Knight Multicultural PDF

PAC Postscript Knight: Multicultural Education 1
Multicultural Education: Inclusion of LGBTQ Content in the University
Translation Classroom
Richard Knight
Spanish Post Graduate Fellow, 2017-18
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
It has been well-researched and widely accepted over the course of the last thirty
years that multicultural inclusivity in the classroom has a number of benefits for both K-
12 and higher education learning communities. The purpose of this paper is, therefore,
twofold. First, it will demonstrate the relevance of LGBTQ inclusion within the
framework of multicultural education as it applies to post-secondary education. Second, it
will illustrate two university-level instructional activities based in the intersection of
translation and cultural studies that incorporate LGBTQ content with the objective of
advancing multicultural education’s mission.
As defined by the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME):
Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom,
justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various
documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South
Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
adopted by the United Nations. It affirms [the] need to prepare students for their
responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role schools can play


in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. It values
cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities, and
teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society
through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice. (“Defintions of
Multicultural”)
Educator Halah Ahmed Alismail notes that, “the historical roots of multicultural
education grew out [sic] a struggle for political power, freedom, and economic
integration [by people of color] during the [US] civil rights movement of the 1960’s”
(140). However, in more recent years, inclusion and diversity efforts have expanded
within multicultural education to encompass additional minoritized identity groups,
including the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer communities, referred to
collectively as LGBTQ.1 This shift to include LGBTQ within the framework of
multicultural education is confirmed via the NAME website, which states the movement
assists “students [to] develop a positive self-concept by providing knowledge about the
histories, cultures, and contributions of diverse groups,” and further mandates that
“school curriculum . . . directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism,
ableism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia” (“Defintions of
Multicultural”; emphasis added).
Dr. Gregory M. Herek, professor of psychology at the University of California at
Davis, classifies heterosexism as “a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an
ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of

behavior, identity, relationship, or community. . . . Like institutional racism and sexism,
heterosexism pervades societal customs and institutions” and similarly constitutes a form
of collective oppression that results in marginalization and a societal imbalance of power
(Herek, “Definitions”). Thus, heterosexism has become a target of a more inclusive
contemporary multiculturalism.
LGBTQ’s more recent inclusion in multicultural education reflects the
community’s augmented visibility in US society and popular culture resulting from its
ongoing struggle for equal civil rights. Unlike in previous decades, it is now fully
possible to find examples of LGBTQ individuals living openly and successfully within
many facets of society, including—but not limited to—the arts, business, education,
entertainment, the military, politics, and sports. However, such examples do not signify
the cessation of the institutionalized discrimination and marginalization faced by the
community or of the suffering these actions cause at the individual and collective levels.
When attempting to determine the current state of LGBTQ discrimination and
marginalization in the US and to understand why its eradication should be attempted
through multicultural education, it is worth considering the following:
• The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports that hate-motivated
killings of LGBTQ individuals in 2017 were up approximately 86% from the
previous year (52 individuals: an average of one murder per week) (Waters 6).
This figure does not include those killed in mass murders such as the one in 2016
at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub.


• LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign identified at least 129 anti-
LGBTQ bills introduced across 30 US states in 2017 that targeted a variety of
issues including adoption, relationship recognition and the right to refuse service
to LGBTQ individuals by both the government and the private sector (Moreau).
• As of today, there exists no federal law in the US barring employment
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. At the state
level, it is legal to be fired in 28 of the 50 states for being lesbian, gay or bisexual,
while the number stands at 30 for being transgender (“2017 Workplace Equality”).
• Human Rights Watch reports that between 2017 and 2018 the US Department of
Health and Human Services indicated that it would lift regulations that prohibit
discrimination against transgender people in federally funded healthcare programs
and suggested new regulations that would enable healthcare providers to
discriminate against LGBT individuals by refusing services based on moral or
religious justifications (“You Don’t Want Second Best”).
• According to a 2017 Harvard Opinion Research poll entitled Discrimination in
America Today:
90% of all LGBTQ people believe there is discrimination against gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people in America today, and 91% . . . believe there is
discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people. Of
these, one-third (33%) say the bigger problem is discrimination based in


laws and government policies, while 43% say discrimination based on
individual level prejudice. (2)
When reviewing such data and recalling that multiculturalism’s mandate is to
advance social justice by challenging all forms of discrimination via the educational
system, it becomes undeniable that a significant need and opportunity to do so exists
when it comes to the LGBTQ community.
Multicultural education specialist Dr. Geneva Gay states that:
[E]ducation has three major functions . . . transmission, transaction, and
transformation. The transmissive function of education involves passing on . . . the
cultural heritages of all peoples and teaching them the basic skills needed to
perform the various roles they will play as adult members of society. . . .
[Transactive] education . . . recognizes that students as well as teachers are key
players in teaching-learning interactions. . . . [and that] schools and education
programs have the obligation not only to teach students facts about their cultural
heritages and how to understand existing conditions, but also how to envision and
create a better future for themselves and society. That is, students need to know
how to transform present personal and social boundaries in order to improve the
quality of life for all individuals, groups, and societies. (18)
To fulfill the transmissive function of education equitably for the betterment of all,
educators must strive to bring an array of diverse materials and examples into curriculum
that fully reflect the demographics of their learning communities and the society at large.

However, in the case of the LGBTQ community, one must bear in mind that not all
demographics are visible to the naked eye.
Research has shown that the LGBTQ community is represented to some extent
throughout the US: data analyzed from the 2000 census found unmarried same-sex
couples in 99% of the nation’s counties (Gates and Ost). More recent statistics published
by the analytics firm Gallup verify that, as a whole, the community is also in a state of
growth: the number of US adults self-reporting as LGBT has risen a full percentage point
since documentation began in 2012. For 2017, that figure stood at 4.5% of the
population: more than 11 million people when extrapolated to the latest national census
estimate of people 18 years of age and older. Gallup notes that this increase traverses all
racial and ethnic groups and is being led by the millennial generation (Newport). The
reality suggested by this data is that LGBTQ students are present in every post-secondary
institution in the nation, whether or not that presence is recognized by faculty and staff.
Although students in many of these institutions currently enjoy access to LGBTQ-
related academic studies, resource centers, and student organizations, Dr. Kristen Renn of
Michigan State University points out that LGBTQ acceptance in higher education has not
been universal. A climate of harassment for LGBTQ students is still reported on many
campuses, particularly by transgendered individuals (Renn). A 2018 report on Campus
Climate produced by Rutgers University’s Tyler Clementi Center found that 32.1% of
queer-spectrum students and 46.9% of transgender-spectrum students felt discriminated
against, while only 14% of heterosexual students and 15.7% of non-transgendered


students reported the same. Similarly, approximately 25% of LGBTQ students reported
being verbally threatened within the past 12 months, compared to an estimated 16% of
their peers (Rutgers Tyler Clementi Center). These higher rates of discrimination and
harassment reported by post-secondary LGBTQ students underscore the importance of
incorporating LGBTQ content into higher education curriculum as a means of achieving
social equity and justice for this community over the long term.
All students arrive at college possessing a multitude of salient socially-constructed
identities that may be imposed, assumed, or re-prioritized at any given moment within a
range of categorizations: race, ethnicity, gender, religion, socio-economic level, etc. The
vast majority of these identities are developed during childhood and adolescence as
individuals are influenced by—and learn to respond to—the societal norms of the
dominant culture. In the US, that dominant culture dictates heteronormativity and
cisgender alignment.
For LGBTQ students, college is often the first environment in which they have the
privacy to explore sexuality and gender freely and to develop related identities away from
the scrutiny of their home communities (Renn). As a result, many previously invisible
LGBTQ students begin publicly expressing these newly-formed identities during post-
secondary education. This coming out process is commonly accelerated by exposure to
LGBTQ curriculum, peers, and mentors and accompanied by increased self-esteem as
individuals become welcomed members of their respective identity groups. However, the
self-esteem gained by coming out is frequently challenged by those peers who have not

yet engaged in a meaningful way with such identities. Attempts are frequently undertaken
to pressure and berate LGBTQ students into submitting to the heteronormative-cisgender
standard, resulting in discrimination and marginalization. However, this does not have to
be the case.
Herek’s research at the University of California at Davis lends credence to the idea
that the coming out process and open dialogue between members of the LGBTQ
community and the general populace can reduce discrimination and marginalization. His
work indicates “that lesbians and gay men who come out of the closet to their
heterosexual friends and family members help to create more positive attitudes toward
homosexuality” (“Coming Out”). However, mere personal contact with an individual
lesbian or gay is not the key. The most favorable attitudes have been shown to develop
when heterosexuals “know two or more gay people, if those people are close friends or
immediate family members, and if there has been open discussion about the friend or
relative's sexual orientation” (“Coming Out”).
The power of dialogue to reduce barriers is also supported by multicultural
education research conducted at the University of Michigan in 2004. Led by Dr. Patricia
Gurin, researchers found that students who had come from fairly homogeneous racial and
ethnic backgrounds benefitted measurably when they participated in student-centered
curricular and co-curricular activities that incorporated structured interactive dialogues
between distinct identity groups aimed at facilitating greater mutual understanding
(Gurin). As a result of their participation, students’ awareness of differing perspectives


and their motivation to accept these was enhanced, and their appreciation for intergroup
commonalities and differences was augmented. Consequently, they developed a higher
regard for the value of normalized conflict and the effectiveness of civil discourse in a
pluralistic democracy (Gurin 24). Although the University of Michigan’s research
centered on race and ethnicity, it is worth noting that intergroup dialogues between
lesbians, gays, and bisexuals and their heterosexual counterparts were also included as a
component of the study.
Herek and Gurin’s research collectively strengthens multicultural education’s call
to incorporate inclusive interactive content throughout curriculum as a means of creating
a more equitable and just pluralistic society for all, LGBTQ included. As an identity
group, the LGBTQ community has a right equal to that of any other community to have
their unique cultural heritage and history brought forth and explored in the academic
setting so that all students may better comprehend the factors that have influenced its
current standing in society. To accomplish this objective, LGBTQ content must expand
past traditional avenues such as psychology, sociology, and cultural, gender and queer
studies. When LGBTQ content is relegated to such narrow confines, its inclusion cannot
reach its full potential within the framework of multicultural education. Simply stated,
when inclusive interactive content is limited to students who, by virtue of having enrolled
in select courses, are already open to having their personal social boundaries challenged,
the critical social change that such exposure can provoke goes unrealized by the general
populace who remains unexposed, unengaged, and unaffected.


One possible explanation for the noticeable absence of LGBTQ content outside of
its traditional avenues in higher education may be that an aversion still exists amongst
educators to highlighting differences based in sexual attraction or alternative gender
identities when they do not conform to society’s heteronormative-cisgender standard.
Presumably, this aversion may stem from a lack of familiarity, personal belief systems,
institutional pressure, or any combination thereof. Additionally, instructors may not
always be cognizant of ways to incorporate inclusive LGBTQ examples into their
curriculum—or be at ease doing so—when they do not view the subject matter as relating
directly to their area of expertise. However, neither of these possible explanations can be
allowed to cloak the LGBTQ community in the vast majority of post-secondary
classrooms if multicultural education’s mission of social justice for all is to be fulfilled.
University librarian Maliha Farhadi states that “teachers should pay attention to . .
. unintended reproductions of inequality, disadvantages, stereotypes, and misinformation
based on group identities” when focusing on inclusion and multicultural education (Slide
5). I contend that one of the most effectual ways to perpetrate this type of passive
oppression against LGBTQ is to render the community and its related cultural heritage
invisible in the classroom. As Herek notes, institutionalized heterosexism already
“operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually
remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are
identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society”


(“Definitions”). LGBTQ content is the weaponry that can diffuse such attacks tomorrow
by provoking critical thinking and authentic dialogue in the classroom today.
When structured and utilized effectively, LGBTQ content makes the community
visible in relation to the area of study and provides an opportunity for all students to
critically analyze and discuss its marginalization within this context. By doing so, a space
is created where the LGBTQ community has the opportunity to become more familiar
and where the implications of its marginalization by professionals working in the
respective field can be examined on a deeper level. This process can facilitate students’
recognition and exploration of commonalities between LGBTQ and other identity groups
and assist them to comprehend the choices that they will have to make as future
professionals to either actively support greater inclusion for these minoritized groups or
allow institutionalized power dynamics to continue to alienate and oppress, either
intentionally or not. Inclusive critical thinking exercises such as these carry a definitive
value in assisting students to become more civic minded professionals capable of
communication, collaboration, and understanding within the heterogenous US society.
Undoubtedly, many instructors perceive obstacles to the incorporation of LGBTQ
content into their course curriculum. In his article, “How Comprehensive is Multicultural
Education: A Case for LGBT Inclusion,” Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld addresses the idea
that “sexual and gender identities do not comprise cultures” and therefore presumably
lack related heritages, histories and contributions for study (4). He posits that “a form of
cultural imperialism for LGBT people (as is true for many ethnic and racial groups) is

that they often grow up within a society [that deprives them] of a historical context for
their lives . . . [perpetuating] the myth that they have no culture,” adding that the LGBT
community has been actively erased from the historical record in many instances
“thereby making accurate reconstruction extremely difficult” (4-5). He emphasizes,
however, that, as a defined group, LGBT in the US possess and constitute a culture that
expresses itself in a multitude of forms: “music, art, film, literature . . . linguistic
terminologies, cultural artifacts, local and national leaders, a shared sense of history, local
and national institutions . . . [and officially recognized] national holidays. . . .” (5). The
multi-faceted nature of LGBTQ culture in US society provides educators with an ample
amount of related content to work with across disciplines. The key to its successful
incorporation lies in the instructor thoughtfully identifying the points where LGBTQ
social issues and relevant power structures intersect with the area of study and then
crafting critical thinking exercises that place the LGBTQ community at the center of
class discussion, thus challenging students to consider related social justice issues from
multiple perspectives, including those that they will assume at the conclusion of their
programs of study.
Using this directive as a starting point, I will now illustrate two university-level,
interdisciplinary instructional activities based in translation and cultural studies that
incorporate LGBTQ resource materials to draw the community and its related social
issues into visibility, placing them at the forefront of classroom dialogue. These exercises
have been designed as supplemental materials for translation history and theory courses

taught at the graduate level, though they may be adapted for use at the undergraduate
level as well. Additionally, they have been conceived to offset the relative lack of
LGBTQ examples in translation textbooks.
Although their primary focus is linguistic, the interdisciplinary nature of these
exercises provides students the opportunity to critically analyze the way in which
language is formed and shaped by socio-cultural factors over time—and how it in turn
exerts its own influence—within the context of the LGBTQ population and its US civil
rights movement. Therefore, they are best suited for use with instructional units that
explore the power dynamics that exist between translation and culture or those that
examine professional ethics regarding the social role of the translator. However, it should
be noted that the first exercise may easily be incorporated into units on scientific and/or
medical translation, while the second compliments those on literary translation. I
maintain that LGBTQ-sensitive instructional activities such as these naturally augment
the scope of translation’s inherent intercultural exchange to encompass a more complex
vision of pluralism as it relates to the transfer of ideas between distinct cultures, thus
achieving one of the principle goals of inclusive multicultural education.
HOMOSEXUAL, GAY, QUEER: WHAT’S BEHIND A WORD?
Within translation studies, the selection of discourse-specific terminology is
frequently challenging for students. Therefore, a great deal of time is dedicated to
developing their competency in utilizing and evaluating terminological resources such as
bilingual glossaries, specialized dictionaries, and online multilingual term bases. The

focus of these endeavors is often terminology pertaining to technical or semi-technical
domains such as commerce, economics, law, manufacturing, and the sciences. As
students gain proficiency in locating and evaluating such terminology for
appropriateness, they may begin to think of its selection as a straightforward cut-and-
paste operation.
What happens, however, when students are presented with a translation dilemma
that challenges them to select between terms which are less technical, yet still discourse-
specific and often employed as interchangeable synonyms? How do they hone their
research skills to move past the selection of clearly defined equivalents? I propose that
one viable solution is to have them research the etymology of the terms in the source
language prior to seeking dynamic equivalents in the target language. Doing so provides
a better understanding of nuanced semantical and connotative differences, which in turn
facilitates more accurate translation.
For example, over the years, the terms homosexual, gay, and queer have passed in
and out of vogue in US English as popular choices for labeling and categorizing those
who engage in same-sex relations. Additionally, their selection and manipulation have
factored greatly in the political struggle for gay rights and the evolution of a US
collective gay identity. A student-led comparative diachronic examination of the changes
in the usage and perception of these terms in US public discourse from the 1950s until the
present should: 1) facilitate greater appreciation for the power exerted by nuanced
differences in semantics; 2) highlight the importance of well-researched terminological


selection; and 3) create a space for instructor-facilitated transactive dialogue regarding
related translation strategies and professional ethics.
The following suggested structure for the examination is meant to serve as a
catalyst for reflection on ways that LGBTQ content can be brought into instruction as
part of an expanded vision of multicultural education. It is not intended as a prescriptive
model.
To begin, I propose that the class be divided into small collaborative groups of
three to four students before commencing the linguistic analysis, as it has been shown
that heterogeneous cooperative learning assists in building community and imparting the
values of diversity and inclusion. Notably, students should be pre-assigned to specific
groups to ensure that a relatively equal number of known cultural and gender-based
perspectives are represented in the dynamics of each.
Afterwards, the groups are to be provided with select readings that pertain to the
etymology and sociocultural context of one of the three terms: homosexual, gay, and
queer (see Works Cited for suggested selections). Representing the viewpoints of a
variety of linguists, translators, and historians, these readings should be completed as
homework, along with a Google worksheet on which each group collectively determines
and documents relevant linguistic information and socio-cultural turning points related to
their term’s adoption and usage. This initial collaborative segment of the analysis allows
students their first opportunity to engage in open dialogue as group members debate
which information is most relevant for documenting and share their reasoning. During the

subsequent face-to-face session, a spokesperson from each group should disseminate the
consensually agreed upon content to the remainder of the class as a means of opening the
dialogue further to the entire learning community.
I suggest that students focus on a single term at the outset of this comparative
analysis as a way of fostering within them a false sense of certitude regarding their
knowledge base. As information pertaining to alternative terminological choices is
presented to the class, this sense of assuredness is likely to be challenged. Ultimately, this
process assists in developing students’ abilities to critically analyze, evaluate and
synthesize terminological choices in their totality: essential skills for the professional
translator.
As each term’s pertinent information is introduced, a visual aid should be built to
serve as a reference guide for the proceeding class discussion. This guide may take the
form of an extensive timeline diagrammed on a whiteboard or a series of standardized
handouts to be completed. These graphic organizers will enable students to visualize the
reasons for periodic ebbs and flows in the use of the terms homosexual, gay and queer as
they formulate their thoughts for discussion. The following are examples of key points
from the readings that may be highlighted during this segment of the activity. Each
example is followed by related discussion questions that I have developed to maintain the
focus on terminological selection.
During the 19th century, the neologism homosexual came into being
simultaneously with its binary diametric counterpart, heterosexual. As a verbal classifier,


homosexual was intended to marginalize and exert social control over those who resisted
the heteronormative values of Victorian society, potentially as a mechanism to produce a
stable workforce for industrialism and capitalism (Wilson).
• Would it be appropriate to utilize the term homosexual in the translation of a
source text that refers to same-sex attraction, but pre-dates the early 19th century?
Why or why not?
• Is it ethical to include homosexual in translations going from Western into Eastern
culture, or could this be construed as an imposition of a culturally-specific value
system?
The use of the term homosexual was not documented in the US until the end of the
19th century (Chauncey). “[B]y the 20th century . . . [it] had taken on a definition
associated with the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of same-sex
attractions as a mental disorder” (Peters). “The authorities worked together to create
or reinforce the belief that [those attracted to the same sex] were an inferior class to be
shunned by other Americans. [US] sodomy laws that exclusively targeted same-sex
couples [by featuring homosexual in their wording] . . . were a development of the last
third of the 20th century. . . .” (Chauncey). The American Psychiatric Association did
not reverse its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973, nearly
the end of the 20th century (Peters).
• What connotative value does the term homosexual currently hold in the US? Do
you consider four decades sufficient time for the pejorative nature of a word to

lose its political power within society? What about with those that it was intended
to marginalize? Why or why not?
The word gay’s semantic shift over the last several decades—from “happy and
excited: cheerful and lively” to “sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex”
(Merriam-Webster)—began in the US during the mid-1950s as a bi-product of social
resistance: the use of a shared linguistic code by those labeled homosexual to obscure
meaning during public discourse. The term was adopted by this sector of society in
part to distance itself psychologically from homosexual’s pejorative nature and its
direct referential link to private sexual activities (Peters).
• How could a translator’s indiscriminate use of the terms homosexual and gay
potentially affect the message of a translation and/or its reception?
In 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution
does not protect the “right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy” nor provide
“a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy” (204, 206; emphasis added).
Because of this specific wording, activists seeking civil protections for same-sex
relations “chose to [actively] redefine the legal meaning of homosexuality to focus on
a public, collective identity, rather than a type of sexual behavior” (Katyal 102-103).
As a result, the term gay took center stage during the late 1980s and 90s as a less
politically charged verbal symbol of private sexual behavior. By manipulating
terminology, the gay rights movement effectively swayed public opinion over the
long-term regarding the morality of the institutionalized discrimination being suffered


by its constituents. This strategic effort based in linguistic labels and collective
identity directly led to the normalization, legitimization, and legalization of same-sex
erotic behavior and union throughout the nation.
• GAY- a collective identity based in a social construct of same-sex physical
attraction and dictated by the gender of one’s object of desire which unifies
individuals with the intent of subverting marginalization in a repressive society 2
Using this definition of gay, is it possible to fully transmit the term’s abstract
concept from US English into a target culture which operates under different
power-based dynamics and may lack a comparable socio-cultural context? Why or
why not? Are there certain translation strategies that might be more applicable to
this endeavor?
• Conversely, gay has become a prolific English loan word now found in many
languages as a result of the international exportation of the US LGBTQ civil rights
movement. However, what steps might you take to investigate the connotation and
meaning of gay (or any other LGBTQ-related terminology) in its host culture
before transferring it into an English-language target text to ensure that you are
accurately capturing its current cultural significance? What resources might be
available to you?
Historically pejorative, the term queer was co-opted for political reasons in the 1990s
by a radical sector of those it was meant to marginalize. This was done as a form of
linguistic subversion intended to garner political attention during the period of


extreme conservativism that accompanied the onset of the US AIDS epidemic. At the
same time, scholars such as Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick introduced
the term queer theory to academic and activist circles (Wilson). Based largely in
deconstructionist theory and building upon the work of philosopher Michel Foucault
and feminist studies, queer theory asserts that:
. . . identities are not fixed and do not determine who we are . . . it is meaningless
to talk in general about 'women' or any other group, as identities consist of so
many elements that to assume that people can be seen collectively on the basis of
one shared characteristic is wrong. Indeed, it proposes that we deliberately
challenge all notions of fixed identity, in varied and non-predictable ways. (Queer
Theory)
Queer theory scholars directly questioned whether “people of varying sexual
orientations had the same goals politically and did those in the sexual minority feel
that they could be represented along with others of different sexualities and
orientations” (What is Queer Theory). This challenge to the concept of static
demarcated otherness and its subsequent political representation eventually led to the
more expansive concept of a fluid LGBTQ community (Wilson).
• The application of queer theory to translation suggests that any type of linguistic
label that classifies a social collective is virtually untranslatable. How might queer
theory’s application to target texts affect translation strategies in terms of
terminology, message equivalence and discourse structure?


Questions such as these undoubtedly maintain the focus on translation and
linguistics, yet effectively use LGBTQ content to open the conversation. As responses are
debated, the LGBTQ community and its history remain in the forefront of students’
consciousness, raising their overall level of social awareness. Because of this coupling,
they are more likely to comprehend the influence that socio-cultural factors exert over
terminology, semantics, and usage in certain contexts, as well as understand how proper
research can easily uncover such information and assist in the development of quality
translation strategies.
To reinforce these points, I suggest that students conclude this instructional
activity by researching and completing their own comparative diachronic semantic
structure analysis of a distinct set of terms used in US English to classify any other
minoritized group. Possible suggestions for analysis include terms referring to individuals
of African descent, those native to the US prior to the arrival of Europeans, or those
possessing atypical mental or physical capacities.
Having provided students with a cursory glimpse of the interconnectivity between
terminology, culture, and social change, it is now possible to introduce a second
instructional activity that will investigate this concept on a deeper level. It must be
prefaced that the LGBTQ component of the activity is intended for the mature student, as
the language contained in the example is of a graphic sexual nature.
JACK SPICER’S PRICKS AND COCKSUCKERS: TRANSLATING INTO
VISIBILITY

As translation studies have become increasingly interwoven with cultural and gender
studies, the role and responsibility of the translator as an agent of social change has
garnered a great deal of attention in the classroom. Feminist translators, amongst others,
have challenged the idea that the translator must remain a faithful steward of the original
text when its wording implicitly delivers undertones of institutionalized marginalization.
They contend that it is the responsibility of the activist translator to identify and subvert
language structures within inherently oppressive messages: to make the implicit explicit,
and thus undeniable. Feminist translators believe that this exposure can serve as a catalyst
for the social change they seek. Scholar Luise von Flotow illustrates this concept by
marking the stark difference in perception between two English variations of one original
French message: “this evening I’m entering history without pulling up my skirt” versus
“this evening I’m entering history without spreading my legs” (70). It is the latter
rendition’s stark wording that strips away metaphorical euphemism, laying bare the
sexism contained in the message for the reader’s consideration.
This strategy of substituting linguistic allusion with explicit phraseology is an
effective weapon in the feminist translator’s arsenal. Therefore, I recommend exposing
students to a relevant LGBTQ example when studying this topic to demonstrates this
technique’s potential for rendering virtually any other marginalized group visible.
American poet Jack Spicer’s 1957 book After Lorca is a collection of original
work, adaptations and interpretive translations focused on the poetry of Spanish literary
figure Federico García Lorca and includes Spicer’s translation of Lorca’s “Oda a Walt

Whitman” (Keenaghan 274). Published in the US at a time when those who sought same-
sex partners were being persecuted by the Establishment and demonized by the greater
society, After Lorca exemplifies the raw power that explicit word selection can wield and
highlights its potential for converting translators into activists.
To first develop a basic understanding of feminist translation’s activist concepts
and its techniques for subversion, students will read von Flotow’s article entitled
“Feminist Translation: Contexts, Practices and Theories” before coming to class. This
article should facilitate a broader, more inclusive view of translation in general, while
also providing concrete examples of translation strategies and techniques used to subvert
and feminize a text; the stripping away of metaphor included amongst them. An
additional reading of cursory biographical information on Spicer, Lorca, and Whitman
will serve to establish a contextual connection between these three gay poets and a point
of departure for a brief comparison of sections of Spicer’s translation of “Oda a Walt
Whitman” against Lorca’s original.
Following a discussion of the major points contained in von Flotow’s article, the
following facts should be brought to students’ attention to further contextualize the
LGBTQ example:
• As pointed out by English professor Eric Keenaghan, the gay male (much less the
gay author) was institutionally marginalized within the US power dynamics of the
1950s and rendered invisible as such in the literary canon. Scholar and gay rights
activist Spicer sought to fill this void (Keenaghan).


• Although Spicer, Lorca, and Whitman all worked with homoerotic themes in their
art, they approached the subject from diametrically opposed perspectives. Both
Lorca and Whitman wrote in metaphorical abstraction that served to obscure
homoeroticism to the undiscerning eye “behind a veil of complex images”
(Keenaghan 274).
• Operating under a different set of social constructs and temporal context, Spicer
recast the homoerotic in his translation of Lorca’s “Oda a Walt Whitman,”
removing the veil and allowing society to see an explicit vision of male
homoerotic behavior and those who enjoy its pleasures (Keenaghan).
• Spicer hijacks Lorca’s love ode to Whitman, exposing its obscured homoerotic
adulation by replacing Lorca’s metaphorical language with his own visions of
“tight-cocked, cocksuckers, prick[s], hard-up, sucked-off, wet-dreamed”
(Keenaghan 273).
At this point, students are shown two examples of Spicer’s linguistic subversion.
In the first, Spicer has transformed Lorca’s description of Whitman as an ambiguous
metaphorically transgendered virile beauty possessing what other translators have
rendered as “Apollonian virginal thighs” into a much more homoerotic, sexually
objectified “tight-cocked beauty” “with muscles of a virgin Apollo” (Lorca “Poet” 156;
Spicer 29).
In the second example, Spicer has employed a different strategy to subvert Lorca’s
euphemistic homoerotic descriptions. In this instance, by merely selecting a more


demonstrative English verb than what is contained in the Spanish original—show off vs.
enseñar / to show—Spicer has morphed Lorca’s suggestion of the homoerotic into a
blatant voyeuristic display of such (Keenaghan 276).
Por el East River y el Bronx
(By the East River and the Bronx) By the East River and the Bronx
los muchachos cantaban enseñando sus cinturas
(the boys sang showing their waists) The kids were singing, showing off their
bodies
con la rueda, el aceite, el cuero y el martillo
(with the wheel, the oil, the leather, and the At the wheel, at oil, the rawhide, and the
hammer) hammer
Spanish source: (Lorca “Oda” 522)
English source: (Lorca “Poet” 154) English source: (Spicer 28)
Highlighting this LGBTQ-themed example alongside those of feminist translators
should help students to more fully appreciate cross-applicational aspects of their craft.
Furthermore, it enhances the dynamics of the subsequent class discussion, which will
focus on the power of word selection and phraseology; professional ethics; and the role of
the translator in actively shaping public opinion.


Possible questions for discussion include:
• What professional and social responsibilities do translators have?
• How do you perceive the stark wording selected by Spicer and the feminist
translators to render marginalized groups visible? Does this type of wording
ultimately engage or alienate in its quest to open a dialogue?
• Excluding women and the LGBTQ community, what other marginalized groups
might benefit from this type of exposure through translation?
• Is it ethical to categorize these renditions as translations or are they more
accurately described as interpretations? What differentiates the two?
• Are activist translators conveying the original author’s message or are they simply
hijackers looking for vehicles to express their own ideology?
• Do you view Spicer as a crass translator obsessed with street-level vulgarities or a
resistance fighter at the dawn of the LGBTQ civil rights movement? Why?
• What positive and negative effects may Spicer’s efforts have had on the legacies
of Lorca and Whitman within the literary canon?
Having encouraged students to consider what other types of marginalized groups
may be represented by activist translators, I propose a return to von Flotow’s article and
the translation strategies contained therein to conclude this instructional activity. Students
will select an English-language text to feminize by seeking out and neutralizing any
inherently patriarchal language and/or metaphorical imagery. To note, a genre
particularly apt for this exercise is public address. Although a monolingual endeavor, this

activity allows students to grow in their ability to consider differing perspectives as they
assume the role of the activist feminist translator, critically analyzing linguistic content
from society’s margins. As they conduct their analysis, students are likely to develop an
even greater appreciation for the depth to which cultural values and societal norms
influence and shape language and word selection. Thus, together, inclusive feminist and
LGBTQ content serve as the platform for linguistic development, while simultaneously
aiding to transform students into better informed, more socially-aware members of a
democratic society.
In conclusion, I maintain that the moment has arrived when all educators must
come to the realization that inclusive multicultural education does not take place merely
within courses dedicated to the study of race and ethnicity or within cultural diversity
workshops. With informed instructor support and strategic planning, it can take place in
every classroom and at any moment.
With this in mind, this paper has aimed to highlight why the LGBTQ community
must be an integral part of contemporary multicultural inclusion efforts in post-secondary
education and to provide examples of how LGBTQ content can be seamlessly
incorporated into the translation classroom even when omitted from textbooks. The
benefits of the featured interdisciplinary instructional activities are threefold. First and
foremost, their LGBTQ content provides a platform for the learning community to
develop and hone translation strategies related to terminology selection, an area of study
that is often challenging for students. Secondly, the activities create a space for the

instructor to lead transactive intergroup dialogues which examine the history and current
status of the LGBTQ community as it relates to the field of translation. These dialogues
ultimately challenge all students to analyze their personal attitudes and knowledge of
LGBTQ social issues and to consider the possible implications that any unrecognized
bias and/or ignorance may pose towards their execution of their craft; thus, transforming
them into more socially conscious translation professionals. Lastly, when LGBTQ
content directly reflects students in the learning community, it has the potential to serve
as a catalyst for greater engagement of those individuals as they move from the periphery
of classroom dynamics to the center. The level of empowerment that such a move can
foster in a minoritized student’s psyche can never be underestimated, as the links between
inclusion, engagement, and positive learning outcomes have well-documented.
It is my desire that other educators consider the examples that I have presented as they
devise ways to strategically enhance their own curriculum with LGBTQ content,
providing the opportunity for another historically marginalized identity group to become
fully visible; not only in the greater society, but within their own scope and those of their
students.

Notes
1. It must be recognized that LGBTQ is a contemporary initialism that has
developed over time as a unifying umbrella to refer to individuals possessing a wide
range of salient identities based in sexual orientation and gender that do not agree with
the heteronormative-cisgender standard. Research cited in this paper will not always
address the queer component of today’s LGBTQ population. In these instances, the use of
the variant LGBT initialism is intentional.
2. This definition of gay has been formulated by the author.


Works Cited
"2017 Workplace Equality Fact Sheet." Out & Equal, outandequal.org/2017-workplace-
equality-fact-sheet/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Alismail, Halah Ahmed. "Multicultural Education: Teachers' Perceptions and
Preparation." Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 7, no. 11, 11 Nov. 2016, pp.
139-147. ERIC - Institute of Education Sciences - US Department of Education,
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099450.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Blumenfeld, Warren J. "How Comprehensive Is Multicultural Education?: A Case for
LGBT Inclusion." Journal of Multicultural Education, vol. 5, no. 2, 2010, pp. 2-
20. Academia.edu,
www.academia.edu/4291705/How_Inclusive_Is_Multicultural_Education_A_Cas
e_for_LGBT_Inclusion. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Chauncey, George et al. "The Historians Case Against Gay Discrimination."History
News Network, hnn.us/articles/1539.html. Accessed 30 Jan. 2019.
"Definition of Gay."MerriamWebster.com, n.d. Accessed 25 Apr. 2016.
"Definitions of Multicultural Education." The National Association for Multicutural
Education, www.nameorg.org/definitions_of_multicultural_e.php. Accessed 9 Jan.
2019.
"Discrimination in America Today: Experiences and Views of LGBTQ Americans."
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Nov. 2017,


www.npr.org/documents/2017/nov/npr-discrimination-lgbtq-final.pdf. Accessed 9
Jan. 2019.
Farhadi, Maliha. “The Benefits of Understanding Cultural Diversity in Education."
DocPlayer.net, docplayer.net/21571292-The-benefits-of-understanding-cultural-
diversity-in-education-maliha-farhadi.html. Accessed 30 Jan. 2019.
Gates, Gary and Jason Ost. "Facts and Findings from the Gay and Lesbian Atlas." Urban
Institute, 30 Mar. 2004, webarchive.urban.org/publications/900695.html. Accessed
9 Jan. 2019.
Gay, Geneva. At the Essence of Learning: Multicultural Education. Kappa Delta Pi,
1994. ERIC - Institute of Education Sciences - US Department of Education,
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386410.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb. 2018.
Gurin, Patricia et al. "The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Democratic
Citizenship." Journal of Social Issues, vol. 60, no. 1, 2003, pp. 17-34. University
of Michigan, igr.umich.edu/files/igr/The%20Benefits%20of%20Diversity.pdf.
Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Herek, Gregory M. "Coming Out Can Reduce Sexual Prejudice." Psychology- Univeristy
of California at Davis, psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/comeout1.html.
—. "Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice." Psychology-
University of California at Davis,
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.


Katyal, Sonia. "Exporting Indentity." Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, vol. 14, iss. 1,
article 4, pp. 98-176. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository,
digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol14/iss1/4/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Keenaghan, Eric. "Jack Spicer’s Pricks and Cocksuckers: Transalting Homosexuality into
Visibility." The Translator, vol. 4, no. 2, 1998, pp. 275-294. Taylor & Francis
Online, doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1998.10799023. Accessed 30 Jan. 2019.
Lorca, Federico García et al. "Oda a Walt Whitman (Ode to Walt Whitman)." 1940.
Obras completas (Complete Works). 16th ed., Aguilar, 1971, pp. 522-526.
—. Poet in New York, translated by Greg Simon and Steven F. White, edited by
Christopher Maurer, Noonday Press/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1988.
Moreau, Julie. "129 anti-LGBTQ state bills were introduced in 2017, new report says."
NBCnews.com, 12 Jan. 2018, www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/129-anti-lgbtq-
state-bills-were-introduced-2017-new-report-n837076. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Newport, Frank. "In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%." Gallup, 22 May
2018, news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-
rises.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g
_content=In%2520U.S.%2c%2520Estimate%2520of%2520LGBT%2520Populati
on%2520Rises%2520to%25204.5%2525. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Peters, Jeremy W. "The Decline and Fall of the H Word." New YorkTimes.com, 21 Mar.
2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-
homosexual.html. Accessed 25 Apr. 2016.


"Queer Theory." n.d. Theory.org.uk, Accessed Apr. 2016.
Renn, Kristen. "LGBTQ Students on Campus: Issues and Opportunities for Higher
Education Leaders." HigherEdToday.org, 10 Apr. 2017,
www.higheredtoday.org/2017/04/10/lgbtq-students-higher-education/. Accessed 9
Jan. 2019.
Rutgers Tyler Clementi Center. "Campus Climate." Infographics-Tyler ClementiCenter-
Rutgers University.edu, Aug. 2018,
clementicenter.rutgers.edu/news/2018infographics/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
Spicer, Jack. After Lorca, 1957. The Collected Books of Jack Spicer, edited by Robin
Blaser, Black Sparrow Press, Los Angeles, Ca., 1975, pp. 9-52.
United States Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick. United States Reports, vol. 478, 30
Jun. 1986, pp. 186-219. Library of
Congress, cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep478/usrep478186/usrep478186.pdf.
von Flotow, Luise. “Feminist Translation: Contexts, Practices and Theories.” Traduire la
théorie, vol. 4, no. 2, 1991, pp. 69-84. Erudit,
https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ttr/1991-v4-n2-ttr1475/037094ar.pdf. Accessed 3
Feb. 2018.
Waters, Emily et al. "A Crisis of Hate: A Report on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
and Queer Hate Violence in 2017." National Anti-Violence Project-National
Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2018, avp.org/wp-


content/uploads/2018/01/a-crisis-of-hate-january-release.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan
2019.
"What is Queer Theory." Academic Room, www.academicroom.com/topics/what-is-
queer-theory. Accessed Apr. 2016.
Wilson, Colin. "Queer Theory and Politics." International Socialism, iss. 132, 11 Oct.
2011, isj.org.uk/queer-theory-and-politics/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.
"You Don’t Want Second Best- Anti-LGBT Discrimination in US Health Care." Human
Rights Watch. 23 July 2018, hrw.org/report/2018/07/23/you-dont-want-second-
best/anti-lgbt-discrimination-us-health-care#. Accessed 9 Jan. 2019.

Knight Multicultural PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knight Multicultural PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAC Postscript Knight: Multicultural Education 1

Multicultural Education: Inclusion of LGBTQ Content in the University

Spanish Post Graduate Fellow, 2017-18

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

framework of multicultural education as it applies to post-secondary education. Second, it

will illustrate two university-level instructional activities based in the intersection of

advancing multicultural education’s mission.

As defined by the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME):

Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom,

justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various

documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South

responsibilities in an interdependent world. It recognizes the role schools can play

teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and society

through the promotion of democratic principles of social justice. (“Defintions of

within multicultural education to encompass additional minoritized identity groups,

collectively as LGBTQ.1 This shift to include LGBTQ within the framework of

“school curriculum . . . directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism,

ableism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia” (“Defintions of

Multicultural”; emphasis added).

Dr. Gregory M. Herek, professor of psychology at the University of California at

Davis, classifies heterosexism as “a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an

of collective oppression that results in marginalization and a societal imbalance of power

(Herek, “Definitions”). Thus, heterosexism has become a target of a more inclusive

LGBTQ’s more recent inclusion in multicultural education reflects the

the cessation of the institutionalized discrimination and marginalization faced by the

When attempting to determine the current state of LGBTQ discrimination and

marginalization in the US and to understand why its eradication should be attempted

through multicultural education, it is worth considering the following:

• The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reports that hate-motivated

killings of LGBTQ individuals in 2017 were up approximately 86% from the

at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub.

LGBTQ bills introduced across 30 US states in 2017 that targeted a variety of

• As of today, there exists no federal law in the US barring employment

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. At the state

discrimination against transgender people in federally funded healthcare programs

and suggested new regulations that would enable healthcare providers to

discriminate against LGBT individuals by refusing services based on moral or

religious justifications (“You Don’t Want Second Best”).

• According to a 2017 Harvard Opinion Research poll entitled Discrimination in

90% of all LGBTQ people believe there is discrimination against gay,

discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people. Of

these, one-third (33%) say the bigger problem is discrimination based in

individual level prejudice. (2)

When reviewing such data and recalling that multiculturalism’s mandate is to

system, it becomes undeniable that a significant need and opportunity to do so exists

when it comes to the LGBTQ community.

Multicultural education specialist Dr. Geneva Gay states that:

[E]ducation has three major functions . . . transmission, transaction, and

transformation. The transmissive function of education involves passing on . . . the

[Transactive] education . . . recognizes that students as well as teachers are key

players in teaching-learning interactions. . . . [and that] schools and education

quality of life for all individuals, groups, and societies. (18)

demographics are visible to the naked eye.

Although students in many of these institutions currently enjoy access to LGBTQ-

campuses, particularly by transgendered individuals (Renn). A 2018 report on Campus

queer-spectrum students and 46.9% of transgender-spectrum students felt discriminated

against, while only 14% of heterosexual students and 15.7% of non-transgendered

harassment reported by post-secondary LGBTQ students underscore the importance of

incorporating LGBTQ content into higher education curriculum as a means of achieving

All students arrive at college possessing a multitude of salient socially-constructed

secondary education. This coming out process is commonly accelerated by exposure to

LGBTQ curriculum, peers, and mentors and accompanied by increased self-esteem as

to pressure and berate LGBTQ students into submitting to the heteronormative-cisgender