Where Does Diversity Go Straight? Biopolitics, Queer of Color Critique, and Music Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diversity discourses in music education have evolved from (white) liberalism of the 1990s that conceived difference in terms of dualisms such as insider/outsider to global neoliberalism currently in which sources of difference are interchangeable as long as the historicity of each remains occluded. In this way, so-called “diversity-relevant” groups, such as white queer people are positioned against non-white groups, straight or otherwise, in ways that support neoliberalism and contribute to violence against the latter. To ask where diversity goes straight assumes a place where it is not straight—if not exactly queer, with queer understood (in the context of race) as a “refusal to inherit” kinship relations in which queer(s) disappear(s). Whether conceived in terms of culture, race, (dis)ability, gender, and/or sexuality, diversity has become “all the rage” in music education and academic research generally. Theorizing diversity discourses in music education at their discursive limits, I argue that those limits are also where they also may be exceeded and demonstrate this through an example using queer of color critique to analyze interactions of sources of difference as a way to historicize and racialize “diversity” in music education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".