A shadow of ourselves: identity erasure and the politics of queer leadership

Abstract

In this article, the authors explore issues of identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, educational leadership and leadership preparation. We discuss professional norms, including attire, and in turn how professional norms might construct panopticons, identity and US public school leadership. We conclude by exploring a consciously queer approach to educational leadership preparation.

Refusing Relevance: School Administrator Resistance to Offering Professional Development Addressing LGBTQ Issues in Schools

“…For instance, 84.6% of respondents reported the program effective in content on antiharassment policies, but only 50% believed that they were effective at teaching their candidates to apply these policies to LGBTIQ students. Both Jennings' (2012) and O'Malley and Capper's (2015) research supports Lugg and Tooms' (2010) claim that, even in contexts where educational leaders are receiving training on social justice education and creating inclusive schools, "there remains a group of marginalized and highly stigmatized people who are routinely left out of the conversation: queers" (p. 84). The danger for LGBTQ students is that they are most likely attending schools where the leaders have not been educated on these issues, which makes it difficult to advocate for equitable schooling for LGBTQ youth and families.…”

QUEER ADVOCACY LEADERSHIP: A Queer Leadership Model for Higher Education

“…As the progress of LGBTQ equity at colleges and universities is rooted in grassroots organizing (Marine, 2011), grassroots leadership 1) is also informed by extant literature that illustrated the success of advocates for LGBTQ equity in higher education and the resultant growth of LGBTQ support in higher education student affairs (Dilley, 2002;Linder, 2019;Lugg & Tooms, 2010;Marine, 2011;Martin et al, 2018;Renn, 2007;Sanlo, 2002). I offer a similar model (Pryor, in press) (Abes, 2008;Dilley, 1999) and genderist (Bilodeau, 2009) ideologies in higher education, often perpetuated leadership, and advancement of policy and practice to advance LGBTQ equity in educational leadership.…”

Forced Back into the Closet: A (Queer) Principal’s Attempt to Maintain Queer Erasure

“…However, just as the election of the first African American president risked the perpetuation of a mythical hope that “we have emerged victorious in our battle with racism” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009, p. 183), the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) decision, and presidential campaigns of women and a gay man in 2016 and 2020 do not free us from “any of the oppressions (classism, patriarchy, xenophobia, homophobia)” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009, p. 183), sexism, cisnormativity, or heteronormativity. In a world where education, and educational leadership specifically, has historically reinforced heteronormativity (Capper, 1999, 2018; Lugg, 2003b, 2006, 2016, Lugg & Tooms, 2010), the pressure for queer educators to remain in the closet endures.…”

“…Moreover, teachers who feel supported by administrators are more likely to be out (DeJean, 2007; Wright & Smith, 2015). Unfortunately, however, normative versions of school leadership require “a particular presentation of self” (Lugg & Tooms, 2010, p. 79) that valorizes masculinist principles and enforces “expected norms regarding gender, heteronormativity, and homophobia” (Lugg, 2003b, p. 113). Therefore, LGBTQ+ educational leaders face an additional layer of pressure to conform to the “institutional rules of silence” (DeJean, 2004, p. 21).…”

“…For example,just because overt hatred is not present does not mean queer students—or queer teachers and queer administrators for that matter—see their lives reflected in the curriculum, personnel policies, or even the seemingly mundane, but critical, every day interactions that human beings have. (Lugg & Tooms, 2010, p. 85)…”