Supporting LGBT students through educational programs and policy

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Students

In today's educational environment, students who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) often find it hard to cope in their learning environment. LGBT students must endure an abnormal amount of stress throughout adolescence and young adulthood. According to Khayatt (1994), it is quite normal for LGBT students to experience harassment, isolation from their social group, the feeling of marginalization, and an inability to speak openly about their sexual/gender orientation. LGBT students have developed a myriad of ways of coping with the pressures of fitting in. Some of these methods have proven to be self-destructive, however. Up to thirty percent of all teenage suicides are believed to be LGBT. When LGBT students are not doing violence to themselves, they often become the target of attacks of others in their peer group. In the following study, I will begin with reviewing some of the significant literature relating to the subject of LGBT students. I will then go on to analyze the theoretical implications that such concepts hold for the educational environment, while also analyzing key educational psychology concepts that have the potential to be employed as a means of empowering both students and educators. Theory only goes so far, however, so a key part of my study will be an examination of the ways in which such theoretical paradigms have been employed effectively in educational environments in the form of programs such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Finally, I will draw conclusions from the discussion of these issues that can hopefully be used for constructing a future pedagogical program that addresses the needs of LGBT students and celebrates sexual diversity, rather than stigmatizing it.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students

I. Introduction

In today's educational environment, students who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) often find it hard to cope in their learning environment. Despite the many social and educational advances made in our multicultural era, the vast majority of educational institutions and classrooms still operate out of the assumption that all students are heterosexual. Heterosexist and homophobic thinking tend to be predominate not only in the way the curriculum is designed and presented to students, but in social activities such as the prom, hallway interactions, school sports, extracurricular academic activities, physical education, and class arrangements. While the larger culture seems to have made great strides in accepting sexual minorities in recent years, what with a proliferation of representations of LGBT sexuality in popular culture, it should follow that the school systems would follow and begin to integrate an LGBT positive awareness into the curriculum. This has not been the case; schools are by and large silent on the matter of non-heterosexual identities. According to Khayatt (1994), systematic silence on LGBT matters in schools tends to take on two forms: LGBT-related topics are absent from the curriculum, and information about LGBT sexuality is either distorted or suppressed on an active level. Not only is the subject of LGBT sexuality often ignored altogether in educational environments - as thought it did not exist, there is often not even information available on the subject in the offices of guidance counselors. The subject is frequently omitted from all school curricula - even health classes, where the topic of human sexuality is traditionally dealt with. Where homosexuality is dealt with, it is frequently only shown in a negative light, such as in association with diseases like HIV and AIDS. Furthermore, there is an active refusal on the part of schools to allow LGBT speakers to address students. In some school systems, it is illegal for teachers or any other school employees to speak openly about their own LGBT orientation.

This is all the more remarkable, when nearly half the adult population has reportedly engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual activities (Sears 1991). It has been estimated that up to fifteen percent of the population in the United States is exclusively lesbian or gay. This means that, while homosexuality either has or will personally affect about half of all students' lives, a large minority will come to identify as exclusively gay or lesbian in the course of their lives, if they do not already - to say nothing of the unique situation that transgender students must endure throughout the turbulent period of adolescence and young adulthood. With this in mind, it is thus necessary for educators to begin asking themselves how they might go about addressing this issue, since it affects a significant portion of the student body. In order to dispel the myth that certain sexual and gender identities are "abnormal," it is necessary to break the silence on issues relating to LGBT students.

LGBT students must endure an abnormal amount of stress throughout adolescence and young adulthood. According to Khayatt (1994), it is quite normal for LGBT students to experience harassment, isolation from their social group, the feeling of marginalization, and an inability to speak openly about their sexual/gender orientation. What is more, the consequences of such social pressure can be severe. LGBT teenagers are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than non-LGBT teenagers. Up to thirty percent of all teenage suicides are believed to be LGBT. A third of all LGBT teenagers claim to have attempted suicide (Sedgwick 1993).

When LGBT students are not doing violence to themselves, they often become the target of attacks of others in their peer group. Homophobic jokes, remarks, and attacks are common (Van de Ven 1995). What is worse, teachers and school administrators tend to condone such expressions of violence towards LGBT students by ignoring them, rather than punishing the offenders.

LGBT students have developed a myriad of ways of coping with the pressures of fitting in. Some of these methods have proven to be self-destructive, however. For example, a common means of coping for gay and lesbian students is to pretend to be heterosexual through dating members of the opposite sex or even joining in with their peers' homophobic remarks and behavior (Smith 2007). By acting in such a fashion, however, LGBT students often do further damage to their self-esteem. Such "passing" can also hinder the development of a student's social skills. Finally, LGBT students hinder the growth of peer relationships by pretending to be something they are not (Zera 1992).

In the following study, I will begin with reviewing some of the significant literature relating to the subject of LGBT students. I will then go on to analyze the theoretical implications that such concepts hold for the educational environment, while also analyzing key educational psychology concepts that have the potential to be employed as a means of empowering both students and educators. Theory only goes so far, however, so a key part of my study will be an examination of the ways in which such theoretical paradigms have been employed effectively in educational environments in the form of programs such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Finally, I will draw conclusions from the discussion of these issues that can hopefully be used for constructing a future pedagogical program that addresses the needs of LGBT students and celebrates sexual diversity, rather than stigmatizing it. I hope to show that an educational project that encompasses the needs of all students, regardless of their orientation, is preferable to one that is based on silence and exclusion.

II. Studies on LGBT Students

It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that comprehensive studies on LGBT students began to emerge. Aware of the stigmatization that LGBT students commonly face (a stigmatization that ultimately results in suicide, dropping out, low self-esteem, health risks, substance abuse, etc.), Uribe and Harbeck set about instituting and documenting the affects of PROJECT 10, a program at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles targeted towards lesbian, gay, and bisexual teenagers (1992). In their study, Uribe and Harbeck first implemented PROJECT 10 in the 1985-1986 school year. The program was successful enough to be implemented subsequently throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District, and a number of other similar programs have since followed in its wake. In the study, fifty self-identified "homosexual" students were interviewed as a means of clarifying both their experience in educational settings and their special needs. A questionnaire was also circulated among the larger student body as a means of charting the reactions of students to PROJECT 10 as an institutionalized exploration of human sexual expression and emotional attachment. The authors concluded that much damage had been done by the institutionalization of homophobia, which they cited not merely in instances of violence and harassment by fellow students, but by silence on the issue of homosexuality from teachers, counselors, and administrators. In their first survey, Uribe and Harbeck also discovered that many gay male students often experienced their first sexual encounters in a "date rape" scenario, and felt that they did not have anyone at school to whom they could seek counseling on this issue. Lesbian students faced the problem of often being told that their sexual orientation was merely "a phase" when they attempted to come out to loved ones, teachers, or young people in their peer groups. In their second survey, the authors found that the majority of students felt that PROJECT 10 had been positive and beneficial - not merely for LGBT students, but for the overall educational environment.

This resonates with one of the conclusions reached by Sedgwick (1993) when she offered her first class in gay and lesbian studies at Amherst College in 1986. While she initially designed the course for the five to six students she believed would show up, she was quite shocked when, on the first day of class, sixty-five students showed up, most of whom identified as straight. While Sedgwick is writing as a literary scholar, rather than a social scientist, her comments on pedagogy, as one of the most important proponents of queer theory since its emergence in the academy in the 1980s, are pertinent here. Sedgwick notes that it is fairly common in the United States for teachers to be fired for even inferring that LGBT people have a right to existence and equality, thus cementing the institutionalized silence that serves a homophobic and heterosexist agenda. She also points to statistics that state that twenty-six percent of all gay men have to leave home as students as a result of their sexuality. She also notes that nearly a quarter of all homeless youth in the United States are LGBT. In addition to the systematic homophobia mentioned above, Sedgwick also points out that LGBT students are kept isolated from LGBT adults who may be able to serve as mentors and role models, were it not for the homophobic idea that such adults may have a negative influence or even prey sexually on LGBT youth. Finally, Sedgwick criticizes the rampant denial found in the world of education as well as government, which surfaces in the form of defunding research on adolescent sexual behavior and refusing to fund programs in schools that might provide students with information on LGBT identity, as well as HIV prevention. What is more, many academics that are involved in research that may be of beneficial use to both educators and LGBT students find their work to be stigmatized as a result of the attack on "political correctness" by both the right wing and anti-intellectual leftists.

More recent research has shown that, while some states have taken steps to instill legislation to protect LGBT students from harassment and bullying on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, school systems across the nation continue to take steps to insure that LGBT-related issues are banned from the curriculum (Kosciw and Diaz 2005). What is more, homophobic language continues to resonate through American school hallways as a means of insulting LGBT students; unfortunately, teacher and staff members are a lot less likely intervene in such scenarios than they are when racist or sexist language is used. What is more, nearly a fifth of the LGBT youth surveyed in Kosciw and Diaz (2005) reported hearing teachers and school staff members make homophobic remarks themselves. Over a third of all students surveyed had been physically harassed in the previous year owing to their sexual orientation, while over a quarter had experienced harassment as the result of their gender expression. What is more, such harassment and stigmatization has a visible affect on students' academic performance; many of the students surveyed reported having skipped at least one day of school in the previous month out of fear for their safety. LGBT students are twice as likely to drop out of high school or not go on to college after graduation. The severity of LGBT students' harassment inevitably corresponds with their level of academic achievement. The vast majority of students - over 80% - reported that they had never been taught about LGBT history, people, and events. What is more, the presence of LGBT clubs in the school tended to reduce the amount of absentees among the LGBT student body, while fostering a sense of belonging to the school community.

Smith (2007) notes the importance of fostering a sense of belonging in schools, largely owing to the fact that LGBT students have traditionally been excluded from the broader gay subculture, which is adult-oriented and thus afraid of promoting the image of seducing young people into a lifestyle that has been by and large condemned by society at large throughout its history. Critics often accuse LGBT supportive teachers of filling "advocacy" roles; Smith suggests that teachers find ways of being supportive in a way that is informationally and emotionally fulfilling, rather than "advocating" for any one position. Smith suggests a five-fold solution in addressing the problems posed by the current educational system. First, he suggests that teachers familiarize themselves with the numerous print and video resources available detailing the lives and trials of both LGBT students and teachers. He then suggests that teachers take an active role in condemning negative and homophobic remarks, while going a step further and taking advantage of such moments to elicit classroom discussion on issues of sexual diversity. Third, he suggests that teachers actively campaign their schools to allow pamphlets and other printed information regarding LGBT issues to be made readily available to all students. Fourth, teachers should be wiling to integrate LGBT issues into their curriculum, while also giving LGBT students the chance to socialize with like-minded peers and acknowledging such students' needs for positive role models and reinforcement. Finally, teachers must be willing to listen to LGBT students' needs with an open mind and to offer positive suggests that are free of judgment. In addition, teachers should familiarize themselves with outside resources in the local community that might be able to help LGBT students in those events where the teacher is not in a position to do so.

IV. Theory in Action: Gay Straight Alliances

The presence of Gay Straight Alliances and similar organizations in schools has been proven to have a positive effect on the educational development of LGBT students (Kosciw and Diaz 2005). Such organizations embody Ball's community-based organizations, which play a central role in the education of minorities. What is vital about Gay Straight Alliances, however, is that they reach out not only to the LGBT members of a student body, but also to straight allies, thus forming a non-exclusionary bond in which diversity is celebrated, rather than isolated. One must also take into consideration Ball's prescriptions for "teaching for liberation," which infers, in this context, the inclusion of LGBT issues into the curriculum. Just as the multicultural movement has embraced the inclusion of African-American, Asian-American, Native American, and Latin American content into school curricula, so the time has come to simultaneously celebrate sexual diversity through learning. It is only when this phase has been completed that students will be able to effectively learn to utilize the type of critical consciousness that Ball's pedagogical method proposes.

Gay Straight Alliances seem to have a positive effect on the identity formation of LGBT students, as well as other students who are supportive of the cause or who themselves might be uncertain about issues relating to sexual identity; Gay Straight Alliances provide a space where those issues may be resolved in a constructive, supportive, community-based atmosphere. As we have shown in our discussion of Erikson's theory of identity, the major crisis that LGBT students have to face has its roots in the environment (i.e. Bronfenbrenner's Macrosystem.) Gay Straight Alliances have proven to be effective in healing the rifts that arise in the school environment as a result of system-mandated silence on issues of sexual and gender identificatory diversity. Under the social cognitive theory of learning, the aggressive behavior that results from the development of such social norms comes to be seen as a norm itself. Gay Straight Alliances help provide LGBT and heterosexual students with the language to challenge such behavior, and thus teaches students to question displays of open hostility towards students who, for whatever reason, are perceived to be "different." In short, Gay Straight Alliances provide all students with tools for celebrating diversity, rather than continuing to stigmatize students who are unable to fit in. They also play a significant role in eradicating the problems that LGBT students have to face, as elaborated in the first two sections of this paper.

V. Conclusions

As the conclusions reached by both Sedgwick (1993) and Uribe and Harbeck (1992) stipulate, it is not just LGBT students who benefit from an integration of LGBT issues into the classroom and wider educational system. Straight-identified students are also in need of clarification of many of the issues related to sexual diversity. Thus, it is vital not to view the LGBT "problem" as being merely that of LGBT students; it is in fact the problem of everyone in the educational system - from administrators on down to students.

One of the major problems we have come across in the course of our study is the notion of definition, which tends to effect all of the issues discussed in the course of this paper. Indeed, Sedgwick (1993) addresses this issue by suggesting that an all-encompassing term such as "queer" might be more useful and inclusionary of those who do not fit the labels "lesbian," "gay," "bisexual," or "transgender," yet do not identify as heterosexual either. This is particularly apt for high school students, most of who will be submerged in the identity crisis and undecided or uncertain as to their sexual identity. For this reason the letter Q - for "questioning" - is often added on to LGBT groups in order to denote those students for whom the matter of sexual identity has yet to be resolved.

Another problem is the apparent dearth of work on transgender students, which is a major issue since transgender students are often the times of even more severe institutionalized forms of harassment and falsely accused of being mentally ill or worse. I believe that this is largely connected to the problem of definitionality, as "transgender" can boast a multitude of meanings. There are some individuals for whom transgenderism is mainly a form of play or performance, and then there are those who identify with the opposite gender in their day-to-day lives, sometimes to the extent of desiring a sex-change operation. There are those who feel that the gender they were assigned at birth is either completely false, or at least an incomplete representation of their true selves. Then there are those for whom identification as "purely male" or "purely female" seems restrictive; they may identify as both or as neither one of these.

Gay Straight Alliances provide a positive setting where discussions of the meaning of such terms can be discussed and debated - but this is not enough. In order for LGBT students to overcome the severe psychological effects of stigmatization, it is necessary for LGBT issues to be integrated into the core curriculum of schools in every subject, and from an early age.