“To queer is to venture into controversial, intellectually complicated, nuanced terrain with students. It requires faith that middle school students in a public school such as mine not only can, but must, learn to grapple with complexity if their education is going to provide opportunities, rather than impose insurmountable limitations… A queer methodology […] encourages criticality and considers inquiries about identity as crucial to the act of teaching, rather than material to be covered on one particular day and checked off a “to do” list. In a middle school English classroom, queer pedagogy pushes conversations about characters and identity beyond simplistic observations and into an exploration of power dynamics, social issues arising in texts, and character experience.” (p. 2-3)

Reading Loren Krywanczyk’s piece on queer pedagogy introduced me 1) to a new term: to queer; and 2) to a form of education, focusing on identities, we should implement in our classrooms. The author uses the term “queer” as a verb, signaling a method of teaching where teachers create forums for students to debate, learn, and share about diverse topics concerning identity. It is meant to make students question their current mindset, feel uncomfortable, and ultimately learn about each other in a safe setting.

Krywanczyk’s take on how to discuss current issues and issues involving identity in the classroom reminded me of my CT. She enjoys giving her students the chance to debate on issues they find relate to them; especially issues of race, sex/gender, and sexuality. Students sit in a circular fashion and by way of a moderator (usually a student), they contribute to the discussion. From their reactions, it is evident that students appreciate the opportunity to have that space. However, in the heat of the elections this past week, one debate went very sour. One student was arguing that African American LGBTQ individuals are the most attacked from the results of the election. His reasoning was that while walking the halls in school, “All the black students were crying and the white ones were laughing and making jokes, their privilege protecting them.” The other students responded that he cannot claim to be the sole victim, as females, other minorities, those of a lower social economic background, and those believing in Islam (to name a few) also have the right to be angry. I chimed in sharing that every individual has their own processing time and manner; some may cry, some may show anger, some may laugh, and some may have not processed what has been going on just yet. He continued arguing his case to the point where things began to get out of hand. The teacher attempted to calm him and when that didn’t work she asked him to step out of the class. After numerous (and I mean numerous) attempts politely asking him to step out, my CT finally said that she would call security (the student had reached the point of cussing uncontrollably and yelling towards the class). In response to my CT, he said, “You’re going to call security and tell them I’m threatening you?” At that point, the teacher had emotionally reached her breaking point and had to leave the classroom to regain her composure. At this time the student in question left. The class was left with no closure (which I am sure will take place on Monday) and the teacher was left feeling terrible that she was unable to maintain control of the class. She later said that she no longer wants to allow such conversations in her classroom; that she did it because she knew the students learned a lot from them and enjoyed them, but that it was a privilege that is now being revoked.

In my opinion, this scenario is an example of how a method of teaching where the teacher allows for genuine conversation about crucial and current events can get out of hand. This wasn’t exactly a lesson or discussion on identity, however, it involved specific identities. Additionally, even though it is an outcome that usually does not occur, it highlights the importance of maintaining a strong level of control in the classroom when dealing with sensitive topics. I completely agree with Krywanczyk, that queer teaching is essential to actual learning.

As a side note, while reading, I decided to look up the dictionary definition of “queer” as a verb. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is defined as: 1) to spoil the effect or success of; and 2) to put or get into an embarrassing or disadvantageous situation. Both definitions are terribly unfortunate, as they denote a negative connotation to the word, a word which should bear no connection to positivity or negativity.

A question arose while reading: as important as I think queer teaching is, how is a teacher to deal with parents of their students who are against the teaching of LGBTQ?