This article was downloaded by: [Western Washington University] On: 11 March 2014, At: 10:17 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Equity & Excellence in Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueee20

From Silence to Safety and Beyond: Historical Trends in Addressing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Issues in K-12 Schools
Pat Griffin & Mathew Ouellett Published online: 29 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Pat Griffin & Mathew Ouellett (2003) From Silence to Safety and Beyond: Historical Trends in Addressing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Issues in K-12 Schools, Equity & Excellence in Education, 36:2, 106-114, DOI: 10.1080/10665680303508 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680303508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Equity & Excellence in Education, 36: 106114, 2003 Copyright c Taylor & Francis, Inc. ISSN 1066-5684 DOI: 10.1080/10665680390224512

From Silence to Safety and Beyond: Historical Trends in Addressing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Issues in K-12 Schools
Pat Grifn and Mathew Ouellett

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

The purpose of this article is to provide an historical overview of changing perspectives in education practice and literature on addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) issues in public K-12 schools. This article describes how the presentation and analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the past 80 years have evolved into one of the primary points of contention in the battle over what values related to sexuality and gender schools should reflect. Three broad historical eras during which dominant conceptualizations of LGBT issues in education reflect important shifts in perspective are outlined: (1) Homosexual Educators as a Threat to Children (19201979), (2) Identification of Lesbian and Gay Youth as a Population At Risk (19801989), and (3) Focus on Schools as a Risk Environment for LGB Youth (19902002). The article concludes with a brief description of future directions that research and educational policy on LGBT issues in schools might take to build on the foundation of events from 19902002.

ver the last 30 years, schools have emerged as a pivotal battleground in the culture warsin the United States. Right-wing conservatives, leftwing liberals, and middle of the road progressives understand the importance of schools as major socializing forces in the lives of young people and that what students learn in schools, in both the explicit and hidden curriculum, has a huge impact on larger societal expectations, norms, and values. Conflicts over institutionalized and culturally embedded norms for gender and sexuality expression are at the center of this divide and are at the root of debates about sex education, condom distribution, homosexuality, and gender role non-conformity in schools (Clift, Holland, & Veal, 1990; Irvine, 2002; Levine, 2002; Prestine & Bowen, 1993). This paper provides an historical overview of changing perspectives in education practice and literature on addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues in K-12 public schools. In particular, it will trace how the presentation and analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender1 issues in the past 80 years has evolved into one of the primary points of contention in whether and how schools should teach values related to sexuality and gender. An historical overview of how LGBT issues have been addressed in educational practice and research enables
Address correspondence to Pat Griffin, Hills South, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail: griffin@educ.umass.edu 106

educators to better understand how schools have moved from silence to a focus on safety for LGBT students. Understanding these transitions in the context of larger social conflicts about normative gender and sexuality and the role of schools in this conflict can inform the development of effective educational policy and inquiry related to gender and sexuality issues in schools. The article traces three broad historical eras during which dominant conceptualizations of LGBT issues in education reflect important shifts in perspective and understanding: (1) homosexual educators as a threat to children (19201979); (2) identification of lesbian and gay youth as a population at risk (19801989); and (3) focus on schools as a risk environment for LGB Youth (1990 2002). The article then discusses future directions that research and educational policy on LGBT issues in schools might take to build on the foundation of events that occurred from 19902002. Although there are three distinct historical eras, major themes in each are not mutually exclusive. For example, the discussion of the risk factors faced by gay and lesbian youth emerges to dominate in the literature of the 1980s, but this discussion continues in the 1990s.

1920--1980: HOMOSEXUAL EDUCATORS AS A THREAT TO CHILDREN

Homosexuality was typically not addressed at all in early educational writing and when it was, writers

HISTORICAL TRENDS IN ADDRESSING LGBT ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

107

treated it as a deviancy or disease of the teacher that had harmful effects on children (Tierney & Dilley, 1998). In the early 1900s, researchers began to raise concerns about the threat that homosexual educators posed to children (Blount, 2000). Where once revered and accepted in local communities, single female and male teachers were increasingly viewed with suspicion. These articles raised concerns about spinsters who defied traditional expectations for marriage and motherhood and about effeminate bachelors who chose to work in what was perceived at the time as a womens profession. In the 1920s, these concerns coalesced into fears about homosexuality. Nineteenth century sexologists created a medical profile of homosexuality which influenced views in the popular press as well as in educational literature (Katz, 1976). Noted educator Willard Waller (1932) wrote in his landmark text, The Sociology of Teaching, that homosexual teachers carry sex problems into the schools, and transmit abnormal attitudes to their pupils because they have no other attitudes (p. 147). In the 1930s and 1940s, the National Education Association (NEA) mounted a campaign to increase the numbers of married women in teaching and claimed that married women would have a better understanding of children and would therefore be better teachers than single women. Prior to this time, single women teachers were forced to resign their teaching positions if they married. Reflecting the increasing societal discomfort with the implied deviant sexuality of women who declined to marry, the NEA also proposed that hiring more married teachers would eliminate the old maid school teacher image that discouraged young women from entering the teaching profession (Blount, 2000). After World War II, the climate for single teachers or those perceived to be homosexual became even more hostile as homosexuality became associated with communism during the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. Sodomy laws were enforced, police raided gay bars and private homes, and the government surveilled suspected homosexuals in an attempt to deter the threat of homosexuality (DEmilio, 1983; Faderman, 1991). Medical doctors and educational leaders reinforced the perception that homosexual adults were psychologically and morally unfit for teaching. The assumption was that since homosexuals were unable to reproduce naturally, they needed to recruit and corrupt young people. Teachers were accused of homosexuality and dismissed in order to protect innocent youth from the sexual and moral threat posed by exposure to gay and lesbian adults. As a result, investigations to identify and dismiss homosexual teachers in public schools flourished during the 1950s and 1960s (Harbeck, 1997). Given the hostile social climate, teachers accused of homosexuality had little chance of retaining their positions (Harbeck, 1997). Due to the lack of unbiased research and the severity of legal sanctions for homosexuality, public condemnation of

homosexuals was the norm. In education, the presence of morality clauses in most teachers contracts specified that homosexuality was a disqualifying characteristic for educators. By 1969, the relentlessly hostile environment for homosexual educators began to change. In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court ruled in Morrison v. State Board of Education that the fact that teachers were homosexual was insufficient grounds for dismissal or revocation of certification unless it was coupled with some misbehavior (Harbeck, 1997). In 1973, several states adopted the Model Penal Code, which decriminalized private and consensual sex between adults. Also in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. These changes marked a dramatic shift in the controversy over the rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual teachers. Rather than carrying an assumption of deviancy, researchers began to view lesbian and gay people as normal and focused on their ability to assimilate into society. Since 1973, educators attempting to defend themselves against charges of homosexuality have been average to model citizens who did not identify themselves as lesbian or gay at school, but were somehow identified as such by others (Harbeck, 1997). Rather than quietly resign or accept termination, as had been the norm previously, teachers were more likely to confirm their identity and challenge their dismissal. Reflective of these changes, in 1975, the past president of the APA publicly supported lesbian and gay teachers stating that they should be judged solely by their professional competence (Harbeck, 1997). For the first time, organizations such as the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union formally supported the employment rights of lesbian and gay educators. Despite these changes, conservative forces mobilized to defeat several local gay rights laws in 1977. Singer Anita Bryant and her Save Our Children followers led efforts to defeat a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida. During this campaign, Christian fundamentalists effectively used the menacing gay educator image to play on the fears of their constituencies and encourage political action and financial contributions. Following the success of this tactic in Florida, a conservative state legislator introduced the Briggs Initiative in California in 1978. If enacted, this legislation would have barred openly lesbian and gay teachers from schools and prohibited any positive portrayal or discussion of homosexuality by any school employee in or out of school. This draconian initiative was defeated in a statewide referendum after an intense campaign by both sides. Oklahoma, however, enacted legislation modeled on the Briggs Initiative the same year. The fight over the Dade County, Florida nondiscrimination law, the Briggs Initiative in California, and the passage of the Oklahoma law laid the foundation for

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

108

PAT GRIFFIN AND MATHEW OUELLETT

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

future battles between Christian fundamentalists and progressive educators over the role of schools in addressing issues of gender and sexuality. Several articles in the Phi Delta Kappan and other educational journals during this period reflected the controversy emerging in education about the rights of lesbian and gay teachers (Fleming, 1978; A homosexual teachers argument and plea, 1977; Kirkendall & Tritsch, 1977; Rafferty, 1977). With few exceptions (primarily in school counseling journals), educational literature of the time ignored the presence of LGBT youth in schools (Brown, 1975; Kremer et al., 1975; Tartagni, 1978). Nonetheless, these pioneering articles foreshadowed the emergence of concern about lesbian and gay youth in the educational literature in the 1980s.

support in his or her high schooleither from another gay student or an openly gay teacher. The options for the typical gay teenager in high school really havent expanded much after 15 years of the contemporary gay movement (p. 15).

1980--1989: IDENTIFICATION OF LESBIAN AND GAY YOUTH AS A POPULATION AT RISK

As the 1980s began, most lesbian and gay educators remained silent in school. Only two states, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, enacted non-discrimination laws that included sexual orientation during the 1980s, though 11 other states would enact similar legislation during the 1990s and early 2000s.2 To date, no federal non-discrimination laws include sexual orientation or gender identity. Moreover, in 1986 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law prohibiting private consensual homosexual sex between adults. The Supreme Court is expected to rule again on the constitutionality of state sodomy laws, but until they are declared unconstitutional, they can be used as a legal rationale for other restrictions on LGBT rights. Christian fundamentalist leaders continued to demonize lesbian and gay teachers as a threat to youth in schools in their programming and literature. Nonetheless, tolerance for lesbian and gay educators increased with the unspoken stipulation that these educators must be discreet about disclosing their sexual orientation and must not challenge traditional expectations of gender expression. Teachers unions played a critical role in this climate change as they adopted official positions supporting the employment rights of lesbian and gay people in schools, and a more broad social recognition of the presence of lesbian and gay people in all walks of life. Educational literature on lesbian and gay issues in schools during the 1980s continued to focus primarily on teachers (Newton & Risch, 1981). However, in an early call for schools to address the needs of lesbian and gay students, Rofes (1984) described the isolation lesbian and gay youth faced in schools in The Advocate, a lesbian and gay magazine:
Gay teens still feel isolated in their homes, neighborhoods, and schools. Its a rare gay teenager who finds

Despite the silence in the educational literature, research journals in medicine, social work, and psychology published articles on lesbian and gay youth during the 1980s. Much of this research documented the psychological and health risks faced by gay and lesbian youth (Martin, 1982; Maylon, 1981; Rigg, 1982; Robertson, 1981). Savin-Williams (1990) characterized this focus as the clinicalization of lesbian and gay adolescents. This emerging literature and most other research on gay and lesbian youth during the 1980s focused on their status as an at risk population. Gay and lesbian youth were identified as at increased risk for suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, low self-esteem, dropping out of school, homelessness, violence, HIV infection, and prostitution (Feldman, 1988; Hetrick & Martin, 1987; Kourany, 1987; Remafedi, 1987). Although schools were identified as a source of isolation and harassment for gay and lesbian youth, this literature focused on the individual psychological and social development and health of lesbian and gay youth. The few articles in education journals tended to address homosexuality as a part of health education curriculum specifically related to AIDS education (Chng, 1980; Price, 1982). In addition to the emergence of research about lesbian and gay youth in the 1980s, young people also began to speak for themselves to describe their experiences in their families and schools (Fricke, 1981; Heron, 1983). These research-based articles and personal accounts provided the impetus for the development of early programs designed to address the needs of lesbian and gay youth in schools. Two early programs broke the silence about addressing the difficulties encountered by students perceived to be lesbian or gay in schools: The Hetrick-Martin Institutes Harvey Milk School in New York City, and Project 10 in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Harvey Milk School, founded in 1984, was the first accredited public high school devoted to serving LGBT and questioning youth who were unable or unwilling to continue their education at their traditional public schools because of harassment and violence. The Harvey Milk School was dedicated to providing lesbian and gay youth with a safe and supportive environment in which they could focus on getting an education. Project 10 was implemented in 1985 as a model program at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles and later expanded to serve the entire Los Angeles County School District. Whereas the Harvey Milk School was an alternative school within the New York City system, Project 10 provided support, education, and counseling services to

HISTORICAL TRENDS IN ADDRESSING LGBT ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

109

lesbian and gay students attending public schools in the Los Angeles Unified District (Uribe & Harbeck, 1992). These two programs represent the first generation of school-based programs designed to address the needs of lesbian and gay students. The mission of the Harvey Milk School and Project 10 was to provide safety, counseling, and education for lesbian and gay students either by removing them from an abusive school environment or providing counseling and support services in the school setting. In the context of their time, these interventions were historically groundbreaking. Although these two efforts were not designed to change schools or address heterosexism3 and gender oppression4 as reflections of larger social justice issues, they were the first programs to seriously address the needs of gay and lesbian youth in schools. As such, they are examples of what Kumashiro (2000) calls Education for the Other. With a few notable exceptions, discussions about lesbian, gay, or bisexual young people in schools were rare in educational literature during the 1980s. The transgender rights movement would not achieve visibility or acceptance as part of the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual movement until the 1990s, and the silence about transgender youth in schools reflected this invisibility. Articles published by Grayson (1988), Rofes (1989), and Sears (1987) are representative of early calls for schools to address the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. In response to the growing awareness of the experiences of gay and lesbian youth in schools, the NEA passed a resolution supporting efforts to protect the rights of lesbian and gay students in schools in 1988. As educators were beginning to acknowledge the presence of lesbian and gay students in schools, Christian fundamentalist political organizations were expressing their opposition to sex education in schools. These events coincided with the emergence of AIDS and the U.S. public perception that the disease was closely connected with homosexuality. As the scope and scale of the AIDS epidemic began to emerge, these ultraconservative organizations capitalized on the social climate of fear and anxiety. The conflicting public views created a volatile environment for school-based discussions of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular (Irvine, 2002). As the 1980s ended, sexuality education, AIDS education, condom availability in schools, and homosexuality in schools all became focal points of hotly contested and emotional debates from local school districts to the U.S. Congress. DEmilio and Freedman (1988) claim that Christian fundamentalist concerns about the sexual behavior of youth became the unifying force in all of the battles against pornography, gay rights, sex education, rock music lyrics, or access to abortion. This debate also opened the door for more researchers and educators to address lesbian and gay issues in schools, with a focus

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

on the experiences of lesbian and gay youth in hostile school environments. In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services released a report on teen suicide. A small section of this report addressed suicide among lesbian and gay youth (Gibson, 1989). The report documented that lesbian and gay youth were two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. Despite the efforts of Secretary of Health and Human Services Lewis Sullivan to suppress this part of the report, it quickly became the cornerstone rationale used by advocates who called for more attention to the needs of lesbian and gay youth in schools. Several subsequent studies of suicide among lesbian and gay youth substantiated the increased this suicide risk (Hershberger & DAugelli, 1995; Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Rotheram-Borus, Hunter, & Rosario, 1994).

1990--2002: FOCUS ON SCHOOLS AS A RISK ENVIRONMENT FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL YOUTH
Two seemingly irreconcilable positions emerged about whether or how lesbian and gay issues should be addressed in schools (Herman, 1997). Christian fundamentalists believed that discussing homosexuality in anything but condemnatory terms promoted deviant and immoral sexual behavior that placed innocent youth at risk. Advocates for lesbian and gay youth argued that schools were sites of violence and isolation for sexual minority youth and that schools must protect their safety (Lugg, 1997). These conflicting positions provided the social context for an explosion of writing and research about lesbian and gay issues in educational journals, education dissertations, and the popular media during the 1990s. Bisexual and transgender began to appear more frequently in these articles, but the focus of the research was most often lesbian and gay youth. A review of several education databases and Lexis Nexus reveals that, during the 1990s, the number of books, educational journal articles, doctoral dissertations, and newspaper articles on lesbian, gay, bisexual (and occasionally, transgender) issues in schools far exceeded what was available the 1980s. By 1992, several books focused on schools as at-risk environments for LGB youth, teachers, and their families (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Casper & Schultz, 1999; Eisen & Hall, 1996; Epstein, 1994; Harbeck, 1992; Harris, 1997; Kissen, 2002; Kumashiro, 2001; Letts & Sears, 1999; Lipkin, 1999; Perrotti & Westheimer, 2001; Unks, 1995; Woog, 1995). Tierney and Dilley (1998) identified four categories of research on LGB issues in education since the 1990s: (1) issues of visibility; (2) studies of the climate of schools; (3) studies identifying ways to improve educational organizations for lesbian and gay people; and (4) studies

110

PAT GRIFFIN AND MATHEW OUELLETT

about lesbian and gay youth. The topics addressed in studies of K-12 schools included the experiences of LGB youth and teachers, LGB issues in curriculum, and the experiences of same-sex parents with school-aged children. This literature focused on K-12 schools as sites of harassment and violence directed toward LGB and gender non-conforming students. A new genre of prescriptive literature called for policy changes, described specific interventions, and outlined legal responsibilities of schools to provide a safe environment for LGBT youth (Rofes, 2000). In addition to addressing the counseling needs and health risks for lesbian and gay youth, this second generation of educational writing focused on the need for school safety for LGB youth, families, and teachers (Perrotti & Westheimer, 2001). This literature advocated increasing acceptance and empathy for LGB students. Emphasizing the rights of lesbian and gay youth to safety in schools, these writers called on school personnel to take responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment for LGB students. Their philosophy was that LGB students, teachers, and families are members of every school and community and they are entitled to the basic civil rights of respect and fair treatment. With this philosophical foundation, the Safe Schools movement quickly became the dominant focus of efforts to address heterosexism in schools. The primary safe school strategies advocated in the literature were: (1) inclusion of sexual orientation in school non-discrimination policies and implementation of state-wide student rights laws; (2) organization of school-based gay-straight student clubs; and (3) delivery of training to school personnel about the safety needs of lesbian and gay students (Governors Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993). In Massachusetts in 1992, Governor William Weld created a Governors Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. The recommendations of this commission led to the development of the first state-sponsored Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Youth in 1993. This Department of Education program provided resources to high schools that were implementing recommendations to make schools safe for lesbian and gay students. In 1993, the Massachusetts legislature also passed an amendment to the student rights law adding sexual orientation to the list of protected categories. On the West coast, a public and private partnership of individuals and organizations formed the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State in 1993 for the purpose of making schools safe for sexual minority youth. As part of their work, the coalition conducted a large research project documenting the problems lesbian and gay youth face in schools (Reis, 1999). Since 1998, the coalition has expanded into a national web-based resource for education and community-based groups. In 1993, the Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (which later became the Gay Lesbian Straight Education

Network [GLSEN]) was founded. This organization was established, first regionally and then nationally, to address LGBT issues in schools and now has local chapters around the United States. GLSEN quickly became a central force as an advocacy, resource, and educational organization to create safe schools for all students regardless of sexual orientation. GLSENs national school climate survey provided information about the educational environment for LGBT youth in several school districts around the United States (Kosciw & Cullen, 2001). Another indicator of the impact of the safe schools movement is that in 1993, the National Association of State Boards of Education amended its non-discrimination statement to include sexual orientation. A landmark legal decision in 1996 (Nabozny v. Podlesny) reinforced the need for schools to take the harassment of LGBT students seriously. Jamie Nabozny, a high school student in Wisconsin, won a million dollar settlement in a lawsuit against his school district which had failed to respond effectively to his familys repeated calls for his protection from harassment and physical violence from schoolmates. Naboznys successful lawsuit was the first of its kind to be based on a violation of a gay students constitutional right to equal protection and due process. It placed school boards and administrators around the nation on notice that they could be held liable for failing to respond to harassment of LGBT youth in school. Two years later, national press coverage of the brutal murder of gay Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard and the mainstream success of the 1999 film Boys Dont Cry (Peirce & Bienen, 1999) illustrated poignant examples of the extreme consequences of anti-gay and transgender violence and provided examples of the need for increased awareness of the need to protect LGBT youth both in and out of schools. By 2002, ten states had enacted safe schools laws or policies prohibiting discrimination and/or harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.5 Students in several high schools around the country successfully defended their right to form school-based gay-straight student clubs under the federal Equal Access Law, and most educators who were targeted for dismissal because of their sexual orientation successfully used the legal system to retain their positions (Simpson, 2003). In opposition to the gains in legal and policy areas described above, Christian fundamentalists continue to fight vociferously every effort to address LGBT issues in K-12 schools. They oppose local programs to make schools safe for LGBT youth and propose state and national legislation to ban any positive discussion of homosexuality in schools. Christian fundamentalists insist that any efforts to address LGBT issues in schools are veiled attempts to promote homosexual sex which, by their definition, is an unhealthy and immoral lifestyle. Reflecting on how LGBT issues have been addressed over the last 40 years, it is clear that significant progress

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

HISTORICAL TRENDS IN ADDRESSING LGBT ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

111

has been made in moving from silence to a focus on school safety. An emerging body of research describes the challenges LGBT youth face in schools and identifies needed changes in school climate, programming, and policy. The current visibility of efforts to create safe school climates for LGBT students, educators, and families in the educational literature and the popular media represent important foundational work for future efforts. When viewed in an historical context, each era identified reflects the changing possibilities and constraints for addressing LGBT issues in schools.

primary identities that imply a universalized experience regardless of race, class, or other identities, the divergent needs of LGBT students can be more effectively addressed (Kumashiro, 2001; Monteiro & Fuqua, 1994; Sears, 1994a). Finally, a social justice perspective on research incorporates alternative methodologies that are sensitive to privileging and othering in the research process as well as in the educational settings in which we conduct our research (Griffiths, 1998). By incorporating this perspective, the research experience not only can provide information about schools but also serve as a catalyst for social change in schools.

2003 AND BEYOND

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014
As educators and researchers build on the foundation of earlier efforts, it is important to ask, What could constitute a third generation of efforts to address LGBT issues in schools? While acknowledging that many schools have not yet broken the silence surrounding LGBT issues and many schools are still not safe places for LGBT youth or adults, it is important to think ahead to build on the foundations laid in the 1980s and 1990s. As a part of this process, educators and researchers also need to reflect on gaps in the emerging educational literature on LGBT issues to identify areas where we need more information.

Gaps in the Research on LGBT Issues in K-12 Schools

Although a body of research on LGBT issues in K-12 schools has begun to develop only in the past 1215 years, a review of this literature reveals several areas where more systematic information is needed. Most of the available research focuses on lesbian and gay students and teachers in the high school context. With few exceptions, studies of gender and sexuality in elementary or middle schools are unavailable (Letts & Sears, 1999). In particular, studies of how normative definitions of family in elementary schools impact the children of same-sex parents are needed (Casper & Schultz, 1999; Sears, 1994b). Research also is needed on the impact of school policy, practice, and curriculum on gender non-conforming children and how homophobic name-calling is used in elementary schools to enforce normative gender expression. Little research investigates intersections of race or class with sexuality (McCready, 2001; Ryan, 2002). We need much more information about the experiences of LGBT youth of color and how racism complicates heterosexism and gender oppression for them. This information is essential for the development of effective school policies and programs that meet the needs of a diverse LGBT student population. The few studies available show how race and class mediate the experiences of LGBT youth of color and working class or poor LGBT youth and are different from the experiences of white and middle class youth (McCready, 2001; Ryan, 2002). This omission leads to a universalizing of white middle class LGBT youth experience and identity and contributes to the invisibility of white privilege among white LGBT youth and allies. Though the T is often added to the LGB in the educational literature, few studies focus in any substantial way on the experiences of transgender youth at any school level. Bochenek and Brown (2001) include interviews with transgender high school students, but this is the exception. Gender oppression is inextricably intertwined with heterosexism and homophobia in schools,

Define a Social Justice Perspective to Address LGBT Issues in Schools

The next generation of school-based initiatives must focus on organizational or systemic change principles that address the larger interrelated nature of systems of injustice and oppression. From this perspective, the school as an organizational structure becomes central to change efforts, in addition to changing the discriminatory behavior of individuals within the school (Capper, 1999; Ouellett, 1996). Educators and researchers taking a social justice perspective strive to identify ways that dehumanizing normative gender and sexuality expectations are enacted and supported through school policy, practice, and programming. Such a framework incorporates the basic goal of providing safety for LGBT youth, but shifts to an examination of the effects of systems of injustice embedded in school organizational policy and practice. Rather than focusing on normalizing LGBT youth, adults, and families, this approach challenges processes of privileging and othering based on conformity to normative gender and sexuality expectations (Kumashiro, 2001; Pinar, 1998; Talburt & Steinberg, 2000). A social justice approach to educational policy and research also examines the intersections and complexities of race, class, and other identity categories in relationship to gender oppression and heterosexism. By rejecting an understanding of gender and sexuality as

112

PAT GRIFFIN AND MATHEW OUELLETT

but educators and researchers must not assume that the experiences of gender non-conforming youth are the same as their LGB peers. School policy and practice with regard to transgender youth need to be guided by useful and accurate information, which to date, we simply do not have. Similarly, few studies examine young lesbian or bisexual womens experiences using sexism as a theoretical lens to highlight the ways in which young womens experience of their sexuality and gender are affected by their sex and their gender expression. Too often, womens experience as sexual minorities is submerged under the term gay, which assumes that males and females have the same experience. As noted earlier, most of the available educational literature on LGBT youth in schools describes their victimization as targets of harassment and violence and the damaging effects of this abuse. This literature documents an important part of their experience. However, it ignores the ways in which LGBT youth and their friends have taken leadership in advocating for safe schools and challenging dominant gender and sexuality norms. The resilience of LGBT youth who refuse to be victims and the motivations of their heterosexual allies is a part of the story about which educators know far less (Russell, Bohan, & Lilly, 2000). Curriculum is one of the most neglected areas in the literature on LGBT issues in schools. Whereas safe school strategies have been implemented in many schools, curriculum inclusion has been a more controversial decision meeting fierce opposition (Irvine, 1997). As a result, few teachers incorporate LGBT topics in the formal curriculum and rarely are these topics part of a required curriculum. Even Massachusetts, with the most comprehensive state-wide program to make schools safe for LGBT students, dropped a recommendation encouraging schools to include LGBT issues in curriculum (Lipkin, 1999). When LGBT issues are included, usually in health or sex education, they are addressed in relationship to AIDS and with a focus on sexual behavior. As a result, few studies focusing on curriculum are available. Investigations of critical pedagogy and curriculum content that challenges normative gender and sexuality in schools could provide vital information about how the introduction of social justice education in schools affects school climate and culture as well as students understanding of gender and sexuality (Bohan & Russell, 1999). Many schools have adopted a variety of interventions designed to make schools safe. Some of the more typical strategies include creating school-based gay-straight student clubs, including sexual orientation and gender identity in school non-discrimination policies, and sponsoring staff development programs for school personnel on LGBT issues. To date, however, we have few systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of these strate-

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

gies or their implementation process (Griffin & Ouellett, 2002; Lee, 2002; Mufioz-Plaza, Quinn, & Rounds, 2002; Szalacha, 2001). An examination of public controversy surrounding opposition to safe schools initiatives or attempts to address heterosexism in schools are other areas in need of further investigation. Case studies of schools in which community-based opposition creates public conflict can provide insights into the potential for identifying common ground among competing perspectives on addressing LGBT issues in schools. We have come a long way from the pervasive silence of the early and mid-twentieth century. We have much further to go to ensure that K-12 schools are places where oppressive norms of gender, sexuality, race, and class are challenged, and all students, staff, and families are welcomed as valuable members of the school community.

NOTES
1. Transgender refers to gender identities and gender expressions that do not conform to normative binary gender expectations for men and women. 2. These states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The laws in the District of Columbia, California, and Rhode Island also include gender identity (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2002). 3. Cultural, institutional, and individual beliefs and practices that assume that heterosexuality is the only normal and acceptable sexual expression or identity. 4. Cultural, institutional, and individual beliefs and practices that discriminate against people who do not conform to dominant, binary expectations for gender identity and expression. 5. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin included sexual orientation in these laws and policies. Two of these states, California and Minnesota, included gender identity or expression in their legislation.

REFERENCES
Blount, J. (2000). Spinsters, bachelors, and other gender transgressors in school employment, 18501900. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 83101. Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York: Human Rights Watch. Bohan, J. S., & Russell, G. M. (1999). Support networks for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. In S. N. Davis, M. Crawford, & J. Sebrechts (Eds.), Coming into her own: Educational success in girls and women (pp. 279294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HISTORICAL TRENDS IN ADDRESSING LGBT ISSUES IN SCHOOLS

113

Brown, D. A. (1975). Counseling the youthful homosexual. School Counselor, 22(5), 325333. Capper, C. (1999). (Homo)sexualities, organizations, and administration: Possibilities for in(queer)y. Educational Researcher, (June-July), 411. Casper, V., & Schultz, S. B. (1999). Gay parents, straight schools: Building communication and trust. New York: Teachers College Press. Chng, C. L. (1980). Adolescent homosexual behavior and the health educator. Journal of School Health, 50(9), 517520. Clift, R. T., Holland, P., & Veal, M. (1990). School context dimensions that affect staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 11(1), 3438. DEmilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 19401970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DEmilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in America. New York: Harper & Row. Eisen, V., & Hall, I. (Eds.). (1996). Special issue: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people and education. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1). Epstein, D. (1994). Challenging lesbian and gay inequalities in education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbians in twentieth-century America. New York: Columbia University Press. Feldman, D. A. (1988). Gay youth and AIDS. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1/2), 185193. Fleming, T. (1978). Teacher dismissal for cause: Public and private morality. Journal of Law and Education, 7(3), 423 430. Fricke, A. (1981). Reflections of a rock lobster: A story about growing up gay. Boston: Alyson. Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In M. Feinlaub (Ed.), Report of the Secretary s Task Force on Youth Suicide (Vol. 3, pp. 110142). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Governors Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. (1993). Making schools safe for gay and lesbian youth: Breaking the silence in schools and families (Education Report). Author: Boston, MA. Grayson, D. (1988). Emerging equity issues related to homosexuality in education. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(4), 132145. Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M. (2002). Going beyond gay-straight alliances to make schools safe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. Amherst, MA: Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. Griffiths, M. (1998). Educational research for social justice: Getting off the fence. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Harbeck, K. M. (Ed.). (1992). Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula. New York: Harrington Park. Harbeck, K. M. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst. Harris, M. B. (Ed.). (1997). School experiences of gay and lesbian youth: The invisible minority. New York: Harrington Park. Herman, D. (1997). The anti-gay agenda: Orthodox vision and the Christian right. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Heron, A. (1983). One teenager in ten: Testimony by gay and lesbian youth. New York: Warner. Hershberger, S. L., & DAugelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 6574. Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(1/2), 2543. A homosexual teachers argument and plea. (1977). Phi Delta Kappan, 59(2), 93-94. Irvine, J. (1997). One generation post Stonewall. In M. Duberman (Ed.), A queer world: The center for gay and lesbian studies reader (pp. 572588). New York: New York University Press. Irvine, J. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Katz, J. (1976). Gay American History. NY: Avon. Kirkendall, L., & Tritsch, L. (1977). Educational implications of the Dade County imbroglio. Phi Delta Kappan, 59(2), 9497. Kissen, R. M. (Ed.). (2002). Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kosciw, J., & Cullen, M. (2001). National school climate survey: The school-related experiences of our nation s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. New York: Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Kourany, R. (1987). Suicide among homosexual adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 13(4), 111117. Kremer, E., Zimpfer, D., & Wiggers, T. (1975). Homosexuality, counseling, and the adolescent male. Personnel and Guidance, 54(2), 9599. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 2554. Kumashiro, K. K. (Ed.). (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School Journal, 85(3), 1326. Letts, W., & Sears, J. (Eds.). (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Levine, J. (2002). Harmful to minors: The perils of protecting children from sex. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Lipkin, A. (1999). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools: A text for teachers, counselors, and administrators. Boulder, CO: Westview. Lugg, C. (1997). No trespassing: U.S. public schools and the border of institutionalized homophobia. Unpublished manuscript, Orlando, FL. Martin, A. (1982). Learning to hide: The socialization of the gay adolescent. Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 5265. Maylon, A. (1981). The homosexual adolescent: Developmental issues and social bias. Child Welfare, 60, 321330. McCready, L. (2001). When fitting in isnt an option, or why black queer males at a California high school stay away from Project 10. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.),

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

114

PAT GRIFFIN AND MATHEW OUELLETT

Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education (pp. 3754). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Monteiro, K., & Fuqua, V. (1994). African-American gay youth: One form of manhood. The High School Journal, 77, 20 36. Mufioz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S., & Rounds, K. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students: Perceived social support in the high school. The High School Journal, 85(4), 5263. Nabozny v. Podlesny. (1996). 92 F. 3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996). National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2002). IssuesCivil Rights [Online]. Available: http:/ /www.ngltf.org/ downloads/civilrightsmap.pdf Newton, D., & Risch, S. (1981). Homosexuality and education: A review of the issue. The High School Journal, 64(5), 191202. Ouellett, M. (1996). Systematic pathways for transformation: School change, multicultural organization development, multicultural education, and lesbian and gay youth. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Identity, 1(4), 273294. Peirce, K., & Bienen, A. (1999). Boys don t cry. K. Pierce (Dir.). Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. Perrotti, J., & Westheimer, K. (2001). When the drama club is not enough: Lessons from the safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. Boston: Beacon Press. Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1998). Queer theory in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Prestine, N. A., & Bowen, C. (1993). Benchmarks of change: Assessing essential school restructuring efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 298319. Price, J. H. (1982). High school students attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of School Health, 52(8), 469474. Rafferty, M. (1977). Should gays teach? Phi Delta Kappan, 59(2), 9192. Reis, B. (1999). They don t even know me: Understanding anti-gay harassment and violence in schools. Seattle: Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State. Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: Psychosocial and medical implications. Pediatrics, 79, 331337. Remafedi, G., Farrow, J., & Deisher, R. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87(6), 869875. Rigg, C. (1982). Homosexuality in adolescence. Pediatric Annals, 11, 826829. Robertson, R. (1981). Young gays. In J. H. D. Richardson (Ed.), The theory and practice of homosexuality (pp. 170176). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rofes, E. (1984, November 27). Youth: New identities, new issues. The Advocate, 3031. Rofes, E. (1989). Opening up the classroom closet: Responding to the educational needs of gay and lesbian youth. Harvard Educational Review, 59(4), 444453. Rofes, E. (2000). Rethinking anti-gay harassment in schools. Democracy and Education, 13(3), 5259. Rotheram-Borus, M., Hunter, J., & Rosario, M. (1994). Suicidal behavior and gay-related stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9(4), 498508.

Russell, G., Bohan, J., & Lilly, D. (2000). Queer youth: Old stories, new stories. In S. L. Jones (Ed.), A sea of stories: The shaping power of narrative in gay and lesbian cultures (pp. 6992). New York: Haworth. Ryan, C. (2002). A review of the professional literature and research needs for LGBT youth of color. Washington, DC: National Youth Advocacy Coalition. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity. New York: Taylor & Francis. Sears, J. (1987). Peering into the well of loneliness: The responsibility of educators to gay and lesbian youth. In A. Molnar (Ed.), Social issues and education: Challenge and responsibility (pp. 79100). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sears, J. (1994a). Black-gay or gay-black: Choosing identities and identifying choices. The High School Journal, 77(1 2), 135157. Sears, J. (1994b). Challenges for educators: Lesbian, gay and bisexual families. The High School Journal, 77(12), 138 154. Simpson, M. (2003). Big legal victories for gay students and teachers. NEA Journal, 20. Szalacha, L. (2001). The sexual diversity climate of Massachusetts secondary schools and the success of the Safe Schools Program for gay and lesbian students. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Talburt, S., & Steinberg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Thinking queer: Sexuality, culture, and education. New York: Peter Lang. Tartagni, D. (1978). Counseling gays in a school setting. School Counselor, 26(1), 2632. Tierney, W., & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research and gay and lesbian studies. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 4971). New York: Erlbaum. Unks, G. (Ed.). (1995). The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. New York: Routledge. Uribe, V., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: The origins of Project 10 and school-based interventions. In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers, and curricula (pp. 928). New York: Haworth. Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. NY: Wiley. Woog, D. (1995). School s out: The impact of gay and lesbian issues on America s schools. Boston: Alyson.

Downloaded by [Western Washington University] at 10:17 11 March 2014

Pat Griffin is a professor in Social Justice Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the co-editor of Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook. Mathew L. Ouellett is associate director of the Center for Teaching, University of Massachusetts Amherst where he works with faculty and teaching assistants on developing skills for teaching and learning in the diverse classroom. His research interests and publications focus on social justice and equity issues in multicultural organization and faculty development. Most recently, he authored the chapter, Teaching for Inclusion in Engaging Large Classes edited by Christine Stanley and Erin Porter (2002).