Garner 1

Exploring (the Lack of) LGBT+ Representation in American Literature Curriculum

Introduction

Diversity has become an increasingly divisive issue in the US education system. One

focus of these debates is literature studies, more specifically, the study of diverse authors and

narratives in the common curriculum. In the US, the percentage of individuals who self-identify

as LGBT is rising every year (Jones), yet, our current literature studies curriculum often does not

address LGBT+ identities or issues. In fact, research suggests that many language arts teachers

feel negatively about teaching LGBT texts and issues in their classrooms (Thein 172). Analyzing

my own literary history, I explore this insufficiency, discuss the importance of this issue, and

review potential ways to implement more LGBT+ representation into our literature studies.

LGBT+ voices and narratives deserve to have a place in the English curriculum. Our current

studies of literature do not provide adequate representation of the LGBT+ community. Rather

than separate or silence these voices, incorporating LGBT+ literature into the already existing

literature curriculum will normalize LGBT+ writing in the classroom, which fosters a safe and

supportive environment for LGBT+ students.

Research

My book list that represents my literary life consists of forty books in total, divided into

two categories: school literature and personal (or pleasure) literature. Books in the school

category are a selection of books I have read between middle school and my undergraduate

education that have been assigned in an English or Language Arts course. Books in the personal

category are a selection of books I have read outside of a school context from elementary school

to the present (February 2023). Using my list, I categorized the books into three subcategories

based on their level of LGBT+ representation. To be more specific, LGBT+ refers to people who
 Garner 2

do not identify as cis-gendered, heterosexual, or both. The “Open LGBT+ Representation''

subcategory represents narratives, characters, or authors that are explicitly LGBT+. For example,

Running with Scissors is a memoir by Augusten Burroughs, an openly gay author. The

“Speculated LGBT+ Representation'' subcategory represents narratives, characters, or authors

that are speculated to be LGBT+ without explicit evidence, such as Nick Carroway from The

Great Gatsby. Lastly, the “No LGBT+ Representation'' subcategory describes narratives,

characters, or authors that are explicitly not LGBT+ or whose LGBT+ identity is unknown.

There is a drastic difference between the level of open LGBT+ representation in my

personal reading compared to my school reading. Out of the fifteen school books on my list, zero

had open representation. Comparatively, out of the twenty-five personal books on my list, eight

had open representation—which is thirty-two percent. With the inclusion of speculated LGBT+

representation, school books have about thirteen percent representation compared to personal

books’ thirty-six percent. In my school reading, about eighty-seven percent offered no LGBT+

representation at all, whereas, in my personal reading, sixty-four percent offered no LGBT+

representation.
 Garner 3

Discussing Importance

The disparity between the LGBT+ representation in my school literature and my personal

literature suggests that LGBT+ works are being left out—either consciously or unconsciously.

Explicit LGBT+ representation in literature studies pushes back against the “single story” that

illustrates the experiences and values of characters who fit into very tight boxes. The single-story

currently taught in US classrooms pushes an agenda that favors cis-gendered and heterosexual

narratives and silences those who do not identify with these labels. As Angel Daniel Matos puts

it, “...stories and histories of the marginalized and oppressed are omitted, generalized, and

silenced” (91). The results from my book list reflect this concept. The number of books with no

LGBT+ representation greatly outnumbers those that offer representation, which implies that this

is the norm for literature classrooms.

However, representation in academic media provides LGBT+ students with a sense of

community and acceptance within the classroom. Representation validates the experiences of

LGBT+ youths who “might otherwise not see themselves reflected in the texts they read” (Dodge

& Crutcher 96). More importantly, incorporating LGBT+ literature into the curriculum helps

students learn about different perspectives and experiences. When we naturally embrace these

diverse experiences, we establish a safe community and culture of “understanding, empathy, and

acceptance” (Dodge & Crutcher 103). A safe classroom community benefits students—who may

feel more inclined to participate in a community that encourages diverse views. The way it

stands, the literature curriculum tells LGBT+ students that their thoughts and experiences are not

valued in academia. Rather than celebrate diversity in the classroom, the current curriculum

“denies and devalues” (Dodge & Crutcher 103) their identity. LGBT+ students deserve the same

resources and attention as their non-LGBT+ counterparts.

 Garner 4

Also, LGBT+ stories, characters, and authors provide representation for an increasing

number of people in the US. A 2022 Gallup Poll reports that the number of US adults who self-

identify as LGBT has increased to approximately seven percent from about five and a half

percent in 2021 (Jones). Of those who are adults, about twenty-one percent of Gen Z. Americans

self-identify as LGBT (Jones). This upwards trend is expected to continue for younger

generations, in a world that is historically more tolerant and accepting of LGBT+ identities than

ever before. In a country where one in five new adults self-identify as LGBT+, it is important

that younger generations see themselves in the academic literature they consume.

Implementation

Some scholars have suggested, and even implemented, LGBT+ or queer studies courses

at their schools and institutions. One example is an LGBTQ Studies course at Ruth Asawa San

Francisco School of the Arts (SOTA), which was designed to “highlight crucial contributions” of

LGBTQ individuals in US history at the high school level (Moorhead 23). Rather than just cover

significant moments in LGBTQ history, the course highlights how LGBTQ rights and identity

are related to historical events and movements (Moorhead 23). While it may seem like offering a

LGBT-centered course—in literature or other subjects—would help to solve the issues

surrounding the current lack of diverse points of view, in practice, a course of this nature isolates

LGBT+ voices from the majority of the student body. Moorhead notes that usually about twenty

six students enroll in SOTA’s class out of a total student population of about six hundred and

fifty (23). Therefore, every academic year, approximately six hundred and twenty four students

do not learn about LGBT+ voices. While this is better than no representation at all, other

approaches to inclusivity could expose a greater number of students to LGBT+ representation.

 Garner 5

Rather than create a separate space to study LGBT+ voices, incorporating LGBT+

writing into the existing literature studies curriculum normalizes diverse voices in all English

classrooms. Multiple scholars have argued in favor of an integrated approach over a separated

one because teaching LGBT+ stories gives students the opportunity to practice many essential

language arts skills in a way that is relevant to their lives. Schools or higher education

institutions can reshape their current literature studies curriculum by teaching LGBT+ Young

Adult Literature (YAL) in their classrooms. For example, Dodge and Crutcher suggest utilizing

linked text sets (LTS) that center around a unifying theme (97). LTS teach a few pieces of

literature—both canonical school texts and texts “immediately important” to students’ lives—

together in the same unit to emphasize a critical question (98). Incorporating LGBT+ YAL in

LTS alongside canonical school literature allows students to build connections between societal

concepts in their own lives and the literature they read in school. Additionally, grouping

literature together in this way allows students to practice skills not directly related to LGBT+

studies such as comparing and contrasting, critical comprehension, and genre study (Hermann-

Wilmarth and Ryan 229). Integrating LGBT+ literature can only improve literature studies

curriculum. It gives students more opportunities to build upon their language arts skills and

connect with material that is compelling and significant beyond the classroom.

On a larger level, introducing LGBT+ young adult literature within LTS or integrated

units creates a curriculum that promotes “empathy and social justice” (97) and “validate[s] and

promote[s] acceptance” (96) of LGBT+ experiences. Introducing LGBT+ literature in this way is

impactful because it allows students to apply their knowledge of “layered and complex

identities” (Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan 229) to their studies of literature. For students who

identify as LGBT+, a curriculum of this kind offers a “safe space” for them to better understand
 Garner 6

their identity and receive support from the people around them. When we accept diverse points

of view in literature, we give students the opportunity to better understand and accept diverse

perspectives in life.

However, some educators feel resistant to teaching LGBT+ literature in their classrooms

because they “don’t know how” to introduce discussions of LGBT+ topics and material (Thein

176). Some may argue that YAL is not thoughtful “academic” literature in the way that classics

like Hamlet or Frankenstein are. However, there are numerous resources that can guide teachers

towards including meaningful literature in their curriculums. Thein encourages teachers to

explore award winning LGBT+ YA literature. She recommends books that have won the

Lambda Literary Award and the American Library Association's Stonewall Book Awards, which

celebrate “excellence” and “exceptional merit” in LGBT+ literature (179). In addition to those,

Dodge and Crutcher also list the ILA (formerly IRA) Young Adults' Book Awards as a resource

for finding LGBT+ YAL that is suitable for English classrooms. Those who cannot find

appropriate literature are not looking close enough (or at all). These award-winning books not

only delve into many of the same themes that classic books do, such as the struggles of

adolescence and family life, but also themes that are relevant to contemporary readers, such as

questioning sexuality and gender identity. Considering the extensive range of books on these lists

gives educators the freedom to teach texts that are pertinent to the needs and desires of their

students while upholding the standards of “academic” literature.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of our schools and institutions to provide students with

diverse points of view. The way it stands, voices of marginalized groups are underrepresented in

literature studies. Particularly, the results from my literary life research indicate that LGBT+
 Garner 7

writing is disregarded in present-day literature studies curriculum in the US. While some may

feel that “it’s not their job” (Thein 172) to teach about LGBT+ texts and issues, educators have

the “responsibility to reform, not just replicate” (Cochran-Smith 280) the status-quo of our

educational practices. Integrating LGBT+ texts into existing literature studies greatly benefits

students—both LGBT+ identifying and non-LGBT+ identifying. It allows students to apply

language arts skills to situations and concepts that are significant to their lives outside of the

classroom. Additionally, increasing LGBT+ representation creates an environment that is

supportive and accepting of diverse views. Though educators may face opposition to these

changes, it is important for teachers to keep in mind that introducing LGBT+ literature as

commonplace in classrooms can positively impact the lives of their students, especially those

who have yet to feel support and acceptance within their classrooms.
 Garner 8

Works Cited

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. “Learning to Teach Against the Grain.” Harvard Educational Review,

vol. 61, no. 3, 1991, pp. 279–311., https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.61.3.q671413614502746.

Dodge, Autumn M., and Paul A. Crutcher. “Inclusive Classrooms for LGBTQ Students: USING

LINKED TEXT SETS TO CHALLENGE THE HEGEMONIC ‘SINGLE STORY.’”

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 59, no. 1, 2015, pp. 95–105. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44011221. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.

Hermann-Wilmarth, Jill, and Caitlin L. Ryan. "Interrupting the Single Story: LGBT Issues in the
Language Arts Classroom." Language Arts, vol. 90, no. 3, 2013, pp. 226-231. ProQuest,
https://kean.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/
interrupting-single-story-lgbt-issues-language/docview/1327229304/se-2.

Jones, Jeffrey M. “LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 10 June
2022, https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx.

Matos, Angel Daniel. “The Politics of Teaching Queerly in Today’s Literature Classroom.”

Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 54, no. 1, 2019, pp. 91–93. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26802776. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.

Moorhead, Laura. “LGBTQ+ Visibility: In the K-12 Curriculum.” The Phi Delta Kappan, vol.

100, no. 2, 2018, pp. 22–26. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26552438. Accessed 22

Feb. 2023.
 Garner 9

Thein, Amanda Haertling. “Language Arts Teachers’ Resistance to Teaching LGBT Literature

and Issues.” Language Arts, vol. 90, no. 3, 2013, pp. 169–80. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804391. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.