Moving beyond the safety zone: a staff development approach to anti-heterosexist education.

• Author: Hirschfeld, Scott

March 1999--A sixteen-year-old Arkansas sophomore reports receiving harassing notes in his locker. One of his teachers recognizes the handwriting as that of a substitute teacher. School administrators do not investigate the substitute's behavior, but instead question the student's sexual orientation and blame him for being too open about his identity. The principal says he has to call the boy's mother because he "complained about a staff member" and suggests that the boy see a therapist. (1)

February 2001--On Valentine's Day, a history teacher in Indiana scratches the printed message off a candy heart, writes the word "fag" on it, and gives it to an eighth-grade boy in front of his fellow students. A month later, the teacher agrees to "retire early." The superintendent refuses to expand the district's harassment and discrimination policies to include sexual orientation. He also declines an offer by a civil rights organization to provide free teacher training on harassment stating, "I don't know how someone in New York understands what goes on in Crown Point, Indiana." (2)

April 2001--Orlando, Florida area students visit their local state representative Allen Trovillion, R-Winter Park, who tells them they are throwing their lives away and causing the downfall of the country: "The Scripture says that no homosexual will see the Kingdom of God, and I can't put it much straighter than that ... God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and he is going to destroy you and a lot of others." (3)

1. INTRODUCTION

   Reports of peer-on-peer harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ("LGBT") students, though profoundly disturbing, come as no surprise at a time when acts of hatred of all kinds are on the rise. (4) When the perpetrators of bias are adults to whom we entrust our youth, however, the reaction can be no less than astonishment. Most families send their children to school with the supposition that the adult community will protect and nurture their young students. Most schools, in fact, hold up safety and security as their primary goals along with academic achievement. When it comes to the well being of their LGBT students and families, though, too many schools fall short of the mark.

   According to a recent National School Climate Survey, 84% of LGBT students hear homophobic remarks like "faggot" or "dyke" at school. More than 23% of LGBT students report hearing homophobic comments from faculty or school staff, and 82% say that faculty or staff never or only sometimes intervene when homophobic remarks are made in their presence. Further, 69% of LGB students and 90% of transgender students report feeling unsafe in their schools. In fact, 31% of LGBT students report having missed at least one day of school in the prior month because they felt unsafe. Since only California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin address sexual orientation in their education laws--and only California addresses gender identity--LGBT students often have no recourse when they are victims of anti-LGBT harassment.

   Studies examining the personal attitudes of educators toward homosexuality found that 75% of prospective teachers held negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. (5) Seventy-seven percent said they would not encourage a class discussion on homosexuality, and 85% opposed integrating gay and lesbian themes into their curricula. (6) Sixty-seven percent of guidance counselors harbored negative feelings toward gay and lesbian students (7) and 20% reported that counseling a student concerning gay issues would not be a gratifying experience. (8)

   A recent Gallup poll found that 40% of the respondents oppose hiring LGBT teachers in elementary schools. (9) Even the small minority of educators who feel comfortable addressing LGBT issues face considerable pressure to remain quiet about their viewpoints and their sexual orientations. (10) It comes as no surprise, then, that 40% of students report an absence of teachers and school personnel supportive of LGBT students. (11)

   There are many reasons for these numbers. Like the rest of the world, most teachers and administrators were raised and schooled in a society that considered homosexuality a sickness--a topic unsuitable for discussion in both classroom and faculty room. (12) Though mainstream attitudes have shifted in recent years, (13) LGBT issues remain largely taboo in school communities. (14)

   The impact on LGBT youth is profound. One study indicates that 83% of LGBT youth experience some form of harassment or violence in school. (15) LGB teens are more than twice as likely to be suicidal as their straight counterparts and more likely to be depressed and abuse drugs and alcohol. (16) Some students who report same-sex attraction also report lower grade point averages and greater difficulty getting along with other students, paying attention in class, and finishing homework. (17)

   Straight students do not remain unscathed either. In school settings where anti-LGBT bigotry goes unchallenged, all students are significantly restricted. Homophobia and sexism confine students to rigid gender role norms and expectations, inhibiting many from exploring and expressing their creative, athletic, and intellectual sides. Environments like this present narrow conceptions of humanity, stunting the minds and psychosexual development of all.

   Such atmospheres can be breeding grounds for the fear and ignorance that fuel teasing during the early grades and violent acts by the time students reach high school. Statistics show that the majority of hate crimes are committed by white teenage males. (18) In a nationwide study of lesbian and gay hate crimes, 97% of hate crime offenders were male. (19)

   Despite the preponderance of character education (20) and anti-bullying programs in American classrooms today, (21) it is evident that schools are not safe and affirming places for a significant number of students and their families. It is therefore essential to question the nature and effectiveness of the trainings and interventions schools use--if they use any at all--to build secure and inclusive learning communities.

   To understand why current efforts fail to effectively address anti-LGBT bias, we must pose several fundamental questions. To what extent can schools impart the values of human equality and diversity if adults in the school community are not fully invested in these values themselves? Why do many educators maintain high degrees of personal discomfort and prejudice with regard to homosexuality? How can a deeper understanding of prejudice inform training efforts seeking to reduce anti-LGBT bias and create more affirming school climates for LGBT students? Until these questions are thoughtfully considered, all attempts to implement LGBT inclusive policies and practices will enjoy superficial success at best, and could potentially escalate the resentment and confusion already felt by so many educators.

2. THE ROOTS OF PREJUDICE

   Early research on prejudice has its roots in psychodynamic theory, which views prejudice as reactive and unconscious rather than socialized. (22) The unconscious mind was believed to harbor repressed hostility that may be expressed to varying degrees in order to enhance one's sense of self. (23) Those who are different may then become the targets of aggression. This sociocentrism may help to bolster a personal sense of identity based on belongingness that includes ethnicity, nationality, religion, ownership of goods, and class consciousness. (24)

   Traditional theories on prejudice emphasize the role of family, and define prejudice as the displacement of hostility aimed at parents, repressed, and then unleashed on out-groups who in some way represent acceptable targets for the aggression. (25) This traditional view of bias is significant, because it defines prejudice as a permanent or semi-permanent personality trait. The implication is that prejudice is a fixed and unchangeable part of the individual, altered only through psychological intervention. This framework places little, if any, responsibility on other community institutions for sharing the work of prejudice reduction or character education.

   This concept of prejudice was not challenged until the mid-1950s. At about the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the notion of "separate but equal," (26) Gordon Allport published his landmark study, The Nature of Prejudice, which rejected the idea of prejudice as being inborn or fixed. (27) Allport's work led many theorists to highlight cognitive based models for understanding prejudice. While prejudice may be influenced by social forces, it is primarily a mechanism by which individuals make sense of their environment. Since it is impossible to take in all the new information with which we are constantly bombarded, our brains are hardwired to select, interpret and assimilate only certain pieces of information as new knowledge. (28) One's attitude toward difference, then, is determined by the interaction of biological programming, information already absorbed, and the accentuation of new information. (29) According to this model, efforts at reducing bias should focus on cognitive development in addition to the social and emotional context of prejudice. (30)

3. HETEROSEXIST PREJUDICE

   Though much research has explored prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, and religion, little attention has been devoted to bias rooted in attitudes toward sexual orientation and gender identity/ expression. This lack of attention is characteristic of the practices that surround these issues, and the tendency of many to view anti-LGBT bias as an acceptable form of prejudice. While racism and sexism remain divisive and destructive forces in our society, most Americans refrain from outward expressions of these prejudices. (31) Many, however, see no reason to conceal their anti-LGBT sentiments. (32)

   Homophobia, a term coined by psychologist George Weinberg in 1972, refers to...