TO BE SEEN IS TO BE: THE FOUNDING OF THE LESBIAN, GAY,
AND
BISEXUAL ISSUES CAUCUS OF
THE NATIONAL ART EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
The history of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGB) in art education is a narrative of oppression and accomplishment. Ignorance and outright discrimination on the part of schools, districts, and national organizations, including the National Art Education Association (NAEA) itself, are part of that history. Internalized and projected homophobia is a part of the field of art education. However, LGBs and their allies have demonstrated the courage and willingness to struggle through a combination of designs and defaults--for the purpose of eliminating prejudice and discrimination within the profession.
An important component of the history of LGBs within the NAEA is the founding of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues Caucus (LGBIC) in 1996. This story, which includes a sub-narrative of my own involvement with the caucus, provides a framework for examining disturbing and seldom mentioned types of oppression embedded within institutions of American education and the professions which serve them. (1)
I started "coming out" to friends in the early 1980s. Later in the decade, during graduate school (1989-1996), I began to ask myself "How can I honor my sexuality and gay identity in art education?" (2) In response, I began the slow process of turning my personal and professional fears--that appeared as common threads throughout my research, teaching and living--into positive and political action. My dissertation, "My Self-Education as a Gay Artist" (Check, 1996), documented my struggle to integrate incongruent parts into a singular self. At the same time, I joined with others to found the LGBIC for the purpose of challenging and changing the homophobic direction of our profession.
The reasons my colleagues and I founded the LGBIC were many. (3) We hoped to counteract the sad reality of homophobia and discrimination in the NAEA and debunk the many lies and homophobic myths that undergird such a reality. We wanted to challenge the notions: that a good teacher and a gay teacher is oxymoronic; the belief, often proved true, that "coming out" means the death of one's career (Harbeck, 1992); and the notion that gay and lesbian teachers recruit "students into the ranks of the perverted" (Jenny, Roesler & Poyer, 1994). We wanted to point out the reality that most high school students who kill themselves are lesbian and gay (Maguen, 1991). We wanted to contest the silence and invisibility surrounding LGB issues in the content of art.
Throughout the process of founding the caucus, I was fortunate to work alongside a passionate and committed colleague, Dr. Laurel Lampela. I first met Laurel at the 1993 NAEA annual convention in Chicago. Since that meeting, we have worked together as co-chairs on initiatives, strategies and policies toward creating the LGBIC affiliate. Telephone and e-mail have been lifelines for us as we struggled to maintain our sanity through setbacks and disappointments. It is also important to note that my documentation of the history of LGBIC is directly related to my growth as a profeminist activist and academic, as well as the larger cultural shifts that are represented by the birth of the caucus within the NAEA itself. I acknowledge the risks associated with a personal narrative: reliance on personal memory, historical reinvention and subjectivity. Paradoxically, these risks are also the strengths of such an undertaking. I can offer historical and personal insights, coupled with profeminist analyses, of the impact of the LGBIC and related issues on people and the profession. This narrative and analysis invites reflection of not only the pains of the past, but the necessary work of the present, dreams, and possible outcomes for the future.
Being Gay in Art and Education
The topic of my dissertation, and the need to organize an affiliate
within the NAEA, grew out of my ongoing exploration of the place
of gay identity in contemporary art, education, and life. It arose
out of my anxiety and hesitation to tell my own truths about sexual
identity. It eventually led to strategies and acts of truth-telling
in both my art and my teaching. To be able to think "out
loud" and engage in discussions about issues of sexual identity
in art has proven invaluable in my education as an artist, gay
man, and educator.
Such discussions were impossible prior to graduate school. I taught elementary art for ten years in a rural Wisconsin school district. While teaching there, I hid and denied my sexual identity. As a "closeted" gay educator, I taught about art in non-threatening and non-critical ways. This was due to my formal training in art and to compensate for the internalized and cultural homophobia I experienced in my life.
A generally supportive atmosphere in graduate school encouraged me to investigate not only issues of gender, sex and sexual identity, but also the connections between education and art. As a result, I became involved in community and activist organizations in the local community dealing with LGB issues and AIDS. I began speaking about my personal and professional experiences as a gay man in university and public school classrooms. I also began to develop and present workshops at state and national art conventions about sexual identity, AIDS, and the many implications for educators.
As a dissertator, I often spoke about how it felt as if I was writing myself out of jobs by writing a dissertation about gay identity in art and education. At the 1992 NAEA convention in Phoenix, I spoke about my research "Queers, Art and Education" (Check, 1992) during a Working Papers in Art Education session facilitated by Marilyn Zurmuehlen. Though polite, audience members seemed befuddled by my research interests and unwilling to speculate on its impact on art education.
Pre LGBIC History: Grassroots Organizing
Until recently, LGB issues had been noticeably absent from NAEA
convention programs and sponsored research. The NAEA has remained
silent not only about the issue of sexual identity itself, but
AIDS and discrimination as well (See Blandy, Branen, Congdon &
Hicks, 1991; and Schellin, 1990). Schellin (1990) writing about
AIDS went so far as to criticize art education as "a silly
field contributing very little to society in general and contributing
nothing to end this awful disease" (p. 83). (4)
The secrecy surrounding the topic of sexual identity reinforced the invisibility of LGB lives. At the 1991 NAEA convention in Atlanta, I networked with about fifteen LGB art educators late one evening. All of them preferred silence and anonymity to struggle and risk. I listened, and though impressed by their oral histories, I was disheartened by their unwillingness to change either themselves or the organization. The best they could do was gossip. They all knew well-known art educators who were closeted. Secrecy and hiding were a part of their individual and group identities.
In 1992, I facilitated a workshop for lesbian, gay, and bisexual art educators at the NAEA annual convention in Phoenix, Arizona. The title of my presentation was "Silent Voices Within the Ranks: A Meeting Space for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Art Educators." The purpose of the workshop was to provide a safer space for LGB art educators to share experiences and concerns about sexual identity in art education: the rampant homophobia, continued invisibility, perceived and actual discrimination, and proposed activisms. If there was marginal interest, my hope was to co-develop a network that would combat homophobia in schools and within the organization. I imagined interested queer and straight folk organizing a grassroots network and strategizing about LGB needs in art education.
There was excitement in the air as the fifty-minute session came to a close. Open discussion addressed job security, fear, discrimination, disclosure, homophobia, censorship, shame, visibility, and trust. I was shocked to hear the story of a colleague who was presenting a workshop about homosexuality at an earlier convention. Though listed in the program, he never "showed." The best he could do was tell those of us in the audience that he had been told by the chair of his department that, if he actually presented the workshop, he "wouldn't have a job to go back to." Sobered by the story, but still exhilarated, I passed around a sign-up sheet for those interested in furthering our dialogue into collective action. Though only about one-third of the participants signed the sheet, something bigger was in the air. On that day a movement was begun to mitigate the isolation and discrimination experienced by many LGB art educators, students and artists.
Following the 1992 national convention, officers from the Caucus on Social Theory and Art Education (CSTAE) invited our nascent group of LGB art educators to become a working group within the Caucus. The executive committee and CSTAE invited us to submit LGB NAEA Convention proposals through them. From 1993 until 1996, the LGBIC utilized this opportunity. I was also given the opportunity to use CSTAE column space in the NAEA News to communicate about the Phoenix experience and advertise the movement. Past CSTAE Coordinator Amy Brook Snider was appointed by CSTAE Coordinator Harold Pearse to serve as a liaison between the CSTAE and the LGB group. Though many LGB presentations played to huge audiences at NAEA conventions (many workshop audiences were jammed), it was much more difficult for us to organize into a cohesive group. Internalized homophobia and fear of disclosure kept many lesbian, gay, and bisexual art educators at a distance. As a matter of record, early membership records indicate that over one third of the LGBIC membership was straight. Allies would play an important part in the process of legitimizing our group as a bona fide NAEA affiliate. (5)
Sustaining interest in the organization fell onto Laurel's and my shoulders. We kept asking each other why so few art teachers were interested in the group or in taking on leadership positions within it. Apathy? Fear? On the other hand, we were constantly encouraged by our straight friends and allies.
Creating an Affiliate
As CSTAE Newsletter Editor (1993-95), I regularly used
newsletter space to promote a dialogue about LGB issues within
the Caucus. Every issue (eight total), throughout my tenure as
editor, contained at least one article about sexual identity.
My passion for LGB issues, and a personal autobiographical writing
style, alienated many members of the Caucus. One member wrote
that " if the Caucus continues to focus upon issues involving
sexual orientation, I will not continue my membership." That
member preferred not to be "identified with the 'Caucus on
Homosexual Theory and Art Education'" (Members Respond, 1995,
p. 7). I was later advised by CSTAE Coordinator Gayle M. Weitz
that other members did not renew memberships because of my focus
on LGB issues.
Laurel and I met for the first time at the 1993 NAEA Convention
in Chicago. I presented two workshops about lesbian and gay content
and curricular issues and closets in classrooms. Laurel presented
"Toward Cultural Diversity: Art by Lesbians." Response
to our sessions was overwhelming. All sessions were jammed with
people. More contacts were made.
Initial efforts to create and sustain interest in the LGBIC were
by word of mouth, a sporadic mention in an affiliate newsletter
column, or the occasional letter of interest. Laurel and I kept
membership lists, organized workshops for conventions, planned
meetings, spearheaded advocacy initiatives, planned special events,
maintained the books, created formal documents (e.g., a constitution),
corresponded with allies and members, and drafted a vision for
the caucus.
After every annual convention, Laurel and I would sort through ideas, organize workshops and meetings, and strategize for the upcoming convention. In Baltimore (1994) we facilitated a panel titled "Lesbian and Gay Issues in the Art Curriculum." Panel participants included, Dr. Charles Jansen, Dr. Paul Kravagna, Laurel and I. Personal and professional perspectives on LGB issues in art were discussed. Over one hundred people squeezed into a rather small room to listen to our panel. (6) A general information/organizational meeting was scheduled later in the convention. Twenty-five people assembled to formally organize as the LGBIC. Dues were set at $10.00 for professionals and $5.00 for students and retired. Laurel and I volunteered to co-chair the group and co-write a constitution. Robert Chappel volunteered to serve as editor for a newsletter. The first issue of the newsletter came out in the fall, 1994.
Following the 1994 convention, I sent a letter to Mark Hansen, then President of the NAEA. I apprised him of our efforts to date and briefed him of the purpose of our organizing efforts: "I would like to encourage the NAEA to utilize the forming LGB Issues Caucus group as a valuable and necessary resource to combat homophobia within the NAEA and in schools and to begin a dialogue of vision to prepare art educators to deal with LGB issues in intelligent and effective ways in schools, research and in pedagogical practices" (Check, 1994). Some NAEA officials feared that the LGBIC might connote that the NAEA was a gay organization (Paul Kravagna, personal communication, March, 1995). Subsequently, our organizing efforts met with much more resistance and homophobia. With fifty initial members, we miscalculated that the 1995 Houston Convention would be where the LGBIC would be granted affiliate status. To our dismay, we became bottle-necked in bureaucratic procedures. Our protests in response resulted in us being perceived as a "political" group. Laurie Hicks explained our situation to us. (7) She emerged as a wise and dependable ally able to guide our organization towards legitimacy. She encouraged us to continue our efforts, but warned us to become more astute and politically savvy. For example, she encouraged us to become familiar with Delegate Assembly procedures and timelines. While some LGBIC members openly despaired, plans were made to gain affiliate status at the next annual convention in San Francisco.
For San Francisco, 1996, Laurel and I prepared throughout the year and coordinated a broad plan of attack. Fortuitously, her article about Lesbian and Gay Caucuses in Art Education (1996, March) came out shortly before the convention. We secured the endorsements of many state organizations, such as the Michigan Art Education Association, the California Art Education Association, and the Los Angeles County Art Education Council. Several prominent art educators also endorsed our cause. Dr. Paul Kravagna solicited endorsements from the California state organizations as well as the Mayor of San Francisco. On March 23, 1996, I presented an impassioned plea to NAEA Delegate's Assembly. I asked that the LGBIC be recognized as an official affiliate. The final vote was thirty-nine in favor and nine against. Twelve delegates abstained. After the vote of endorsement, I wept.
The Present and Future of the LGBIC
Throughout the LGBIC's formative years, internalized and projected
homophobia directed towards LGBIC members and NAEA members presented
problems. At the convention in Baltimore, for example, a lesbian
colleague was leery about lunching with our lesbian co-chair because
she was afraid of being perceived as "one of us." Another
member from a southern state decided to withdraw her self-nomination
for treasurer when she realized she would have to open an account
at her bank with the dreaded "LGB" words in the name.
A newsletter editor refused to get the newsletter printed in his
town (with a population of 100,000 people) because he feared exposure.
I had to get it printed for him in Madison.
Within the newly recognized LGBIC, many lesbian and gay NAEA members are still hesitant to become actively involved. LGBIC members continue to be apprehensive about assuming public leadership roles. Being "out" is difficult for teachers. This is true especially at the primary and secondary levels. Teachers fear for the loss of their jobs, the loss of respect of others, and the support of the community (Griffin, 1992). This is true even if they are not gay or lesbian, since being perceived as an ally is often enough to deter some teachers from inquiring about our work.
Art publications aimed at students and teachers continue to simplify and reduce rich and textured autobiographical information. Stories about artist's lives are often trivialized or misrepresented. (8) Overall, LGB issues continue to be hotly debated and contested. For example, after having an LGB annotated bibliography rejected by the NAEA publication Advisory, Laurel and I were advised by the editor to resubmit it focusing on several practical issues, strategies or solutions for the K-12 sector. The editor strongly indicated she had "to consider the political and legal ramifications of the Advisory constituency" (C. J. Davis, personal communication, June 30, 1998). Content for our revised Advisory was closely edited throughout several rewrites so as not to "offend" readers. I have concluded that it is not fundamentalist Christians or bigots who are our greatest roadblocks. Instead, it is many of the best and the brightest in art education (however well-intentioned) who tell us we cannot talk about who we are.
At a spring 1998 NAEA Inter-Affiliate Advisory Council meeting, homophobic remarks were made about the LGBIC. According to some present, we were not to be "trusted" concerning publications we might display on public tables at annual conventions.
For some, the LGBIC is an embarrassment. For others a lifeline.
Clearly our most importantwork is yet to be done. Our struggle
continues.
Footnotes
1 Personal and anecdotal narratives are necessary since nobody
in the NAEA is keeping track of "hate crimes" against
LGB teachers. Narrative is the only record of discrimination that
currently exists, either in schools or in the profession.
2 I took to heart the "queering" of my personal and
professional identities. The process of "queering" my
body, mind and pedagogy was itself a response to my education;
a learned and ongoing personal critical analysis of mainstream
heterosexual privilege, power and politics. The queering of my
mind and body can best be understood as a lifelong project or
trajectory; sexual identity as an important part of who I am.
Practically, I achieved this by researching about gay and lesbian
issues in art and education and becoming involved in local lesbian
and gay activist and support groups.
3 Throughout this piece, I name people willing to be named--namely
LGBs who are "out" and allies. I chose not to "out"
any bigots in the NAEA by name.
4 Up until this point, research in art education about sexual
identity was marginal at best. A few advocated for tolerance and
understanding (Barrett & Rab, 1990; Zimmerman, 1990), while
others recommended the topic inappropriate or irrelevant (Clark,
1990; Feldman, 1993).
5 Affiliates are sanctioned special interest groups within the
NAEA. Within the structure of the NAEA affiliates have no formal
voting privileges and are advisory to Delegates Assembly.
6 Amy Brook Snider told me that the excitement and passion the
panel generated was absent from much of the rest of the convention.
7 To complicate matters, because we were denied an official meeting
space, we had taken over an empty room to conduct our annual meeting.
This angered some NAEA officials.
8 Take for example, Art and Man's "The California Story"
(1990). Absent from this discussion and analysis of David Hockney's
work is any mention of his sexual identity. Keith Haring was featured
in Scholastic Art (April/May, 1998). Though AIDS was mentioned,
his sexual identity was not.
References
Barrett, T. & Rab, S. (1990). Twelve high school students, a teacher, a professor and Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs: Exploring cultural difference through controversial art. Journal of Multicultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 8(1), 4-17.
Blandy, D, Branen, K., Congdon, K. & Hicks, L. (1991). The NAMES Quilt and the art educator's role. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, No. 11, 102-118.
The California story. (1990, April/May). Art and Man, 20(6), 4-5.
Check, E. (1992). Queers, art and education. In M. Zurmuehlen (Ed.), Working Papers in Art Education (pp. 98-102). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Check, E. (1994). Lesbian/gay/bisexual issues caucus forms at Baltimore convention. The Caucus Newsletter: Newsletter of the Caucus on Social Theory and Art education, 14(4), 1.
Check, E. (1996). My self-education as a gay artist (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57-70A.
Clark, G. (1990). Art in the schizophrenic fast lane: A response. Art Education, 43(6), 8-23.
Feldman, E. (1993). Best advice and council to art teachers. Art Education, 46(5), 58-59.
Griffin, P. (1992). Lesbian and gay educators: Opening the classroom closet. Empathy, 3(1), 25-28.
Harbeck, K. (Ed.). (1992). Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula. New York: Hayworth Press.
Jenny, A., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.
Keith Haring: Working with symbols. (1998, April/May). Scholastic Art, 28(6), entire issue.
Lampela, L. (1996, March). Concerns of gay and lesbian caucuses within art, education, and art education. Art Education, 49(2), 20-24.
Maguen, S. (1991, September 24). Teen suicide: The government's cover-up and America's lost children. The Advocate, 586, 40-47.
Members Respond. (1995). The Caucus Newsletter: Newsletter of the Caucus on Social Theory and Art education, 15(3), 7.
Schellin, P. (1990). Art education in the time of AIDS. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, No. 10, 83-93.
Zimmerman, E. (1990). Questions about multiculture and art
education or "I'll never forget the day M'Blawi stumbled
on the work of the post-impressionists. Art Education,43(6),
8-24.