Why LGBT Issues Matter in Education

Why LGBT issues matter in education Gabrielle Richard, PhD To reference this document: Richard, G. (2015). “Why LGBT issues matter in education”, Keynote conference, Unite in Diversity: LGBT, Indigenous Peoples’ and other Minority Rights; 7th Congress, Education International, Ottawa, Canada, July 19, 2015. Introduction As adults, we often speak on behalf of youth. We justify doing so by saying that we have accumulated years of experience and therefore know, by default, what they need better than they do. But speaking on behalf of others remains a hazardous exercise, in the sense that it suggests we understand their situation so well that we can become their spokesperson. My goal is to reverse this premise. I would like to start by giving the floor to a few teenagers. Young Canadians—some born here and some born abroad—who may as well be Argentinian, Belgian, Burkinan, Polish or Chinese. Youth who frequent our schools and walk their corridors. Teenagers for whom school is home at least 40 hours a week. I met and interviewed them for a research initiative on the school experiences of LGBT youth. Colleagues and I spent close to two hours with each of them. During these two hours, they bravely recounted the insults, incessant teasing, cruel rumours, humiliations and sexual and physical abuse they suffered in school and even in the classroom. Without wavering, they revealed the doubts and anxieties that submerged them, the shame of having to tell adults about their situation in order to receive help. They explained how schoolwork was often the last thing on their minds. But the teenagers also shared some of the positives in their journey. They told us about the good friends they had: peers who suffered similar teasing and childhood friends who had become confidants or protectors. They spoke about activities like sports and arts during which they could finally be who they were without fearing repercussions and where they could ease their tensions. Also, and perhaps above all, they told us about their teachers. What their teachers had said or done and what they had not said, not done. At the end of each interview, while we were packing up our bags, I ventured a last question. What did they think was needed for LGBT youth to have better school experiences? If the interviewee had already left school, I’d ask what may have made them stay in school? Here are a few of their answers. “Intervene against homophobia. A child threatening to beat someone up shouldn’t be tolerated in schools. Adults are uncomfortable with homosexuality so they pretend they have not heard anything or they tell us it doesn’t matter. But it is very important.” (Christina, 19, lesbian) “It is important for teachers to show students that they are supposed to feel good at school. I think school staff should make students feel that they belong and that they will be protected.” (Nico, 18, gay) 1 “It’s the teachers who should get an education. We don’t think about it, but students identify with teachers. What the teacher says goes1.” (Abdoullaye, 23, bisexual) To act on LGBT youth inclusion, we must understand their exclusion. Before thinking about how we could better our teaching practices, we must understand how our schools can constitute violent places of exclusion based on sexual orientation and how we, as people working in these schools, can even be accomplices to this violence. You will not like the picture I am about to paint but it is still the prerequisite to realize how problematic the situation is and to, hopefully, create school environments that are fully inclusive for LGBT youth. I suggest we see the school system as a triangle, with three poles that embody three of its major dimensions: school climate, formal curriculum and teaching practices. School climate refers to the perception that students have of their experience inside the school. It includes episodes of solidarity and/or violence, one’s sense of security and belonging to the school. Formal curriculum consists of the learning experiences formally designated and reviewed by the local departments of education. In this paper, it will chiefly refer to textbooks. Teaching practices refer to everything a teacher says (or doesn’t say) or does (or doesn’t do), either in the classroom or elsewhere in the school. It includes the types of learning that are not detailed in a program but which may emanate from informal day-to-day discussions between teachers and students. school climate formal curriculum teaching practices All three dimensions influence the school experiences of LGBT youth. In other words, if we are looking to render their schooling more inclusive and less discriminatory, we must understand and take action on each of these dimensions. Angle 1. The truth about homophobia and gender-based violence in education The first angle in the triangle pertains to school violence: intimidation and violence based on real or perceived sexual orientation. Here, we ask ourselves if the school environment is as secure as it claims to be for every student, including LGBT people. For the past fifteen years, various 1 Quotes from LGBT students interviews are from Chamberland, L., G. Émond, D. Julien, J. Otis & B. Ryan, with the collaboration of M. Bernier, M. Chevrier, M.-P. Petit & G. Richard. (2011). L’homophobie à l’école secondaire au Québec. Portrait de la situation, impacts et pistes de solution. Rapport final de recherche. Montréal : UQAM. FQRSC. Available online at : http://homophobie2011.org/documentation/index.html. 2 countries have led school climate surveys in order to document the extent of the homophobic episodes in their institutions and the impacts on the school climate as a whole. A majority of these studies have focused on the school experiences of sexual and gender minority youth (e.g. youth who identify as LGBT, question their sexual orientation or their gender identity or have LGBT parents). Four observations sum up these studies: 1) LGBT students are not safe in our schools. A highly significant proportion of LGBT students report having been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Statistics compiled in various countries including Chile, Brazil, United Kingdom, France, Spain, United States, Japan, Australia and Canada fluctuate between 50% and 85%. To put it bluntly, in every country that has undertaken this type of survey, more than half of LGBT youth have been the victims of school violence. This is clear evidence of our schools’ failure to provide every student with a safe learning environment. 2) Many heterosexual students are the victims of homophobia. A few surveys have gathered the observations of heterosexual youth on sexual diversity in their schools. They highlight an important phenomenon: approximately one out of three heterosexual students has been the target of peer homophobia because they were presumed to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. In other words—and paradoxically—homophobia doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homophobia affects all students. 3) Homophobia is gender-based violence. This is a major key to understanding the issues. We have just seen that a third of heterosexual students report having been the victims of homophobia in school. These are clearly not students who identify as LGBT but students who are presumed to be LGBT. How can we presume one’s homosexuality? Popular discourse commonly associates male homosexuality with weakness, cowardice and femininity. A real man should be courageous, manly and a strong leader. A young heterosexual man could therefore be targeted by homophobia if he lacks interest in sports or in the opposite sex or if he is too studious, for example. But a real woman is expected to care for her appearance, to be delicate and to want to please men. A young woman who doesn’t correspond to these expectations risks criticism (either by other young women or by young men). There is no doubt that homophobia polices gender. Gender-based violence is increasingly identified as one of the two main motives of school-based discrimination, second only to appearance and body size. 4) Homophobia has major impacts on academic success. School victimization is a major impediment to academic success. Young victims are more likely to skip school, have low grades, quit or consider quitting school or have limited educational aspirations. These impacts worsen as victimization increases in frequency and severity. Angle 2. LGBT-inclusive education The second angle of the triangle refers to inclusive education, meaning the different realities presented in the school curriculum. Do the examples given in class include sexual diversity? Do textbooks present a realistic and representative image of society, including LGBT people? Can LGBT youth see people like them when they attend school? Although there are notable exceptions, the answer to these questions is a resounding no. Studies in various OECD countries have analyzed textbook content to document representations of sexual diversity. Here again, they may be summarized in a few points: 3 5) Textbooks barely address sexual orientation. You may not be surprised to learn that references to sexual orientation or homosexuality are, in almost all cases, barely present in school content. But, in fact, this is quite surprising. Indeed, schools aim to train students to become citizens who are able to function in society. Civil rights, respect for others, personal ethics and human diversity are all topics that are commonly discussed and which could easily lend themselves to the mention of the diversity of sexual orientations. 6) Textbook representations of homosexuality are excessively narrow. Homosexuality is commonly associated with topics such as discrimination, suicide, HIV/AIDS, the Holocaust, sexual abuse or prostitution. When they do exist, sex education classes do not appear to be much more eager to associate homosexual or bisexual orientation to normal or positive contexts such as couplehood or parenthood, self-discovery, the exploration of one’s sexuality or sexual pleasure. Even the physical representation of homosexuality in textbooks was studied. Whenever homosexuality is considered, it appears to be apart from the rest of the discussion, in a box separate from the main text. 7) Textbooks present heterosexuality as the normal and right way to be. It may not always be overt but school curriculums convey heterosexual normality. Indeed, if a school promotes any form of agenda, it is one of heterosexuality. How? By repeatedly presenting couples composed of a woman and a man, perpetuating the example of so-called traditional family, insisting on sexes complementing one another. Most sex education classes present sexuality as the sole means to human reproduction, an approach that is limiting for a majority of students of all sexual orientations. Formal school curriculums transmit an unequivocal message when it comes to homosexuality: it doesn’t exist. Researchers refer to institutionalized silence or a code of silence. The message that LGBT youth retain is that their lives don’t exist, that their feelings aren’t legitimate and don’t deserve to be talked about. Of course, exceptions remain. Comprehensive sex education courses make a point of suggesting that heterosexuality is not the only way to be. Anti-oppressive programs have been set up to question the idea that sexes are necessarily different, opposite and complementary. Detractors suggest that such programs promote homosexuality and the confusion of genders, but this is not the case. The aim is to make school a place where LGBT youth can be validated and reassured rather than shamed and discredited. It is possible to do things differently. Angle 3. Teachers dealing with sexual diversity When studying what goes on informally in classrooms, one often observes teachers’ attitudes, behaviours and practices. The goal of this approach is not to evaluate the practices themselves but rather to understand what may constitute obstacles or difficulties in the adoption of practices that are inclusive of sexual diversity. I suggest we look both at teacher intervention practices (how they intervene when they witness homophobic violence) and pedagogical practices (how they talk about sexual diversity with their students). Here are some of the findings: 8. Teachers face homophobia and questions about homosexuality on a daily basis. A large number of teachers report not talking about sexual diversity with their students of their own volition. The reasons they evoke are varied: the topic is not included in the curriculum, they don’t think it’s their responsibility or they are uncomfortable, don’t know what to say or have concerns about the reactions they may elicit. 4 That being said, almost all teachers report that the topic of sexual diversity comes up in class: a student asks a question about homosexuality; a homophobic episode arises and they must intervene; an LGBT event makes the news and is discussed in class. “My students had to write a poem. One student chose ‘Homosexuality bothers me’. Of all the possible topics! It wasn’t mean; there weren’t bad words. It was just a poem on that. He had a girlfriend in the class, he could have written a poem for her! [laughing]2” - Mélanie, French teacher, heterosexual For teachers, ignoring the topic is neither a realistic nor a viable option. Spontaneous questions from students and interpersonal conflicts will continue to arise on a daily basis, and teachers will continue to have to intervene or speak up on the topic. Whether they like it or not, teachers are confronted with the issue. This means they won’t necessarily have the time to plan their intervention, carefully choose their words, gather information or consider the implications of what they say. For all these reasons, teachers today more often react rather than stay ahead of the curve when it comes to talking about sexual diversity in class. 9. We have a limited understanding of homophobia. This limitation is not specific to teachers. Homophobia as a concept is widely used but badly understood by a large proportion of the population, and teachers are no exception. Of course, some teachers choose not to intervene. But not intervening when homophobia occurs is to implicitly giving credibility to what has been said or at least suggest that the words used were not problematic. However, adopting an intervention that is not well thought out can be counterproductive. It can generate interventions that are incomplete or inappropriate. “When my student said that homosexuality is a disease, I told him it wasn’t. [To the interviewer]: Correct me if I’m wrong because if I make a mistake, you’re going to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about... I told him [the student]: ‘It’s not a disease. It’s about chromosomes. They’re born with reverse chromosomes.’ I just wanted to make it clear to him that it wasn’t a mental illness.” (Catarina, French teacher, heterosexual) In this quote, Catarina explains that she wanted to deconstruct the perception that homosexuality is a mental illness. To do so, she suggests gays and lesbians are born with “reverse chromosomes”. How is this intervention problematic? On one hand, this assertion is scientifically incorrect. Current data has not yet enabled us to determine the causes of sexual orientation and much less state that these causes are chromosomal. Suggesting that homosexuality is caused by the inversion of chromosomes is not only scientifically unsound, but it contributes to the idea that homosexuality is a biological abnormality. Now consider the following quote by Marcel, a French teacher: 2 Quotes from teachers are from Richard, G (2014). Pratiques enseignantes et diversité sexuelle. Analyse des pratiques pédagogiques et d’intervention d’enseignants de l’école secondaire québécoise. PhD thesis, Applied Human Sciences. Montreal: Université de Montréal. Available online at: http://bit.ly/GabrielleRichard 5 “Statistics, for example. ‘You know, 5 to 10% of the population is gay. That means some of you are and haven’t admitted it yet.’ A teacher can’t say that. It’s extremely targeted; everyone turns around. I admit I’ve done it in the past. What I mean about treading lightly – it’s like being nuanced, certain things that you just don’t bring up because they’ll start calling each other ‘faggots’”. (Marcel, French teacher, heterosexual) Here again, Marcel starts out with good intentions by clarifying to his students that homosexuality is not a distant reality but one that directly involves them. That said, this type of intervention can paradoxically harm the LGBT students he is trying to protect. By suggesting that at least one student in the classroom could identify as LGBT, he feeds into the very witch hunt he is looking to fight. Marcel is able to see how this type of intervention can be harmful because he was trained in issues relating to sexual diversity. Therefore, he is better able to understand how some interventions must be more nuanced. Unless teachers are specifically trained or informed on these issues, they have a lot to lose and little to gain from investing the minefield that constitutes sexual diversity. 10. Teachers need training on sexual diversity issues. We saw in the previous examples that teachers can lack knowledge specific to LGBT realities or homophobic labelling in their interventions. This leads us to teacher training. First, we know that teachers trained on homophobia or sexual diversity are more susceptible to intervene against homophobia and discuss sexual diversity with their students—two dimensions that are strongly linked to an LGBT-inclusive school climate. Second, teachers themselves report needing training on these issues. In a recent survey3, a vast majority of teachers (88.3%) said that their university training did not provide the tools required to react to homophobic incidents in school. This feeling was shared by different respondent profiles, regardless of age or years of teaching experience. A similar proportion of educators affirmed that school administrators should provide more support against homophobia, especially through training (88.8%). 11. Teachers are looking to legitimize their practices related to sexual diversity. In other words, they need formal signs they can rely on. Teachers already report using the signs that are available. They refer to school regulations and politics on homophobia when they explicitly prohibit it. They evoke homosexuality while remaining as close as possible to the formal school curriculum. They intervene against homophobia by correcting the wrongful use of vocabulary, which is what they are expected to do as teachers. They want the validation and support of their peers and administration. In short, they appear to want to clarify that they are not personally concerned by sexual diversity but that their actions originate from a school environment that has specific policies on the subject. Without tangible signs, teachers are all the more solicited. They are called upon to carry this responsibility alone along with the risks that an isolated approach will pose. Teacher testimonies suggest that there are many obstacles that prevent them from speaking up or taking action. Instead of condemning teachers for their inaction, we should take these obstacles for what they are: evidence of the school system’s inability to provide them with the necessary support. 12. LGBT teachers are in an especially precarious situation. Richard, G. (2015). “The pedagogical practices of Québec high school teachers relative to sexual diversity”. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12:2, pp. 113-143. 3 6 LGBT teachers face specific situations that must be discussed. The practices they choose to adopt are closely linked to how visible they allow themselves to be as LGBT men and women in school. When they come out as LGBT to certain colleagues, they often become resource persons on sexual diversity. Colleagues come to them when questions arise on the topic and they are expected to be comfortable discussing the issues because they identify as LGBT. Some teachers deal with these responsibilities relatively well. They may even go as far as to mobilize their own sexual orientation to intervene against homophobia: “This year, I had [a professional sports team] come over. When players came out of the changing rooms, two students said: ‘I’m telling you, they’re definitely not faggots!’ (…) The following day, I said to the entire class: ‘I love men. It hurts me directly when you say [homophobic things].’” - Sylvain, physical education teacher, homosexual That being said, a teacher who is not out to colleagues or students will tend to refrain from adopting inclusive practices so as not to attract unwanted attention. So what’s the answer? Over the years, I’ve encountered two types of reactions when I present these research results. On one hand, teachers are enthusiastic and report recognizing their reality. On the other hand, many are discouraged with the amount of work that remains to be done. I thought of proposing four easily implemented practices that are inclusive of sexual diversity. These practices can be adopted right away and could make a real difference in the lives of the LGBT youth around you. 1. Intervene systematically against homophobia and gender-based violence In surveys, LGBT students overwhelmingly report that their teachers don’t intervene against homophobia. And yet, simply putting a stop to the behaviour can make all the difference and let them know they are not alone and have allies in school. You don’t have to explicitly discuss homosexuality if you are not ready to do so. The message that we wish to send is that we encourage a safe school climate and that there are no hierarchies in discriminations. 2. Use inclusive words The words we use can inadvertently exclude people. For example, we often presume people’s heterosexuality when talking to them (e.g. asking a teenage girl if she has a boyfriend). Without realizing it, we may put LGBT students in an uncomfortable situation. If they are indeed in a relationship, they must choose between revealing their homosexuality or bisexuality to you or lying to you about the person they are dating. Inclusive wording (e.g. Are you in a relationship?) prevents us from presuming an individual’s sexual orientation or journey. 3. Question preconceived ideas There are certain preconceived ideas and stereotypes on sexual diversity. Here are a few of them: gays can’t lead a normal life, homophobia can’t be avoided, bisexuality is a phase. Other stereotypes—perhaps more subtle—are gender-based: boys are more active and are less able to concentrate than girls, girls are more studious than boys, etc. As teachers, be cautious about verbalizing them. You would appear to give them credit, which can contribute to limiting the possibilities for the students who are listening to you. 4. Adopt a gender-neutral pedagogy We increasingly ask teachers to be inclusive pedagogues and to adapt their teaching methods to the students in their class. I adhere to this idea but suggest that it is rarely relevant to adapt our 7 teaching to the students’ gender. Remove gender from wherever it is not necessary. Avoid separating your students by gender. Offer them varied learning opportunities without labeling them or assuming their preferences, their capacities or their interests because of their biological sex. In doing so, you will encourage them to discover their own personalities. The need to understand, the urgency to take action In many respects, it’s a failing grade for the education sector. We reported that, to varying degrees and in different countries and regions, schools can be hostile places for LGBT students. We mentioned the formal curriculum’s silence on sexual diversity. Because of this silence, in 2015 in a country like Canada, a student will complete her or his mandatory schooling without ever being told about homosexuality in school. We also discussed the difficult position of teachers, whom we hold responsible but who lack tools, training and support. How can we move forward? In an ideal world, I would tell you that we must take action on all three angles of the triangle. Take action on the school climate by adopting policies that prohibit and penalize homophobic and gender-based violence, providing school staff members with the tools to identify the many incarnations of this violence and implementing mechanisms so students can file anonymous complains without fearing repercussions. Take action on the formal curriculum by pressuring current school programs to become more inclusive of a diversity of representations, expanding the range of books available in the school library and displaying posters promoting respect for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Take action on teaching practices by counting on teacher training, ensuring that teachers are minimally informed on sexual diversity before they ever set foot in a classroom and offering them the tools to make them feel comfortable and legitimate in their daily interventions. You have probably already heard these recommendations. Know that they are all scientifically sound. But it is not my intent to conclude on too idealistic an idea. I know all too well how different local contexts can be. I therefore wish to conclude by quoting a recent UNESCO report: “Homophobic bullying is an educational problem that must be addressed by the education sector (…) regardless of whether homosexuality is accepted in a specific context.” (UNESCO, 2013: 23) LGBT students deserve respect and have the right to a quality education. References United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2013). Education sector responses to homophobic bullying. Good policy and practice in HIV and health education. Booklet 8. Paris, France: UNESCO. 8