UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
17 Responses to Diversity
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In Loutzenheiser’s article, many aspects were outlined such as: the importance of acknowledgment, sharing, accepting, and understanding the differences and normalities of GLB (gay, lesbian, and bisexual) as well as the sensitivity of the subject matter, the issues, and problems that occur. Loutzenheiser shares her experiences and the theory of queered pedagogy, which include race, sexuality, class, gender and ability. The article states that the queered antiracist pedagogy explores ways that students ‘do not’ silence their queer and other identities. Acceptance and denial of the topic are highlighted as well as the problems that can occur.
Loutzenheiser shares her knowledge of the theory of queered, antiracist pedagogy and the possibilities and tensions tied to it. She emphasizes that the binary and normalcy is seen to be disrupted when the race of a gay and straight is other than white and therefore those binaries are bent when the queer students are of colour. This can be a very sensitive topic and can form many questions and concerns if not addressed appropriately in classrooms. The card activity that was mentioned at the beginning of the article was a great way to read aloud students thoughts on the topic anonymously. Questions can be asked and opinions shared without knowing who asked the question in the first place. Students often at the Secondary School (and younger) have questions about gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, sexuality, and race but are often hesitant or scared to ask.
A statement made in the article drew my attention: “I use the term antiracist as opposed to multicultural because multicultural education has come to mean so many things, many of them essentializing and reinforcing of Us/Them constructions.” p.198. Antiracist instead of multicultural: I have used both terms individually and appropriately depending on the discussions and situations but I have never considered why I would or wouldn’t choose one over the other. This statement made me think deeper about the meaning of the two terms. Can I use the term multicultural to define the cities that we live in but also state that antiracism has not fully diminished as there are still strong views and opinions of individuals within these cities?
In our staffroom, we have two posters pinned on the wall and one is titled: ‘I have two moms’, and the other is titled: ‘I have two dads’. I took a group of grade six students into the staffroom as they were going to be involved in a baking activity. One student asked me what it meant by having two moms or two dads. I was not sure how to reply and was hesitant in answering the question. My first thought was that if the students went home and shared the information that I would give them, then their parents may approach me about the topic and I would have to deal with parents too. Every year, a LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) district member comes to our school to talk to the students and we often have many parents approach the school, upset and angry about why this topic was discussed with the students. Due to my past experience with parents and this sensitive topic, I was and still am hesitant in engaging in these types of discussion with the students.
Overall, Loutzenheiser shared valid and interesting information with the experiences of her students. I feel that the information outlined in the article was better understood with the use of the actual classroom and school scenarios at the Secondary Alternate School. Although the article described and outlined diversity, I feel that it did not sparingly explain in detail all areas of diversity. The experiences described within the school were very much on similar and closely related topics within the huge umbrella of diversity. It is a huge topic and becomes entangled and interconnected with many other sub topics and it is not only important and individualized but should also be respected.
Hi Davinder,
You may be interested in the Vancovuer school’s board website for diversity. It contains many resources that could support your teaching and how to respond to parents.
http://blogs.vsb.bc.ca/pride/
Oli
I found the Loutzenheiser article to be interesting and thought-provoking. In fact, many of the points in this article were brought up in our group conversations last week as we analyzed the revised BC curriculum. One of the more notable comments was our collective feeling that queer and anti-racist language doesn’t seem to be included in the curriculum documents. Words that are included are vague, such as “relationships”, “sensitive issues”, “emotional issues”, “positive relationship with diverse people”, etc. It seems that the major objective of this article is to encourage the organic inclusion of queer and anti-racist education into our daily practices, and for teachers to be honest and vulnerable with students. Like Oli expressed last week, it’s hard for teachers to be their true selves around their students, it’s almost expected that we fabricate a teacher persona to the students to know. Reflective in the article, Ellsworth and Felman point out, “teachers and students can never “see” each other as they really are, because there is no “really are” “. Loutzenheiser goes on to say. however, that “there are the daily possibilities of meetings of the minds that teachers and students can form”.
National coming out day was on October 11th, and I was so proud of my friend’s daughter for coming out on her social media account to all of her followers (she posts her digital art to an open instagram acccount) on that day. She identifies as gay, and as a demi-girl (a completely new term to me). I told her how brave I thought she was, and how I wish that in my lifetime we will see the day where people don’t need to come out, or fear rejection from their family, peers, and society for their sexual orientation or gender fluidity. I believe that everybody should be allowed to love whoever they want, and that we shouldn’t have to announce our preferences, we should simply be accepted and loved for who we are. I chose to share this story with one of my classes the other day after attendance, they sat intently and listened, and no students commented afterward. I asked them if they had any questions or comments, they just stared blankly back at me, and one students said that they thought it was weird that I was talking about this, and that none of their other teachers talk about things like this. I found this shocking, and I hope that these conversations surrounding queer issues can be raised without question or speculation, and I don’t get why this topic is “frowned upon” to talk about at school and with teachers. At what point will the teachers and students be comfortable enough with the topic to have a “meeting of the minds”?
My second comment is regarding the “teaching teachers” section in the article, specifically the opening section, “when preservice teachers are asked to discuss race or sexuality, alone or in tandem, they often offer stony silences or almost obligatory changes of subject to gender or “reverse” racism”. I can’t remember have ANY conversations surrounding race or sexuality in my PDP year. NONE. I do not feel equipped to bring these topics up in my classroom because I didn’t discuss them in high school, university, with my family, friends, or teacher training at UBC. These topics are extremely important, and are not being handled well in the redesigned curriculum. I’m not sure what needs to be done, but I think that starting with discussions at the pre-service level could certainly help. Also, perhaps giving examples where teachers have been vulnerable with their classes, and have discussed these topics in a safe way could certainly help.
Loutzenheiser discusses the need for complicated discussions about race, gender, sexuality, ability, and class. Her position is that students need to see that their unique identity is embedded in the curriculum. She advocates for a broader definition of the word queer that also embraces fluid ideas of race, class, gender and sexuality. This would change conventional ideas of what is “normal” and move beyond binary conceptions of identity.
I wondered if Loutzenheiser, with her privilege as a person of the power dominant culture, could understand fully about the implications of discussing diversity in the classroom. When these issues are discussed by a person who has not experienced the consequences of them, there may be some outcomes that may counter the very truth the person has been seeking. First, that person has an agenda, well-meaning though it may be, and this means anyone other with another perspective is forced into the position of Other. The second outcome is that the class dynamic can change and move some students to the outer sphere who weren’t there before. This is a challenge in a diverse environment. This is what happened in the incident between Hope and Tori. Hope felt betrayed and ambushed; while her behaviour and language were objectionable and needed to be addressed, her feelings about how this was dealt with in the classroom also had some validity.
A comment by Loutzenheiser highlighted another issue. “Hope’s use of the racial binaries of white versus Latina was particularly interesting in light of her own mixed heritage, both Latina and white.” This seems disingenuous, given that there is a tendency to identify people as one identity or another. President Barack Obama is identified as the first “black president” even though he is biracial. My daughter had an assignment where she had to bring in one artifact that represented her culture. This caused her significant consternation, because she is South Indian and Japanese-Canadian. In the end, we told her to take two items in.
The American discussions about race are frustrating, because they tend to focus on black and white. There is little to no acknowledgement of the experiences of other ethnic groups. In the DLC classes I have taken so far, there has been little exploration of the Canadian perspective in the literature. Certainly, BC has a very racist history, marked by the Komogata Maru incident, the Japanese-Canadian internment, and Indian residential schools, to name a few episodes. One way the matter of race and racism in Canada has been addressed is through multiculturalism, which is another approach I find frustrating. This is Canada’s “binary”: white Canadians and everyone else. Of course, this fails to acknowledge First Nations people or just adds them into the “multicultural” mix. The new curriculum seeks to address this with its integration of First Nations history and ways of knowing. It will be interesting to see how teachers teach this content in ways that are respectful and not patronizing or appropriating. Many new resources are being made available, along with workshops offered by First Nations facilitators. We need to look at “diversity” as an asset rather than a problem and value different ways of thinking, being and knowing. This is idealistic rather than realistic, but I would rather live in hope than despair.
“ They all want to come out of the teaching closet. The 57-year-old retired principal who worries about the impact it would have on his family. The 33-year-old student teacher, about to step back into the closet in his search for a job in an elementary school. The 41-year-old science teacher, scared for her safety after someone complained to the school board about her. Welcome to the world of gay, lesbian and bisexual teachers, a world often filled with anxiety, fear and silence despite a powerful desire to be open role models for young people.”
“Gay, lesbian teachers reluctantly live a lie: Want to come out but worry about safety, jobs” – Jodie Sinnema, 2004.
I feel like part of the problem in discussing LGBTQ2 in classrooms is the lack of support LGBTQ2 teachers get. It is still a taboo in most school to be openly gay. Many people hide it despite the law and safe environment-related clauses in our collective agreement. Many teachers and administrators also feel that teachers shouldn’t come out because of the backlash from the families.Up until September 2016 ( so a month ago!), there was no mention for the requirement for schools to provide Gay& Straight alliances in schools or was there a clause protecting LTBTQ students or a mention LGBTQ-inclusive education in the school act. BC has been lagging behind for many years and has not mentioned any diversity groups in there revised curriculum. BC is also famous in Canada for the Chamberlain vs Surrey School District court case in 2002, where the board failed to support his LGBTQ2 staff and supported the intolerance from parents. It is hard for teachers to have to face homophobia coming from their administrators while having to preach tolerance. The message is two-faced.
There are initiatives in the schools to protect or to recognize LGBTQ students like the Pink short day or to discuss like the PINK shirt day or Black History month. The problem with these events is that they are one day or one month. They are treated like exceptions when people deal with these issues every day. The optic is that “We say no to bullying”. Why can’t it be “We recognize that,,,.”. I am aware that these optics are to reduce bullying and that this is very important. According to Glsen (2005), 52% of bullying remarks in school are homophobic, 50% sexist, 26% racist and 10% on religions. Examples of harassment students get are sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks directed towards them, getting called gay or lesbian, sexual rumours spread about them & touching or grabbing in a sexual way (60%). Impacts of this bullying can result in poor academic performance, chronic absenteeism, emotional problems,poor physical health and substance abuse.
The article discusses many opportunities to discuss diversity issues to the class. Although, I still feel like it categorizes it in something we “Should talk about”’, making it something “different” and trading it “different” like for the PINK shirt day. Although, there are things we can do as teacher to have an inclusive attitude, especially with younger kids, that could do the job. Examples are not to separate kids by genders (e.g. Boys and Girls! Listen! / Happy Campers Listen, Division 1 Listen! etc.), to reference to boy, girl, both or neither, to teach the difference between patterns and rules, between values and rules, to discuss gender roles and stereotypes, etc.
I feel British-Columbia has a long way to go when it comes to discuss diversity. We have seen one step in the right direction with the inclusion of aboriginal content in the curriculum. To find exact wording about learning about all cultures, genders and sexual orientations is still a work in progress, especially with a lack of support coming from the school districts. There is also a lack of diversity in textbooks and resources offered. In Vancouver, we were fortunate to have the diversity blog http://blogs.vsb.bc.ca/pride/ to support teachers. In BC, we also have Out in Schools and Qmunnity who are organisms that are offering workshops in schools.
On an ending note, I do agree with Sheila that regarding diversity issues, we should look at Canadian content since our politics and culture is different from in the United States. Elizabeth Meyer (Concordia & McGill University) has written a lot of articles about diversity in Canadian schools and LGBTQ2 history in our Canadian school system that could be a great add up to everyone’s questions and inquiries.
Lisa Loutzenheiser was my professor in the UBC Education program in 2006. I want to preface my writing by stating that I have a lot of respect for Loutzenheiser and she actually was one of my references, but that did not mean I always agreed with her or the way she taught. From her class, I gained invaluable experiences and still to this day, I often think about our discussions and my cultural autobiography when dealing with similar topics in my classroom.
My class with Loutzenheiser was titled “Issues in Social Studies.” I recall her classes being intense and thought-provoking, starting from Day 1, the cue card activity. After reading her article, I have a better understanding of some of her reactions to our class’ statements and opinions. Our class was composed of mostly Canadians, while much of her pedagogical framework at that time had been based on students and preservice teachers in the United States. The lived experiences of Americans could not be completely transferable to Canadians, especially Vancouverites, as we have different values, culture, laws and educational systems.
Our big assignment for the course was the cultural autobiography. In her paper, Loutzenheiser (2001) states that she would ask her students “to look at their schooling and discuss how who they are has impacted the advantages and disadvantages they have…race, gender, sexuality, and class…how these issues both alone and in concert with on another are important to the story of who they are” (p.207). Before writing our papers, we had many “interesting” class discussions on multiculturalism, antiracism, and reverse discrimination. Her teaching gave me great insight and prepared me to react and discuss these topics in my own classes, but at the same time, I gained many tips on what not to do! When she talked about white privilege, reverse racism, multiculturalism and diversity, there was a lack of buy in because she was so passionate about these topics, yet one of her biological downfalls was that she was a part of the dominant culture. At times she tried hard to paint herself as being an “other” because she was not heterosexual, but again, a lack of buy in from the class. Most of my classmates that were raised in Canada felt that we felt that we labeled ourselves and each other as more of a united “us” as opposed to “othering” each other. Multiculturalism is an important word and an important fundamental law of our country that makes us very different than Americans and I believe that Loutzenheiser failed to take this into account. Whenever I ask my students to describe what it means to be a Canadian, without fail, every single time, they mention multiculturalism. This law makes it acceptable for our citizens to preserve their distinct cultures, languages and religions under the unified banner of being Canadian. Loutzenheiser states that we should use the term “antiracist” because Multiculturalism “reinforces us/them constructions” yet many of my classmates believed that it did the exact opposite. I think about how in 1956 Diefenbaker promoted the policy of “unhyphenated Canadianism.” He wanted people to stop using the terms “Chinese-Canadian” or “Indo-Canadian” and instead unite everyone by just calling ourselves Canadians. I think it comes down to personal preference, how can anyone else dictate what a person should identify themselves as? I call myself a Canadian but it doesn’t mean everyone else has to. It is the freedom of choice and it is the celebration of our differences that unites us as Canadians.
“Queered, in relation to teaching and learning, can encompass a questioning of binaries and separations across myriad queer identity constructions” (p.197). I think addressing the male/female, white/minority and gay/straight binaries are very important issues that educators find difficulty addressing. We need to remind ourselves that we are not only teaching 21st century learners, but also 21st century thinkers. There is a gap between our 21st century students being able to openly discuss or at least feel comfortable listening to discussions about these issues compared to their teachers who feel awkward because they may have never had any training on how to appropriately do so. Thinking about last week’s class on SEL and this week’s class on diversity, it is clear that teacher education and training needs to catch up with the times and our students.
Loutzenheiser (2001) discusses the challenges of implementing a “queered, antiracist pedagogy” for teaching and learning. The author outlines her experiences with addressing the complex issues of racism and sexuality in her classroom (at both the secondary and university levels). The article argues the need to go beyond just empathy in order to meaningfully understand racism and sexuality. It encourages one to move away from the simple binaries of gay and straight, black and white, and moves towards adapting more fluid notions of race, sexuality – also of gender, class, and (dis)ability. Loutzenheiser (2001) encourages a partnership to be established between educators and their students in order to create safe and open places for the discussion of such complex issues as racism and sexuality to take place in. In order for these spaces to be created, the teacher’s role cannot be one of simply passing knowledge onto the student. Rather, educators need to be vulnerable and open to learning from their students. The learning and teaching must be reciprocal between teachers and students. Although these issues are controversial and may be met with resistance, I agree with the author that one should not be intimidated to or shy away from teaching them.
Although these topics are not explicitly outlined in our curriculum, I believe it is important for me, as an educator, to address these issues because they relate to my students and the world in which they live in. These issues also relate to me and have an impact on me. However, I think that an educator needs to first feel comfortable to address these issues in his/her classroom. I only began to introduce uncomfortable or difficult issues into my classroom once I gained experience and felt more confident in my skills as an educator. I have not received any pre-service training on how to do so. Also, it has been crucial for me to establish a good rapport with my students in order to create a safe and open space in my classroom in order for me to discuss these issues with them.
As an English and Social Studies teacher, I use a variety of resources as a way to bring in different perspectives or issues into my classroom. I select my resources to cater to the dynamics of each of my classes and to reflect their identities or interests. Now that I have been teaching for over ten years, I feel more confident in making the curriculum relevant to my students by bringing in controversial issues. For example, recently, in my English 9 class, we read a short story called “Barney.” This story is about a lab rat, named Barney, who successfully kills the scientist who was experimenting on him. I used this story to hold a class debate on whether or not it is acceptable to test on animals for human purposes. I did a lot of prep work in setting up my expectations for a debate. The students were first given time to write a pre-debate reflection on the topic to reflect on their views and opinions on the topic. Then, they collaborated with their peers to come up with points for their side of the debate (animal testing is acceptable or unacceptable). When we held the actual debate, I was the moderator. My students got very passionate during the debate. Their feelings and values were coming out, and each person was made to feel comfortable enough to honestly share their feelings. In the end, each side could understand the point of view of the other, even if they respectfully agreed to disagree. After they completed their post-debate reflections, I told them that I was at a dinner party once and this topic came up. It is important to know how to respectfully engage in conversations, even if you do not agree with the other person. We watched the Clinton vs. Trump debate and students picked up on how disrespectful Trump was being during the debate. Through this activity, I was able to discuss a controversial issue with my Grade 9 students and relate it to our short story, while also relating it to current events. For our upcoming novel study unit, I have selected a book that examines race relations between African Americans and Caucasian Americans. We will be examining racism and reflect on whether my students have witnessed or experienced racism. I used this debate activity to have students practice being open and vulnerable in a guided environment. I now feel comfortable to continue examining difficult or uncomfortable issues with them and they feel the same about me and each other.
Loutzenheiser highlights the challenges of implementing a queered, antiracist pedagogy.
I’m not sure if it is a coincidence (considering our topic of diversity this week) but on Friday I attended the Association provinciale des professeurs d’immersion et du programme francophone de Colombie-Britannique (APPIPC) conference. The theme for this year’s conference was “La réussite scolaire en français pour toutes et pour tous”. More specifically I attended a workshop on gender specific differentiation. The presenter, Nancy Des Ormeaux from the Abbottsford School District, referred to Sweden and the changes they are making toward a more gender-neutral society and educational system. I feel like Sweden is supporting diversity but not always making decisions that support it. Their goal was to promote the development of the individual, not specific to their gender. One of the examples that stuck out in my mind is how at the preschool level teachers are removing cars from their play centres because they feel that it does not support the sexo-neutral movement. They found that playing with cars supported the development of “boys” and hyperactivity, something they did not want to encourage (they found that boys were far more active than girls and playing with cars promoted this). While I was encouraged that Sweden was making a push toward the development of the individual child, not based on gender, and for inclusion of all learners I felt like the removal of cars would exclude some students because some boys are naturally drawn to this type of activity, and why should we discourage this.
The article and this workshop also reminded me how department stores in the US (Target for example) were going to make attempts to create gender-neutral toy aisles so that boys and girls did not feel compelled to choose a toy in the “girl aisle” or “boy aisle” but rather choose a toy that they were drawn to and wanted to play with.
While I was encouraged by Sweden’s attempts to improve diversity in their education system I was discouraged by our lack of awareness, training, and implementation of diversity in our classrooms in BC. One of the things I have found successful when introducing new ideas or concepts to students is through the use of literature. Picture books are my go-to! While attending the conference on Friday I found a wonderful book, Tango a deux papas, et pourquoi pas? by Béatrice Boutignon (And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell for those interested). This is a true story about two male penguins that live at the Central Park Zoo in New York. Together they have and raise their little penguin. The use of picture books opens up the opportunity for discussion and conversation around this sensitive topic.
While I understand the issue of diversity to be a sensitive one I feel that it is also important and necessary to teach in our classrooms.
Loutzenheiser’s article discusses the importance of implementing a queered and anti-racist pedagogy into American classrooms, both at the K-12 and at the post-secondary level. She acknowledges at the beginning of the article that many teachers and students do not feel comfortable openly discussing race and sexuality. However she emphasizes the importance of “creating spaces and opportunities for students, especially queer youth of color, to see themselves and issues they care about as an integral part of the curriculum and teaching” (p. 196). She argues that there needs to be a shift away from looking at the binary of gay/straight as a separate entity that doesn’t have anything to do with race and recognize that both race and sexuality are constantly “bumping up against each other” and create a series of “interwoven intersections” (p. 196). I enjoyed reading the examples from her own experiences as a classroom teacher and the often challenging conversations she had to have with her students to create these spaces, however once again they are in an American setting and only at a secondary level.
While I cannot directly relate to the anecdotes given about Loutzenheiser’s experiences, the idea of the creation of open and safe spaces for all students and the interwoven intersections made me reflect on my own experience as a student in elementary school as well as my current grade 3 classroom. In language arts the stories I was exposed to as a child had a very Eurocentric perspective with characters that represented a very specific demographic. The families always included the heteronormativity of one dad and one mom in the family and maybe some blending through marriage and divorce, but never across cultures. There was never a discussion of the diversity of families, relationships or sexual identity. As well, in social studies we learned about Canada from a European perspective focusing on the white explorers and founders of the country. When we would acknowledge other cultures it was with one-off multicultural days where we would talk about our heritage for one day rather than having all cultures celebrated and interwoven into the curriculum throughout the year.
When I look at the materials in my classroom and the library there unfortunately continues to be a predominant Eurocentricity and heteronormativity to the resources. The beginner chapter books the students read, such as Lili B. Brown or Petit Nicolas, have white protagonists with heterosexual parents and when there are characters of diverse cultures they are perfunctory and play supporting roles. These books do not represent the demographics of my classroom and I want to have resources that validate all students’ identities and I continuously strive to do so. An example of resources that are being developed is the website strongnations.com, which provides teacher resources and student texts with First Nations and aboriginal characters both in English and in French. We do have LGBTQ materials at our school, however they are often suggested to be used only around Family Day rather than integrated throughout the year. I think framing it around Family Day for many teachers helps to justify the conversations in their classrooms (even though it is a part of our curriculum!) as there is the worry of push-back from families in the school community. This creates the one-off or tokenism issue again that I experienced as a student with multi-cultural day and reiterates otherness rather than resignifying normalcy as Loutzenheiser explains queered pedagogies can do.
The new social studies curriculum allows for teachers to move away from the Eurocentric perspectives as the grade 3 content has a focus on global Indigenous peoples’ cultures and traditions as well as First Peoples perspectives, values and experiences. This is a big shift away from the old curriculum and I am learning along with my students. This connects to the final point I want to look which is the emphasis in the article of the teacher moving away from being the teacher-as-knower who is imparting knowledge on their students and acknowledges the importance of the students’ own constructions of knowledge. The students have so much they can bring to the classroom from their own families, cultures and histories. We can learn from them and at the same time validate their identities and create safe spaces for them at school.
The article written by Lisa Loutzenheiser needs to be read with the time and place that it has been written. The article was published in 2001 and is American-centric. I believe that in the intervening 15 years and in Canada our journey towards queered and anti-racist pedagogy has made several strides. Recently, for example, a ministry order was announced requiring all schools to include explicit references to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression in their code of conduct and policies
In addition each school must maintain Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools which focuses “on prevention of problems and use school-wide efforts to build community, fostering respect, inclusion, fairness and equity. They set, communicate and consistently reinforce clear expectations of acceptable conduct. They teach, model and encourage socially responsible behaviours that contribute to the school community, solve problems in peaceful ways, value diversity and defend human rights.” (https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/sco/ ) The Safe, Caring, and Orderly Schools mandate helps to ensure that BC public schools are endeavouring to develop positive and welcoming school cultures.
One part of my job is to ensure that all schools in New Westminster follow this mandate and that they have codes of conduct that are compliant to the orders. Fortunately, in New Westminster we had revised our codes of conduct to include the following statement “School will seriously treat behaviour or communication that discriminates based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, age, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation (prohibited grounds set out in the BC Human Rights Code).”
The BC Government published a document titled Diversity in BC Schools: A Framework updated November 2008 which also helps the school system in meeting its obligations of the various Canadian Acts and helps “the school system in its ongoing efforts to create and maintain learning and working environments that are responsive to the diverse social and cultural needs of the communities it serves” (https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/diversity/diversity_framework.pdf).
While reading this article I identified with what Loutzenheiser had say when she expressed concerns about “the dangers inherent in ‘knowing’ of which I speak” (p.199). I identify as white, heterosexual female and I also start with the idea that essentially I know nothing. I am fortunate to be given opportunities to learn such as being a member of the Lower Mainland Safe Schools Network and the opportunity to attend the SOGY Policy summit on Oct. 25th with the Ministry of Education and ARC Foundation (http://www.arcfoundation.ca/).
Loutzenheiser asks, “How do we begin to teach issues of sexuality and racism?” (P. 200). There is a lot of power in using our own students and staff to help inform and guide others. Almost all districts have some form of advocacy or support group which helps guide district policy and hopefully tools, lesson ideas, discussion strategies to encourage sustained conversations around SOGI. New Westminster created, early this year, such a group who has been meeting regularly to help guide our Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools mandate and to be proactive rather than reactive for any concerns that may arise.
It is true that SD40 and the Ministry of Education have supported SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) policy and hopefully the ensuing pedagogy there is still much to be done. Not all teachers, administrators, students and staff feel neither safe nor comfortable talking about SOGI. Much more needs to be done such as the inclusion of teaching preservice teachers and accessing resources from different organizations such as Advocates for Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php), Out in Schools http://outinschools.com/) and ARC Foundation.
The discussions that Loutzenheiser (2001), has with her students regarding their perceptions of what is stereotypically “gay” is largely based on the media influence on her students. How many of these kids have openly gay relatives or friends, or even acquaintances? If they did have gay friends, they would likely be of the same nationality as they are. Yes, I am stereotyping Americans as racist, based on what I see in the media.
“Schools have not been successful with diverse sets of students because they use fixed notions of identity and culture, and address their students accordingly.” (Loutzenheiser, p. 200).
Teachers and students alike need to look at their perceptions of the world around them and analyze biases that are created by the constant barrage of media. Much of it still created by mainstream newspapers, magazines, producers etc. The proliferation of social media and personal media not linked to big corporations may help us look at the world through a different lens, one that may be more diverse in design. It would be interesting to see if the current generation of youtube vs tv users has a more accepting view of the world or if the media still manages to steer them as much as the generation before.
We must steer clear of labels that identify a person by a single dominating characteristic. Everyone is a collection of their genetic potential and their life experiences.
In this week’s reading on diversity, Loutzenbeiser talked about her own experience as a teacher being tasked with discussing the issues of race and sexuality not only with her own students but also pre-service teachers who are reluctant to speak on the topics. She also suggested that race and sexuality are often discussed as separate topics, as many people often perceive people in the LGBT community are always “white”. Loutzenbeiser claims that in order to douse these stereotypical views in the generations that follow ours, we must adopt a “queered antiracist” pedagogy where “one has to take as its assumption that race, gender, ability, class, and religion are all in play” – very much like how different contexts interact with each other – and that teachers need to forego being the sage-on-the-stage and become a discussion participant. (p.199-200)
To me, the article was convoluted as Loutzenbeiser seems to be jumping from place to place and overused vocabulary in trying to get her points across. Other than that, I wonder if her description of the issues she experienced (presumably in the US) is the same in other places like Canada. I mean, being a Canadian I have never assume that certain sexual orientations are part of “white privileges” nor do I ever feel that way from interacting with the people around me. But then again, I am Asian and there are plenty of people I know (of) are in the LGBT community. Moreover, since the article was published in 2001, I wonder if the situation in the US has improved.
Despite these critiques, I can relate to the frustration Loutzenbeiser has over how we as teachers seem to keep silent most of the time with regards to encountering the issues of race and sexuality. With the new BC curriculum, an emphasis has been placed on diversifying learning by integrating more Aboriginal perspectives into the content that we are exposing our students to. Just like the teachers mentioned in Loutzenbeiser’s article, many BC teachers feel that they are not trained enough to do so. They don’t know where to start, and are afraid to offend those who are of Aboriginal descents if they say or teach the wrong things. I think we need to adopt what Loutzenbeiser suggested by embracing it head on and engage our students in conversations about Aboriginal perspectives and learn with the students as oppose to perceiving us as the Knowers who pour knowledge into our students’ heads.
Loutzenheiser’s discusses queered antiracist pedagogies in her practice and in the American school system. She “argues that to truly ‘queer’ pedagogy, one has to take as its assumption that race, gender, ability, class, and religion are all in play, and to alter this will require teachers to become the student. A queered pedagogy works sexuality, race, ability, gender, and so forth simultaneously, organically” (p.199-200). She provides examples from her own classroom experiences and activities.
I found I spent a lot of time reading this article because it was thought-provoking and emotional. I did not like that it was based on the American education system and from 2001. A lot has changed since 2001 for the LGBTQ community and there are fundamental differences between Canada and the US thus influencing programs offered and taught in the Canadian school system. In 2002, the Richmond school district encouraged Supporting Diversity: Strategies for Inventing a New Future. However, I find it interesting to note our district lacks specific LGBTQ protections. There is a petition to the Richmond School Board for Safer Schools SD38.
I wonder if the example of Wanda who only identifies gays with white culture has any rapport with television culture in 2001. Ellen had just come out in 1997 and Will & Grace (1998-2006) showcased a white cast and later persists in Queer Eye (2003-2007). With the help of these television programs it decreases prejudices amongst viewers. Today, even more fluidity in genders and sexual relationships in teen TV series is portrayed in series such as The 100 and Glee.
I found the Cultural autobiography a great yet emotional assignment. Loutzenheiser states that “students struggle a great deal with this assignment; I believe this is because if they are white, and middle-class or above, they have rarely entertained the notion of privilege” p207 I agree but I’m offended as I was raised not to look at color, race or sexuality but at the person inside. Is this not how we try and raise children or is it a result of white privilege? I found myself the exemplar of the resistive, ignorant, confused and wanting to react outcomes. As a result, I believe I try my best to be emphatic as described by Loutzenheiser.
Lastly I wondered if the lack of sexual education in American schools influences these behaviours. Loutzenheiser teaches at alternative schools which may or many not have allowed sexual education at the time. Studies have shown that many American schools do not offer such educational tracks today, possibly due to a controversy in the field of sex ed regarding whether or not LGBT education should be integrated into course curriculum. At my high school sex ed is integrated and taught as a Health component in PE.
This weeks article was very thought provoking and raised important points around teaching gender, sexuality, race, and religion in the classroom. According to Loutzenheiser there is a need to bring pieces of the uncomfortable and conflictual into the light of what is talked about in K-12 and university classrooms (p. 196). Furthermore, she states that empathy is not enough when addressing “queered antiracist” pedagogy. I agree with Loutzenheiser that issues of gender, sexuality, race and religion need to be integrated into the curriculum and classroom in order for students to feel valued and have a “voice”. As a Gr. 6/7 teacher, I’m aware that cultivating a climate of acceptance and understanding is important but it is not as easy as following a lesson plan or a pre-determined set of outcomes because of the complexity and diversity that exists in my classroom.
Loutzenheiser refers to the “freeing up” or “opening up” of pedagogy throughout the article that needs to take place in order for true growth and understanding to happen in a classroom. One example from my personal experience as a teacher is the teaching around the phrase “that’s so gay”. When I was in elementary and high school I remember this term being used by my peers and myself in multiple settings without ever being reprimanded or taught about the people that I was offending. I even remember some of my sport coaches using this phrase. Fast forward ten years later and as a beginning teacher I recall my colleagues talking in the staffroom about students using this phrase and how it was no longer acceptable. The interesting thing is that I do not remember ever receiving any formal training on how to address issues of sexuality, gender, and race in the classroom. As a new teacher I knew that using the phrase “that’s so gay” was disrespectful and extremely offensive. I taught about what the phrase actually meant and why it is offensive. Over the years I have had numerous class discussions, some going better than others, but I feel like I should be doing more.
Loutzenheiser states, “exercises and conversations take scary turns that sometimes work and sometimes hurt” (p.211). I believe as teachers we need to teach about and have conversations around issues of gender, sexuality, race, and religion because students need to understand the importance of these issues.
Loutzenheiser discusses the idea of the “other” in society, in terms of race, sexuality, class gender, and ability (p. 196). She discusses the interactions between these factors and how they can form a queered, antiracist pedagogy. Loutzenheiser relates back to constructivist theory: “Good teaching happens, but she (Felman) argues that it is momentary, a connection between teacher and student that is neither repeatable nor even ultimately plan-able. Felman maintains that the idea of teaching as script-able is tied to constructions of teacher as knower and student as receiver of knowledge. This scriptability is impossible because it fails to take into account student constructions of knowledge, resistance and the unknowable (i.e. the unconscious). This is useful because it stresses leaving open the spaces where teaching and learning as the teacher envisioned might occur but might not.” (p. 200). I found the article an interesting read, although a bit scattered in terms of topics. The introduction of the idea of power and “otherness” addresses overarching societal tensions. Overall the article discusses these issues as related to an American binary and doesn’t address the unique interplay between race, sexuality, gender, class and ability in Canadian society. I found Loutzenheiser’s discussion of courses she teaches to pre-service teachers particularly interesting (p. 200).
Recently at my school, the Pro D committee decided to have a First Nations ceremonial leader come to the school to conduct a blanket ceremony. The intention of a blanket ceremony is to lead a group of either adults or children through an interactive activity to open conversation of the First People’s experience during the formation of Canada. The activity requires the use of blankets to represent the cultures and nations which continue to live on the lands of present day Canada, hence the name “blanket exercise”. The people participating in the exercise represent First Nations peoples. The activity requires that participants move onto blankets and visualize the land at the time of the arrival of Europeans. A scripted sequence on treaty-making and colonization is read, while the participants work through the historical actions that lead to the nation of Canada. From Loutzenheiser’s article : “I am afraid I will offend someone, and I only know my own perspective. I am mad that we [whites] are always blamed.” A few people that were in the group said something similar to this during and after the ceremony. Also, the group (for a variety of reasons including logistical issues, group size, and differing opinions) was left in a disturbed and unsettled state at the end of the exercise, which, my opinion, is one of the purposes of this kind of exercise: to be uncomfortable with the subject matter to a point that may cause understand/action on the part of participants.
In terms of my students on the topic of race, I had a student casually dropped the n word in class. He couldn’t understand why I was upset. He discussed the fact that the n word is dropped so easily in the music he listens to which is why he didn’t think it was a big deal to say in class. A trip the VP’s office and an explanation from the VP, a former social studies teacher, on the implications of the word still didn’t change the student’s perception of the situation. In terms of my students on the topic of sexuality, I teach several students who are either out or trans. I worry when I see signs of self-harm, and I wonder if and when “othering” will ever be eliminated. I wonder if leaders in the school community are doing enough to support students. I wonder as well if I am doing enough to support my students. High school is already a challenging time academically and socially, but it is also such a challenging time personally for youth.
In this week’s reading, Loutzenheiser explores how to open up possibilities for complex conversations about racism and homophobia in classrooms. She presents a model that resists the notion of teacher as expert and student as recipient of knowledge. In what she calls a “queered, antiracist pedagogy”, teachers allow for students to express their own knowledge and experiences, challenge one another and the teacher, and ideally develop complicated and dynamic understandings of individual identity as well as systemic reality.
While I agree with the goals of her queered anti-racist pedagogy, what I struggle with is the difference between how this can work in a teacher education program, with adults (which Loutzenheiser teaches), and how this can work in a k-12 classroom, with children. Loutzenheiser specifically explores one case in which this approach resulted in one member of her classroom feeling outcast and betrayed. She later asserts in regards to her pedagogy that “It means exercises and conversations take scary turns that sometimes work and sometimes hurt. A lot.” (p. 211). But do we have the right to take that risk with children?
On the one hand, the potential benefit to young, developing minds is tremendous. On the other hand, children don’t have the same abilities as adults to self-advocate; and there are very real power dynamics in any classroom, regardless of teacher efforts to minimize their power over the students – this power exists. As such, students may not feel safe to extract themselves from conversations that don’t feel safe to be in. Equally, they may not feel safe to self-express when they feel they are being targeted in a conversation the teacher is allowing to happen (a feeling Loutzenheiser recognizes is common for students who carry privilege). While I believe individuals with privilege should be challenged regardless of the discomfort they may feel, this discomfort is still real, and can hurt. A lot, as Loutzenheiser points out. I’m not comfortable with putting children in the position of feeling this discomfort and pain in front of their peers. I don’t think this creates a safe space, and as such will not lead to healthy growth and development of attitudes and beliefs regarding race and sexuality.
While I would have liked to see a greater exploration of how to apply a queered, antiracist pedagogy in a classroom with children, it wasn’t there. As such, I have considered some of my own ideas on how to do this. I believe that in an elementary school classroom (secondary school students are also children, and can’t be treated the same as adults; however, my classroom is an elementary classroom, so I will work from that position), much more guidance around discussions is necessary. I think there are conversations that need to be shut down in the full classroom setting. These are conversations where there is potential for an individual to be hurt by the public judgement and possibly shaming of their peers. I believe it is necessary for teachers to insert their own (socially just) opinions into the conversation in order to stand up and create a safe space for those with non-privileged identities (especially invisible identities they have not yet shared with the class and/or teacher). While it is better when teachers can guide students (with questioning, exercises, and study materials) towards developing such perspectives on their own, sometimes it is necessary, for the safety of students, for the teacher to produce their own opinion, even when the students do not fully understand it. I recognize (as Loutzenheiser points out) this can have an effect of shutting down conversation. However, I think it is possible to allow conversations to continue in order to help students understand the “why” of the socially just perspective, while those students who identify with non-privileged identities can feel safe in knowing where the conversation is going and that they have teacher support.
I was able to relate to or make connections between the groups mentioned and experiences in my life. This article is written describing the American experience, which I know little about, but I can reflect on the Canadian experience that I have seen and lived through. Loutzenheiser (2001) begins her article asking why it is so difficult to talk about racism? I reflected on her question and agreed with many of the answers. People are afraid of saying the wrong thing. They are trying to not be politically incorrect. They are afraid of offending someone.
I think her main argument is educators need to create safe spaces for queer youth of colour. She also says its important to learn through books, experiences and life. In 1997 Surrey School District banned 4 books (Belinda’s Bouquet, Asha’s Mums, and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads) because it offended some peoples religious beliefs. By taking away the learning resources like books they didn’t create an inclusive space where students felt their experiences are included and they removed the learning opportunities and discussions about the books. Decisions like this were coming from a place of fear by a dominant group that was afraid of the power these books would have on their children. The following year when I was teaching grade 1 at my first contract assignment and my colleague a Kindergarten teacher came to work at our school. He wanted to teach his students about diversity and tolerance using the banned titles. Unfortunately the parents were so afraid of him and the above books that they picketed the school and tried to remove their students from his class. It was an ugly fight over books and their fear that he might make their children gay. As a staff we were saddened by how angry the parents were about this teacher that we thought was really incredible. I don’t think banning the books solved anything. Their actions came from a place of fear.
As a child I was one of the few visible minorities in my school that was filled with primarily caucasian children. I was judged, picked on or made fun of because I was a different colour. I experienced racism from as young as 5 years old. I was seen as different and so I was treated that way. I experienced racism and struggled to feel included. I don’t remember us having discussions as a class about how this wasn’t appropriate. When I went to high school I began hearing about multiculturalism and how every one should feel included. Unfortunately the conversation about multiculturalism only happened in a small school club setting, among those who already thought that way and not as part of a lesson in a classroom setting because of these experiences I connected to the authors thinking. “I am reminded that ignorance is not a passive lack of knowledge. In my mind a child needs to know, and an adult ought to take it upon herself to start the learning processes.” Loutzenheiser (2001) p.199 If we ignore the diversity of our students then we are missing a valuable opportunity to encourage understanding and connections which will help with students sense of belonging and understanding of what we have in common or how we are connected.. Conversations about the idea of a gay, lesbian or bisexual black person opens up possibilities for teaching about the intersections of race and sexuality. Loutzenheiser (2001) p.201
Loutzenheiser also points out that teaching follows a traditional view of pedagogy where the teacher is the knower and the students are the vessel to receive the knowledge. The author argues for a queering of pedagogy where if follows the assumption that race, gender, ability, class and religion are all in play and the teacher is not the all knower within fixed notions identity and culture. Loutzenheiser is in favour of “creating a space where any queer youth of colour might see themselves reflected Loutzenheiser (2001) p. 202
I feel more hopeful about the conversations about diversity because they are happening in classroom setting as a part of regular lessons. I remember a time where there were few conversations and little to support students who were seen as different.