Spring 2018 | CUNY Graduate Center | IDS 70100: Introduction to Queer Studies


THE NEW WORK AHEAD: Integrating presentations of canonical queer texts into our vision. Or, Pedagogy Is Compromise.

**This post is a repeat of the email you should have received inviting you to the Free Queer CUNY Dropbox file. If you didn’t get that email, please send me a message.**

Hi Free Queer CUNY people. As we discussed today, moving forward this semester we will spend part of class time each week doing more conventional work with queer studies texts, i.e., reading and discussing canonical works of the field (or non-canonical works that are very timely and important).

I suggest this revised plan because I think it will give us a way to orient ourselves to queer studies in valuable, if traditional, ways. Crucially, I hope we can integrate this work with the “free queer CUNY” framework of the course, and to foreground the compromises and possibilities of blending traditional and open resource pedagogies.

So, for example, I think it would make sense for you to choose a text to present on that you are also interested in teaching in combination with open educational resources. It would also make sense to choose a canonical text by queer studies scholars who teach or have taught at or attended CUNY or have been affiliated with CUNY, if you have an interest in teaching work produced within our own relative context. (CUNY authors include Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Eve Sedgwick, Martin Duberman, Cathy Cohen, Paisley Currah, Carmen Kynard, Robert Reid-Pharr, Sarah Schulman, Kevin Nadal, Jesse Daniels, Sara Ahmed, Maggie Nelson, to name just a few.)

The presenters each week should prepare a bibliography of ten sources that engage with your chosen reading in some way (e.g., other works by the same author, more recent texts that update the canonical text, etc). That bibliography might reflect both traditional and open education resources. It would also be appropriate for you to curate a space on the class Commons site where any open educational resources would be available. Please don’t post non-OER on our class site, as that would break my heart.

Last thought on pedagogy for the moment: in her discussion of bell hooks and Paulo Freire today, Ariel mentioned “engaged” teaching and learning versus the “banking method” of knowledge transfer, and Sarah rightly tuned in to the fact that it might be odd for our presentations to simply turn back to the banking method exclusively. So please use this opportunity to try out some engaged pedagogy. Perhaps there is even a way that you can use our Commons site to imagine possibilities for that work (from posting discussion questions to having us annotate an OER text, following our guest speaker Laurie’s lead).

I felt a bit rushed at the end of class, so I propose that we read only two pieces rather than three for next week, leaving time for us to discuss the work ahead and create a new vision for our shared labor. Francesca and Kayla volunteered first, so they will upload their readings to Dropbox for us to access. Melanie, I hope you don’t mind waiting to present another day.

Finally, let’s start meeting individually to discuss your projects. I can be at the Grad center before class and sometimes after class. Please email me so we can set up a time in the next three weeks. See you next week, Matt

1 Comment

  1. I was thinking about this over the weekend and wondered if we could incorporate both OER and canonical texts in these presentations… What if the second presentation we each do is on an OER we want to incorporate in a course syllabus, and instead of just presenting it, we design a brief assignment or activity for the source to see how it could work in a classroom setting? Those of us who are not presenting can try posing questions we may have had before we were familiar with the material, or still may have today. This way we can also play with the method of communication in addition to the content. How do others feel about this possibility?

Leave a Reply