism. Nevertheless, it is important to name the common belief that urban communities of color are generally more homophobic than their white counterparts. I do not personally agree, though I recognize the prevalence of this narrative.
At the time, this extended discussion did not seem effective in curbing use of homophobic language. It sidetracked regular class activity for a significant amount of time, and was riddled with conflict. It was centered on teacher, positioned as moral expert, telling students, positioned as receptacles of a moral lesson, how they should behave in a community. I did not name any student-designated norms or allow for any peer-to-peer sharing. The discussion remained between me and Khalil, Kwame, and Alaina, with the entire class as an audience. I think it was the right decision to name the homophobic language, describe why it is unacceptable in a classroom community, and respond to questions from these students. However, I think this type of teacher-centered discussion can be avoided by creating more collaborative, student-centered, and student-moderated norms. By fostering a more collective classroom environment, it is possible that students may feel a greater investment in the learning climate. It may also eliminate the challenging ways that students used their own positionalities, which differ from my own, to derail the conversation.