Is Conformity Required for Inclusion?

• In Event: Studying Diversity in Teacher Education: A Focus on Teacher Educators

Abstract

Purpose: Some people and groups embody forms of diversity that significantly transgress the values, narratives, and identities endorsed by the dominant group. One strategy used to promote the acceptance of these diverse transgressors is to edit their public representations to conform to dominant narratives of normalcy and respectability. Using sexual and gender diversities as examples, this paper explores how this process may function in educator preparation programs when education faculty and textbook writers create content about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics and people.

Conceptual Approach: This paper is informed by queer theory that works to illuminate the functions of narratives and social categorizations to marginalize and police non-dominant sexual and gender identities/expressions while reinforcing the privilege of dominant groups and those who conform to dominant ideologies (Shlasko, 2005).

Data Sources/Evidence: The discussion is based upon six research projects that documented the LGBT content of 289 academic programs accounting for the preparation of up to 39,000 K-12 teachers, school counselors, and educational administrators per year in the USA and 20 foundations and multicultural education textbooks commonly used in preparation programs (Jennings, 2012; Jennings, 2013; Jennings & Macgillivray, 2011; Jennings & Sherwin, 2008; Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008; Sherwin & Jennings, 2006).

Argument/Significance: What forms of diversity are appropriate for educator preparation programs and what forms are not? To what extent is conformity to dominant cultural norms, values, behaviors, and identities a prerequisite for inclusion in diversity curriculum? These questions become meaningful when education faculty teach about sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. For example, it might be easy to include content about LGBT families whose behaviors conform to dominant heterosexual and cisgender models of respectability and normalcy (e.g., monogamous two-party marriages organized around child-rearing and material acquisition). However, LGBT families who don't embody these behaviors risk being excluded because they undermine social acceptance of the larger population of LGBT people. Another example might be the representations of LGBT youth as victims and at-risk. Undeniably, LGBT youth are disproportionally victimized in schools. However, the victim narrative has displaced other valid narratives that represent LGBT youth as powerful, thriving, and potentially in possession of assets uncharacteristic of their non-LGBT peers (Anderson, 1998; Riggle, Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008; Rofes, 2005). This imbalanced representation maintains heterosexual privilege by excluding the threat posed by LGBT youth who challenge narratives that assert that strength and health are exclusive artifacts of heterosexuality and gender conformity. Additional threats are youth who embody intersectional identities (Kumashiro, 2004) such as the elementary-aged Black lesbian or Latino transgender student who transgress narratives about childhood asexuality and gender naiveté. These youth disrupt the usefulness of the rigid categories that typically organize textbook diversity chapters and lectures by age, gender, sex, and race. As a result, faculty often do not know how to talk about these youth—and therefore don't. The paper will explore how education faculty might work to navigate curricular inclusion without serving as unwitting instruments of promoting homogeneity and conformity along the way.

Author

• Todd Jennings, California State University - San Bernardino