Everyday Anti-Queer Speech
These events consist of fairly common conflicts that arose in the classroom surrounding the use of homophobic and/or aggressively heteronormative speech, especially the words “faggot” and “gay” used to police a peer’s behavior that is seen as abnormal, or as a way to react to information that seems unfavorable. These events happened sporadically, and so the primary sources of evidence are the field journal entries that summarize each event and my response.
There are some students who were the most frequent users of this language. Over a span of months being corrected, these students have realized (in varying degrees) that such speech would not be tolerated in the classroom. Some students were able to acknowledge their wrongdoing and modify their behavior, while others seemed motivated to avoid confrontation with the teacher and so avoided the targeted behavior or recanted when possible (January 4, Kareem). One student in particular has shown no willingness to change his behavior and overt use of anti-queer speech, regardless of how many times he’s been redirected (April 4, Kwame).
Overall, it seems that students have at least realized that they will not be permitted to use such language in my presence, which could be the influential factor in any changes related to their use of anti-queer language. It can also be true that over time they’ve had the opportunity to think more complexly about queer identities and develop more favorable opinions. Given the limitations of this inquiry, it is difficult to see which influence might have affected students. However, it is evident that students have begun to correct themselves and one another, as well as to choose language more carefully (March 3, Khalil and Andre; March 8, Hector).
There are some students who were the most frequent users of this language. Over a span of months being corrected, these students have realized (in varying degrees) that such speech would not be tolerated in the classroom. Some students were able to acknowledge their wrongdoing and modify their behavior, while others seemed motivated to avoid confrontation with the teacher and so avoided the targeted behavior or recanted when possible (January 4, Kareem). One student in particular has shown no willingness to change his behavior and overt use of anti-queer speech, regardless of how many times he’s been redirected (April 4, Kwame).
Overall, it seems that students have at least realized that they will not be permitted to use such language in my presence, which could be the influential factor in any changes related to their use of anti-queer language. It can also be true that over time they’ve had the opportunity to think more complexly about queer identities and develop more favorable opinions. Given the limitations of this inquiry, it is difficult to see which influence might have affected students. However, it is evident that students have begun to correct themselves and one another, as well as to choose language more carefully (March 3, Khalil and Andre; March 8, Hector).