The purpose of this paper is to explore the myriad of research finding benefits associated with the inclusion of a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) in middle and high school systems, and highlight the importance of having such programs in place to improve the conditions of sexual minority youth – including, but not limited to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students – in school as well as the general school culture. It also discusses the condition under which GSAs are more likely to form, and the role of GSA advisors – teachers that lead the club. It is not an examination of whether GSAs improve the social and school lives of sexual minority youth; all research indicates that this is in fact the case. Rather, it addresses the conflict between setting such programs to improve the conditions of sexual minority youth in middle and high schools, and upholding the autonomy of faith-based schools to uphold their religious freedoms to discourage and ban the formation of GSAs and similar programs. This issue was raised in an article in Xtra, a Canadian Gay and Lesbian news, that commented on the recent move by the Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) to ban GSAs. Their reason for the ban was not that they felt GSAs were ineffective at helping sexual minority youth, but that it went against the teachings of their religion. Rather, they promote the formation of groups that celebrate all forms of student diversity, including sexual orientations. However, the article brings up the point that this is insufficient to properly support sexual minority youth, and does not effectively shield them from bullying and sexual harassment. Placing sexual minority youth into a club with racial minority, disabled, and otherwise marginalized youth fails to emphasize the concerns specific to sexuality, and the homophobic bullying they face that is qualitatively different from that of bullying to other youth groups.
The HCDSB, like other religious groups, does not criticize GSAs, or label them ineffective. Instead, they promote other forms of diversity groups to create a more positive, accepting school culture. A considerable amount of research exists showing the importance of adequate supporting programs for sexual minority youth, all of it heralding the success of GSAs, specifically. No such empirical research exists showing the benefit of general diversity programs, implying that they do not address the bullying and harassment issues faced by sexual minority youth nearly as effectively as dedicated GSAs.
Countless studies have shown the difficulties sexual minority youth face in school. Gruber & Fineran (2008) report that while bullying is much more common than sexual harassment, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning (GLBQ, or LGBQ) students were both bullied and sexually harassed significantly more. Bullying was more common than harassment, but boys faced higher levels of both bullying and harassment. These types of assault more commonly occurred in physical form (e.g. punching, kicking, inappropriate touching) in boys than in girls, who used more verbal forms (e.g. threats of violence, threats to disclose orientation to others, insults). Similarly, D’Augelli et al. (2002) found that more than half of sexual minority youth surveyed had experienced verbal abuse in high school. In accord with the Gruber & Fineran (2008) study, the researchers found that males were significantly more likely to be physically assaulted, and reported being more afraid of verbal and physical attacks. They reported feeling more unsafe at school as a result of these fears. Sexual minority students as well as heterosexual observed significantly more instances where gay or bisexual males were verbally abused, threatened, assaulted, or shunned in contrast to lesbian and bisexual women, reinforcing the stereotype that female same-sex interactions are more acceptable. These findings also suggest that there is a need for a safe space for sexual minority youth, as they encounter verbal and physical harassment in levels consistently higher than those faced by their heterosexual peers (Birkett et al, 2009). In the study by Birkett et al (2009), homophobic teasing was found to be worst for students that were questioning their sexuality, was significantly less harmful to self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, and was further significantly less for heterosexual students. The researchers also found significantly more nonwhite (African American, Hispanic, Native American, Hmong, and non-Hmong Asian) than white students identified as LGBQ The finding that more boys are more likely to report a minority sexual orientation, and to question their sexual orientation, complements Gruber & Fineran’s (2008) findings of males being at higher risk for bullying and harassment. The Birkett et al study (2009) also brings up an interesting concept that youth questioning their sexuality are most at risk; those who have the opportunity to accept and come to terms with their sexualities report better resilience to this teasing, while those who linger in the questioning phase are face increased vulnerability to assault from their peers. D’augelli et al (2002) further found in their poll of sexual minority youth that only 13% had come out, and were completely disclosing about their sexuality, while 46% of those surveyed were entirely “closeted”, meaning they self-identified as non-heterosexual, but had not disclosed this with anyone else.
Up to this point, consideration has only been paid to demographics and frequency of assault. However, a number of studies have further traced these rates to adverse health and academic effects on the victimized students. As already noted, D’Augelli (2002) found boys to report higher levels of fear for their physical safety due to verbal and physical harassment. Another finding from the study may explain this phenomenon, reporting that boys both become aware of same-sex attractions, and begin to identify as gay, bisexual, or questioning at younger ages. This lengthens the amount of time boys spend as a sexual minority during school years, whereas girls that tend to “come out” later may avoid as many years of teasing or harassment. Gruber & Fineran (2008) identified a number of negative health effects associated with bullying and harassment: specifically, they examined the impact of bullying and sexual harassment on the victim’s self-esteem, mental health, physical health, trauma symptoms, and drug use. The study found that GLBQ students generally presented with more negative effects in all categories except for drug use, where their heterosexual peers tended to use drugs in higher percentages. Bullying and harassment were found to have especially large significant effects on physical health and trauma symptoms for both LGBQ and heterosexual students, while self-esteem and substance abuse were less strongly associated. When LGB and heterosexual students were placed in a group separate from questioning students, however, results showed that questioning students had the highest drug use of all three groups (Birkett et al, 2009). Sexual harassment in the Gruber & Fineran study (2009) was found to more strongly correlate to all negative health effects except worsened physical health, which more significantly related to bullying. Furthermore, sexual harassment served as a predictor variable for poorer physical and mental health outcomes, increased substance abuse, and higher levels of trauma symptoms. Again, when students questioning their study were treated as a separate group in the Birkett et al study (2009), the reported significantly higher levels of truancy either because they felt unsafe at school, or lack of academic motivation. They also found higher levels of suicidal ideation and depression in the questioning group, and when positivity of school climate was factored in (low, medium, and high positivity towards LGBQ youth), questioning youth showed significantly higher levels for negative outcomes (i.e. truancy, drug use, depression) in the low positivity climates. This finding builds on the apparent vulnerability of students questioning sexuality, and indicates their need for support programs in either coming out as a sexual minority, or understanding their same-sex attractions are not indicative of a same-sex orientation.
While all the research presented thus far has discussed that LGBQ youth are significantly more at risk of being assaulted at school, a considerable amount of research also exists to show conditions that reduce this verbal and physical violence. These studies point out Gay Straight Alliances as driving forces behind changing school culture, and promoting safe environments for sexual minority youth. In a study conducted by Walls et al (2010), significantly fewer queer youth reported dropping out of school in schools that had a GSA. Furthermore, if the students were members of their school’s GSA, they were significantly less likely than nonmembers to drop out. Having an active GSA in place did not reduce the amount of bullying and victimization of sexual minority youth because of sexual orientation, however, the sexual minority youth at schools with GSAs reported feeling safer, were more likely to know a safe adult at their school with whom they could address any concerns relating to sexuality, reported lower levels of truancy, and overall had significantly higher grade point averages. Therefore, while the presence of a GSA did not reduce the incidence of victimization and harassment, it did provide support for sexual minority youth to better cope with this assault, and correlated with improved academic achievement. Being a member of the GSA at one’s school did not lead to a significantly different result for any the outcome variables listed above – with the exception of school dropout rates. Simply having a GSA was enough to promote safe spaces for sexual minority youth. Walls et al (2010) also found that sexual minority students at schools with a GSA cited feeling safer at school as a reason for not missing class in the past 30 days.
Russell et al (2009) conducted a study to focus more specifically on sexual minority youth that were members of their school’s GSA, and their qualitative differences from nonmember sexual minority students. Russell lists three sources of power that GSA members reported experiencing. First, GSA members felt powerful in having knowledge of issues in sexuality, and resources to help other students struggling with their sexuality and combat ignorance with homophobic or uneducated students at their school. This particular expression of power ties to Walls et al’s finding (2010) that students at schools with a GSA were more likely to know a safe adult; GSA members were also more likely to be aware of community resources, and safe places outside of school to discuss concerns and topics within human sexuality. The second source of power Russell et al (2009) found was the personal empowerment GSA members gained through their membership. GSA members cited being able to express themselves, having a voice to influence others, and empathizing with other queer students helped students feel safe in schools, and is associated with lower levels of truancy and dropout (Walls et al, 2010). Finally, Russell et al (2009) indicated a third source of power derived from GSA membership being the relational empowerment that sexual minority youth felt in feeling like part of a larger community, providing social support to their own queer network, and in creating a legacy for future members of the GSA at their school. By creating this network in the gay community, students involved in their school’s GSA became more actively involved in the expression of their sexuality, and provide support for their peers. Being involved in a GSA did not reduce incidence of bullying or harassment; it provided students with resources and information to achieve academically and maintain health.
When a school considers forming a Gay Straight Alliance, it requires the participation of a teacher or staff personnel to sit as an advisor for the meetings, and act as a guide for the students involved. The willingness of a teacher to create a GSA, or respond positively to a student request to for a GSA, depends on a variety of factors. A study by Fetner & Kush (2008) identified several external factors that determined the likelihood of a school to be an early adopter of a GSA (or adopt one at all), while Valenti & Campbell (2009) examined concerns staff faced, and their motivation for heading the GSA. Fetner & Kush (2008) found that, as predicted, GSAs were present in a higher percentage of schools located in urban – rather than rural – areas, in regions that previously showed support for gay rights, in states with antidiscrimination policies, and in communities with a greater number of organizations that supported gay rights and GSAs. They also identified larger schools as being more likely to have a GSA, and schools that served poorer communities and students had a GSA less often. In a related study, Watson et al (2010) found that sociocultural factors such as community resources were generally supportive of GSA formation, while many cultural norms persist to make the discussion of sexuality taboo. A main concern for potential GSA advisors also found in this study is that individual factors like own sexual orientation, and not knowing enough about LGBT issues, hindered their perceived ability to run a GSA. Other research agrees with this, citing concerns from current GSA advisors such as worrying about their job security, and being labeled by the community as a “recruiter” to the “gay lifestyle” (Watson et al, 2010). Concerns also arose for their potential to be tenured, and when they weren’t themselves queer, teachers felt less credible a mentor and advisor. However, being married assuaged the majority of these concerns, and offered them more protection from parental or administrative criticism. Despite these concerns, Valenti & Campbell (2009) found two key factors for motivating teachers to help with their school’s GSA. First, GSA advisors explained that they felt protective attitudes toward the students involved in the GSA, and felt a need to protect sexual minority youth. Many could empathize with the students thanks to their own coming out experience, but even those advisors that did not identify as queer enjoyed being a support system. The majority of GSA advisors interviewed in this study also reported feeling a personal connection to LGBT youth and related political issues, due to either having LGBT friends, family, or getting to know LGBT students at their school. These studies show that barriers exist to the formation of a GSA anywhere, but depending on regionality and community values, these barriers may be exacerbated.
Watson et al (2010) examined the various factors that either helped or hindered GSA advisors in their role, and found that these factors also interact with their motivation to be advisors. The potentially negative individual factors found in the study, explained above, focus mainly on the individual perception of the role by the advisor. However, sociocultural and school-based factors also played critical roles in advisors’ advocacy efforts. Both of these factors have helpful and harmful sub-factors that influence GSA advisors. School-based sub-factors include administrators, staff and personnel, nonqueer students, and school-based resources. Administrators, personnel, and students were shown to either accept or reject the formation of a GSA, and either supported or discriminated the advisor in response. School-based resources were generally helpful, as were community resources – a key component of sociocultural factors (Watson et al, 2010). Other sociocultural factors included parents, public policy, and cultural norms. Norms were generally seen as hindering to advisors when they were conservative, while parents and public policy were more mixed. As with the regional effects found in Fetner & Kush’s study (2008), parents tended to reflect the level of acceptance and diversity seen in policies. Therefore, advisors face similar challenges and opposition to their role as members of GSAs do, as well as al sexual minority youth in middle and high schools.
Gay Straight Alliances are unquestionably positive support programs for sexual minority youth, and their effectiveness is demonstrated in a wide range of research. However, their inclusion in schools funded by private religions that do not condone same-sex relationships remains a contentious issue. While some schools maintain that GSAs are inappropriate groups for the school, they promote alternative diversity groups. After reviewing literature documenting the need for – and unique challenges faced by – GSAs, I argue that they are a necessary support program in schools, not to necessarily end homophobic bullying and sexual harassment, but to educate students, provide a safe space for sexual minority youth, and help them with mental, physical, and academic health. Without a program designed to specifically address these three concerns in sexual minority youth, they display many negative health and truancy outcomes. From the perspective of GSA advisors, committing to a GSA is most successful when the school and community are supportive of the program. GSAs run in less supportive environments face harsher criticism, and serve their main purpose of sexual minority youth aid less successfully. The teachers that choose to become advisors become personally involved, as well. In these less supportive environments, teachers can risk being ostracized by their peers, and potentially losing their positions or chance at being tenured. Increased support would not only improve the conditions of students in schools, but that of teachers as well. No imperial evidence exists that examines the benefits of general diversity programs, nor has any research been conducted that shows an improvement in attitudes toward sexual diversity. Furthermore, GSAs do not actively promote sexual activity in their groups, and can function within the teachings of the Catholic Church – a group that currently maintains a ban on GSAs. By not allowing GSAs to form, these groups continue the subjugation of their sexual minority staff and students, ignoring all evidence that suggests GSAs would lead to an overall improved school culture.
Word count: 2,875
No comments:
Post a Comment