Photo of Jacob Holster courtesy of the author
In many music classrooms today, teachers and students are navigating policies that constrain how identity, justice, and belonging can be experienced and discussed. Nearly two dozen states have enacted restrictions, sometimes called “divisive concepts laws,” that limit discussions of race, gender, and sexuality in schools.
1
Targeted bans on diversity-related content have left educators questioning how to support students—and themselves—without violating district, state, or federal mandates.
2
For instance, in a report by the National Association for Music Education, one music educator shared that they no longer feel safe teaching music tied to the Civil Rights Movement and fear discrimination due to their sexual orientation.
3
On many levels, language plays a central role in this struggle. Many of the terms that follow are now flagged for federal grant review and are in bold to reflect their contested status.
4
Language shapes how teachers and students express themselves, how school districts operate, whose stories are told, and who is silenced. Furthermore, when legislatures decide what can be discussed or schools declare “This is the official curriculum” or “This is how students must behave,” they are shaping what counts as real and acceptable in the classroom and broader society.
Language ideologies, or shared beliefs and assumptions about language, frame such declarations as discursive acts that assign roles, rules, or meanings based on dominant cultural norms and institutional power rather than neutral consensus.
5
Although not legal advice, this article introduces how language ideologies perpetuate exclusion in music classrooms and how teachers and students can embrace microrefusals, or small acts of resistance, to create inclusive spaces and maintain room for identity and belonging despite legislative policies and educational practices.
Language Ideologies in Music Classrooms
The concept of language ideologies offers a useful lens for understanding how classroom discourse reflects and reinforces power, identity, and cultural legitimacy. Through this lens, education researchers have examined how institutions regulate meaning and identity through implicit norms about what kinds of language and expression are considered appropriate and desirable.
6
These norms might include the policies and expectations around gender identity expressions, school attendance, dress codes, and the topics that are discussed and avoided in learning spaces.
7
In practice, language ideologies can be enacted through overt exclusionary language or subtle practices, such as correcting dialects or privileging certain topics of discussion.
8
For example, Juliet Hess aptly identified the “large-ensemble-as-music-education paradigm” as a hotbed for cognitive imperialism—whereby perspectives outside of one culture and language are deemed illegitimate.
9
Lack of composer diversity is another example of exclusion as the result of tradition. This and similar exclusions affect students differently depending on their race, gender, class, ability, socioeconomic status, and other factors.
10
Language ideologies lead to intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences. For instance, one respondent in the divisive concepts laws report shared the consequences for both teachers and students:
I feel silenced when it comes to having honest conversations with my students. When divisive topics come up (as everything under the sun comes up in classrooms), I have to hurt my relationship with students by shutting down conversations rather than have honest, chaperoned conversations in a safe space.
11
Although these moments can be tense and difficult to prepare for, self-censorship through total compliance with harmful policies might effectively erase the experiences, values, and contributions of vulnerable populations. For example, although applicants for federal grants may face challenges when using certain bolded terms now flagged for review, there is no law prohibiting their use in teaching materials. Similarly, what appear to be minor decisions, such as what music is taught, how behavior is managed, or how student success is defined, can encourage conformity to dominant cultural norms rather than support students’ diverse ways of learning and inherent ways of being.
The language of classroom management further shapes how students experience music education. Teachers influence students’ emotional lives through the words they use, the tone they take, and how they respond to student voices.
12
As a result, student anxiety can be heightened by phrases that imply noncompliance or tones indicating impatience, frustration, or exasperation. For students, this can lead to feelings of being an outsider, compounded by societal and educational stereotypes, and distract from their learning process.
13
Even well-intentioned controlling teacher actions, such as extreme limitations on the extent to which students can talk in rehearsal for the sake of musical growth, may instead serve to frustrate students’ ability to belong, contribute, and exercise agency in music learning contexts.
14
These emotional dynamics can crowd out a student’s enthusiasm for learning and suppress positive experiences in a class altogether. Conversely, language grounded in understanding, encouragement, collaboration, and acceptance might otherwise empower students to explore their identities through musical experiences. However, considering divisive concepts laws, teachers must now find creative and subtle ways to continue fostering inclusive spaces without explicitly violating mandates related to identity and belonging.
Microrefusals as Everyday Resistance
Even in restrictive systems, everyday acts of resistance are both possible and powerful. Microrefusals are the small but meaningful ways students and teachers push back against harmful rules and expectations. Distinct from large-scale visible forms of protest or engagement in an institutional reform process, microrefusals show up in the words people use to validate others; the times people choose to sit, kneel, or remain silent; or in everyday nonverbal and verbal resistance. Ultimately, teacher- and student-enacted microrefusals make space for marginalized voices to be heard and affirmed. To support this work, teachers can reimagine everyday decisions as opportunities to disrupt exclusionary systems through the following lenses.
Student Voice
Microrefusals can show up in classroom language as teachers and students challenge exclusive terminology. For instance, the bolded terms in this article are used deliberately throughout to reflect resistance to their erasure. Drawing from culturally relevant pedagogy, teachers might replace gendered phrases such as “boys and girls” with “everyone” or “musicians” and avoid terms such as “normal,” “better,” or “best” to describe musical preferences or abilities.
15
Teachers can also validate students’ identities, name issues of injustice, or simply create space for students to discuss injustice as teachers practice active listening strategies.
16
Even in tightly regulated states and districts, allowing students space for their voice helps them to process the world around them and shape their own learning experiences. When students see themselves as cocreators of knowledge, they may gain a sense of agency that challenges exclusionary curricula or policies in subversive and student-driven ways.
17
Teachers might give students a say in shaping their projects by offering choices in how they demonstrate learning—such as writing a song, curating a playlist, creating visual art, or leading a class discussion. Other ideas include encouraging students to express and explore their identities through music, discussion, performance, and using technologies for creative work. Even small shifts, such as letting students choose a song for warm-up exercises, can encourage engagement and belonging, particularly when students see their musical identities reflected in classroom activities.
18
These opportunities help dismantle the idea of a single, correct way to be musical. More importantly, they allow students to show up as their authentic selves and signal that those selves are welcome and worthy of being heard.
Classroom Rules
Classroom rules are another area for reconsideration. To start, reframing “noncompliance” as a valid form of resistance helps reveal deeper classroom inequities and opens space for critical reflection and change. One example of a microrefusal might involve a student choosing not to sing a particular piece of repertoire that misrepresents or stereotypes their culture. The student may simply stay silent, opt out of a solo, or request an alternative part. This action and how teachers respond to it are both potential microrefusals. What appears to be reluctance or defiance may actually be a student asserting agency in a context that does not reflect their values or lived experience. Additionally, creating space for students with unconditional positive regard and accepting their need to engage in microrefusals is itself an act of microrefusal. Other ideas include having a more flexible dress code, relaxing the extracurricular attendance policies, or allowing for alternative ways for students to complete assignments that align with their desired forms of communication and expression.
It may be helpful for teachers to reflect on classroom expectations and rules with the following questions: Are behavioral expectations rooted in White, middle-class norms—such as expecting eye contact during instruction, valuing quiet compliance over expressive communication, or emphasizing punctuality and individual achievement over collective responsibility?
19
Whose comfort is prioritized? Whose stories are told? What forms of expression are celebrated or silenced? Teachers can work against systems that marginalize diverse cultural contributions while facilitating an environment where all knowledge systems and lived experiences are equally valued. As state and federal mandates attempt to erase conversations about diversity and inclusion, reimagining more inclusive classroom rules becomes an act of defiance in itself.
Assessment Policies
Music teachers can reject rigid, hierarchical measures of achievement by recognizing that success in a music class manifests in multiple ways. A more inclusive definition of success benefits all students and fosters a learning space that values diverse contributions. Rather than prioritizing technical performance or standardized assessments, teachers might use assessment as a tool for learning and personal growth by allowing students to self-reflect on their progress, set personal goals, or peer review each other’s work based on effort, creativity, and cultural interpretation.
20
Acknowledging different ways of excelling encourages students to see their contributions as valuable. This shift validates different musical strengths and affirms students’ identities and lived experiences. A student who brings in a beat they made at home, interprets a piece through movement, or connects a song to a family tradition is demonstrating musical understanding and thriving in the arts on their own terms.
Conclusion
Although systemic barriers may seem immovable, small, consistent actions and solidarity among educators can strengthen broader societal resistance to top-down efforts to restrict discussions of equity and justice. In response to vague or ambiguous laws, many teachers may already be altering their instruction in ways that unnecessarily silence inclusive practices. However, knowing the boundaries of policy while avoiding unnecessary self-censorship can help sustain inclusive teaching. The removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs does not eliminate the realities of inequity; it simply makes the work of inclusive education more urgent and subversive. No matter the political landscape, we make choices every day in our classrooms—what to say, where to focus students’ attention, and how to respond to personal and interpersonal conflict in the learning process. Microrefusals live in these moments. Stay attuned to the discursive and institutional forces shaping the learning space, reflect on which identities are being named or erased, and be ready to act when opportunities for equity arise. Even when policy restricts what is allowed, teachers choose what to center and affirm. Teachers choose what kind of future leaves their classroom.
