With the important work of the Trump administration to stop the exploitation of government schools for the purpose of advancing arguable leftist assumptions on race, sex, “gender,” and oppression, many conservative Americans allowed their hopes to be raised a bit too high. They believed “wokism” was dying. Unfortunately, reports of the imminent death of wokism were greatly exaggerated. Dogmatic leftists are nothing if not tenacious—well, and narcissistic.
An “academic” paper written by a middle school science teacher caught the attention of evolutionary biologist and Manhattan Institute Fellow Colin Wright who has exposed what would have been a little-read paper to a wider audience. That paper, which Wright accurately describes as a “navel-gazing diatribe,” should serve as a warning to complacent taxpayers that narcissistic leftists embedded in public schools will not go gently into the night.
The jargon-y paper by lesbian Emily Gomez and titled “Autoethnography on Being a Queer Science Teacher in the Midwest” exposes what passes for scholarship in the academy today, particularly in the field of education.
Gomez writes that the purpose of her extended investigation of herself, or what she calls her “study,” is “to provide insights into the challenges and successes that teachers have while navigating a queer identity in school systems that may not always be affirming.” Her study consists of analyzing “key moments in my personal journals and school emails.”
In plain language, queer teacher Gomez writes about her own thoughts as recorded in her own diaries and email messages about how she feels about being a queer teacher. This was what she calls her “data.”
Here are three examples of what Gomez considers “data.” All come from her personal “journal”:
I walked the halls for some exercise during my lunch time a couple of days this week and saw those Pride stickers on three 8th-grade teachers’ doors and one special ed teacher. This made my week, honestly, and I am excited to meet them and see who they are. (Journal, August 2019)
Today was the first day of after-school clubs. I held the GSA club for 7th and 8th-graders in my room. We had 38 students attend the first meeting!! We didn’t have enough chairs. Students were sitting on the back lab tables. It was an incredible meeting. We started by sharing our names, pronouns, and a high and a low from the school year so far. (Journal, September 2017)
My hometown is having its first-ever Pride festival this weekend! My GSA club is walking in the parade, and they are so excited! I am feeling so encouraged by this all in general because this is what I needed as a middle school and high school kid here in [Midwest city]. (Journal, June 2018)
Gomez openly admits what conservatives have long known about “gay” clubs in public schools:
Starting a GSA in two separate schools is more than a school-based club for students to spend time after school; it is a visible act of activism.
For the completion of her “non-thesis” “study” of her own diary entries, the taxpayers will now have to pay her more money.
Gomez believes her “research” contributes “to the growing body of literature on LGBTQ+ teachers by offering a meaningful, science-specific perspective.” “Science-specific,” yeah, that’s the ticket.
The “research question” driving her “science-specific” study was, “What are the experiences of a queer science teacher in the Midwest?” So, science-y.
Gomez complains about “expectations that science teachers remain neutral and objective when teaching science topics, which can obscure or silence identity-based experiences.”
Queer activists who identify as teachers cannot tolerate being limited to teaching even science objectively. Every subject must be about their queerness.
Ignoring, if possible, Gomez’ poor writing, take note of what she’s arguing:
Notably, Hooker … argues that Catholic school teachers do not simply deal with heteronormativity but are often additionally confronted with blatant discrimination. Hooker’s study showcases the oppression these educators face and their fear of coming out to students. There may be benefits to teachers demonstrating authenticity in the classroom, as Hooker emphasizes that good teaching is not only about subject-matter expertise but also about teachers’ authenticity.
Gomez believes that teachers in Catholic schools should be free to “come out” as homosexual to their minor students in defiance of Scripture and Catholic teaching. In Gomez’ perverse moral universe, the “authenticity”—that is, their open rebellion against Scripture—of homosexual teachers in Catholic schools supersedes in importance the authenticity of Catholic schools’ Catholic identity.
The paper is essentially sixty pages of griping about heteronormativity, or as she writes in one subheading “heteronority,” authenticity, and intersectionality. Curiously, she presents not one piece of evidence proving that she was discriminated against or treated abusively because she is erotically attracted to women.
What Gomez seeks is the widespread eradication of the moral belief that homosexual acts are immoral. That is a wholly unreasonable and presumptuous expectation, since Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam all teach that sexual intimacy is restricted by God to heterosex.
Gomez argues that “Teacher education programs should intentionally work to deconstruct the stigma surrounding LGBTQ+ identities and prepare preservice teachers by providing them with the tools they need to be confident in their personal and professional lives.”
First, it is not the function of public schools funded and serving a diverse population to “deconstruct stigma” surrounding homosexuality or crossdressing.
Second, Gomez doesn’t really oppose stigmas. Rather, she wants to alter what is stigmatized. She wants to stigmatize heteronormative beliefs. She wants it to be culturally unacceptable for anyone to say publicly that homoerotic acts and relationships are perverse. That too is not a function of public schools.
Gomez complains about diversity of moral views on sexuality:
[P]ersonal identity for queer teachers is constantly moderated by institutional powers in the school district, community, or regional attitudes, and heteronormative expectations. … I was deeply aware of potential backlash from parents, other teachers, and the wider community in the small Midwest town where I was living at the time.
By “potential backlash,” Gomez means parents might complain about their young children being exposed to positive images and ideas about homosexuality—a phenomenon many parents believe is deeply sinful.
In contrast, no one believes that heterosexuality is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, it is not controversial for heterosexual teachers to share with young children that they are in normal marriages.
One wonders what Gomez thinks about poly teachers. In her view, do couple-normative expectations oppress throuples, quintouples, and other polycules? Does Gomez believe it’s possible for science to be taught effectively without teachers sharing their sexual peccadillos with their students?
Gomez’ pseudo-academic paper also reveals the laziness and intellectual vacuity of teachers who feed at the public trough.
Teachers like Emily Gomez choose the laziest of all paths to higher salaries: the “non-thesis” master’s degree in “education” rather than, for example, a thesis-required master’s in chemistry.
In public schools, teachers’ salaries are based on number of years teaching (“steps”) and attainment of advanced degrees or accumulation of graduate level college credits (“lanes”). Teachers understandably want higher salaries, but most don’t want to do so via academic challenges, so they pursue master’s degrees via the easiest path possible: education. Easier still if no master’s thesis is required.
They get their master’s degrees in “curriculum and instruction” or some other education program as opposed to the more rigorous master’s degrees in subject areas.
According to Gemini, 55% to 65% of public middle school teachers with master’s degrees have them in “curriculum and instruction or general education/teaching.” Only about 5% to 10% have their master’s degrees in subject area disciplines.
Changing the salary schedule to incentivize and reward academic achievement and rigor is long overdue, but there are two chances for such a change getting past teachers unions: slim and fat.
Oh, in case you’re wondering, there is no science in Gomez’ science-specific navel-gazing diatribe.