reseñas educativas (Spanish)    
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)    

This review has been accessed times since August 25, 2005

Blount, Jackie M. (2005). Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pp. ix + 229
$45.00     ISBN 0-7914-6267-6

Reviewed by Claudia Ruitenberg
University of Saskatchewan

August 25, 2005

In Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century, Jackie Blount explores, over a little more than a century, the experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teachers and administrators. (Note 1) She describes the pressures these school workers have been subjected to, as well as the various ways in which they have responded to these pressures. She also maps the “scientific” and political discourses which have supported the prejudice against and maltreatment of school workers who desired persons of the same sex or transgressed gender boundaries in other ways.

Blount is Professor of Historical, Philosophical, and Comparative Studies in Education at Iowa State University. Some of her previous publications include the article "Manly Men and Womanly Women: Deviance, Gender Role Polarization and the Shift in Women's School Employment, 1900-1976," in Harvard Educational Review (Summer 1996); the book Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency, 1873-1995 (SUNY, 1998); and the article "Spinsters, Mollycoddles, and Other Gender Transgressors in School Employment, 1850-1990," in the Review of Educational Research (Spring 2000).

In Chapter 1 of Fit to Teach, “The gender and sexual transformation of school work,” Blount sketches the gendered nature of school work in the 1800s and the discourses that supported these gender divisions. It is interesting to note, for instance, that in the mid-1800s, as women moved into the teaching profession, the position of administrator was created for men. And as Blount makes clear, male administrators were hired specifically because more women were teaching:

As women accounted for greater portions of the teaching force, earning wages, living independently, and exerting authority in a public space, their detractors worried that they were becoming too independent, that they may not need men, or, perhaps worse, without the gender-regulating presence of men, women might assume traits customarily more desirable for men. School district officials assuaged these concerns by hiring male supervisors to oversee women teachers. (p. 23)

Chapter 2 describes the emergence of single-sex education, especially in boarding schools. The single-sex arrangements were intended to cultivate gender-appropriate behavior, but at the same time they offered opportunities for same-sex friendships and sexual relations. In Chapter 3, “A spinster’s profession,” Blount takes a closer look at the lives of single women in the teaching profession, and the housing arrangements and support networks they needed. Chapter 4, “A rising threat,” describes how spinster teachers came under suspicion. During the 1940s the rhetoric about who was “fit to teach” was turned around completely. Where previously married women were considered unfit for teaching because they would risk divided loyalties to their male spouse and male administrator respectively, now married women were considered ideal candidates because they displayed proper gender-conformity. The result of this changed discourse was the replacement of many single women teachers by married women teachers. Chapter 5, “The new moral menace to our youth” addresses the cultivation of homophobia in a culture of fear in the United States after the Second World War. Alfred Kinsey’s studies Sexual Behavior in the Human Male andFemale (in 1948 and 1953 respectively) were received into a climate of paranoia over national security, exacerbated by the persecution of communists and homosexuals instigated by Joseph McCarthy’s senate committee. The 1960s saw the beginnings of overt collective resistance by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. Chapter 6, “Sometimes you just have to take a stand,” describes the resistance of school workers against the homophobic policies and climate. Many of them would sacrifice their own careers in the process of fighting for equal rights. In Chapter 7, “How sweet it is!” Blount provides a detailed account of the events surrounding Proposition 6, a referendum initiative by California Senator John Briggs, which proposed that the State of California should fire and refuse to employ any school worker “who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other employees” (as cited in Blount, p. 145). Proposition 6 was defeated in November 1978. The final chapter, “By the students” describes how, in the 1980s, attention shifted from gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered teachers to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students. As information (and misinformation) about HIV and AIDS began to emerge, the 1980s also saw a new backlash against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.

History and its relation to the present

In response to an earlier review of Fit to Teach in Teacher’s College Record (Birden, 2005), a reader wrote the following:

For those of us (the vast majority) who don't want the GLBT lifestyle modeled as acceptable for our children, how about this system: if a teacher is going to "come out" in the classroom as pro-GLBT in any way, shape or form, then we should allow that, but we also should give parents advance notice, the semester before, so that they can opt their child into the classroom of someone who will keep sex out of the classroom entirely, or if any comments or activities related to sexual orientation are undertaken, will support the mainstream morals and values of the families whose children they are being paid with our tax dollars to teach. (Williams, 2005)

Among several noteworthy presuppositions in this response – for instance, that gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people don’t pay taxes – the following three ideas are particularly interesting in the context of Blount’s historical overview:

• that it is possible (and desirable) to “keep sex out of the classroom entirely”;
• that the mere presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered school workers introduces sex into the classroom;
• that if teachers are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered themselves, and/or if teachers talk about gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people in non-condemning ways, this constitutes “modeling” and has a pernicious influence on children.

In order to understand the meaning and force of these ideas, it is important to know the historical context in which they emerged. This is where Blount’s Fit to Teach has an important role to play. She writes,

I argue that historical research is critically necessary to counter the prevalent assumption that intolerance of LGBT school workers has always existed. Instead, in this volume I examine how current conditions have developed in specific historical contexts; thus our conditions are open to question and critical analysis. (p. 11)

This argument is strongly resonant with Michel Foucault’s (1974) assertion that

the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them. (p. 171, as cited in Rabinow, 1984, p. 6)

Schooling is one of the institutions which might appear neutral, but in and through which power relations are at work. In order to understand the positioning of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teachers and administrators today, it is important to examine the emergence and development of the power relations which have led to this positioning. Indeed, as both Foucault and Blount observe, once it is shown who has benefited from these power relations and at whose expense, we can critique the educational discourses that determine not only who is fit to learn but also who is fit to teach.

History repeats itself

Fit to Teach allows one to put the current “What about the boys?” crisis in education into perspective. In recent years, in the U.S. as well as in Canada and Australia, many articles and studies have been published addressing boys’ lagging academic performance and suggesting connections with the feminization of the teaching profession, of the curriculum, and of teaching methods. One Canadian school has even brought hockey players into the classroom to read to boys, so that boys learn to see reading as a masculine activity (Alphonso, 1994). Blount’s historical analysis shows not only that such concern over the educational experience of male students is not new, but also that it is important to consider a variety of motives behind such expressed concern.

In 1911, for instance, the New York Times published an article with the headline “Appeal for Men Teachers – Boys too Effeminate, Say Principals, When They Haven’t Male Instructors” (as cited in Blount, p. 12). The article discussed the concerns of male principals and teachers about the lack of male role models for male students. Blount contends that this expression of concern for the well-being of male students was a “rhetorical maneuver” by male teachers, intended to counter the campaign led by Grace Strachan for equal wages for female and male teachers.

It was not until women gained political power that critics began to suggest that “spinster teachers” had a bad influence on schooling, especially for boys. Blount notes, “They blamed single women teachers for making boys effeminate, arguing that when faced with the prospect of studying under spinster teachers, any self-respecting boy would leave” (p. 60). With a new “boys crisis” emerging in the media, Blount’s historical perspective suggests that perhaps rather than asking why women are doing such a poor job educating boys, researchers and theorists might want to examine why men are feeling so threatened. (Note 2)

Fit to Teach provides other good examples of the pendulum swing of perceived problems and their proposed solutions. For instance, sex-segregated schooling was created because it was believed students in single-sex environments would more effectively learn “gender-appropriate” behavior. As suspicions of homosocial and homosexual relations in sex-segregated schools rose, however, it was argued that “coeducation would help children become properly heterosexual” and that “coeducational schools offered girls and boys opportunities to be comfortable around each other – especially when they began experiencing sexual desire” (pp. 42-43). In recent years, new calls for sex-segregated education have been heard as some fear that coeducation has “helped” children become too heterosexual, resulting in both girls and boys being distracted from their academic work. It seems that the target may shift, but that there will always be moral panic.

Let me come back to some of the presuppositions that seem to guide Ms. Williams’ (2005) comments, from which I quoted earlier. The idea that the mere presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered school workers introduces sex into the classroom, whereas the presence of heterosexual school workers does not, is based on two old myths. The first myth is that teachers are asexual beings; the second is that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals are somehow more sexual than heterosexual individuals. In and of themselves, these mistaken beliefs might seem simply that: mistaken beliefs. But Blount’s book explores the emergence of these mistaken beliefs, the political climate in which they emerged, and their consequences. The McCarthy era saw a strong government-driven cultivation of fear, in particular fear of difference. Blount writes that conservatives found ways to convert the new awareness of homosexuality that resulted from the 1948 Kinsey report into fear (p. 88). One of these conservatives, Ralph Major, published an article in a 1950 edition of the magazine Coronet, calling in no uncertain terms for vigilance against the influence of homosexuals on children: “All too often, we lose sight of the fact that the homosexual is an inveterate seducer of the young of both sexes, and that he presents a social problem because he is not content with being degenerate himself; he must have degenerate companions, and is ever seeking younger victims” (as cited in Blount, p. 90).

It is important to read expressions of pervasive ignorance and homophobia from the 1950s in their context of “general postwar hysteria” (Blount, p. 91), so that contemporary reiterations of such ignorance and prejudice might be more effectively directed to the historical wastebasket. Ms. Williams still seems in the grip of the fear that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered school workers will recruit or seduce students into becoming gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered themselves. The problem with those in the grip of irrational fears in that no amount of research can dissuade the phobic. The “pedophilia bugaboo” (Blount, p. 5) continues to haunt especially gay men today, but it can only be understood as a remnant from an era in which little was understood about homosexuality, and in which an agenda of conservatism and fear actively promoted this ignorance. That several of the cultural and political elements of that era have been reintroduced into the twenty-first century U.S. is cause for grave concern.

Power produces resistance

Fit to Teach illustrates very well how power relations are not exhaustive but produce their own possibilities for resistance. To use Foucault’s (1977/1980) words, “there are no relations of power without resistances” (p. 142). The relations of power governing the production of “properly gendered” students and school workers are no exception. Blount writes, “Although schools attempted to regulate the gender and sexual orientation of their workers – and by extension students – they also provided fascinating opportunities for supporting unconventional sexualities and gender behaviors, characteristics, and identities” (p. 17). For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when men and women were supposed to keep their “separate spheres,” schools also were segregated by sex. Ironically, as Blount points out, “although such arrangements assured parents that their children would develop acceptable gender characteristics, in fact, single-sex schools allowed and possibly nurtured cultures of gender transgression as well as sexual and/or emotional relationships among students” (p. 30). In other words, where separation of boys and girls (and of female and male teaching staff) was intended to reinforce gender-appropriate, including heterosexual, behavior, it could not help but create new opportunities for homosocial and homosexual relationships.

The oppressive climate of the 1950s would breed more overt resistance. The Stonewall riots in June of 1969 marked a turning point in the self-confidence of the emerging gay liberation movement. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered school workers started openly challenging their homophobic working conditions. Some gay activists, however, realized that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered school workers were met with more scrutiny, opposition, and hostility than gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons who did not work in schools. As Blount observes,

It became increasingly obvious to gay activists that political conservatives would not necessarily focus their efforts on the broad, and at times diffuse, gay liberation movement, but rather on the narrow subset within the movement that aroused the strongest public fears: homosexual school workers. (p. 122)

In the 1980s, associations of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered educators shifted their focus from the conditions and rights of school workers to those of students. Although this move was successful in the sense that it garnered more public support, it drew attention away from the difficulties still faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered educators.

Same-sex desire and gender transgression

One weakness of the book is that Blount fails to elucidate the relationship between gender and sexuality. At times, the text almost seems to suggest that there is no relationship, and that the two should be considered separately. Blount writes, for instance, “This book explores the experiences of school workers who have sexually and/or emotionally desired persons of the same sex or transgressed gender norms” (p. 5, emphasis added). And later on, she notes, “Some sexologists conflated non-mainstream sexualities with gender-nonconformance. By this logic, those who desired persons of the same sex also likely displayed cross-gender qualities” (p. 60, emphasis added).

In order to show why such statements are problematic, I turn to Sally Haslanger’s (1993) definition and explanation of gender and gender norms. “Gender,” writes Haslanger, “is a relational or extrinsic property of individuals, and the relations in question are social” (p. 88). The questions that follow immediately, of course, are What are the social relations that constitute gender, and how can these social relations be distinguished from social relations that produce other hierarchical social distinctions? (p. 88). In order to answer these questions, Haslanger employs the concept of gender-norms, which she defines as “clusters of characteristics and abilities that function as a standard by which individuals are judged to be ‘good’ instances of their gender” (p. 89). In other words, gender is produced by social relations which compare individuals to ideals of behavior, speech, and so on. “[M]asculinity and femininity are norms or standards by which individuals are judged to be exemplars of their gender and which enable us to function excellently in our allotted role in the system of social relations that constitute gender” (p. 89).

In the cluster of masculine standards by which males are judged to be exemplars of the gender man, and in the cluster of feminine standards by which females are judged to be exemplars of the gender woman, heterosexuality been a notable presence throughout the entire historical period Blount discusses. Gender and sexual orientation cannot be separated, because heterosexuality has been part and parcel of the gender norms by which women’s and men’s gender performance is judged.

The problem with a statement like, “This book explores the experiences of school workers who have sexually and/or emotionally desired persons of the same sex or transgressed gender norms” (p. 5, emphasis added) is that it suggests that it is possible to sexually or emotionally desire persons of the same sex without transgressing gender norms; this is not the case. Likewise, by writing, “Some sexologists conflated non-mainstream sexualities with gender-nonconformance. By this logic, those who desired persons of the same sex also likely displayed cross-gender qualities” (p. 60, emphasis added), Blount does not acknowledge that a desire for persons of the same sex in itself is considered a “cross-gender quality.”

Of course Blount is right to denounce the assumption that gender-nonconformance in dress, speech, and so on is an indication of same-sex desire, as well as the belief “that homosexuality can be controlled if gender can be controlled” (Blount, p. 3). But she should have emphasized that sex-gender agreement, single sex, single gender, and heterosexuality are all important requirements for successful performance of one’s gender. A transgression of any of these requirements amounts to a transgression of one’s gender. In fact, one might argue that same-sex desire is controversial precisely because it transgresses gender norms.

Conclusion

This point of critique, however, does not make Blount’s book any less important. Fit to Teach has much to offer to anyone with an interest in gender and sexual diversity in education, and in equal rights issues more generally. I hope that among the audience of this book will be teachers, teacher educators, administrators, teacher union representatives, and parents. Blount writes accessibly and engagingly and backs up more general statements with concrete historical examples. Fit to Teach provides historical depth to issues that are currently still, or once again, under discussion. Teachers and administrators are still expected to model as well as guard “appropriate” gender and sexuality, and discussions within schools about what constitutes this “appropriateness” are largely inadequate or non-existent. One of the most shocking realizations after reading this book is not how much has changed, but rather how much has stayed the same.

Notes

1. Throughout this review I will use the phrase “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people” rather than acronyms such as LGBT or GLBT. Acronyms may wrongly create the impression that the people under discussion form one monolithic group, whereas there are significant differences among and within groups of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. Moreover, I note that intersex persons are missing from my review because Blount does not include them in her analysis.

2. See Lingard, B., & Douglas, P. (1999). Deconstructing the ‘What about the boys?’ backlash. In Men engaging feminisms: Pro-feminism, backlashes and schooling (pp. 95-130). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, for an analysis of the “boys crisis” in Australia. Also see the work of American sociologist Michael Kimmel in this area.

References

Alphonso, C. (2004, April 29). Male mentors help turn boys into bookworms. The Globe and Mail, A3.

Birden, S. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century (Review). Teachers College Record, 107(11), Article 11883. Retrieved June 2, 2005 from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=11883

Foucault, M. (1980). Powers and strategies (C. Gordon, Trans.). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge - Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (pp. 134-145). New York: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1977)

Haslanger, S. (1993). On being objective and being objectified. In L. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), A mind of one’s own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity (pp. 85-125). Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Rabinow, P. (1984). Introduction. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 3-29).

Williams, S. (2005, June 1). A radical suggestion. Teachers College Record. Retrieved June 2, 2005 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Discussion.asp?i=3&vdpid=2322&aid=2&rid=11883&dtid=0

About the reviewer

Claudia Ruitenberg recently completed her doctorate in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. She is currently teaching as a sessional lecturer in the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. She has published articles in the Philosophy of Education yearbooks and in the Journal of Philosophy of Education.

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

~ ER home | Reseñas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~