There’s a fairly interesting controversy going on in BC education these days. In a rather peculiar decision, the Ministry of Education have empowered two gay rights activists to make legally-binding decisions about school curriculum. As Wikipedia notes, “there was no public debate on the appointment of the advocacy couple to amend the curriculums.” There’s also a new high school course dealing with same-sex issues.
Clearly this is a profoundly stupid decision by the Ministry of Education. I don’t know about their backgrounds, but I’m guessing that the Correns–the activists in question–aren’t experienced curriculum designers. If the Ministry wanted to introduce more same-sex material into their classes, they should have applied whatever process they usually use (which, hopefully, is a relatively unbiased and peer-reviewed committee of experts).
I’m all for the fight against discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or, you know, hairiness. We’ve spent much of the last century working on the former two criteria–why don’t we apply the lessons we’ve learned to combatting homophobia?
In the news piece I watched, Murray Corren indicated that he wanted to highlight the fact that many successful, well-known Canadians are or were homosexuals. I support that, when it’s relevent to their work. For example, we should talk about the fact that Brad Fraser is gay when we study Poor Superman (though that’ll never get into high schools). On the other hand, I don’t see the case for the influence of Findley’s homosexuality on, say, Not Wanted on the Voyage.
This gets even foggier when we leave the narrative arts for other fields. Clearly it’s important to know that Svend Robinson is gay. But does it matter whether we know about Mark Leduc’s or Ashley MacIsaac’s sexual preference when we’re studying their accomplishments? “Okay, class, here’s a recording of some top notch fiddling, and by the way, it’s by a queer!” The same goes for a famous, gay, Canadian scientist (I can’t even name a straight one, so you’re SOL on examples).
This same approach applies to gender and race. It’s important to understand that Angels in America was written by a (coincidentally gay) Jew, but much less important to understand that it was written by a man. Are we going to add sexual preference to biography of every public figure on the planet?
In short, we should discuss difference and discrimination where it’s relevent, not randomly report it to make a point. And, obviously, we shouldn’t let activists set curriculum.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
once you say the author is gay, you’re suggesting that this piece of information is some type of “key” that will help the students decode the work.
this leads to two serious problems. the first is really dumb takes on smart works.
ie: obviously, the characters in Not Wanted On The Voyage killed the unicorn because they didn’t like the penis it had growing from its head. this is an expression of gay hate.
the second is scarier. if you suggest that there is something special about being gay, something that all gays share and which can be found in their work, you’ve gone and made an “essential” arguement.
gay lit is like this because gays are like this, basically.
here’s the problem: whatever “essential” thing you connect to being gay will be used against that community. just ask women about the same problem.
i once saw an interview with one of the head editors of an encyclopedia of black accomplishment in america. when asked what he had learned about the “black experience,” he said that after looking at everything as a whole, there were obviously as many ways to be black as there were black people.
Knowing that people are gay and can/have been successful is a very simply way to model acceptance to gay youth. It’s empowering. That being said, I agree that knowing about someone’s sexuality shouldn’t be a barometer of their works or worth.
check out this list. For a gay youth it proves that some of the greatest minds have dealt with the same fear and emotions as their dealing with.
Next we’ll discuss prefered sexual positions, kinky stuff… little perversions. Wait. Doesn’t Ashley MacIsaac like to pee on young boys?
Sheeeeshhhhhhhhhh. qwiet.
wade,
i agree with you 100 % that young people (and older ones, too) need role models with whom they feel some sort of connection.
that’s an interesting list you linked to. but if i have kids and they’re gay, i will not want them to look up to J. E. Hoover! Mishima is also a less-than-perfect role model — for anyone. Even Lord Byron was “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.”
but i think i would want my child to see that sort of list and understand that there is a long and diverse history of important people in the world who were homosexual. and, that homosexuality does not totally define a person. many of the people on the list have nothing more in common with one another than the fact that they are gay. (Toklas and Hoover, for example)
what i meant to write was that i would show that sort of list to any child i might have, regardless of their sexuality.
I wonder what the artists themselves (those still alive, of course) think of this. I, personally, would rather be known as a “talented writer” than a “Jewish writer” or even a “short writer”.
There are those, of course, for whom, certain characteristics are part of their public identity, and there are those who would rather let their work speak for itself.
Not a Canadian scientist, but Alan Turing was gay, and that had a significant effect on computing history.
Alex: What was that effect?
I’m not sure what Alex will reply with, but after the war Turing was persecuted heavily for his sexuality and ended up killing himself rather than face what the grateful British government had in store for him.
Had he lived, he would have undoubtedly continued to shape the emergence of computer science as he had in the years leading up to his suicide.
Well, there’s always the principle of telling the truth about historical personages. Presumably, homophobic parents don’t want “sexual preferences,†as the heavily-Chinese-accented activist called them on CBC TV last night, to be discussed in curricula. (The accent is relevant: He may need to learn what a constitutional democracy entails.) But if they really mean that, then we cannot discuss Pierre Trudeau’s marriage and children. Poof: Maggie Trudeau disappears from history. Or, when talking about her, Pierre does.
But of course, Darren of Recent Pumpjack/Tranny Notoriety, it is easier to dress this up as a “controversy†engendered (there’s a word!) by “activists.â€
You sure talk about queer stuff a lot for a straight guy.
I, for one, could do with hearing less about Margaret Trudeau.
I think you make an excellent point here, Darren. It’s a little bit of an overcompensation by the ministry and a sloppy way of addressing an issue that doesn’t lack merit, but deserves a more thoughtful, measured response.
I will concede your point Darren, that the Government could have set this up a bit better. Everybody knows, however, that this is really about homophobia, and not getting all the stakeholders to the table. I was at Forerunners on Fourth to buy a new pair of running shoes on Saturday afternoon, and I ran smack-dab into the demonstration at Gordo’s office. Even though the demonstration was ostensibly about disenfranchised parents, everybody knows what the real agenda is, they just won’t say it straight out. This is the new debate method of the religious right, you see this sort of circumlocution in arguments against gay marriage also. Finally, this demonstration was almost entirely Asian, and I always find it interesting that people are failing to make the connection between multiculturalism and tolerance.
Darren: Turing was forced to go on a hormone regime to “make him not gay”.
Darren: Turing was forced to go on a hormone regime to “make him not gay”.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Prosecution_for_homosexual_acts_and_Turing.27s_death
Basically, the father of Computer Science died when he was 41, by his own hand, because of homosexual persecution. He could have had another 30 years of productivity, even seen the personal computer!
Ah right, I’d forgotten that about Turing.
Thanks Todd & Chris!
It’s more than just role models. When I was in high school and had to do biographies of writers and poets, I always left out the details of gay artists. It just wouldn’t do to talk about what was going on with the Romantics, for example. But it was okay to talk about Shelley marrying Wollstonecraft. I especially remember leaving out huge details of a bio of AE Housman. And we tried not to look at the young man in Shakespear’s sonnets.
I wasn’t homophobic. I was friends with (closeted) gay people in high school. But I wasn’t willing to risk bashing or a bad mark over this material. And this was in a town that was 2nd in Canada to introduce condom machines and had sex ed from kindergarten. Not exactly a red neck centre of education, but conservative enough.
Fortunately, in 12th grade, my Lit profs were very open and we could all relax and talk intelligently abou this stuff.
Even if I couldn’t spell.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
As I reread the article, I started taking out the word “gay” and “same-sex” and started randomly put in other words like hetrosexual, adopted, pregant, Baptist, nerdy, Ukranian, fat, Anglophone, tall, Asian, men named Leslie.
How important are these details to exploring a person’s body of work?
In some cases these elements influenced a person’s direction. So yes, I think they should be included to be explored. Futher then exploration becomes exploitation and would be based saved for the tabloids.
I think it comes down to whether you would include the details for someone who was straight, Asian, of colour, etc.
In formal English studies, people are taught to ignore the profile of the author. But I think it still factors in. If we’re going to include details on authors who aren’t gay, then we should include details on authors who are.
I just wish to say that, I too thought it queer. That it should matter more then the deeds done by a single person, after all isn’t it deeds speak loader then words.We have gone too far with this gay thing. Maybe we should assume that everyone is gay, so the straight people will be the special interest group, and we can then get special recognition, for our efforts.
I appreciated your post – asking the question “why should it matter” I have felt this way for some time but right now any question like this gets people riled up and labeling the questioner as homophobic.
I just think its not relevant, and by continually stating “a gay artist”, “gay actor” etc it creates a gay ghetto. This makes it easier to persecute.
And takes away from the recognition of the talent of the person. Similar thought to earlier comments in this chain – if every time my accomplishments were proceeded by a descriptor word, regardless of that word, it would take away from the accomplishment.
And frankly I don’t really want to know… just like I’m not going to share with the world what goes on in my bedroom. Its my private life and I’d like it to remain that way – what would compel me to always tell people – I’m black you know, I’m left handed you know, I’m Jewish you know isn’t that amazing!! I’m representin’ all those black lefthanded Jews out their because they need a positive role model. Do they?
Are gay people in special need positive role models? Wouldn’t a human role model be a good choice? (for all of us?) Pick a human being and be inspired by their faith, dedication, commitment, courage, kindness, body of work etc etc.