Lessons Directly Related to Queer Gender or Sexual Identities
Sonnet 18 by William Shakespeare
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
January 4, 2017
Queering/Not Queering “Sonnet 18”
“We assume the poet is a man, and we assume he’s writing about a woman.” Using “the beloved” instead of “the woman.” “the person” and “they” as well
Felt like I sidestepped opportunity to go deeper, especially with academic basis of argument about the subject of the poem and their gender.
January 5, 2017
Slightly more queering of Sonnet 18. Not much of a reaction either way.
I was much more intentional about using the term “the beloved” and gender neutral pronouns to refer to the subject of the poem across all three sections of the class, but still slipped and defaulted to feminine pronouns at times. Students generally seemed to stick with identifying the subject of the poem as a woman. Ms. Esposito also approached the subject with neutrality, but it seemed like she framed it with the narrative of not knowing much about Shakespeare as an author, what his identity or gender was. Therefore, the gender of the subject is equally as ambiguous. Seemed more like “Shakespeare might have been a straight woman” rather than “Shakespeare might have been a queer person.”
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
January 4, 2017
Queering/Not Queering “Sonnet 18”
“We assume the poet is a man, and we assume he’s writing about a woman.” Using “the beloved” instead of “the woman.” “the person” and “they” as well
Felt like I sidestepped opportunity to go deeper, especially with academic basis of argument about the subject of the poem and their gender.
January 5, 2017
Slightly more queering of Sonnet 18. Not much of a reaction either way.
I was much more intentional about using the term “the beloved” and gender neutral pronouns to refer to the subject of the poem across all three sections of the class, but still slipped and defaulted to feminine pronouns at times. Students generally seemed to stick with identifying the subject of the poem as a woman. Ms. Esposito also approached the subject with neutrality, but it seemed like she framed it with the narrative of not knowing much about Shakespeare as an author, what his identity or gender was. Therefore, the gender of the subject is equally as ambiguous. Seemed more like “Shakespeare might have been a straight woman” rather than “Shakespeare might have been a queer person.”
This moment in my teaching was significant because it was the first time I had consciously decided to bring any level of queerness into my teaching. Although this manifested very subtly, it still was the result of my own critical consideration of the material I was teaching and how it related to non-normative gender or sexual identities. In general, it is taken for granted that most artists and authors are heterosexual, including Shakespeare. However, in many conversations about him in the academic realm, one will encounter the acknowledgement that little is known about his true identity. Especially in the context of his sonnets, there is much debate about to whom they were written. This knowledge, along with the absence of any definite clues in the poem, provided me the confidence to use a more nuanced approach to discussing the poem. This phenomenon in itself is interesting, because I did not cite any of the academic debate about Shakespeare as I taught, nor was it relevant to hooking my students into the discussion. Perhaps I needed external validation, which the academic context provided.
I had chosen to teach Sonnet 18 arbitrarily. I was looking to teach a Shakespearean sonnet, and this poem was the one with which I was most familiar. It wasn’t until later, when I was doing my own research, that I realized there was opportunity to queer the piece. Even then, I was somewhat reluctant to actively queer the poem. As I noted in my journal entry, I at first felt that I had sidestepped the opportunity to queer the poem with my classes, even though I did try to deconstruct some student assumptions about the speaker and the subject. However, by the second day teaching the poem, I was more resolved to speak of the subject in a more nuanced way, choosing to avoid explicitly gendered terms or pronouns and defaulting mostly to “the beloved” and the pronoun “they.” Students did not seem to react either positively or negatively to this exercise. Many of them continued to default to feminine pronouns or identification for the subject. However, I tried my best throughout the time we spent with Sonnet 18 to use the gender-neutral approach.
Even though there was an explicit approach to avoiding a heteronormative reading of the poem, I did not default to the opposite end of the binary: a homosexual reading. I assume that this type of reading may have caused a more obvious stir among students because it is the opposite of the norm, rather than the neutralization of it. However, by choosing to oppose heteronormativity through an ambiguous approach rather than directly oppose it, I was able to avoid a negative reaction from students.
I will also note that continuing to refer to the subject of the poem as “the beloved” or even the pronoun “they” felt tiresome at times. There were moments with particular students with lower language skills or with English language learners that I defaulted back to female identification and feminine pronouns so as not to cause confusion. This was a reaction to the general stress of teaching across multiple ability levels and feeling the pressure of time, as we had to move forward with the material. I should have pushed myself to include all students in these types of queering actions, though, rather than assuming that discussion with nuance or queering the material is only for so-called smart students.
I had chosen to teach Sonnet 18 arbitrarily. I was looking to teach a Shakespearean sonnet, and this poem was the one with which I was most familiar. It wasn’t until later, when I was doing my own research, that I realized there was opportunity to queer the piece. Even then, I was somewhat reluctant to actively queer the poem. As I noted in my journal entry, I at first felt that I had sidestepped the opportunity to queer the poem with my classes, even though I did try to deconstruct some student assumptions about the speaker and the subject. However, by the second day teaching the poem, I was more resolved to speak of the subject in a more nuanced way, choosing to avoid explicitly gendered terms or pronouns and defaulting mostly to “the beloved” and the pronoun “they.” Students did not seem to react either positively or negatively to this exercise. Many of them continued to default to feminine pronouns or identification for the subject. However, I tried my best throughout the time we spent with Sonnet 18 to use the gender-neutral approach.
Even though there was an explicit approach to avoiding a heteronormative reading of the poem, I did not default to the opposite end of the binary: a homosexual reading. I assume that this type of reading may have caused a more obvious stir among students because it is the opposite of the norm, rather than the neutralization of it. However, by choosing to oppose heteronormativity through an ambiguous approach rather than directly oppose it, I was able to avoid a negative reaction from students.
I will also note that continuing to refer to the subject of the poem as “the beloved” or even the pronoun “they” felt tiresome at times. There were moments with particular students with lower language skills or with English language learners that I defaulted back to female identification and feminine pronouns so as not to cause confusion. This was a reaction to the general stress of teaching across multiple ability levels and feeling the pressure of time, as we had to move forward with the material. I should have pushed myself to include all students in these types of queering actions, though, rather than assuming that discussion with nuance or queering the material is only for so-called smart students.
Bayard Rustin: A Gay Civil Rights Icon
From Field Journal
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
February 22, 2017
Rustin Lesson Period ½
Hector said “ew” when I shared that someone almost spread a rumor about Rustin and MLK. Asked him why he said ew and he was able to express that it would mean something about King.
Hector also asked if women could get arrested for being gay. I responded that I wasn’t sure but it was still a challenge to be a gay woman in this era.
They asked how Naegle could be in charge of Rustin’s estate if they weren’t married. Had to explain that Rustin adopted Naegle. Explained that it sounded kind of creepy, but Rustin (and others) had to find loopholes because there wasn’t marriage equality. Students definitely reacted to this situation and expressed confusion at how you could adopt an adult.
I shared how big a deal it was that marriage equality happened two years ago. I told them I remembered exactly where I was when I heard the news.
Period 6/7
My question: Why was Rustin put to the sidelines even though he did a lot of work for the movement?
Kwame’s answer: “Because he’s a faggot.”
Told the class that we don’t use that word because it has a lot of violence and disrespect. It’s an unacceptable word to use.
In general, the class was pretty immature during the lesson. Lots of giggling and calling out. Kwame told us towards the end that it made him “uncomfortable.”
Andre asked how Rustin and Naegle could be an interracial couple.
Group was distracted by the age difference in the couple.
February 24, 2017
Rustin writing prompt: Students keep focusing/fixating on the fact that he is gay in their paragraph or topic sentence.
February 27, 2017
“Rustin was famous for being gay.”
Because we spent so much time talking about Rustin’s identity, students were distracted or fixated on this detail when we talked about his career at large. While it is important to teach that he was gay, and that it had consequences in his career, it is not the thing that made him famous/important. It’s almost like mentioning that detail at all creates a level of importance in students’ minds, perhaps because it is hardly ever mentioned.
March 10, 2017
Conversation with Juan about Rustin
“What group of people was Rustin fighting for?” -me
“I’m not gonna say it out loud.” -Juan
“What do you want to say?” -me
“(whispering) Gay.” -Juan
“You can say it…I’m telling you it’s ok to say.” -me
He still just whispered it. In this case, it was not even the correct answer to my question.
March 15, 2017
Alaina – (Responding to someone saying Curley is gay) “Didn’t you know we can’t say that in this class?!” (She was showing off.)
I said it depends on the way we use the word, right?
She replied, “Yeah, we shouldn’t say ‘Oh, that’s gay.'"
I agreed, and said, “Yeah, but it’s ok to use the word when we’re talking about someone like Rustin who identified as gay.”
Italicized notes were added at the time of transcription.
February 22, 2017
Rustin Lesson Period ½
Hector said “ew” when I shared that someone almost spread a rumor about Rustin and MLK. Asked him why he said ew and he was able to express that it would mean something about King.
Hector also asked if women could get arrested for being gay. I responded that I wasn’t sure but it was still a challenge to be a gay woman in this era.
They asked how Naegle could be in charge of Rustin’s estate if they weren’t married. Had to explain that Rustin adopted Naegle. Explained that it sounded kind of creepy, but Rustin (and others) had to find loopholes because there wasn’t marriage equality. Students definitely reacted to this situation and expressed confusion at how you could adopt an adult.
I shared how big a deal it was that marriage equality happened two years ago. I told them I remembered exactly where I was when I heard the news.
Period 6/7
My question: Why was Rustin put to the sidelines even though he did a lot of work for the movement?
Kwame’s answer: “Because he’s a faggot.”
Told the class that we don’t use that word because it has a lot of violence and disrespect. It’s an unacceptable word to use.
In general, the class was pretty immature during the lesson. Lots of giggling and calling out. Kwame told us towards the end that it made him “uncomfortable.”
Andre asked how Rustin and Naegle could be an interracial couple.
Group was distracted by the age difference in the couple.
February 24, 2017
Rustin writing prompt: Students keep focusing/fixating on the fact that he is gay in their paragraph or topic sentence.
February 27, 2017
“Rustin was famous for being gay.”
Because we spent so much time talking about Rustin’s identity, students were distracted or fixated on this detail when we talked about his career at large. While it is important to teach that he was gay, and that it had consequences in his career, it is not the thing that made him famous/important. It’s almost like mentioning that detail at all creates a level of importance in students’ minds, perhaps because it is hardly ever mentioned.
March 10, 2017
Conversation with Juan about Rustin
“What group of people was Rustin fighting for?” -me
“I’m not gonna say it out loud.” -Juan
“What do you want to say?” -me
“(whispering) Gay.” -Juan
“You can say it…I’m telling you it’s ok to say.” -me
He still just whispered it. In this case, it was not even the correct answer to my question.
March 15, 2017
Alaina – (Responding to someone saying Curley is gay) “Didn’t you know we can’t say that in this class?!” (She was showing off.)
I said it depends on the way we use the word, right?
She replied, “Yeah, we shouldn’t say ‘Oh, that’s gay.'"
I agreed, and said, “Yeah, but it’s ok to use the word when we’re talking about someone like Rustin who identified as gay.”
Watch the lesson on Bayard Rustin: Gay Civil Rights Icon.
To close out our unit that examined nonfiction works related to the theme of “Dreams and Aspirations,” I decided to teach an essay written by Bayard Rustin. “The Preamble to the March on Washington” seemed like a fitting choice from Rustin’s body of work because it connects to the ideas of a group of people being blocked from achieving certain dreams solely because of their identity. It also is what set the stage to the event of the March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, which I hoped my students would be able to relate to. In a weeklong unit, we started by tapping into the students’ prior knowledge of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. While many students did not seem familiar with the march when we began talking about it, many were familiar with Dr. King’s speech. After taking notes on the March and viewing a clip from Dr. King’s speech that showed its magnitude, students seemed to have a working understanding of the event. After providing this background, Rustin was introduced as the chief organizer of the event and a trusted advisor to Dr. King. The final detail shared was that he was pushed to the sidelines for his sexuality, but the lesson ended at that point.
The next day, we focused the entire lesson on biographical information about Rustin that related to his identity as a gay man. In the students’ work packets as well as on the PowerPoint, the heading was “Bayard Rustin: Gay Civil Rights Icon.” The lesson began with information about Rustin’s 1953 arrest for “sex perversion,” which I explained to students was getting arrested for “being gay.” I was not comfortable with getting into the sexual nature of the arrest or explaining the fact that sexual acts often took place in public or semi-public places, so I sidestepped that information. Instead, I focused on the concept of getting arrested and fined or jailed for being gay. I asked students to consider how an arrest or stint in jail can negatively affect someone, especially in relation to their work. Students recognized that a criminal record could follow someone throughout their life and make it difficult to find employment in the future. I also pointed out that some anti-sodomy laws were in place until 2003, within the lifetime of everyone in the class. Again, I sidestepped the sexual nature of these laws by saying “being gay could be punishable by law.” Overall, I was unsure that my students would be able to maturely encounter such information, and although I was simplifying the information, I think that the point retained accuracy.
The next set of notes was framed around Rustin’s influential working relationship with Martin Luther King, Jr. I emphasized the fact that Rustin taught Dr. King about the philosophy of nonviolence and helped him organize the Southern Christian Leadership Council, positioning Rustin as an indispensible figure. Next, I noted that Rustin didn’t meet King until three years after his morals arrest, and so people had knowledge of the fact that he was gay. Because of this, his sexuality became an issue when a congressman tried to accuse King and Rustin of having a romantic affair. I described that Rustin decided to distance himself from the movement to preserve its integrity.
To wrap up the biographical information about Rustin, I reemphasized the fact that he was an important figure in the movement, especially when considering the March on Washington. I discussed that Rustin had a longtime partner, Walter Naegle, who is alive to today and managing Rustin’s estate. With all of my classes, I pointed out that even though Rustin and Naegle were long-term partners, they could not be married since there was not marriage equality until the 2010s, especially noting that it was only nationally legal since 2015. I selectively shared with two out of three classes that Rustin had to adopt Naegle to acquire legal rights similar to marriage.
The next day, we focused the entire lesson on biographical information about Rustin that related to his identity as a gay man. In the students’ work packets as well as on the PowerPoint, the heading was “Bayard Rustin: Gay Civil Rights Icon.” The lesson began with information about Rustin’s 1953 arrest for “sex perversion,” which I explained to students was getting arrested for “being gay.” I was not comfortable with getting into the sexual nature of the arrest or explaining the fact that sexual acts often took place in public or semi-public places, so I sidestepped that information. Instead, I focused on the concept of getting arrested and fined or jailed for being gay. I asked students to consider how an arrest or stint in jail can negatively affect someone, especially in relation to their work. Students recognized that a criminal record could follow someone throughout their life and make it difficult to find employment in the future. I also pointed out that some anti-sodomy laws were in place until 2003, within the lifetime of everyone in the class. Again, I sidestepped the sexual nature of these laws by saying “being gay could be punishable by law.” Overall, I was unsure that my students would be able to maturely encounter such information, and although I was simplifying the information, I think that the point retained accuracy.
The next set of notes was framed around Rustin’s influential working relationship with Martin Luther King, Jr. I emphasized the fact that Rustin taught Dr. King about the philosophy of nonviolence and helped him organize the Southern Christian Leadership Council, positioning Rustin as an indispensible figure. Next, I noted that Rustin didn’t meet King until three years after his morals arrest, and so people had knowledge of the fact that he was gay. Because of this, his sexuality became an issue when a congressman tried to accuse King and Rustin of having a romantic affair. I described that Rustin decided to distance himself from the movement to preserve its integrity.
To wrap up the biographical information about Rustin, I reemphasized the fact that he was an important figure in the movement, especially when considering the March on Washington. I discussed that Rustin had a longtime partner, Walter Naegle, who is alive to today and managing Rustin’s estate. With all of my classes, I pointed out that even though Rustin and Naegle were long-term partners, they could not be married since there was not marriage equality until the 2010s, especially noting that it was only nationally legal since 2015. I selectively shared with two out of three classes that Rustin had to adopt Naegle to acquire legal rights similar to marriage.
Slides with biographical information about Rustin: |
Teaching this lesson went well. In my first block class, there were some small interruptions, such as when Hector reacted with “ew” when I mentioned that someone threatened to spread the rumor that Rustin and Dr. King were having an affair. When I asked him why he said that, he was able to relate that it would signify King was gay, which would compromise his reputation in the Civil Rights Movement. Hector was also interested in knowing if queer women were affected by arrests the same way as gay men. I let him know that I wasn’t sure if the laws affected them in the same way, but queer women still faced many challenges during this era. Students in this class also directly asked how Naegle could be in charge of Rustin’s estate without having been married, so I explained that Rustin found a loophole by adopting him. I prefaced it by warning them that it sounded pretty creepy, but people had to find tricky ways to get around the discriminatory laws. This caused a pretty significant reaction in the classroom, and they were also preoccupied with questioning how an adult could adopt another adult.
The second time I taught the lesson, in my 6/7 block, students were a lot less mature about the information presented. When trying to kick off the lesson by asking students if they remembered why Rustin was kept at the margins of the movement, Kwame responded by saying “Because he’s a faggot,” to which I had to respond by warning Kwame away from using that word to talk about gay people. Later in the lesson, Kwame told me that the lesson made him “uncomfortable,” which could have been the cause for some of his and other students’ immature behavior. Overall, there was giggling and calling out along with a lack of focus. I didn’t share with them about the details of Rustin’s adoption of Naegle; the group was already pretty distracted by the noticeable age difference between the men.
The third time I taught the lesson was to my honors section, as seen in the video linked above. This was the smoothest version of the lesson, due to the fact that these students are generally eager class participants who readily ask questions and make connections. I shared the information about adoption with this class, to which they had similar reactions. However, they did not have many outwardly noticeable reactions. They were very curious about Naegle’s life after Rustin passed away.
With all three groups, I shared about how it was a significant event when marriage equality became the law of the land in 2015. I shared that it was personally very important, and I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news. Many of them remembered it happening, and I tried to emphasize how important it was that the benefits of marriage were only so recently made available to LGBTQ people.
Overall, there was not much about student reaction or behavior that set this lesson apart from others. I tried to treat this lesson as I would any other, and students were likely used to my approach of including historical or biographical information to frame understanding of a reading. In fact, students often complain about how much I teach history in their English class. The level of disruption or even use of inappropriate language in class was more or less on par with what could occur on any day, and my method of teaching was consistent with my usual routine.
I seized the opportunity to share with students how I was personally affected by the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Although I didn’t explicitly state why the event was so significant, I did tell my students that it was very important to me, and a memorable moment. Again, this was another time I felt very close to coming out, but still did not take that explicit step.
Some students seemed to exhibit a discomfort or at least a lack of familiarity with talking about gay people and how they have been treated throughout history. Students seemed most impacted by details such as Rustin’s arrest, his inability to be married, and the fact that he had to adopt his partner. They also reacted most to the information about the rumor about Rustin and Dr. King. They were able to share that this rumor could damage King’s reputation as a leader, Christian pastor, and a married man with children. Other students were able to talk about a gay figure, but fell back on words used traditionally for LGBTQ people that seem othering, such as referring to a romantic partner as a “lover.” Still other students showed curiosity about Rustin’s intersecting identities as they related to his sexuality, such as his age and race. Kwame was the only student who explicitly stated his discomfort, although as always, a significant portion of each class were not vocal participants, which makes it hard to gauge how they feel about a subject.
After this lesson, students were prone to overstating the significance of Rustin’s sexuality as it related to his career in the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, there were times later on when students answer the question with “Why was Rustin famous?” with “Because he was gay.” Student work about Rustin also tended to overstate his sexuality in ways that weren’t always relevant to the question or main idea of the work being produced.
Personally, I found that this lesson provided a useful benchmark for addressing the way students use the word “gay.” For some students, they continue to express confusion about how and when the word gay is allowed. However, these same students often have used it with a negative connotation and are expressing frustration with redirection. By having a common point of reference, it became easier to explain that it’s ok to use the word gay when describing a person who identifies as such; conversely, if it’s used as an insult or with an obviously negative connotation, it is inappropriate. The word gay continued to prove confusing for many students, and the nuance of its situational meaning seemed hard to grasp. The integration of the word into lessons was a way to deal with this confusion, although I had to often reassure students that the word could be used at all without it being a problem.
The second time I taught the lesson, in my 6/7 block, students were a lot less mature about the information presented. When trying to kick off the lesson by asking students if they remembered why Rustin was kept at the margins of the movement, Kwame responded by saying “Because he’s a faggot,” to which I had to respond by warning Kwame away from using that word to talk about gay people. Later in the lesson, Kwame told me that the lesson made him “uncomfortable,” which could have been the cause for some of his and other students’ immature behavior. Overall, there was giggling and calling out along with a lack of focus. I didn’t share with them about the details of Rustin’s adoption of Naegle; the group was already pretty distracted by the noticeable age difference between the men.
The third time I taught the lesson was to my honors section, as seen in the video linked above. This was the smoothest version of the lesson, due to the fact that these students are generally eager class participants who readily ask questions and make connections. I shared the information about adoption with this class, to which they had similar reactions. However, they did not have many outwardly noticeable reactions. They were very curious about Naegle’s life after Rustin passed away.
With all three groups, I shared about how it was a significant event when marriage equality became the law of the land in 2015. I shared that it was personally very important, and I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news. Many of them remembered it happening, and I tried to emphasize how important it was that the benefits of marriage were only so recently made available to LGBTQ people.
Overall, there was not much about student reaction or behavior that set this lesson apart from others. I tried to treat this lesson as I would any other, and students were likely used to my approach of including historical or biographical information to frame understanding of a reading. In fact, students often complain about how much I teach history in their English class. The level of disruption or even use of inappropriate language in class was more or less on par with what could occur on any day, and my method of teaching was consistent with my usual routine.
I seized the opportunity to share with students how I was personally affected by the legalization of gay marriage in the United States. Although I didn’t explicitly state why the event was so significant, I did tell my students that it was very important to me, and a memorable moment. Again, this was another time I felt very close to coming out, but still did not take that explicit step.
Some students seemed to exhibit a discomfort or at least a lack of familiarity with talking about gay people and how they have been treated throughout history. Students seemed most impacted by details such as Rustin’s arrest, his inability to be married, and the fact that he had to adopt his partner. They also reacted most to the information about the rumor about Rustin and Dr. King. They were able to share that this rumor could damage King’s reputation as a leader, Christian pastor, and a married man with children. Other students were able to talk about a gay figure, but fell back on words used traditionally for LGBTQ people that seem othering, such as referring to a romantic partner as a “lover.” Still other students showed curiosity about Rustin’s intersecting identities as they related to his sexuality, such as his age and race. Kwame was the only student who explicitly stated his discomfort, although as always, a significant portion of each class were not vocal participants, which makes it hard to gauge how they feel about a subject.
After this lesson, students were prone to overstating the significance of Rustin’s sexuality as it related to his career in the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, there were times later on when students answer the question with “Why was Rustin famous?” with “Because he was gay.” Student work about Rustin also tended to overstate his sexuality in ways that weren’t always relevant to the question or main idea of the work being produced.
Personally, I found that this lesson provided a useful benchmark for addressing the way students use the word “gay.” For some students, they continue to express confusion about how and when the word gay is allowed. However, these same students often have used it with a negative connotation and are expressing frustration with redirection. By having a common point of reference, it became easier to explain that it’s ok to use the word gay when describing a person who identifies as such; conversely, if it’s used as an insult or with an obviously negative connotation, it is inappropriate. The word gay continued to prove confusing for many students, and the nuance of its situational meaning seemed hard to grasp. The integration of the word into lessons was a way to deal with this confusion, although I had to often reassure students that the word could be used at all without it being a problem.