Education Policy

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 40 | Comments: 0 | Views: 900
of 168
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Issues affecting LGBT Youth

Comments

Content


Education
Policy
ISSUES AFFECTING
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL,
AND TRANSGENDER YOUTH
by Jason Cianciotto and Sean Cahill
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
Washington, DC
1325 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-4171
Tel 202 393 5177
Fax 202 393 2241
New York, NY
121 West 27th Street, Suite 501
New York, NY 10001
Tel 212 604 9830
Fax 212 604 9831
Los Angeles, CA
5455 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1505
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel 323 954 9597
Fax 323 954 9454
Cambridge, MA
1151 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel 617 492 6393
Fax 617 492 0175
Policy Institute
214 West 29th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Tel 212 402 1136
Fax 212 228 6414
[email protected]
www.ngltf.org
© 2003 The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
When referencing this document, we recommend the following citation:
Cianciotto, J., & Cahill, S. (2003). Education policy: Issues affecting lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender youth. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force Policy Institute.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute is a think tank dedi-
cated to research, policy analysis and strategy development to advance greater
understanding and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
iii
PREFACE
by Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force . . .vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1. LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER YOUTH:
A CRITICAL POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Gay Teen Forced to Read Aloud from Bible at School:
A Profile of Thomas McLaughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Methodological Barriers to Research on LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
How Many LGBT Youth Are There? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Transgender Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Intersex Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Gender Nonconformity: Making the Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Judge Rules That School Must Allow Transgender Youth
to Express Her Gender Identity: A Profile of Pat Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
LGBT Youth of Color: The “Tricultural” Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Children of LGBT Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
LGBT Youth in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Homeless LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
LGBT Youth and Their Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Strength and Resiliency of LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Contents
iv EDUCATION POLICY
More Than Just the “Gay Football Captain”:
A Profile of Corey Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS . . .29
Anti-LGBT Harassment and Violence in Elementary and Middle Schools . .30
Anti-LGBT Harassment and Violence in High Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Gay Student Sues School, Wins $900K Settlement:
A Profile of Jamie Nabozny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Sexual Harassment in Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
The Impact of Anti-LGBT Harassment and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Court Rules School Liable For Failing
to Protect Students From Harassment:
A Profile of Alana Flores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Federal Statutes: Title IX and The Equal Access Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
State Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Map and Table of State Nondiscrimination and
Anti-harassment Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Fifteen Lawsuits Against Public School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Parental Notification and “No Promo Homo” Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Staff Development and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Safe Schools Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Gay-Straight Alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
GSA in Utah Fights for its Right to Meet At School:
A Profile of Kelli Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Teachers, Administrators, and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Social Science Research on Child Sexual Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
The Harvey Milk High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Lesbian Youth Takes Control of Her Life With
the Help of the Harvey Milk High School:
A Profile of Tenaja Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND:
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Vouchers and School Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Charter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Single-Sex Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Standardized Testing and Multicultural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Internet Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
How Internet Filtering Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Filtering Software Promotes Right-Wing Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
LGBT Youth and the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Violence Prevention and Unsafe Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Lesbian Youth Killed in Newark: A Profile of Sakia Gunn . . . . . . . . . .86
Parental Rights Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Preventing the Promotion of Sexual Activities,
“Whether Homosexual or Heterosexual” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
The Boy Scouts Equal Access Act and the Vitter Amendment . . . . . . . . . .90
5. ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE SEX EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . .93
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Abstinence Education Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Fear, Shame, and Misinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Impact on HIV Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Inherent Sexism and Antigay Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Sex Education and HIV Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
6. FILLING IN THE GAPS: A RESEARCH AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Politics and Research on LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
The Need for Standardized Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Population-Based Surveys That Have Assessed
Sexual Orientation in Adolescent Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Quantitative versus Qualitative Research Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Participatory Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
Sampling and Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Longitudinal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Ethical Issues Involved in Research on LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
The Need for Research on Understudied LGBT Populations . . . . . . . . . .110
v CONTENTS
vi EDUCATION POLICY
Some General Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Teachers and School Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Gay-Straight Alliances and other School-Based Student Organizations . . .118
Evaluation of Safe Schools Programs and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
The Economic Costs of not Protecting LGBT Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
APPENDIX A: SELL ASSESSMENT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION . . . . . . . . . . .122
APPENDIX B:
FRIEDMAN MEASURE OF ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION . . . . . . . .125
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
Works Also Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
NGLTF FUNDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
BY MATT FOREMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE
The Task Force is proud to release Education Policy: Issues Affecting Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.
Thanks to a generous grant from the Kevin J. Mossier Foundation, the Task Force
Policy Institute convened a research meeting in Minneapolis in October 2002, attend-
ed by more than a dozen researchers and policymakers with expertise on lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues in primary and secondary education. Also par-
ticipating were LGBT youth advocacy groups, the National School Boards Association,
the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Psychological Association.
The report you hold in your hands is the result of the discussions held at that meeting,
and subsequent research and analysis prioritized by the meeting’s participants. We
thank the researchers, policymakers and activists who reviewed this document and
helped us develop an analysis in this critical policy area.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the extent of anti-LGBT harassment
and bias, its impact on students, policy interventions that support LGBT students and
improve school climate, and the changing policy context that complicates these efforts.
It includes an in-depth analysis of how the No Child Left Behind Act affects LGBT stu-
dents. And it profiles eight young people who stood up to the abuse and discrimination
so many LGBT young people live with on a daily basis; one payed the ultimate price,
when she was killed in an antigay attack. It also articulates an agenda for future research
and policy analysis. In identifying gaps in our understanding of LGBT issues in schools,
we encourage graduate students, professors, government-based researchers, and commu-
nity activists to help fill them.
This study continues a proud Task Force tradition of combating hate-motivated vio-
lence, including harassment. In 1982, we launched the first national project to combat
antigay violence, established the first national crisis hotline, worked with local groups
to gather data, and lobbied the Justice Department to pay attention to antigay violence.
Two years later, we issued the first comprehensive national report on antigay violence
vii
Preface Preface
viii EDUCATION POLICY
and launched our Campus Project, which documented antigay harassment and vio-
lence on college campuses across the country. In 1990, thanks to Task Force–led efforts
during the previous decade, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act was signed into law. In
1995, we held the first of several week-long Youth Leadership Trainings. A year later,
we released Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Campus Organizing: A Comprehensive
Manual, and earlier this year we published Campus Climate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
and Transgender People: A National Perspective, the largest-ever study of LGBT students,
faculty and staff on college campuses in the U.S.
Clearly, much progress has been made over the past 15 years to make schools safer and
more affirming places for all students. Organizations like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN), the National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC), and
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) have led the fight to end
anti-LGBT discrimination and violence in schools, and our community is deeply
indebted to them. We are equally indebted to LGBT and questioning youth, children
of LGBT parents, LGBT faculty and staff, and supportive straight allies, who work
every day to make schools environments where all students can focus on learning, not
just making it through the day in one piece.
We hope this report will hasten the day when all—regardless of their sexual orienta-
tion or gender identity—are welcomed and cherished as full participants in every
American school.
Matt Foreman
Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Violence and harassment against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students
is widespread, but a growing number of states are taking steps to make
schools safer for LGBT students and the children of LGBT parents.
Eight states
i
and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning dis-
crimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. Three
states
ii
and the District of Columbia ban discrimination or harassment
against students on the basis of gender identity. At least five other
states
iii
plus Wisconsin have adopted anti-harassment or nondiscrimination regulations
covering sexual orientation. Still, anti-LGBT bias and violence remains widespread.
Education Policy: Issues Affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth pro-
vides a comprehensive overview of the school experiences of LGBT youth, and exist-
ing policy interventions aimed at making schools safe and affirming environments for
all students. It also examines recent federal policy changes that
complicate these efforts, and offers a research agenda to fill gaps in
our understanding of the experiences of LGBT youth and children
of LGBT parents.
Youth today are coming out as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgen-
der younger than ever before. One recent study found that the
average age gay and lesbian teenagers first self-identify is 16. In the 1980s, the aver-
age age of self-identification was approximately 20 for gay men and 22 for lesbians.
Yet many schools are not keeping up with this cultural change, and youth are pay-
ing the price. The Task Force offers this critical report as a resource to those who
want to better understand LGBT youth and help end the harassment and violence
too many face on a daily basis.
1
Executive
Summary
i. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin
ii. California, Minnesota, and New Jersey
iii. Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island
Youth today are coming
out as gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and transgender younger
than ever before.
At least 13 states have
taken steps aimed at
protecting gay youth.
2 EDUCATION POLICY
THREE TO SIX PERCENT OF ADOLESCENTS REPORT SAME-SEX
ATTRACTION OR IDENTIFY AS LESBIAN, GAY, OR BISEXUAL
Education Policy analyzes the social science literature on LGBT youth and children of
LGBT parents, including estimates of how many secondary school students are LGBT
or have LGBT parents. Several studies report a range of 3 to 6% of adolescent and post-
adolescent youth who report same-sex attraction or identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexu-
al. For example, the 1996 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found
that 6% of youth aged 13 to 18 reported same-sex attraction. The 2001 Massachusetts
Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 5% of respondents self-iden-
tified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or reported same-sex sexual experi-
ences. The 2001 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported that
3% of youth had engaged in same-sex activity.
LGBT youth and children of LGBT parents face widespread harass-
ment and violence in America’s schools. A recent national survey of
LGBT youth conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) found that more than four-fifths of LGBT youth
experienced verbal harassment over the past year, and 42% experi-
enced physical harassment or violence. One in four students in the
GLSEN survey reported hearing antigay slurs from faculty or school
staff. A 1997 Iowa study found that on average, high school students heard 25 antigay
remarks each day. Although most research documents sexual orientation and gender-
based harassment in middle and high schools, such harassment is also reported by chil-
dren as young as six years old. Unchecked, such harassment can escalate to physical
attacks and even rape. A five-year study by the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington
State, described in this report, documented 111 incidents of anti-LGBT violence in 73
schools. These included eight gang rapes in which a total of 11 students were molest-
ed, two of them sixth graders.
Many—and perhaps most—LGBT students succeed in school and develop ways to cope
with often systemic hostility. However, a sizable body of research documents correla-
tions between having a homosexual or bisexual orientation and a number of risk fac-
tors, including: poor school performance, truancy and dropping out of school, getting
in fights at school or while en route, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and unsafe sex.
Antigay harassment often manifests itself as sexual harassment; its victims can experi-
ence loss of appetite, loss of interest in school, nightmares, feelings of isolation from
family and friends, and sadness, nervousness, and anger.
STUDENT LEADERS ORGANIZE TO MAKE SCHOOLS SAFER
In the face of this widespread harassment and violence, LGBT youth are joining allied
heterosexual youth, school faculty and staff, parents, policymakers, and advocates to
promote policy interventions that can interrupt and prevent anti-LGBT bias. Eight
student leaders are profiled in this report, including:
• Corey Johnson, a Massachusetts high school football captain who came out to his
teammates
A 1997 Iowa study
found that on average,
high school students
heard 25 antigay remarks
each day. Unchecked,
such harassment can
escalate to physical
attacks and even rape.
• Kelli Peterson, who organized a gay-straight alliance in Salt Lake City, Utah and
then fought the school board for the right to meet at her high school
• Tenaja Jordan, whose guidance counselor outed her to her conservative religious
parents, and who eventually transferred to the Harvey Milk High
School, an LGBT-affirmative school in New York City
• Thomas McLaughlin, a 13-year-old Arkansas student who was
forced to read aloud passages from the Bible that allegedly con-
demn homosexuality, who successfully sued his school district,
securing changes that will make it safer for future gay students
• Alana Flores and Jamie Nabozny, who both successfully sued their
school districts for failing to prevent systemic antigay harassment
• Pat Doe, a male-to-female transgender student who successfully sued her school for
the right to dress in accordance with her self-identified gender
• Sakia Gunn, a 15-year-old from Newark, New Jersey whose friends formed a lesbian
youth group named for her after she was murdered in a vicious antigay attack
FAILING TO PROTECT GAY STUDENTS COSTS SCHOOLS MILLIONS
At least 15 lawsuits brought by students against their school districts for failing to stop the
harassment they were experiencing have been successfully litigated or settled. These 15
lawsuits resulted in total damages of more than $2.3 million. In these and other lawsuits,
youth and their advocates have successfully cited federal policies and
provisions to protect the rights of LGBT youth to exist and support one
another in schools. These include:
• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
• The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
• The Equal Access Act of 1984
GROWTH IN STATE POLICIES PROTECTING LGBT YOUTH
Five states
iv
prevent the discussion of homosexuality in schools, or mandate that any ref-
erences to homosexuality be exclusively negative. Utah prohibits the “advocacy” of
homosexuality. Dozens of states have parental notification laws with opt-out provisions,
through which parents can excuse their children from classes or assemblies dealing with
sexuality, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Massachusetts is considering a
bill that would convert its parental opt-out policy into a more restrictive, opt-in law.
But support is growing for the implementation of gay-straight alliances, safe schools
programs, nondiscrimination policies, and other interventions designed to counteract
and prevent anti-LGBT violence and harassment in public schools. Thirteen states and
the District of Columbia prevent antigay discrimination and/or harassment by law or
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alana Flores and
Jamie Nabozny both
successfully sued their
school districts for failing
to prevent systemic
antigay harassment.
Youth and their advocates
have successfully cited
federal policies and
provisions to protect the
rights of LGBT youth.
iv. Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas
4 EDUCATION POLICY
regulation. Three of the eight states with sexual orientation nondiscrimination or anti-
harassment laws also prevent discrimination or harassment based on gender identity.
Nearly 2,000 gay-straight alliances all across the U.S. offer support for
LGBT and questioning youth as well as straight allies. Preliminary
research shows that gay-straight alliances, safe school programs, and
teacher training correlate with more supportive and safe school envi-
ronments for LGBT students. This report also examines the model
offered by New York City’s 20-year-old Harvey Milk High School.
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
Education Policy closely examines the impact of the 2002 No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act on LGBT youth and existing policy interventions. The NCLB Act’s pro-
motion of school vouchers for private and religious schools, charter schools, single-sex
education, standardized testing, and Internet filtering raises concerns for LGBT youth.
Private religious schools are usually exempted from nondiscrimination laws, making it
harder for teachers to be openly gay role models and leaving students unprotected.
Charter schools may offer opportunities to LGBT students, but the decentralized nature
of charter school governance also poses potential threats. The NCLB Act authorizes
the use of federal funds for single-sex schools for the first time in three decades, which
clearly has implications for transgender youth but could also negatively affect all stu-
dents, including those who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual. NCLB Act provisions relat-
ed to parental rights and the “promotion and encouragement” of sexual activity also
raise concerns which are examined herein. Finally, amendments to the NCLB Act
related to the Boy Scouts’ and military’s ability to meet and recruit at schools with sex-
ual orientation nondiscrimination policies also send a troublesome message.
PROMOTION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE
Abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula teach that sex outside the
context of marriage, including sex between people of the same gender,
is inherently dangerous, both physically and psychologically. At best
they ignore the existence of gay and lesbian students and children of
gay parents. At worst, they are overtly hostile to gay people and people
with HIV and AIDS. We describe the effects of abstinence-only cur-
ricula’s deeply sexist and antigay messages as well as the misinformation
it promotes about HIV risk, safer sex, and the effectiveness of condoms.
Nearly 2,000 gay-straight
alliances all across the
U.S. offer support for LGBT
and questioning youth as
well as their straight allies.
Abstinence-only promotes
sexist and antigay
messages, as well as
misinformation about the
effectiveness of condoms.
A PROACTIVE RESEARCH AGENDA FOR FILLING
INFORMATION GAPS
The final chapter of Education Policy offers a research agenda targeted at academic and
government-based researchers in order to fill the many gaps in our knowledge of LGBT
youth, children of LGBT parents, and the effectiveness of various policy interventions.
Research is particularly needed on:
• Resiliency factors that correlate with health and strong academic performance
among LGBT youth
• LGBT youth of color
• Transgender youth
• Rural LGBT youth
• The experiences of children of LGBT parents and the effectiveness of policy inter-
ventions vis-à-vis the harassment they face
• Immigrant LGBT youth and the children of LGBT immigrants
• Elementary school experiences of LGBT youth
• Homophobic and gender-based harassment in elementary schools
• The impact of nondiscrimination clauses in teachers union contracts
• The impact of “out” teachers on LGBT youth
• The experiences of LGBT youth outside the school setting
Methodological barriers to studying LGBT youth as well as ethical considerations are
also addressed, along with recent political developments related to sexuality research.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADULTS TO CREATE SAFE AND
AFFIRMING SCHOOLS
Adults have a responsibility to create social institutions that are safe and affirming
places for all young people. For policymakers and educators with control over this most
important social institution—our nation’s school system—this responsibility is espe-
cially weighty. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force hopes that this report will
provide educators, policymakers, parents, and students the background information
they need to continue to promote safe schools for all, regardless of sexual orientation
or gender identity. We also hope it focuses researchers on the most critical gaps in our
understanding of the experiences of LGBT youth and children of LGBT parents, and
on what policy interventions can most effectively improve their school experiences.
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6 EDUCATION POLICY
INTRODUCTION
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are coming out at younger ages
than ever before, a trend that dramatically impacts their education and experience at
school. One recent study found that the average age gay and lesbian teenagers first
self-identify is 16.
1
There is no research on the average age that youth first identify as
transgender or bisexual. However, many individuals report knowing that they were
lesbian, gay, or bisexual in the sixth or seventh grade. In the 1980s,
when the average age for self-identification was 19 to 21 for gay men
and 21 to 23 for lesbians, the coming-out process for most young
adults occurred either during college, or after having established an
independent life.
2
Self-identification at an earlier age can expose stu-
dents to rejection at home and at school, creating a greater need for
appropriate advice, health education, and referrals to available
resources from supportive adults.
3
Youth who do not have access to such resources can become danger-
ously isolated. In one study, 50% of gay male adolescents reported
being rejected by their parents because of their sexual orientation.
4
Many LGBT youth are also cut off by their friends and members of
their religious community, harassed and attacked by their peers in
school, and demeaned by society at large. Because of their age, they
lack independent resources and have an especially hard time finding support at school,
with 80% reporting severe emotional distress and isolation.
5
For some LGBT youth,
these situations lead to a higher incidence of substance abuse and suicide. A report pro-
duced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1989 found that gay
This report summarizes
what is currently known
about the school
experiences of LGBT
youth and children of
LGBT parents, and
analyzes the institutional
and policy interventions
aimed at making schools
safe and affirming places
for these students.
1. Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and
Transgender Youth:
A Critical Population
1. Herdt, G., & Boxer, A. (1996). Children of horizons (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
2. Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health, 9, 105.
3. Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The adolescent perspective. Pediatrics, 79, 326–330.
5. Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 14 (1–2), 25–43.
and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide then their het-
erosexual peers, and that up to 30% of all completed suicides are committed by gay and
lesbian youth.
6
Up to 35% of homeless youth identify as gay or lesbian, and many
engage in sex work (prostitution) to feed and support themselves.
7
Although there is a dearth of research on transgender homeless
youth, anecdotal evidence suggests that they face similar choices
when rejected by their families. Homelessness and reliance on sex
work to survive may be more prevalent among LGBT youth of color,
who already face social prejudice and stigmatization because of their
race or ethnicity.
8
By coming out, they also risk rejection by members
of their own ethnic community and, therefore, intensified isolation.
9
The anti-LGBT atmosphere in schools also directly affects children
who have LGBT parents. Although their experiences are different
because they generally come from homes with a positive attitude
toward diversity in sexual orientation or gender identity, they are
commonly targeted and harassed by their peers because their parents are LGBT, or
because of the stereotype that the children of LGBT parents are also LGBT. Even the
siblings of LGBT youth can experience harassment and violence because of a brother’s
or sister’s sexual orientation or gender identity, though there is a paucity of research on
the impact of homophobia on siblings.
Violence and harassment against LGBT students is epidemic. The 2001 National School
Climate Survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) report-
ed that 83% of LGBT youth reported verbal harassment at their school because of their
sexual orientation, and 42% said they had been physically harassed. More than two-thirds
felt unsafe at school.
10
Despite the harassment and violence they experience on a daily
basis, these youth often display amazing strength and resiliency. In many instances, they
have organized to demand policy changes and to make schools safer and more inclusive,
often without the support of the school officials responsible for protecting all students.
After they graduate from high school, many have continued working to increase aware-
ness and understanding of the harassment and violence youth experience and its impact
on their academic achievement, as well as on their mental and physical health. In coop-
eration with a broad coalition of advocates, these youth have led successful interventions
in a growing number of schools and communities, including nondiscrimination and anti-
harassment policies, safe schools programs, and community- and school-based support
groups that provide peer and adult mentors, role models, and information.
The ultimate reach of these initiatives goes beyond making schools safer for LGBT
youth. A program that acknowledges and values the LGBT members of a school com-
7
6. Rosario, M., Hunter, J., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1992). Unpublished data, HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies,
New York State Psychiatric Institute; Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In Report of the Secretary’s Task Force
on Youth Suicide (DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-1623. Vol. 3, pp. 3-110–3-142). Washington, DC: Department of Health and
Human Services.
7. Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities:
Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American
Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 773–776.
8. Ryan & Futterman, 1998.
9. Varney, J. A. (2001). Undressing the normal: Community efforts for queer Asian and Asian American youth. In K. K. Kumashiro
(Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
10. Kosciw, J. G., & Cullen, M. K. (2001). The GLSEN 2001 national school climate survey: The school-related experiences of our nation’s
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. New York: The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Violence and harassment
against LGBT students is
epidemic. Eighty-three
percent of LGBT youth
report verbal harassment
at school because of
their sexual orientation,
and 42% say they have
been physically harassed.
8 EDUCATION POLICY
munity changes the school atmosphere for everyone, making it safer for many other stu-
dents who are perceived to be different. The children of LGBT parents, regardless of
their own sexual orientation or gender identity, benefit greatly from an environment
that allows them to be honest about their families. In addition, many young people use
anti-LGBT epithets against peers they perceive as different for a variety of gender-relat-
ed reasons: they might target a boy who does not like sports, is introverted, studious, sen-
sitive, or has many female friends; or a girl who is athletic, a “tomboy,” aggressive, does
not wear makeup, or has rejected boys’ advances. While some of these youth may be les-
bian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, it is likely that a substantial proportion of them, per-
haps even most, are not.
This report summarizes what is currently known about the school experiences of LGBT
youth and children of LGBT parents, and analyzes the institutional and policy inter-
ventions aimed at making schools safe and affirming places for these students. It high-
lights recent policy innovations that may complicate or threaten the success of programs
created to support LGBT youth. And it provides an agenda for researchers and policy-
makers, including suggestions for future research and analysis that could increase our
understanding of the experiences of LGBT youth in schools and serve as the basis for
advocacy to change education policy at the local, state, and national levels.
Gay Teen Forced to Read Aloud
from Bible at School:
A Profile of Thomas McLaughlin
refuse to deny that he was gay when
another student was teasing him. Along
with calling in the assistant principal, the
science teacher also gave Thomas a four-
page, handwritten letter that, referencing
the Bible, told Thomas he would be con-
demned to hell if he “chose” to be gay.
11
Thomas’ parents were accepting of
his sexual orientation. Back at school,
however, the troubles had only just
begun. While other students generally
did not have a problem with Thomas’
sexual orientation, several teachers and
administrators did. One teacher told
Thomas to stop talking about being gay
because she found it “sickening.”
Another publicly scolded Thomas for
talking with a female friend about which
boys in class they thought were cute.
When Thomas McLaughlin was a
13-year-old student at Jacksonville
Junior High School in Jacksonville,
Arkansas, the assistant principal called
him out of his seventh period class and
asked if his parents knew that he was
gay. When Thomas replied no, the assis-
tant principal said that Thomas had
until 3:40 PM that day to tell them, or
the school would. Too upset to sit
through eighth peri-
od, Thomas went to
his guidance counselor
for help. But despite
Thomas’ protest, she
called his mother and
told her that Thomas was gay.
This chain of events began when
Thomas’ science teacher overheard him
11. Lewin, T. (2003, March 25). Arkansas school is accused of harassing a gay student. The New York Times. Retrieved October 7,
2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/education/25GAY.html
One teacher told Thomas to stop
talking about being gay because
she found it “sickening.”
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 9
12. McLaughlin v. Bd. of Educ. of Pulaski County Special Sch.Dist., No. 4:03-CV-00244 GTE, 2003 WL 21182283 (E.D. Ark. April
22, 2003).
13. Lewin, 2003.
14. American Civil Liberties Union. (2003, April 8). ACLU sues Arkansas school district to guarantee gay student’s rights to be “out” at
school. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=12298&c=106
15. American Civil Liberties Union. (2003, July 17). ACLU secures sweeping changes in Arkansas school district. Retrieved July 29,
2003, from http://aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=13163&c=106
16. Ibid.
said, “but this isn’t the school’s business.
It’s something for us, the parents, to talk
about.”
13
On April 8, 2003, after repeated
attempts to resolve the situation with
various school administrators, the
ACLU filed suit against Pulaski County
Special School District on behalf of
Thomas and his parents. The lawsuit
charged that school officials had violat-
ed Thomas’ rights to free speech, equal
protection, and privacy, as well as his
religious liberty. Thomas simply wanted
to go to school without being harassed
by his teachers: “All I want out of this is
for me and other gay students to be able
to go to school without being preached
to and without being expected to lie
about who we are.”
14
On July 17, 2003, in a court-ordered
settlement, Thomas got his wish. Under
the terms of settlement, school officials
agreed not to disclose any student’s sexu-
al orientation to others, not to punish stu-
dents for talking about their sexual orien-
tation during noninstructional time, not
to discriminate against students on the
basis of their sexual orientation in disci-
plinary matters, and not to preach to stu-
dents or force them to read the Bible.
15
In addition, the school district issued
a formal apology to Thomas and his par-
ents, expunged Thomas’ disciplinary
record, and agreed to pay $25,000 in
damages and attorneys’ fees. After the
settlement, Thomas said, “I’m really glad
that this is all over and that the ACLU is
making the school treat gay students the
way they should have been treated in the
first place. No more students should have
to go through what I did.”
16
The female student was not disciplined.
Several teachers also attempted to
silence Thomas by
warning him that he
was going to be beat-
en up in school
because he was gay,
that the school would
not protect him, and
that if he didn’t keep
quiet, he would end
up like Matthew
Shepard, the gay col-
lege student from
Laramie, Wyoming who
in 1998 was tied to a
fence, beaten, and left
to die.
12
Over the course of
the school year, the
situation grew worse. After arguing with
a teacher who had called him “abnor-
mal” and “unnatural” for being gay,
Thomas was sent to the assistant princi-
pal’s office again. As part of his discipli-
nary action, the assistant principal
forced Thomas to read
aloud passages from
the Bible that allegedly
condemn homosexual-
ity. When Thomas,
who is also a Christian,
told his friends about
having to read the Bible aloud at school,
he was suspended for two days. The prin-
cipal also warned him that if he told any-
one why he was suspended, he would be
expelled. When Thomas told his mother
about the suspension and forced Bible
readings, she called the American Civil
Liberties Union. “We’re Christians,” she
As part of his disciplinary
action, the assistant principal
forced Thomas to read aloud
passages from the Bible.
THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN
10 EDUCATION POLICY
METHODOLOGICAL BARRIERS TO RESEARCH
ON LGBT YOUTH
Conducting research on the experiences of LGBT youth, the harassment and violence
they endure, and the effects of this abuse on their mental health, physical health, and edu-
cational performance is fraught with technical challenges. A number of problems, includ-
ing a lack of funding and potential barriers that complicate researchers’ attempts to collect
information from youth, make it difficult to capture a random, representative sample of
LGBT youth. For example, a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which
is discussed further in Chapter 5, has caught the attention of many researchers. It requires
all school districts to develop written policies and procedures, in consultation with parents,
regarding any “third party” survey of students that includes questions about political affil-
iations or beliefs, mental problems, sex attitudes or behavior, illegal or antisocial behavior,
critical appraisals of family members, religious beliefs of the student or
parent, and income.
17
At a minimum, these policies must specify how
parents will be notified about surveys and how they will be given the
opportunity to opt their children out of taking any surveys.
As written this provision does not dramatically influence researchers’
ability to collect information. Many schools already independently
choose to notify parents about surveys administered to students, allow-
ing parents to request that their child not participate. In practice, how-
ever, few parents exercise this “opt out” option, and it has had no sub-
stantial impact on survey results. On the other hand, policies that require parents to “opt
in,” by sending in written prior or “active permission” for their child’s participation makes
collecting reliable data extremely difficult. The danger inherent to this provision of the No
Child Left Behind Act is that some parents or conservative activists may attempt to mod-
ify this federal requirement in the future, or use it to pressure their state legislature or local
school board to adopt “active permission” or “opt-in” requirements for surveys. Once in
place, such active parental consent regulations make it virtually impossible to collect data
on large representative samples of students in schools. This has already occurred in three
states—Alaska, New Jersey, and Utah—which require the prior written informed consent
of a parent before a survey can be administered to a student.
18
Alaska Department of
Health staff confirm that Alaska’s “opt-in” law prevented the state from obtaining a high
enough response rate for it to participate in the 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
Although volunteer-based research methodologies, which use participants who self-
select to be a part of a study, are commonly used in many academic disciplines, they can
be problematic for research on small, minority populations. For participants in studies
about sexual orientation or gender identity issues, self-identification often comes with
tremendous risk, both real and perceived. Consequently, LGBT research participants
may choose to withhold information about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Even though most studies are anonymous, fear of the consequences of coming out still
prevents many people from participating, especially youth. The issues of self-selectivi-
ty and coming out tend to skew research on LGBT youth toward those who are most
comfortable with their identities, making broader-based research especially difficult.
17. Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h (2003).
18. ALASKA STAT. § 14.03.110 (Michie 2002).; N.J. STAT. ANN. § 18A: 36-34 (West 2001).; UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-13-
302 (1999).
Studies that ask youth to
self-identify as lesbian or
gay yield lower numbers
compared with studies
that ask questions about
same-sex attraction,
sexual behavior, or both.
11 1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION
Thus, some argue that researchers who rely on self-selected volunteers are likely to
overlook important developmental characteristics of those who experience same-sex
attractions, but do not necessarily consider themselves lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
19
Because of the perception that being gay entails being harassed at school, some adoles-
cents choose not to categorize themselves according to existing labels, instead describ-
ing their same-sex relationships in terms of desires or attractions. Consequently, stud-
ies that ask youth to self-identify as “lesbian” or “gay” yield lower numbers compared
with studies that ask questions about same-sex attraction, sexual behavior, or both.
20
To address these inadequacies, researchers use population-based data, which can include a
large number of students in one region or nationwide. Since the late 1980s, state and fed-
eral agencies have surveyed a broad range of issues critical to teen health and safety using
this method. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, coor-
dinates the nationwide Youth Risk Behavior Survey every two years. Although none of
these population-based studies focuses exclusively on LGBT youth, they do offer impor-
tant and sometimes striking information about health and safety risks that disproportion-
ately affect lesbian, gay, and bisexual students by including questions about same-sex sex-
ual behavior. Unfortunately, none of them includes questions specific to gender identity.
HOW MANY LGBT YOUTH ARE THERE?
The problems endemic to the scientific study of LGBT students make it difficult to
determine exactly how many LGBT youth there are in the United States. Data from
population-based studies allow for estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality and
bisexuality among adolescents. The 1996 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health, a comprehensive study of over 12,000 youth in grades seven through 12, found
that 6% of participants between the ages of 13 and 18 reported same-sex attraction, with
1% reporting that they were only attracted to members of their own sex and 5% report-
ing attraction to both sexes.
21
Similarly, a 1999 Safe Schools Coalition of Washington
report found that among eight population-based studies administered over 10 years to
83,042 youth, 4 to 5% of teens in secondary schools either identified themselves as les-
bian, gay, or bisexual; had engaged in same-sex sexual activity; or had experienced same-
sex attraction.
22
More recent population-based studies have had similar results:
• The 2001 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported that 5% of respondents
either self-identified as gay or bisexual or reported same-sex sexual experiences
23
• The 2001 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 3% of students had
engaged in same-sex activity
24
19. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 5–13.
20. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Lenhart, R. E. (1990). AIDS prevention among lesbian and gay youth: Psychosocial stress and health
care intervention guidelines. In D. G. Ostrow (Ed.), Behavioral aspects of AIDS. New York: Plenum.
21. Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a
national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111–127.
22. Reis, B., & Saewyc E. (1999) Eighty-three thousand youth: Selected findings of eight population-based studies as they pertain to antigay ha-
rassment and the safety and well-being of sexual minority students. Seattle: The Safe Schools Coalition of Washington.
23. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002). 2001 Massachusetts youth risk behavior survey results [Electronic version].
Malden, MA: Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs/01/results.pdf
24. Vermont Department of Health Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs. (2002). 2001 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey
[Electronic version]. Burlington, VT: Author. Available at http://www.state.vt.us/health/adap/pubs/2001/yrbs2001.pdf
12 EDUCATION POLICY
To estimate the number of LGBT youth in public schools in the U.S., researchers could
focus on students in public school grades nine through 12 (ages 15 to 18), who are most
likely to be aware of their sexual attractions, sexual orientation, or gender identity. In
2002, the U.S. Department of Education estimated that there were 13.8 million students
in this grade range.
25
Five percent of that figure would equal approximately 689,000 stu-
dents who may identify as homosexual or bisexual, have same-sex attractions, or have
same-sex sexual experiences. This estimate is conservative: it is likely that many youth
are either afraid to report same-sex attraction on a survey, or are simply not yet aware of
their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, it does provide a rough estimate of
the minimum number of students who could be impacted by anti-LGBT violence or
harassment, as well as policies and curricula related to LGBT issues.
TRANSGENDER YOUTH
Some people are less aware of the struggles of transgender youth than they are of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth. Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of
identities and experiences, including (but not limited to) transsexual people (who may or
may not pursue medical treatments to change their bodies), cross-
dressers, “drag queens,” “drag kings,” and men and women, regardless of
sexual orientation, whose appearance or characteristics are perceived to
be gender atypical. In its broadest sense, transgender encompasses any-
one whose identity or behavior falls outside of stereotypical gender
norms. That includes people who do not self-identify as transgender, but
who are perceived as such by others and are thus vulnerable to the same social oppressions
and physical violence as those who actually identify with any of these categories.
26
Gender identity refers to how people understand themselves: as boys or girls, men or women, or
something else altogether. Gender expression refers to all of the ways that people express their gen-
der identity to the outside world, including through dress, appearance, and behavior.
27
Transgender
youth include those who identify with the gender opposite their birth sex. Some transgender youth
are transsexual, and may seek to modify their bodies through hormones and/or gender reassignment
surgery in order to bring their physical appearance in line with their gender identity.
28
Unfortunately, transgender and gender-variant youth face relentless harassment and over-
whelming isolation.
29
According to GLSEN, almost 90% of self-identified transgender youth
reported feeling unsafe in their school because of their gender, as compared to less than half of
gay or bisexual male (46%) or female (41%) students in the same study.
30
One activist argues:
25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Enrollment trends, public and private schools. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65
26. Currah, P. & Minter, S. (2001). Transgender equality: A handbook for activists and policymakers. New York: National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and National Center for Lesbian Rights.
27. Transsexual youth may or may not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder, diagnoses listed in the DSM-
IV. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force supports the reform of these diagnoses, possibly through the creation of a medical
diagnosis that does not pathologize transgender people or gender-nonconforming children.
28. Goodrum, A. J. (2002). Gender identity 101: A transgender primer. Retrieved July 24, 2003, from The Southern Arizona Gender
Alliance website: http://www.sagatucson.org/tgnetaz/gender_101.htm
29. Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender students in U.S. schools [Electronic version]. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uslgbt/toc.htm ; Leach, C. (2002). Transgender youth and the role of service providers.
Transitions: A newsletter of Advocates for Youth, 14(4), 12–13. Leck, G. M. (2000). Heterosexual or homosexual? Reconsidering
binary narratives on sexual identities in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 324–348 ; Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
30. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
Transgender is an
umbrella term used to
describe a wide range of
identities and experiences.
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 13
Given the bullying and discrimination faced by “sissy” boys, “tomboy” girls, gay
teens, and [transgender] students, school administrators have a special obligation
today to set an example of tolerance for diversity. They must make sure every stu-
dent knows that gender stereotyping—and the violence that often accompanies
it—no longer has a place in our nation’s schools.
31
There are no longitudinal, population-based data on the prevalence or experiences of trans-
gender youth in public schools. Of the 904 LGBT youth interviewed by GLSEN, 3% (22)
identified as transgender and 1% (9) as “[an]other gender identity.”
32
Surveys based on self-
identification may underestimate the number and proportion of transgen-
der and gender-variant youth. A study conducted in the United Kingdom
in 2002 analyzed 124 transgender youth who were receiving mental health
treatment at St. George’s Hospital in London.
33
The average age of the
youth in the program was 11; 32% were biologically female, 66% biologi-
cally male, and 2% were intersex, meaning they were born with ambigu-
ous genitalia. Although 75% of the youth in the study stated that they
wished they were of the opposite sex, only 21% stated a belief that they belonged to the oppo-
site sex. Many of these youth exhibited problems at school and in social relationships:
• 16% of all the youth in the study, and 28% of the females, refused or were afraid to
go to school
• 11% did not attend school at all
• 22% experienced discipline problems
• 52% cited difficulty relating to their peers
• 33% of all the youth, and 43% of the males, experienced harassment or persecution
by their peers
The study concluded that these youth require long-term support and understanding,
particularly at school, given the higher incidence of harassment and violence they
experience. The fact that boys were harassed more often may indicate that gender non-
conformity is more socially acceptable for girls.
34
Basing an estimate of the proportion of transgender youth in a school-age population
purely or primarily on a clinical subpopulation raises serious conceptual and method-
ological issues, however, and may also overestimate the extent of non-gender-identity-
related mental health issues in that subpopulation. The experiences of transgender
youth have not been well documented through research. More inquiry is needed to bet-
ter understand their experiences, and what kinds of interventions might best mitigate
the harassment and other obstacles they face. Breaking the silence around transgender
issues and including positive representations of transgender individuals in the class-
room are both important steps toward creating a more hospitable environment for all
gender-nonconforming youth.
35
31. Gender PAC (2002, July 15). Time for schools to stand up to gender stereotyping in the classroom. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from
http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/index.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0411
32. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001
33. Di Ceglie, D., Freedman, D., McPherson, S., & Richardson, P. (2002). Children and adolescents referred to a specialist gender
identity development service: Clinical features and demographic characteristics. International Journal of Transgenderism, 6(1).
Retrieved July 30, 2003, from http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo06no01_01.htm
34. Ibid.
35. Mallon, G. P. (1999). Social services with transgendered youth. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
“School administrators
have a special obligation
today to set an example
of tolerance for diversity.”
INTERSEX YOUTH
Like LGBT youth, intersex youth suffer the negative consequences of not fitting into
prevailing ideas about sex and gender. Intersex youth, however, are distinct from trans-
gender youth and can have any sexual orientation or gender identity. Intersex youth are
born with sex chromosomes, external genitalia, or an internal repro-
ductive system that are not considered standard for either male or
female.
36
Overall, there are at least 15 different medical causes of
intersexuality, and only a small percentage of these cases result in
ambiguous genitalia at birth. Other intersex conditions manifest at
puberty, while still others manifest even later in life. Frequencies of
intersex conditions range widely, from late onset adrenal hyperplasia,
found in one in 66 births, to complete gonadal dysgenesis, found in
one in 150,000 births.
37
Doctors perform surgery on one or two babies per 1,000 births in a mis-
guided effort to “correct” ambiguous genitalia. The Intersex Society of
North America (ISNA), along with other groups, has exposed the fact that these surg-
eries are harmful to many intersex people and that performing cosmetic genital surgery on
infants is often not in the best interests of the child. Instead, ISNA recommends that a
child should be raised either male or female and later, when older, given choices about
whether to pursue surgery.
In school, where anti-LGBT attitudes reinforce prevailing notions about what it
means to be a girl or a boy, intersex youth are likely to feel great discomfort and shame
about their intersex status. Intersex youth may live in fear of others learning of their
condition. Many intersex youth only learn of their intersex status as adults. Education
about the existence of intersex individuals is a necessary first step to eradicating this
fear. Greater understanding and acceptance of the fluidity of sex and gender would
benefit not only intersex youth, but all young people who exhibit gender-noncon-
forming characteristics.
GENDER NONCONFORMITY: MAKING THE CONNECTION
Research on anti-LGBT violence in public schools has focused heavily on sexual ori-
entation. As students identify as gay or lesbian at younger ages, they are harassed in
school at younger ages. This simple correlation, however, does not account for the
majority of violence and harassment that occurs in elementary and middle schools—
sometimes long before these youth are even aware of sexual orientation and gender
identity issues. Even in high school, a girl who is certain of her heterosexual identity
may be called “dyke” simply because she has short hair and plays softball. This may be
because a lot of anti-LGBT harassment is actually a response to gender nonconformity,
or behavior and mannerisms that do not match socially acceptable standards of behav-
36. Intersex Society of North America. (n.d.). What is an intersex condition? What do these diagnoses mean? Retrieved October 18, 2003,
from http://www.isna.org/faq/faq-medical.html#what
37. Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we?
American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 151–166; Intersex Society of North America. (2003). Frequency: How common are intersex
conditions? Retrieved August 4, 2003, from http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency.html
14 EDUCATION POLICY
A girl who is certain of
her heterosexual identity
may be called “dyke” simply
because she has short hair
and plays softball. A lot
of anti-LGBT harassment
is actually a response to
gender nonconformity.
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 15
ior for males and females. Children who prefer sex-typical activities and same-sex play-
mates are referred to as gender conforming, while children who prefer sex-atypical
activities and opposite-sex playmates are referred to as gender nonconforming.
38
Not
all children who exhibit gender-nonconforming behavior grow up to identify as LGBT.
In fact, many, perhaps most, grow up to be heterosexual. More research is needed to
understand the connection between gender conformity and sexual orientation, with an
emphasis on the fact that all youth, regardless of sexual orientation, exhibit some
behaviors that could be perceived as gender nonconforming.
Regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, many youth experience vio-
lence and harassment because they do not conform to gender-stereotypical behavior in
their attire, interests, or mannerisms. Violations of these stereotypes and gender roles
(which can be as innocuous as a boy who is more artistic than athletic) may cause harass-
ment and victimization beginning long before a child is aware of his or her sexual ori-
entation or gender identity. A 1998 study of school counselors’ experiences with lesbian
and gay students found that the majority of reported incidents of harassment targeted
male students who acted “too feminine.”
39
Despite the lack of data, there is little dispute
that school-age youth who identify as transgender, or who do not conform to gender-role
stereotypes, are particularly vulnerable to harassment and violence in schools.
40
38. D’Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth: Psychological perspectives. New York:
Oxford University Press.
39. Fontaine, J. (1998). Evidencing a need: School counselors’ experiences with gay and lesbian students. Professional School
Counseling, 1(3), 8–14.
40. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
41. Doe v. Yunits, No. 001060A, 2000 WL 33162199 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 11, 2000), aff’d by, Doe v. Brockton Sch. Comm., No.
2000-J-638, 2000 WL 33342399 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 30, 2000).
42. PlanetOut. (2000, October 13). Trans teen’s school dress allowed. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?date=2000/10/13/1
Judge Rules That School Must Allow
Transgender Youth to Express Her
Gender Identity: A Profile of Pat Doe
Doe v. Yunits, a case decided by a
Massachusetts Superior Court in 2000,
was the first reported case on behalf of a
transgender student.
41
The 15-year-old
plaintiff, know only as “Pat Doe,” began
wearing make-up and women’s clothing
to school when she was in the seventh
grade. Her outfits included tight skirts,
high-heeled shoes, and a “slinky” dress
she once wore to a semi-formal dance.
Although this attire was not different
from what many girls in Pat’s school
wore, school officials singled her out
and treated her differently because she
was transgender.
42
When Pat began eighth grade in the
fall of 1999, the principal required that
she report to his office each morning so
that he could determine whether her
clothing was “appropriate.” If Pat came
to school in clothing deemed “too femi-
nine,” she was sent home to change.
She was frequently too upset to return.
Eventually, Pat stopped going to school
altogether. The next year, the adminis-
tration told her she could not enroll if
she continued to wear women’s cloth-
ing. Pat’s grandmother, who had raised
16 EDUCATION POLICY
Pat since she was an infant, filed suit
against the school district with the help
of the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian
Advocates and Defenders.
43
On October 12, 2000, Superior
Court Judge Linda Giles ruled that the
school had discriminated against Pat on
the basis of her sex by treating her dif-
ferently from other girls simply because
she was biologically male. The court
also ruled that the school had violated
Pat’s right to free expression and her lib-
erty interest in expressing her self-iden-
tified gender while attending school.
The court explained that Pat’s decision
to wear women’s clothing “is not merely
a personal preference but a necessary
symbol of her very identity.”
Furthermore, to force her to wear male
clothing would be to stifle her selfhood
“merely because it causes some members
of the community discomfort.”
44
The school district’s attorney,
Edward Lenox, argued that Pat’s wear-
ing clothing that was “too feminine”
constituted a “pattern of behavior that
has been disruptive.” Judge Giles dis-
agreed, stating that Pat could not be
reprimanded for wearing clothing and
accessories that would be considered
acceptable on other female students.
Furthermore, Judge Giles suggested that
rather than view Pat as a disruption to
the educational process, the situation
could be seen as an educational oppor-
tunity. She wrote, “exposing children to
diversity at an early age serves the
important social goals of increasing
their ability to tolerate differences and
teaching them respect for everyone’s
unique personal experience.”
When Pat returned to school, 20 of
her fellow classmates, in a show of pro-
tective solidarity, shielded their friend
from the media and urged the public to
be more sensitive. As they walked home
with Pat on her second day back, a
friend remarked, “[She’s] mad cool. I
don’t know why people have to
hate…[her]; all they have to do is get to
know [her].”
45
Six months after the rul-
ing, Pat’s attorney, Jennifer Levi,
remarked on the significance of the
case. “Now schools know,” she said,
“that they can easily and happily incor-
porate a transgender student.”
46
43. Ibid.
44. Doe v. Yunits, No. 001060A, 2000 WL 33162199 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 11, 2000).
45. Meek, J. (2000, November 17). Brockton students protect transgendered classmate. Brockton (Mass.) Enterprise. Available at
National Transgendered Advocacy Coalition website: http://www.ntac.org/news/00/11/21doe.html
46. Scanlan-Stefanakos, V. (2001, April 10). Youth trans-action. The Advocate. Available at
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/835/835_cvr_transaction.asp
47. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
48. Varney, 2001.
LGBT YOUTH OF COLOR: THE “TRICULTURAL” EXPERIENCE
In GLSEN’s 2001 National School Climate Survey, 6.1% of LGBT youth identified
as African-American or black, 8.7% as Latino or Latina, 5.3% as Asian/Pacific
Islander, 4.5% as Native American, and 1.8% as multiracial. Another 1.8% select-
ed “other race/ethnicity” on the survey.
47
Although youth from minority communi-
ties face challenges that reflect the unique multidimensionality of their lives, there
is a paucity of research about the intersection of race, ethnicity, and sexual orienta-
tion among youth.
48
In GLSEN’s survey, 48% of the LGBT youth of color experi-
enced verbal harassment based on both their sexual orientation and their race or
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 17
49. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
50. Hunter, J. & Mallon, G. P. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescent development: Dancing with your feet tied together. In B.
Greene & G. L. Croom (Eds.), Education research and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Dube, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among ethnic sexual-minority male youths.
Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1389–1398.
52. Newman, B. S., & Muzzonigro, P. G. (1993). The effects of traditional family values on the coming out process of gay male
adolescents. Adolescence, 23(109), 213–227.
53. Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (2001). Social and developmental challenges for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. SIECUS Report,
29(4) 4–18; Dube & Savin-Williams, 1999.
54. Greene, B. (1997). Ethnic minority lesbians and gay men. In B. Greene (Ed.), Ethnic and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay
men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. Varney, 2001.
56. Ibid.
ethnicity.
49
LGBT youth of color may confront a “tricultural” experience: they face
homophobia from their respective racial or ethnic group, racism from within a pre-
dominantly white LGBT community, and a combination of the two from society at
large.
50
Feeling that they must choose between various aspects of their identity can
be particularly burdensome.
Research into the influence of ethnicity on the development of a sexual orientation
indicates that some identity development milestones, such as labeling same-sex attrac-
tions and same-sex romantic or sexual involvement, are consistent among all ethnici-
ties, while others, such as disclosure to family members and opposite-sex romantic and
sexual relationships, vary according to ethnic group.
51
A small study of 15 minority, gay
male youth found no difference between racial or ethnic groups when
analyzing disclosure of sexual orientation. Instead, attitudes toward
marriage, religion, and the use of a second language played a much
larger role in coming out. Racial or ethnic minority youth who had
families with more “traditional” values were less likely to come out at
all.
52
Unfortunately, there is no research on whether transgender
youth of color develop and disclose their gender identity differently
from white transgender youth.
LGBT youth of color are likely to face different challenges and stres-
sors in consolidating their racial, ethnic, and sexual identities than
white, non-Hispanic LGBT youth.
53
The significance of sexuality can
vary greatly among different cultural and ethnic groups, and identity
is influenced, in part, by such cultural factors, including values and
beliefs regarding sexuality, stereotypes about gender roles and expectations about child-
bearing, religious values and beliefs, and the degree of acculturation or assimilation into
mainstream society. The tight-knit family structures important to many immigrant
communities and communities of color can make the coming-out process more difficult
for some LGBT youth.
54
As Trinity Ordona, a co-founder of Asian/Pacific Islander
PFLAG in San Francisco notes, “The families are the core of the culture. When a gay
Asian comes out and gets kicked out of the family, it’s like being severed from the heart.
But if you get the family on your side they will stand and protect you.”
55
For children, racial and ethnic identity is an important point of commonality with their
families, which provide a vital support system for living in a society in which racism
persists.
56
Even when children experience hostility in the outside world because of their
race or ethnicity, they usually come home to a supportive environment anchored by a
shared culture. In contrast, LGBT youth cannot expect to find similar support around
LGBT youth of color may
confront a “tricultural”
experience: they face
homophobia from their
respective racial or ethnic
group, racism from within
a predominantly white
LGBT community, and a
combination of the two
from society at large.
18 EDUCATION POLICY
sexuality or gender issues at home.
57
In addition, conservative religious beliefs domi-
nate in some ethnic minority and immigrant communities. In a survey of 2,700 black
LGBT people, two-thirds of respondents said homophobia was a problem in the black
community. Forty-three percent reported mostly negative experiences
in black churches and mosques, while another 31% reported equally
positive and negative experiences.
58
The age at which youth become aware of same-sex attraction and the
degree to which they are comfortable coming out to school friends
may vary along racial and ethnic lines. Thought not necessarily gen-
eralizable to all LGBT youth, a study of 139 gay men found that
Latinos became aware of their same-sex attraction at a younger age
compared with white and African American youth. White youth,
however, were more likely to come out to their families. The same
study found that Asian American youth were more likely to have sex
at an earlier age—three years earlier, on average—than other racial
or ethnic groups. The majority of African American youth in the
study engaged in sex before labeling their sexual identity, while Asian
American youth overwhelmingly engaged in sex only after labeling themselves as gay
or bisexual.
59
A 1996 study reported that African American youth had more optimistic
attitudes about coming out to their friends than whites, believing that their heterosex-
ual peers would accept them. In fact, most had already come out to their best friends,
with positive results.
60
Some researchers have proposed that there are differences in the coming out process
based on race and culture. In one study, Asian American, African American, and
Latino youth were less likely than white youth to disclose their sexual orientation to
family members. Lower levels of disclosure of sexual orientation to others were associ-
ated with higher levels of internalized homophobia among Latino and Asian American
youth. This dynamic was not the case for African American and white youth.
61
White
youth may be more likely to hide their sexual orientation in school, citing fears of
harassment and violence.
62
Some researchers suggest that white adolescent students
feel less comfortable coming out because they are not accustomed to minority status,
and have not developed the same coping skills as minority youth.
63
LGBT youth of color often experience racism in white-dominated LGBT communities,
organizations, and support networks, which may disproportionately help white, subur-
ban, middle-class LGBT youth.
64
In contrast, there may be fewer resources connected to
the LGBT community for urban youth, who are more likely to be black or Latino, and
57. Ryan & Futterman, 2001.
58. Battle, J., Cohen, C. J., Warren, D., Fergerson, G., & Audam, S. (2001). Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud: Black pride survey
2000. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
59. Dube & Savin-Williams, 1999.
60. Edwards, W. (1996). A sociological analysis of an in/visible minority group: Male adolescent homosexuals. Youth and Society,
27(3), 229–251.
61. Dube & Savin-Williams, 1999.
62. Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of
Community Psychology, 23(1), 34–56.
63. Russell, S. T, & Truong, N. L. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, and school environments: A national
study of sexual minority youth of color. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color
and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
64. Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. California: Chardon Press; Leck, 2000.
“The families are the core
of the culture. When a
gay Asian comes out and
gets kicked out of the
family, it’s like being
severed from the heart.
But if you get the family
on your side they will
stand and protect you.”
—Trinity Ordona, Asian/
Pacific Islander PFLAG
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 19
65. Irvine, J. M. (2001). Educational reform and sexual identity. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
identities and youth. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. McCready, L. (2001). When fitting in isn’t an option, or why black queer males at a California high school stay away from Project
10. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield.
67. Uribe, V. (1994). Project 10: A school-based outreach to gay and lesbian youth. The High School Journal, 77, 108–112.
68. McCready, 2001.
69. Russel & Truong, 2001.
the institutions that do exist may be perceived as “white,” inaccessible, or irrelevant to
their experiences. For example, some students in a California high school reported that
the local Project 10 program, a chapter of the first major school-based program devel-
oped to provide education and counseling on the subject of sexual orientation, did not
serve the purpose for which it was intended.
65
During the 1997–1998 academic year, a
researcher investigated the reasons why black gay males were reluctant to be involved
with Project 10. About one of the students interviewed, the researcher wrote:
At [the high school], where social groups are often defined by race, identifying him-
self as gay (a social identity he and other Black students perceived as White) in
every situation would put him at odds with his Black peers. Consequently, he chose
to de-emphasize his sexuality and involve himself in extracurricular clubs and
activities (such as student government) that are legitimated by Black students.
Downplaying his sexuality also meant that Project 10 was off limits—to align him-
self with Project 10 meant risking harassment and public ridicule.
66
Although sizable and well-organized LGBT communities of color exist, particularly in
large urban areas, LGBT youth of color may choose not to connect with them because
they fear they will be harassed by their peers. Though these youth are stigmatized on
the basis of race and sexual orientation or gender identity, many find inadequate sup-
port as they navigate among three, often compartmentalized communities.
67
The few researchers and educators who have examined the relationships among sexu-
ality, race, and the harassment faced by LGBT youth of color often treat LGBT stu-
dents’ race as an add-on to their sexuality or gender identity.
68
Initiatives to make
schools safer for LGBT students, and to integrate LGBT issues into the curriculum,
sometimes lack an understanding of how the experiences of youth of color differ from
those of white LGBT students. The information that is available seems to assume that
because of the stigmatization of being a racial and sexual minority, LGBT youth of color
have a more difficult school experience. However, that may not always be the case. A
recent study found that African American youth who experience same-sex attraction
actually had significantly higher self-esteem then their white, Asian, or Hispanic
peers.
69
While these findings do not discount other studies documenting the negative
experiences of LGBT youth of color, they do highlight the need for more research on
the different ways that white youth and youth of color cope with coming out at school.
20 EDUCATION POLICY
CHILDREN OF LGBT PARENTS
Estimates of the number of lesbian or gay parents in the U.S. range from two to eight
million, making it difficult to accurately count the number of school-age children
who have one or more LGBT parents.
70
There are no estimates available on the num-
ber of children who have a parent that identifies as transgender. A
poll of the experiences of self-identified lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2000 found
that 8% of the 405 participants had children under the age of 18 liv-
ing with them.
71
U.S. Census data also provide estimates of the
number of unmarried, same-sex couples with children. Of the near-
ly 600,000 same-sex couples counted in the 2000 census, 34% of
female, unmarried-partner households (i.e., lesbian and bisexual
female couples) and 22% of male, unmarried-partner households
(i.e., gay or bisexual male couples) had at least one child under the
age of 18 living with them.
72
The percentage of unmarried, female
same-sex couples raising children is not that much lower than the
percentage of married, opposite-sex households with children (46%) or the percent-
age of unmarried, opposite-sex households with children (43%).
73
Some estimates
indicate that between 6 and 14 million children have at least one gay or lesbian par-
ent.
74
More conservative estimates find that between one and nine million children
ages 19 and under are being raised by a gay or lesbian parent.
75
These children are
enrolled in schools throughout the U.S., not just in urban areas. For example, the fol-
lowing rates of parenting by female or male same-sex unmarried partners were report-
ed by the U.S. Census in heavily rural states:
• Alaska: 37% of male same-sex couples and 39% of female same-sex couples
• Mississippi: 31% of male same-sex couples and 44% of female same-sex couples
• South Dakota: 34% of male same-sex couples and 42% of female same-sex couples
76
Analysis of the 1990 census data also revealed some interesting statistics regarding the
intersection of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) parenting with race and ethnicity: les-
bians and bisexual women of color in same-sex relationships were much more likely
than white lesbians and bisexual women in same-sex relationships to have given birth.
Sixty percent of black lesbians, 50% of Native American lesbians, 43% of Hispanic les-
bians, and 30% of Asian/Pacific Islander lesbians had given birth to at least one child,
compared with just 23% of white non-Hispanic lesbians. Multiracial households
accounted for 13% of lesbian couples and 12% of gay male couples. In a 2000 survey of
LGBT African Americans, 21% of respondents reported being biological parents, and
70. Casper, V., & Schultz, S. B. (1999). Gay parents/straight schools: Building communication and trust. New York: Teachers College
Press; Patterson, C. J. (1995a). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.),
Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over the lifespan. New York: Oxford University Press.
71. Safe Schools Coalition. (n.d.). Quick facts on sexual minority youth. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from
http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org
72. Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003, February). Married-couple and unmarried-partner households: 2000. United States Census
Bureau. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
73. Ibid.
74. Johnson, S. M., & O’Conner, E. (2002). The gay baby boom. New York: New York University Press.
75. Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of the parent matter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 164.
76. Ibid.
Same-sex male couples
are about half as likely as
heterosexual couples to
be raising children. More
than one-third of female
same-sex couples are
raising children, compared
with about 45% of
heterosexual couples.
2.2% reported being adoptive or foster parents.
77
Another study found that one in four
black lesbians lived with a child for whom she had childrearing responsibilities, while
only 2% of black gay men reported raising children.
78
Clearly, many lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people are parents, and parenting may be even more prevalent among LGB
people of color.
LGBT individuals pursue different paths to parenthood. Some have children from previ-
ous or current heterosexual relationships. Others have children—either biologically, or
through adoption or foster parenting—after coming out. Some parents are couples.
Others are single parents.
The vast majority of professional organizations, including the American Academy of
Pediatrics,
79
the National Association of Social Workers,
80
and the American
Psychological Association (APA),
81
recognize that gay and lesbian parents are just as good
as heterosexual parents, and that children thrive in gay- and lesbian-headed families. As
one APA publication reports, “not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian par-
ents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual par-
ents.”
82
These conclusions are likely true of bisexual parents as well. Although there is a
lack of research focusing specifically on bisexual parents, it is highly probable that there
are bisexuals in the same-sex couples included in the samples of many of these studies.
83
Since many studies do not ask people to self-identify by sexual orientation, there are no
conclusive findings on bisexual parents. Studies on the children of trans-
gender parents have found that these children are not negatively affect-
ed by their parents’ gender identity.
84
According to Abigail Garner, the founder of Families Like Mine, an
organization dedicated to decreasing the isolation of people who have
LGBT parents and giving voice to their experience, “It wasn’t having
a gay father that made growing up a challenge, it was navigating a
society that did not accept him and, by extension, me.”
85
Societal
homophobia also affects the ability of LGBT parents to gain or retain
custody of children, and to be completely honest about their lives. It
may also result in harassment and violence directed against them and
their children.
Research conducted to determine the possible differences between the children of les-
bian, gay, or bisexual parents and the children of heterosexual parents has focused pri-
marily on the children’s ability to interact within peer groups. This research has found
21 1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION
77. Battle, Cohen, Warren, Fergerson, & Audam, 2001.
78. Mays, V. M., Chatters, L. M., Cochran, S. D., & Mackness, J. (1998). African American families in diversity: Gay men and
lesbians as participants in family networks. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29(1), 73–87.
79. Perrin, E. C., & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Co-parent or
second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109(2), 341–344.
80. Ferrero, E., Freker, J. and Foster, T. (2002). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. New York: ACLU Lesbian and
Gay Rights Project. Available at http://www.lethimstay.com/pdfs/gayadoptionbook.pdf
81. Patterson, C. J. (1995b). Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Available at http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
82. Ibid.
83. For more information on bisexuality, see Hutchins, L. & Kaahumanu, L. (1991). Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out.
Los Angeles: Alyson.
84. Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135,
692; Green R. (1998). Transsexuals’ children. International Journal of Transgenderism, 2(3). Available at
http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0601.htm
85. Garner, A. (2002, February 11). Don’t “protect” me; give me your respect. Newsweek.
In one school, a sixth-
grader was labeled a
“fag” by classmates who
discovered that he had
lesbian parents. He was
thrown against his locker
and kicked in the head
by a boy wearing cleats.
22 EDUCATION POLICY
that, in the case of the children of lesbian mothers, peer relations are normal.
86
While
social science research demonstrates that these children have the same outcomes for
health, social adjustment, and development as children with heterosexual parents,
some do face harassment in schools:
In one school, a sixth-grader was labeled a “fag” by classmates who discovered that he
had lesbian parents. Other children would point pencils at his behind and make sex-
ual innuendoes, while teachers who witnessed this harassment failed to intervene.
The harassment spiraled out of control, culminating in physical violence. He was
thrown against his locker and kicked in the head by a boy wearing cleats. Moments
later, he yelled at one of his attackers, and he was later punished for using inappro-
priate language. His mothers, with the help of a lawyer, quickly
had their son transferred to another school.
87
A 1998 study of school counselors and their perceptions of the gay and
lesbian students in their schools found that many of the students tar-
geted for harassment were those whose parents were gay or lesbian.
88
There is very little research on the children of transgender parents. A
small study published in the International Journal of Transgenderism in
1998 noted that opposition to transsexuals’ continuing in a parenting
role during and after their transition to the opposite sex is still very
high among psychiatrists, psychologists, and society at large.
89
This
opposition is largely due to unsubstantiated concerns that the children
of transgender parents will be confused about their own gender iden-
tity during critical years of child development, and that they will be
subjected to bullying and ostracism at school.
90
However, the small body of research that
is available does not support these concerns. A study of 18 children, each with one trans-
sexual parent, found that none became transsexual despite continued contact with their
transsexual parent, and that only three of them experienced some teasing when their
peers found out about their parents. In each case the situation was quickly resolved with
the help of supportive teachers and school administrators. The 14-year-old daughter of
a female-to-male transsexual parent summarized her experience in this way:
My mother is not happy in the body she is in. My mom is a lot happier since start-
ing to live as who she wants to be. When I was 13, my mother said, “I want to be
a man, do you care?” I said, “No. As long as you are the same person inside and still
love me. I don’t care what you are on the outside.” It’s like a chocolate bar, it’s got
a new wrapper but it’s the same chocolate inside.
91
While further research is needed on the experiences of children with transgender par-
ents, the author of this study concluded that these children are more likely to be hurt by
a traumatic separation from their parent than because of that parent’s gender identity.
92
86. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62(4), 1052–1070.
87. 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.
88. Fontaine, 1998.
89. Green, 1998.
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
“My mom is a lot
happier since starting to
live as who she wants to
be. It’s like a chocolate
bar, it’s got a new
wrapper but it’s the
same chocolate inside.”
—14-year-old daughter
of a female-to-male
transsexual
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 23
Children of LGBT parents hear messages from society, their school-age peers, and even
from school personnel that their families are at best nontraditional and at worst a threat
to them and to Western civilization. Heterocentric assumptions are pervasive in soci-
ety, and tolerated, if not magnified, in public schools.
93
Most early childhood education
programs and teachers are ill-equipped to address the needs of these youth.
94
So the
inclusion of LGBT parents in school partnerships can only aid students:
It is well established that the development of school, family, and community part-
nerships can help children succeed in school and later in life. By extension, it can
be assumed that efforts to improve communication among school professionals,
sexual minority parents, and the entire school community will be a tremendous
help to the success of children with sexual minority parents.
95
Educators and administrators who work to create safer and more inclusive schools assist
not only LGBT-identified students, but also children in LGBT families, and children
who come from other, nontraditional families.
96
LGBT YOUTH IN FOSTER CARE
An estimated 5 to 10% of youth in the foster care system are gay or lesbian.
97
The lack
of institutional acknowledgement of LGBT youth in foster care leads to a hostile atmos-
phere in which they are often forced to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity,
and are subjected to physical, verbal, and emotional harassment and abuse.
98
One of the
problems transgender youth in foster care face is not being allowed to dress in accor-
dance with their gender identity. One study found that 78% of LGBT youth ran away
from foster care placements because of the hostile treatment they received due to their
sexual orientation or gender identity. Sadly, 100% of LGBT youth surveyed in group
homes run by New York City’s Administration on Children’s Services reported being
verbally harassed, and 70% suffered physical abuse because of their sexual orientation.
99
Youth in the foster care system are also more likely to encounter difficulty finding a
long-term living situation, and to suffer multiple interruptions in their education. This
discontinuity, combined with their experience of harassment and alienation in schools,
places these students at an elevated risk for dropping out. The New York City Child
Welfare Administration, the Council of Family and Child Care Agencies, and the
Child Welfare League of America have all endorsed reforming the foster care system to
better aid LGBT youth.
100
93. Sears, J. T. (1994). Challenges for educators: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual families. The High School Journal, 77, 138–54.
94. Rubin, S. A. (1995). Children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents: How are today’s schools meeting this “invisible” group’s needs?
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386290); Kissen,
R. (1999). Children of the future age: Lesbians and gay parents talk about school. In W. J. Letts & J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering
elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
95. Ryan, D., & Martin, A. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents in the school system. School Psychology Review,
29(2) 207–216.
96. Rubin, 1995.
97. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001). Youth in the margins. New York: Author.
98. Ibid.
99. Feinstein, R., Greenblatt, A., Hass, L., Kohn, S., & Rana, J. (2001). Justice for all: A report on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered youth in the New York juvenile justice system. New York: Urban Justice Center.
100. Mallon, G. P. (1998). We don’t exactly get the welcome wagon: The experiences of gay and lesbian adolescents in child welfare system. New
York: Columbia University Press. This study examined the experiences of 54 gay and lesbian youth in the New York City foster
care system.
24 EDUCATION POLICY
HOMELESS LGBT YOUTH
Though the number of homeless youth who identify as LGBT is difficult to estimate,
the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services estimated in 1985 that approx-
imately 6% of homeless adolescents were gay or lesbian.
101
In a national survey of com-
munity-based agencies providing services to runaway, homeless, and other youth in
high-risk situations, 6% identified themselves as gay or lesbian.
102
It has been estimat-
ed that more than 40% of homeless youth in large cities like New York and Los Angeles
are LGBT.
103
According to a recent report by the Urban Justice Center, 4 to 10% of
youth in the juvenile justice system in New York identify as LGBT.
104
The 1991
National American Indian Adolescent Health Survey found that gay
Native American youth were significantly more likely than their het-
erosexual peers to have run away from home in the previous 12
months (28% vs. 17%, respectively).
105
A study released in 2002 was the first to compare the risks faced by
homeless LGBT youth to those faced by their heterosexual counter-
parts. From 1995 to 1998, data were collected from homeless youth 13
to 21 years of age. The majority of participants identified as white
(53%) and heterosexual (78%). Of the 22% of the participants who
identified other than heterosexual, 85% identified as bisexual, with
only 14% identifying as exclusively gay or lesbian. Only one partici-
pant (1%) identified as transgender.
106
The study indicated that many LGBT youth and heterosexual youth
left their homes for similar reasons, including an inability to get along with parents and
domestic violence. But LGBT youth left their homes, returned, and ran away again
almost twice as frequently. And LGBT youth were also more likely to leave home as a
result of physical abuse and parental alcoholism. Only 12 LGBT youth (14%) said that
they ran away because of conflicts with their families over their sexual orientation. The
LGBT homeless youth experienced higher levels of victimization then their heterosex-
ual counterparts, and gay male homeless youth had been sexually victimized since the
time that they first became homeless more frequently than their heterosexual counter-
parts. These youth were also more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and experienced a
higher incidence of the symptoms of depression. The LGBT homeless youth had sex
with more partners, and, at an average age of 13, were also younger when they had their
first sexual experience. The majority also reported that they did not use a condom dur-
ing sex “most of the time.”
107
While the process of coming out to family and friends at school is difficult for the
majority of LGBT youth, many are fortunate enough to have a support network to
rely on for guidance and acceptance. This is almost completely absent for homeless
101. Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002.
102. National Network of Runaway and Youth Services [now the National Network for Youth]. (1991). To whom do they belong?
Runaway, homeless and other youth in high-risk situations in the 1990s. Washington: Author.
103. Feinstein, Greenblatt, Hass, Kohn, & Rana, 2001.
104. Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002.
105. Reis & Saewyc, (1999).
106. Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002.
107. Ibid.
The 1991 National
American Indian
Adolescent Health
Survey found that gay
Native American youth
were significantly more
likely than their
heterosexual peers to
have run away from home
in the previous 12 months.
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 25
LGBT youth, who until recently were almost completely ignored by researchers and
policymakers. The homeless shelters that exist are often segregated by sex, and do not
properly integrate transgender youth according to their gender identity. Left on their
own to support themselves, many LGBT youth are arrested for “survival crimes” such
as robbery or sex work.
LGBT YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES
LGBT youth often feel estranged from their families because they must hide their
emerging sexual orientation or gender identity. One study found that coming out or
being discovered as gay by family or friends, along with gay-related harassment, induced
the most common gay-related stressors among youth.
108
This stress is magnified when
youth are prematurely discovered to be gay by their parents, which
happened to 33% of the predominantly black and Hispanic gay and
bisexual male adolescents interviewed in a 1996 study.
109
The same
study found that a slightly higher percentage (38%) chose to disclose
their sexual orientation to their parents, confirming an earlier study
from 1987 that reported a 39% disclosure rate.
110
Youth are voluntarily coming out to their parents more frequently
than ever before, with 60 to 80% telling their mothers, and 30 to
65% coming out to their fathers.
111
When parents find out that their
child is gay, lesbian, or bisexual, responses range from warm acceptance to open hos-
tility. Unfortunately, hostility is the most common reaction. One study documented
that only 11% of gay and lesbian youth experienced supportive responses after coming
out to their parents, while 20% of mothers and 28% of fathers were rejecting or com-
pletely intolerant.
112
A 1993 study of 120 lesbians and gay men ages 14 to 21 found
that 42% of the females and 30% of the males reported negative responses from their
families after coming out to them.
113
These statistics indicate that the experiences of
youth who come out to their parents have not gotten much better over the past
decade. The 1987 study found that 26% of adolescent males were forced to leave their
homes because of their families’ conflict over their sexual orientation, and only 21%
of mothers and 10% of fathers were supportive after their sons came out to them.
Clearly, youth have frequently been forced to choose between being honest about who
they are and losing the vital support of their families.
114
Given the prevalence of par-
ents discovering their child’s homosexuality on their own, youth who actually get to
choose are the lucky ones.
108. D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Enhancing the development of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In E. Rothblum & L. Bonds (Eds.),
Prevention of heterosexism and homophobia. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
109. Rosario, M., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. M. (1996). Gay-related stress and its correlates among gay and bisexual male
adolescents of predominantly black and Hispanic background. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 136–159.
110. Remafedi, 1987.
111. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). The disclosure to families of same-sex attractions by lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8, 49–68.
112. D’Augelli, A. R. (1996).
113. Telljohann, S. K., & Price, J. H. (1993). A qualitative examination of adolescent homosexuals’ life experiences: Ramifications for
secondary school personnel. Journal of Homosexuality, 22, 9–28.
114. Remafedi, 1987.
Youth have frequently
been forced to choose
between being honest
about who they are and
losing the vital support
of their families.
26 EDUCATION POLICY
STRENGTH AND RESILIENCY OF LGBT YOUTH
Because many researchers and advocacy groups passionately advocate for the safety of
lesbian, gay, or bisexual youth, a lot of information is collected regarding the difficul-
ties these youth face. Unfortunately, there is less attention paid specif-
ically to the experiences of transgender youth, good or bad. While the
existing research is significant in establishing the need for nondis-
crimination policies, gay-straight alliances, and other policy inter-
ventions, many LGBT youth are happy, healthy, and display remark-
able strength and resiliency.
115
Even after they experienced harass-
ment or violence at school, some youth reported feeling well support-
ed and cared about because of the interventions of friends, family, or
school administrators. “I don’t feel as scared as I did. I’m a whole lot
angrier now,” asserted one youth.
116
“[I am] much stronger. Very sure
of who I am,” said another.
117
Some youth were also able to use these negative experi-
ences to develop self-empowering, proactive behaviors. According to one youth, “I
joined a club at school to combat racism, sexism and homophobia. Hopefully that will
help.” Another reported, “[Harassment] has made me a lot more active, made me try to
push harder to fix what’s wrong at my school.”
118
Many LGBT youth are also thriving in their school environments and are proud of
who they are and what they are accomplishing.
119
They have remarkable strengths,
talents, and skills at their disposal, are able to develop positive and productive cop-
ing strategies, and can tap into existing support networks or even create their own.
120
And they don’t just advocate for themselves; they also educate their peers and teach-
ers in the process.
121
Many LGBT students are one another’s role models and sources
of support, learning from each other’s experiences.
122
Through these experiences they
gain a sense that they can make a difference and contribute positively to their com-
munities.
123
In Massachusetts, hundreds of LGBT youth successfully lobbied the leg-
islature to pass a law banning sexual orientation discrimination in the state’s public
schools. For most legislators, it was the first time they had met an openly gay youth.
While the statistics regarding LGBT youth and suicide demand immediate interven-
tion, one study of 11,940 adolescents revealed that the majority of the sexual minor-
ity youth surveyed (85% of males and 72% of females) reported no suicidal ideation
at all.
124
Another study of 221 lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth found that partici-
pants who had neither considered nor attempted suicide “possessed internal and
115. Savin-Williams, 2001.
116. The Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State (1999, January). They don’t even know me: Understanding antigay harassment and
violence in schools [Electronic version]. Seattle: Author. Available at
http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/theydontevenknowme.pdf
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid.
119. Lipkin, A. (1994). The case for a gay and lesbian curriculum. The High School Journal, 77 (1&2), 95–107.
120. Munoz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S., & Rounds, K. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students: Perceived social support in the
high school environment. High School Journal, 85(4), 52–63.
121. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
122. Gilliam, J. (2002). Respecting the rights of LGBTQ youth, a responsibility of youth-serving professionals. Transitions: A
Newsletter of Advocates for Youth, 14(4), 1–2; Ginsberg, R. (1999). In the triangle/out of the circle: Gay and lesbian students facing
the heterosexual paradigm. The Educational Forum, 64, 46–56.
123. Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. High School Journal, 85(3), 13–26.
124. Russell, S. T. & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study. American
Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1276–1281.
In Massachusetts,
hundreds of LGBT youth
successfully lobbied the
legislature to pass a law
banning sexual orientation
discrimination in the
state’s public schools.
1. LGBT YOUTH: A CRITICAL POPULATION 27
external qualities that enabled them to cope well in the face of discrimination, lone-
liness, and isolation.”
125
The need for more research on LGBT youth and resiliency
is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Of course, it would be far better for youth to develop increased self-esteem and person-
al acceptance without having to deal with harassment and violence, and in many of the
cases discussed in the next section, parents and school and administrators did little or
nothing to protect this vulnerable population. School districts that believe they do not
need to address the needs of LGBT students, or worse, believe that they have no gay or
lesbian students, are woefully mistaken.
126
125. Proctor, C., & Groze, V. K. (1994). Risk factors for suicide among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths. Social Work, 39(5), 504–513.
126. Bennett, L. (1997). Break the silence [Electronic version]. Teaching Tolerance Magazine, 12. Available at
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/printar.jsp?p=0&ar=110&pi=ttm
127. ABC News.com. (2000, June 22). A profile of courage: High school athlete reveals homosexuality, community rallies behind
him. Retrieved September 29, 2003, from http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000622_coreyjohnson_feature.html
128. Lum, M. (n.d.). Corey Johnson: Confident, courageous and coming to Texas. Retrieved September 29, 2003, from
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/921/coverstory.htm
129. Ibid.
130. Cassels, P. (2000) A brave athlete, supportive school. Bay Windows. Available at Outsports website:
http://www.outsports.com/gaymassplayer.htm
More Than Just the
“Gay Football Captain”:
A Profile of Corey Johnson
Super Bowl party, a few of his uncles made
disparaging remarks about gays. The
remarks infuriated him, but also caused
him to retreat to the bathroom to cry.
128
Corey knew then that he had to speak
out. His burdens lightened with each per-
son he told. He received unconditional
support from his teachers and uncondi-
tional love from his parents. But how
would his teammates respond? They often
engaged in rowdy sexual banter and
ridiculed gays. Moreover, his coach regu-
larly told the players, “Don’t be a bunch of
fairies,” and “Don’t be a bunch of fags.”
129
Despite such remarks, his coach
turned out to be supportive when Corey
came out to him and arranged a team
meeting. Corey stood in front of his
teammates and announced, “Guys, I
called this meeting because I have some-
thing to tell all of you.... I’m coming out
as an openly gay man.”
130
When he
“I’d keep so much in all day long.
Then at night, when I’d be by myself in
bed, I’d just cry and cry because of every-
thing I kept in during the day, all the
pain.”
127
That was
Corey Johnson’s life
before he came out—
first to a school coun-
selor, then a teacher,
then to his parents,
and finally, to the var-
sity football team. At
the time, Corey was a
junior at Masconomet
High School in Topsfield, Massachusetts,
and the elected co-captain and starting
linebacker of his school’s football team.
Corey had been hiding his sexual ori-
entation since the sixth grade. It was dur-
ing his sophomore year that his coming
out process began—appropriately enough,
as a result of a football party. At a 1998
Corey had been hiding his
sexual orientation since the sixth
grade. It was during his
sophomore year that his
coming out process began—
appropriately enough, as a
result of a football party.
28 EDUCATION POLICY
131. Ibid.
132. Ibid.
133. Lum, n.d.
his teammates with their Visionary
Award.
Today Corey is a successful radio
personality, co-hosting the McMullen
and Johnson show on OutQ, an LGBT-
themed radio station on the SIRIUS
satellite radio network. Broadcasting
live from Rockefeller Center, he con-
ducts high-profile interviews and initi-
ates issues-oriented dialogue.
“Someday I want to get beyond
being the gay football captain, but for
now I need to get out there and show
these machismo athletes who run high
schools that you don’t have to do
drama or be a drum major to be gay,”
Corey said.
133
Even after Corey moves
beyond his role as “the gay football
captain,” the significance of his actions
will remain. Corey not only effectively
challenged dominant stereotypes of
male gay identity, but his experience
also serves as a reminder that coming
out as a gay youth can have a happy
ending. Amid the epidemic of vio-
lence, harassment, and discrimination
against LGBT youth, Corey’s story pro-
vides an example of how things could,
or rather, should be.
noticed the wide eyes and dropped jaws
Corey quickly added, “I’m still the same
person.... I didn’t come on to you in the
locker room last year. I’m not going to do
it this year. Who says you guys are cute
enough anyway?”
131
Corey’s honesty and
sense of humor defused the tension, and
his teammates rallied behind him with
comments like, “I’d
like to be supportive
in any way possible,”
and “Even if others
on the team don’t
agree with you being
gay, in order to be a
cohesive team, they
just have to accept it
and put it aside.”
132
The team did join
together in support of
Corey, leading them
not only to a 25–0
victory over a vocally
homophobic oppos-
ing team, but also
prompting the Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network
to honor Corey and
“Someday I want to get beyond
being the gay football captain,
but for now I need to get out
there and show these machismo
athletes who run high schools
that you don’t have to do drama
or be a drum major to be gay.”
COREY JOHNSON
29
“Daddy, do you know what a ‘faggot’ is?”
“Why do you ask?”
“[My friend] called me one at recess.”
134
This conversation took place between a six-year-old elementary school student and his
father. It is but one striking example of the epidemic of harassment and violence direct-
ed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trangender (LGBT) youth in American schools.
Numerous studies have reported pervasive harassment and violence
perpetrated by students, and even some school faculty and staff,
against students from elementary school through senior high. This lit-
tle boy’s question illustrates that the violence and harassment is about
more then sexual orientation.
Students routinely use terms such as “fag,” “sissy,” “fairy,” “queer,”
and “gay” to tease and berate peers who do not conform to gender-
role stereotypes, as well as to express disgust and disdain for some-
thing they simply don’t like.
135
Like the cartoon characters on South
Park who say “that’s so gay” to disparage something, children around
the U.S. frequently use language about gay people to connote “bad.”
In fact, a 1997 Iowa study found that high school students on aver-
age heard 25 antigay remarks per day, with teachers who hear such slurs failing to
respond 97% of the time. Similarly, in 2001, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) reported that 85% of youth across the nation heard antigay slurs
from other students on a regular basis. Twenty-four percent heard those slurs from facul-
ty or school staff.
137
134. The Safe Schools Coalition, 1999.
135. Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. New York:
Rowman and Littlefield.
136. Carter, K. (1997, March 7). Gay slurs abound. Des Moines Register, p. B1. Cited in Callahan, C. J. (2001). Protecting and
counseling gay and lesbian students. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 40(1), 5–10.
137. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
“It’s not just name calling.
I don’t know how
schools can isolate it like
that. When are they
going to see it as a
problem? When we’re
bloody on the ground in
front of them?”
—A gay student
2. A Grave Picture
of Harassment and
Violence in Schools
30 EDUCATION POLICY
Verbal harassment is not harmless behavior. “It’s not just name call-
ing,” stressed one student interviewed for a study conducted by
Human Rights Watch in 2001. “I don’t know how schools can isolate
it like that. When are they going to see it as a problem? When we’re
bloody on the ground in front of them?”
138
Sadly, it often does not
stop even then. A 1993 Massachusetts study of high school students
found that gay teens are twice as likely as their straight peers to be
threatened or injured with a weapon at school. GLSEN reported that
42% of LGBT youth are shoved, pushed, or otherwise physically
harassed because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, and
almost 90% of self-identified transgender youth reported feeling
unsafe in their school because of their gender identity.
139
A five-year
study conducted by the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State
documented 111 incidents of anti-LGBT violence in 73 schools.
These included 38 cases of ongoing verbal harassment, 17 incidents of physical harass-
ment, and eight gang rapes in which a total of 11 students were molested, two of them
sixth graders. Most of these incidents occurred in a classroom or in school hallways, and
more than one-third of the cases involved female offenders. As a result of this violence,
10 students dropped out of school, 10 students attempted suicide, and two students suc-
cessfully committed suicide.
140
ANTI-LGBT HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN ELEMENTARY
AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Dear Mom,
Bobby hit me on the bus. I did not do anything. What he did was put his earphones
on my ear, and then I moved it away and he said, “Don’t hit me, you little fagite
[sic].” Then he hit me real hard. I wanted to cry. Then he said, “I’ll hit you so hard
you will want to cry forever.” Why does everyone pick on me? Why? I think I am
ugly like people say. I don’t think I look nice at all.
Bye bye,
Jamal
I have been called gay, faggot and a girl most of my life. I have recently had a new
name added…”gay prick.” I have reached out for help so many times it’s unbeliev-
able. Nothing much has happened except a phone call home. I am still being teased
and embarrassed in front of people and also my friends…. I have been putting up
with this since elementary school. And let me tell you this—the longer you let this
continue, the worse it will get. And it will be twice as hard to deal with it.
Jamal was in third grade when he wrote the first letter to his mother, and in seventh
grade when he wrote the second letter to teachers at his school.
141
When people
138. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
139. Faulkner, A. H. & Cranston, K. (1998). Correlates of same-sex behavior in a random sample of Massachusetts high school
students. American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 262–266; Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
140. Safe Schools Coalition, 1999.
141. Perrotti &Westheimer, 2001.
A five-year study
conducted by the Safe
Schools Coalition of
Washington State
documented 111
incidents of anti-LGBT
violence in 73 schools,
including eight gang
rapes in which a total of
11 students were
molested, two of them
sixth graders.
think of violence and harassment against LGBT students, they think of incidents
occurring in high school, and maybe middle school. The experiences of elementary
students like Jamal are often dismissed as anecdotal or tolerated as immature child-
hood behavior. Because people mistakenly believe that it does not happen, there is
little documentation of anti-LGBT harassment in elementary schools. But violence
is targeted at youth who do not conform to stereotypical gender roles regardless of
their sexual orientation or gender identity, and this victimization can begin at very
young ages. Through observing adults or their older brothers and sis-
ters, elementary students know that it is bad to call someone a “fag,”
even if they do not understand what it means. Consequently, inter-
ventions at the high school level come too late for many children
who are teased, bullied, and tormented from the very first day they
set foot in elementary school.
A five-year study by the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State
documented numerous anti-LGBT incidents in elementary schools.
For example:
• After hearing taunts like “Get away, gay boy!” from his peers over
a four-month period, a second-grader finally reported the incidents to his mother,
upset that no one would play with him and afraid to go to school. The school inter-
vened by teaching the class that name-calling would not be tolerated. According
to the boy’s mom, “[It’s made me] more aware that [the teasing] starts younger than
I would have thought. These are second-grade kids. I don’t know how aware they
are of sexual orientation at that age.”
• An 11-year-old boy was attacked by a large group of classmates after his diary, in
which he described feeling like a girl inside and wondered if he were a lesbian, was
stolen. The classmates sold his diary for $10 per page, and then they attacked him,
took some of his clothes off and tried to force him to wear girl’s clothes. This youth,
who eventually identified as transgender, waited until age 16 before talking to
school administrators about these experiences.
• A 12-year-old sixth-grader was attacked and repeatedly gang raped by four other
sixth-graders and two high school students at an elementary school-sponsored
camp. One of the attackers vomited on him and threatened to kill him if he told
anyone about the incident.
Incidents of violence and harassment were more pervasive in middle and junior high
schools:
• Since the beginning of the school year, a seventh-grader was repeatedly teased and
harassed by students in the hallways. The students called him “flute boy” because
he played flute in the school symphony. One demanded, “How come you look so
gay? Are you gay?” The boy’s family reported that he cried nearly every day and no
longer wanted to go to school. But when the boy’s mother reported these incidents
to a school counselor she trusted, the counselor was hesitant to intervene because
she did not want the harassment to get worse.
• After her seventh-grade son was harassed daily at school by being called a “faggot,” a
“pervert,” and told that “queers burn in hell,” the boy’s mother complained to the
school principal, who assured her that the staff would get sensitivity training, even
31 2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS
According to a harassed
boy’s mom, “[The
teasing] starts younger
than I would have thought.
These are second-grade
kids. I don’t know how
aware they are of sexual
orientation at that age.”
32 EDUCATION POLICY
though it was the students who were doing the harassing. Later in the year, after a
game of “smear the queer,” the boy started a fight with two other students after a class-
mate told him that standing up for himself would end the teasing. When the fight
was over, the boy was sent to the nurse’s office with cuts, bruises, a
lump on his neck from being hit by a soda bottle, a sprained ankle,
and a broken arm. He was reprimanded by school administrators for
starting the fight, and was suspended for the rest of the day.
142
None of the largest population-based studies cited in this report col-
lected information from students below the sixth-grade level. These
horrific accounts of violence and harassment, though specific to just
one state, clearly underscore the need for more research and interven-
tion on behalf of elementary and middle school students nationwide.
Unchecked harassment against young children in elementary school
predictably escalates into violence as they grow older, especially in
smaller school systems in which the student population remains fairly consistent.
According to a 19-year-old high school senior who had been harassed since first grade:
It was horrible. At first they made fun of me because I was different. Then it was
because I was gay. They’d call me things like “fag” and “cocksucker.” It went on
through middle school and got really bad in high school. After I came out it was like
I had a death wish or something. I was pushed around, thrown into lockers. I can see
it all in my head. It was just constant. Everybody was always harassing me.
143
While not all youth first experience harassment in elementary school, many claim that
middle and junior high is where it begins to be unbearable, often leading to physical
attack in high school. “It started in fourth or fifth grade,” said one 18-year-old high
school senior, “and didn’t stop until the second semester of my senior year,” which was
when he enrolled in college courses.
144
ANTI-LGBT HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN HIGH SCHOOLS
There is far more information about anti-LGBT harassment of high school students—
in part because many become aware of their sexual orientation or gender identity and
begin to self-identify during their high school years—allowing for a much clearer pic-
ture of experiences of secondary school students. A study in the United Kingdom found
that although 93% of openly gay and bisexual students in British high schools experi-
enced verbal harassment and bullying, only 6% of schools had a nondiscrimination pol-
icy that included sexual orientation.
145
The lack of attention and intervention on
behalf of these students led one researcher to claim that this institutional neglect is
“nothing less than state-sanctioned child abuse.”
146
The high school environment in
the United States is no better.
142. Safe Schools Coalition, 1999.
143. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
144. Ibid.
145. Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the “outsider within”: Homophobic pejoratives and the verbal abuse of lesbian, gay and bisexual
high school pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 25–38.
146. Ibid.
“It went on through middle
school and got really bad
in high school. After I came
out it was like I had a death
wish or something. I was
pushed around, thrown
into lockers. Everybody
was always harassing me.”
—A gay high school senior
2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS 33
Analysis of data from the 1996 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,
which included over 12,000 students in U.S. high schools, revealed that lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youth were more likely then heterosexual youth to have been in a fight
that resulted in the need for medical attention, and more likely to have witnessed vio-
lence. Bisexual youth were also more likely to be violently attacked. This study also
found that gay youth were more likely to perpetrate violence against their peers. This
was explained by accounting for the fear and need to defend themselves they feel
because of the violence and harassment they regularly endure.
147
The story of Jamie
Nabozny, a student from Wisconsin, is a tragic example of how verbal harassment can
escalate into life-threatening violence in high school.
147. Russell, S. T., Franz, B. T., & Driscoll, A. K. (2001). Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence.
American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 903–906.
148. Walsh, J. (1996, February). Profiles in Courage: Jamie Nabozny, 20, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Oasis. Retrieved October 6,
2003, from Youth.org website: http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/States/Minnesota/jamie.html
149. Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996).
150. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1996). Nabozny v. Podlesny: Victory! Retrieved July 28, 2003, from
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/cases/record?record=54
Gay Student Sues School,
Wins $900K Settlement:
A Profile of Jamie Nabozny
In elementary school, although shy
and quiet, Jamie was a good student and
enjoyed going to school. In seventh
grade, however, Jamie realized that he
was gay, and when other students at
Ashland Middle School in Wisconsin
learned of his sexual orientation, the tor-
ment began. What started as name-call-
ing and spitting quickly turned to more
violent attacks. In a science lab, for
example, Jamie was the victim of a
“mock rape” by two boys who told him
he should enjoy it, while 20 other stu-
dents looked on and laughed. In
response to the attack, the middle school
principle told Jamie and his parents that
“boys will be boys,” and if Jamie “was
going to be so openly gay, he had to
expect this kind of stuff to happen.”
148
This “kind of stuff” continued through-
out middle school and escalated in high
school, where he was attacked several
times in the bathroom and urinated on.
On the school bus, he was routinely pelt-
ed with objects, including steel nuts and
bolts. But the most serious assault
occurred in 11th grade, when Jamie was
surrounded by eight students and kicked
in the stomach repeatedly while other
students stood by. Jamie collapsed due to
internal bleeding caused by the attack
and was rushed to the hospital.
149
Despite frequent meetings with
school officials, the identification of his
attackers, and the intervention of his
parents, the school took no meaningful
disciplinary action against Jamie’s
abusers.
150
Throughout his time at
Ashland High School, Jamie tried to kill
himself several times. He dropped out of
school twice, and eventually decided to
leave for good: “In December of my
eleventh grade year, we had a meeting
with my parents and guidance counselor
at school, and we decided the best thing
for me to do was to leave. [The guidance
counselor] said, ‘I’ve tried to help you
through this whole thing and nobody’s
34 EDUCATION POLICY
151. Walsh, 1996.
152. Ibid.
153. Ibid.
154. Ibid.
155. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1996.
156. Ibid.
157. Ibid.
willing to do anything.”
151
Jamie left
Ashland, moved to Minneapolis, and
earned a G.E.D. He also began to get
involved in the local
LGBT community,
working for a while
with District 200, a
community center for
LGBT youth.
152
While in Min-
neapolis, Jamie was
diagnosed with post-
traumatic stress disor-
der related to his
experiences in school.
He initially simply
wanted to put the
Ashland experiences
behind him and
move on. But a trip to
the Gay and Lesbian
Community Action
Center in Minneapolis
changed his mind.
Having moved out of
his parents’ home at
17, Jamie had gone to
the center in search
of foster parents. It
was there that a
crime victims’ advo-
cate told Jamie that
what had happened
to him was illegal and
that the school should be held responsi-
ble. Jamie remembers his thoughts at the
time: “I didn’t realize what was being
done to me was illegal or wrong. I just
thought it’s a small town; they’re very
prejudiced, homophobic. I almost felt it
was okay what they did to me, that they
could get away with it. I knew it wasn’t
right, but I didn’t know that it was ille-
gal.”
153
The crime victims’ advocate
secured a lawyer for Jamie and within a
few days a suit was filed. Unfortunately,
the lawyer turned out to be “quite homo-
phobic and did not want to be labeled as
a gay rights advocate. She didn’t want
this to be a gay case.”
154
The federal dis-
trict judge presiding over Jamie’s lawsuit
ruled that Jamie’s school could not be
held liable for the actions of its students,
and the case was dismissed.
155
However, Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund offered to repre-
sent Jamie on appeal, arguing, “Jamie’s
rights to equal protection and due
process were violated when the school
refused to protect him from antigay
abuse.”
156
In July 1996, in a precedent-
setting decision, the federal appellate
court ruled that public schools have a
constitutional obligation to prevent the
abuse of lesbian and gay students.
Then, in November 1996, a jury unan-
imously found Jamie’s middle and high
school principles liable for failing to
protect him during four years of brutal
antigay abuse, and he was awarded over
$900,000 in damages.
157
The case suc-
ceeded in bringing national attention
to violence and harassment against
LGBT students in public schools. As for
Jamie’s personal message, he said, “It
really had become much more about
everyone else and less about me. I’m
going to go on. I’m going to be OK…
but there’s a lot of people who aren’t,
some people don’t make it out of high
school because they kill themselves. It’s
very important, to me that [LGBT stu-
In November 1996, a jury
unanimously found Jamie’s
middle and high school principals
liable for failing to protect him
during four years of brutal anti-
gay abuse, and he was awarded
over $900,000 in damages.
JAMIE NABOZNY AND PARENTS
Unfortunately, the threat of an expensive lawsuit has not translated into a safer envi-
ronment for many LGBT students. GLSEN’s 2001 National School Climate Survey of
904 students in 48 states and the District of Colombia found that violence and harass-
ment are still pervasive:
• 84% of LGBT students heard insults like “faggot” or “dyke” frequently from other
students at school
• 24% heard similar remarks from faculty at least some of the time
• 82% reported that faculty or staff either never intervened or only sometimes inter-
vened when they heard other students make such remarks
• 83% had been verbally harassed at school because of their sexual orientation
• 65% had been sexually harassed
• 42% had been physically harassed because of their sexual orientation
• 31% of the students were physically harassed because of their gender identity, and
14% of those students were physically assaulted
• 69% felt unsafe in their school
• 48% of the LGBT students of color reported being verbally harassed because of
both their sexual orientation and their race or ethnicity
159
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Much of the verbal harassment directed at LGBT or gender-nonconforming youth can
actually be classified as sexual harassment. In fact, one nationwide study found that
63% of students experienced sexual harassment by a peer of the same sex, including:
• Sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks
35 2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS
158. Walsh, 1996.
159. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
National Center for Lesbian Rights,
school districts have paid between
$40,000 and almost $1 million in dam-
ages between 1996 and 2002. The law-
suits have succeeded throughout the
U.S., from California to Kentucky,
including in states that do not have
legislation or department of education
regulations specifically protecting stu-
dents on the basis of sexual orientation
or gender identity.
dents] know they don’t have to take the
abuse. They don’t have to go through
this stuff.”
158
Jamie Nabozny’s victory was the
first in a series of court rulings that
have held school districts responsible
for failing to protect LGBT students
from discrimination, violence, or
harassment. According to a summary of
15 lawsuits by the Gay, Lesbian and
Straight Education Network and the
36 EDUCATION POLICY
160. Fineran, S. (2002). Sexual harassment between same-sex peers: Intersection of mental health, homophobia, and sexual
violence in schools. Social Work, 47(1), 65–74.
161. Ibid.
162. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual
harassment in America’s schools. Washington: Harris/Scholastic Research.
163. Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1998). Implications of peer sexual harassment between same-sex teens. Paper presented at the meeting of
the International Social Work Research Conference, Miami.
164. Fineran, S. (2001). Sexual minority students and peer sexual harassment in high school. Journal of School Social Work, 11.
165. Ibid.
166. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
167. Ibid.
168. Ibid.
• Sexual messages or graffiti on bathroom walls and in locker rooms
• Sexual rumors
• Being shown sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations, messages, or notes
• Being identified as gay or lesbian through the use of derogatory terms like “fag” or “dyke”
• Being touched, pinched, or grabbed in a sexual way
• Being blocked or cornered in a sexual way
• Being forced to kiss or forced to endure other unwelcome sexual behavior
160
While sexual harassment by a member of the opposite sex is more commonly reported
in the workplace, members of the same sex often perpetrate peer-to-peer harassment in
schools.
161
This creates a hostile environment regardless of the sexual orientation or
gender identity of the student being victimized. In a study conducted by the American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 1993, 86% of all students
who were sexually harassed claimed that being labeled gay or lesbian,
regardless of their true sexual orientation, was more distressing than
physical abuse, especially for boys.
162
And, a study of Midwestern
high school students found that male and female adolescents were
more distressed about being harassed by same-sex peers than by peers
of the opposite sex.
163
Students who openly identify as LGBT experience more sexual harass-
ment (much of which is based on gender nonconformity) than their
heterosexual peers.
164
Young lesbians and bisexual girls are more like-
ly to be sexually harassed, called sexually offensive names, and
touched or grabbed in a sexual way.
165
“People would grab my breast
area,” recalled one lesbian high school student. “They’d come up and
grab my waist, put their arm around me.”
166
Gay and bisexual male students are also vic-
tims of sexually suggestive remarks or gestures. “Guys will grab themselves, or they’ll
make kissing noises,” reported another high school student. “They mimic homoerotic
acts. They’ll mimic anal sex, oral sex.”
167
Attention to and the prevalence of sexual harassment in schools has been increasing.
In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education reported only 11 same-sex sexual harass-
ment claims by elementary and secondary school students. In 1999 and 2000, the com-
bined number increased to 274 for elementary and secondary education schools, and
111 for post-secondary educational institutions.
168
Despite the increased reporting,
efforts to protect students who are sexually harassed have been largely unsuccessful. For
example, in Utah, a same-sex harassment lawsuit filed by a high school football player
Eighty-six percent of all
students who were
sexually harassed claimed
that being labeled gay or
lesbian, regardless of their
true sexual orientation,
was more distressing
than physical abuse,
especially for boys.
2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS 37
against his teammates was dismissed by a court “on the grounds that the boy failed to
prove that he had been a victim of any discriminatory effort.”
169
While he was naked,
his teammates had taped his genitals to a towel rack and then exposed him to a girl
brought into the locker room against her will. School administrators called the incident
“hazing,” and did not feel that the behavior of his teammates was abnormal.
170
Efforts to curtail sexual harassment in public schools have been hampered by the belief
that sexual harassment in school is a normal adolescent behavior. This view ignores
both the cruelty inherent to many instances of harassment, and the mental health
effects of that cruelty on its victims. These effects can include:
• Loss of appetite
• Loss of interest in school
• Nightmares or disturbed sleep
• Feelings of isolation from family and friends
• Feeling sad, nervous, threatened, and angry
171
As a result of these symptoms, the school performance of students who are sexually
harassed often declines. They are more likely to cut class or be absent or truant, have
lower grades, and lose friends. Students who are forced to endure long-term harassment
may also be more likely to retaliate out of anger and self-defense. This can lead to phys-
ically threatening situations, and even make the victim appear to be a perpetrator.
172
THE IMPACT OF ANTI-LGBT HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE
The threat of violence and harassment makes school an unsettling and unsafe place for
LGBT students. Some find it difficult to concentrate in class and focus on schoolwork.
Many, fearing discovery of their sexual orientation or gender identity, hesitate to par-
ticipate in school activities. As a result, they distance themselves from the school envi-
ronment both emotionally and physically, becoming truants or dropping out altogeth-
er.
173
This has a lasting, negative impact on LGBT youth, inhibiting their development
and their successful transitions to adulthood.
174
A number of studies highlight the problem of chronic truancy among LGBT students.
According to GLSEN’s 2001 survey, 32% of students had skipped class at least once in
the previous month, and 31% had missed at least one entire day of school in the pre-
vious month, because they felt unsafe.
175
Students reporting same-sex behavior on the
1993 Massachusetts YRBS were more than three times as likely as their heterosexual
peers to skip school because they felt unsafe.
176
In 1995, the same survey indicated that
169. Seamons v. Snow, D. C. No. 94-NC-4B (D. Utah Oct. 4, 1994), app., 84 F3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1996).
170. Stein, N. (1999). Classrooms & courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in K–12 schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
171. Ibid.
172. Ibid.
173. Hunter, J. & Schaecher, R. (1987). Stressors on lesbian and gay adolescents in schools. Social Work in Education, 9(3), 180–190.
174. D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and Sexual Orientation. California: Sage.
175. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001
38 EDUCATION POLICY
self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual students were almost five times as likely as het-
erosexual students to have missed school because of fears about safety.
177
In 1999, 20%
of Massachussetts students who described themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual report-
ed that they had skipped school in the previous month because of
feeling unsafe at or en route to school, compared with only 6% of
other students.
178
Given that LGBT students have higher truancy rates then their het-
erosexual peers, it is not surprising that they also score lower on other
indicators of school performance and satisfaction. A study published
in 2001, using data from the 1996 National Adolescent Health
Survey, was the first to analyze the differences in several school out-
come measures between students who identified as being attracted to
members of the same sex or both sexes, and students who were only
attracted to the opposite sex.
179
Female students who identified as being attracted to
both sexes (i.e., with a bisexual sexual orientation) were significantly more likely to
report that they had trouble getting along with other students, difficulty paying atten-
tion in class, and difficulty getting their homework done, than their heterosexual peers.
They also had lower grade point averages (GPAs).
Bisexual females had more negative school attitudes, did not feel like a part of their
school community, and had significantly more negative feelings about their teachers
than heterosexual female students. Females with only same-sex attractions also had
more negative school attitudes and lower GPAs than heterosexual female students.
Surprisingly, the same study found that adolescent boys who reported exclusively same-
sex attraction did not significantly differ from their heterosexual peers in school out-
comes, including GPA. The results of this study call for more research focusing on why
male and female students who were attracted to both sexes reported more problems at
school than those who were only attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, and why
female students tended to have more negative experiences and outcomes overall.
180
A 2002 report from the New York State Department of Education identified the torment
experienced by many LGBT youth as one of the leading causes for their dropping out of
school.
181
In order to reduce the student dropout rate, it proposed that administrators be
flexible in accommodating individual student situations, including the sexual orientation
or gender identity of students who are LGBT. It also recommended training teachers
about cultural differences. The most effective programs in the New York study attempted
to generate and sustain a welcoming community within the school, and sought to involve
the parents of the children the school served. Collaborating with neighborhood commu-
nities may be particularly crucial in addressing the needs of LGBT students of color, who
may also be coping with issues of alienation beyond the schoolyard that impact their abil-
ity to participate and learn at school.
176. Faulkner & Cranston, 1998.
177. Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J. & DuRand, R. H. (1998). The association between health risk behaviors and
sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), 895–902.
178. Massachusetts Department of Education. (1999). Massachusetts high school students and sexual orientation results of the 1999 youth risk
behavior survey [Electronic version]. Boston: Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs99/glb_rslts.html
179. Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001.
180. Ibid.
181. Gardner, R. (2002, February). Destination graduation: Dropout prevention New York State style. Paper presented at annual
conference of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Adolescent and School Health, Washington.
Self-identified lesbian,
gay, and bisexual students
were almost five times as
likely as heterosexual
students to have missed
school because
of fears about safety.
2. A GRAVE PICTURE OF HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS 39
The combination of violence and powerlessness experienced by LGBT youth leads some
to bring weapons onto school property. According to the 1995 Massachusetts Youth Risk
Behavior Study, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth were more than four times as
likely to have been threatened with a weapon on school property than their heterosex-
ual peers (33% and 7%, respectively).
182
Forty-four percent of the LGB and questioning
youth had also carried a weapon to school in the preceding month, compared with only
19% of heterosexual students.
183
Based on the results of the 1995 Vermont Youth Risk
Behavior Study data, some researchers have argued that male youth with multiple same-
sex sexual partners were more likely to be victims of violence at school, and therefore
more likely to carry weapons both in and out of school.
184
Analysis of the 1996 National
Adolescent Health Study also provided data on the prevalence of LGB adolescents using
weapons. An analysis of these data showed that youth who indicated same-sex roman-
tic attraction were more likely than their peers to perpetrate extreme forms of violence
against others, such as pulling a gun or knife, or shooting or stabbing someone. While
previous findings have indicated that LGB youth are more likely to carry weapons, this
study is the first to suggest that these same students are willing to use them. The authors
of the analysis suggest that the use of weapons results primarily from fear of being a vic-
tim of violence and the need for self-defense.
185
The harassment and violence that LGBT students experience has a negative impact on
their mental and physical health in indirect ways as well. A 2002 study indicated that
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning youth who experienced three or more incidents
of harassment within the preceding year engaged in behaviors putting their health at risk
at a higher rate than their heterosexual peers who were similarly harassed.
186
Substance
abuse by LGBT youth is linked to being marginalized by society, seek-
ing relief from depression and isolation, and attempting to alleviate
the stress associated with stigma.
187
Students reporting same-sex
behavior on the 1993 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Study were
nine times more likely to report using alcohol on each of the 30 days
preceding the survey; and 10 to 15% of LGB youth appeared to abuse
alcohol and/or use marijuana regularly, compared to 1 to 4% of stu-
dents reporting only heterosexual attraction and behavior.
188
In a
2002 study of data from the 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys in
Massachusetts and Vermont, gay, bisexual, and questioning male stu-
dents reported significantly higher marijuana and cocaine use than did lesbian, bisexu-
al, and questioning females.
189
Another study, analyzing 1996 National Adolescent
Health Study data, indicated that youth attracted to both males and females were at a
somewhat higher risk for substance use and abuse than were heterosexual youth.
190
Experiences of harassment
and violence correlate
with increased risk
behaviors, including
substance abuse,
unprotected sex,
and suicidality.
182. Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRand, 1998.
183. Massachusetts Department of Education. (1996). 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results [Electronic version]. Boston, MA:
Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrb95/yrb95111.html
184. DuRant, R. H, Krowchuk, D. P., & Sinal, S. H. (1998). Victimization, use of violence, and drug use at school among male
adolescents who engage in same-sex sexual behavior. The Journal of Pediatrics, 133(1), 113–118.
185. Russell, Franz, & Driscoll, 2001.
186. Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual
youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health 30(5), 364–374.
187. Jordan, K. M. (2000). Substance abuse among gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents. School Psychology
Review, 29(2), 201–206.
188. Faulkner & Cranston, 1998.
189. Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002.
190. Russell, S. T., Truong, N. L., & Driscoll, A. K. (2002). Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications
for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 198–202.
40 EDUCATION POLICY
LGBT youth, faced with the stress caused by victimization and isolation, and often
lacking positive sources of peer support and socialization, may engage in unprotected
sex or other risky sexual behaviors, which increases their risk of contracting sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV.
191
A Minnesota study of gay and bisexual males
between the ages of 13 and 21 conducted from 1989 to 1991 found that nearly one-
quarter had had a sexually transmitted disease.
192
A San Francisco study found that
almost one-third of gay and bisexual young men reported contracting
at least one sexually transmitted disease.
193
A study of 334 homeless
and runaway adolescents and young adults in San Francisco found
that 33% of the gay and bisexual males and 3% of the lesbian and
bisexual females were HIV-positive, as opposed to 1% of the hetero-
sexual males and none of the heterosexual females in the study.
194
Youth who are harassed and attacked for their real or perceived sexu-
al orientation or gender identity are also at higher risk for suicidal
ideation and suicide attempts. A 1989 U.S. government study found
suicide to be the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth,
who were almost three times more likely to try to kill themselves than their heterosex-
ual counterparts.
195
An analysis of 1995 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey
data indicated that students who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, or who are not
sure of their sexuality, were over three times more likely to have attempted suicide in
the previous year.
196
Data from the same survey in 1999 show that nearly half of les-
bian, gay, and bisexual students had considered suicide during the previous year.
197
The prevalence and impact of anti-LGBT violence in public schools is a national tragedy.
It affects all youth, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, who experience or
are forced to witness harassment and violence against their peers on a daily basis.
Whether they identify as LGBT or simply do not conform to what American society
deems appropriate for male or female behavior, LGBT youth are publicly demeaned and
demoralized, with many teachers and administrators turning a blind eye, or even tacitly
approving because of their conservative moral or religious beliefs, or just out of ignorance.
Though there is a continued need for more nationwide, population-based research,
numerous studies have shown that this violence is harmful to childhood and adolescent
development and well-being, and also life-threatening. Efforts to curtail this harassment
should certainly not be delayed until further research is completed.
191. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
192. Remafedi, G. (1994). Predictors of unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual youth: Knowledge, beliefs, and behavior.
Pediatrics, 94, 163.
193. Lemp, G. F., Hirozawa, A. M., Givertz, D., Nieri, G. N., Anderson, L., Lindegren, M. L., et al. (1994). Seroprevalence of HIV and
risk behaviors among young homosexual and bisexual men. The San Francisco/ Berkeley Young Men’s Survey. Journal of the Amer-
ican Medical Association, 272(6), 449–454.
194. Moon, M. W., McFarland, W., Kellogg, T., Baxter, M., Katz, M. H., MacKellar, D., et al. (2000). HIV risk behavior of runaway
youth in San Francisco: Age of onset and relation to sexual orientation. Youth & Society, 32(2), 184–212.
195. Gibson, 1989.
196. Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Wissow, L. S., Woods, E. R. & Goodman, E. (1999). Sexual orientation and risk of suicide attempts
among a representative sample of youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(15), 487–501.
197. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2000). 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Study [Electronic version]. Boston:
Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs99/toc.html
Anti-LGBT violence in
public schools is a national
tragedy. LGBT youth are
publicly demeaned and
demoralized, with many
teachers and administrators
turning a blind eye or
even tacitly approving.
41
Amid all the violence and harassment, some students, parents, teachers, and adminis-
trators are creating ways to protect and support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) youth. Interventions that counteract and prevent anti-LGBT violence in pub-
lic schools include gay-straight alliances, nondiscrimination policies, safe-schools pro-
grams, and curricula designed to provide positive and inclusive examples of the contri-
butions that LGBT people have made to American and world culture. Unfortunately,
such programs are often met with harsh resistance from antigay organizations and
activists, who falsely claim that “homosexuals recruit public school children,”
198
and
that “there is evidence that harassment of gay teens may neither be as frequent, as
severe, nor as disproportionate, as some pro-homosexual rhetoric would suggest.”
199
By
summarizing initiatives that have succeeded despite such opposition, the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force hopes to inspire and equip parents, teachers, and school admin-
istrators to protect and nurture LGBT youth.
A variety of policies and support systems can help communities combat anti-LGBT
harassment and violence in their public schools:
• The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and existing federal laws,
including Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal
Access Act of 1984, offer LGBT students some protection from harassment and
violence, as well as the freedom to create and attend gay-supportive clubs on school
campuses
200
• School districts can implement and enforce nondiscrimination and anti-harass-
ment policies that protect LGBT students and teachers
198. Sheldon, L. P. (2001). Homosexuals recruit public school children. Traditional Values Coalition Special Report, 18(11). Available at
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=7&min=10&orderby=titleA&s
how=10
199. Prevention of harassment and intimidation in public schools (HB 345): Hearings before the Ways and Means Committee of the
Maryland House of Delegates (testimony of Peter Sprigg). Retrieved October 17, 2003, from
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=TS03C1
200. E. High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ., No. CIV. 2:98-CV-193J, 1999 WL 1390255 (D. Utah, Nov. 30, 1999). Available at
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=534
3. Existing Policy
Interventions
42 EDUCATION POLICY
• Teachers can include LGBT culture and history in curricula, and create a safe envi-
ronment by not tolerating anti-LGBT harassment; those who are either LGBT or
LGBT-friendly can also serve as role models for both their gay and
straight students and co-workers
201
• Gay-straight alliances (GSAs) or other support groups can give
LGBT students and their straight allies a place to meet on school
property in a safe and supportive environment; their very exis-
tence is symbolic of a school’s commitment to a safe and inclusive
environment for all students
Combined, these resources can comprehensively meet the needs of
LGBT students. A pilot study of the Massachusetts Safe Schools
Program found that clear nondiscrimination policies, backed by
financial resources and support from key administrators, educators,
and community and student leaders, are at least as important as GSAs
in creating more tolerant and safer environments for LGBT students.
202
The decen-
tralized nature of the U.S. public education system demands that each individual
school district act to implement such measures, especially since efforts to mandate these
protections and curriculum changes at the federal level have been largely unsuccessful.
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION
Federal courts have held that public schools have an obligation under the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect students
from harassment and discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
203
If school offi-
cials fail to stop antigay harassment or violence because they believe that a student who
is out of the closet should expect to be harassed, or simply because they are uncom-
fortable addressing the situation, the school can be held liable for failing to provide
equal protection for that student.
204
201. Schneider, M. E. & Owens, R. E. (2000). Concern for lesbian, gay and bisexual kids: The benefits for all children. Education &
Urban Society, 32(3), 349–68.
202. Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M.L. (2002). Going beyond gay-straight alliances to make schools safe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender students. Angles, 6(1).
203. Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.1996); Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).
204. National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2002). Harassment & discrimination: A legal overview. Retrieved October 16, 2003 from
http://www.nclrights.org/publications/pubs/harass-overview0902.pdf
If school officials fail to
stop antigay harassment
because they believe
that a student who is out
of the closet should
expect to be harrassed,
the school can be held
liable for failing to
provide equal protection.
Court Rules School Liable For Failing to
Protect Students from Harassment: A
Profile of Alana Flores
Alana Flores met her first girlfriend
the summer before her sophomore year
of high school, but she did not come out
of the closet until the end of her senior
year. Nonetheless, she endured harass-
ment and death threats at Live Oak
High School in Morgan Hill, California
because other students believed she was
43 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
205. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (2003, April 8). Federal appeals court say schools must protect gay
students from harassment. Retrieved October 21, 2003, from http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/030409-flores.html
206. Speak Truth.com. (n.d.). Alana Flores. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://www.speak-truth.com/bio/flores_alana.html
207. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 2003.
208. Clair, R. (n.d.). Making school safe for queer kids. Curve. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from
http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/7.html
209. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 2003.
210. Clair, n.d.
211. Ibid.
212. 324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lesbian Rights (NCLR) represented
Alana and five other plaintiffs who
joined the case, including one student
who had been hospitalized after a group
of male students shouted “faggot” and
other homophobic slurs while hitting
and kicking him at a bus stop in full view
of the bus driver.
209
All of the plaintiffs
had endured significant emotional dis-
tress related to harassment and violence
that occurred on school property. Some
suffered from flashbacks and felt general-
ly unsafe in the world.
210
In fact, the plaintiff’s lawyers were
able to document a long history of anti-
gay harassment at Live Oak High
School, including a 1993 incident
reported in the school’s newspaper, The
Oak Leaf. The paper described graffiti
reading, “Kill all gays. Keep it in the
closet,” which had been written in an
area where a few gay students tried to
organize a support group. NCLR lawyer
Leslie Levy argued that the history of
harassment “was so open and obvious
that teachers and administrators had to
know about it; that it was clear that the
school district, in almost every instant
[sic], failed to respond appropriately”;
and that this failure violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
211
On April 8, 2003, the
Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a historic decision in Flores v.
Morgan Hill Unified School District.
212
The court held that school officials had
failed in their constitutionally mandat-
ed duty to treat lesbian, gay, and bisexu-
al students equally by not protecting
gay. For three years, threatening notes
and pornographic images were repeated-
ly taped to her locker. One note threat-
ened, “Die, Die…Dyke Bitch, Fuck off.
We’ll kill you.”
205
When Alana went to
a teacher for help, the teacher asked
only, “Why does that word bother you?
Are you a lesbian?”
206
The harassment
continued, and she went to her princi-
pal for help, but he did nothing to stop
the harassment. When Alana asked for
a new locker, the principal replied, “Yes,
sure, sure, later. You need to go back to
class. Don’t bring me this trash any-
more. This is disgusting.”
207
The
threats, and the failure of school offi-
cials to stop them, combined with
Alana’s own reluctance to accept her
sexual orientation, kept Alana in the
closet and reinforced
her fear of coming
out. By her senior
year, the stress became
too much, and she
tried to kill herself.
208
In the hospital,
she told her par-
ents—about the con-
stant harassment, the
death threats, and
that, yes, she was a
lesbian. Her family expressed uncondi-
tional love and support, and stood by her
when, nine months after graduation, she
decided to file a lawsuit against the
school for failing to protect her from per-
vasive and ongoing harassment. The
American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the National Center for
“I could have graduated from
Live Oak, moved on with my
life, and never looked back. But
there was always something in
me that said that’s not the right
thing to do, because it could
happen to somebody else, over
and over and over again.”
—Alana Flores
44 EDUCATION POLICY
FEDERAL STATUTES: TITLE IX AND THE EQUAL ACCESS ACT
Although they do not explicitly protect students based on sexual orientation or gender
identity, there are several federal laws that do provide some protection for LGBT stu-
dents. Usually associated with access to sports programs, Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972
217
guarantees equal educational opportunities
regardless of a student’s sex, and prohibits schools from limiting or
denying a student’s participation in any school program on the basis
of sex. While Title IX does not protect LGBT students from harass-
ment based on their sexual orientation, it does protect all students
from harassment based on gender nonconformity. It also requires
school administrators to intervene in and remediate any harassment
“of a sexual nature” severe enough to prevent an LGBT student’s
access to, or enjoyment of, any school program.
218
In 2001, the U.S Department of Education released a set of revised
guidelines detailing the applicability of Title IX to sexual harassment in public schools,
which are also applicable to same-sex sexual harassment:
Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orienta-
tion, sexual harassment directed at gay or lesbian students that is sufficiently serious
to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s pro-
213. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 2003.
214. Ibid.
215. Ibid.
216. Clair, n.d.
217. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88 (2003).
218. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2001, January). Revised sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students
by school employees, other students, or third parties [Electronic version]. Washington: Author. Available at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/pdf/shguide.pdf
antigay harassment.”
215
And Alana
explained why she chose to sue the
school in the first place: “I could have
graduated from Live Oak, moved on
with my life, and never looked back. But
there was always something in me that
said that’s not the right thing to do,
because it could happen to somebody
else, over and over and over again.”
216
Unfortunately, many youth will contin-
ue to experience harassment and vio-
lence at schools across the country due
to their real or perceived sexual orienta-
tion. Thanks to Alana, the ACLU, and
NCLR, however, students can demand
that schools be held responsible for fail-
ing to protect them.
them from harassment. And the court
ordered them to address and eliminate
any harassment of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual students in the future.
213
After winning the case, NCLR
Executive Director Kate Kendell com-
mented, “This decision is long overdue.
Finally, it’s clear that schools can no
longer stand back and turn a blind eye
to the kind of debilitating harassment
that so many lesbian, gay and bisexual
students face everyday.”
214
Matt Coles,
director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights
Project of the ACLU, added, “The court
made it very clear that going through
the motions is not enough. Schools
have to really deal with the problem of
Sexual harassment
directed at gay or lesbian
students that is sufficiently
serious to limit a student’s
ability to benefit from
the school’s program is
prohibited by Title IX.
gram constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.... For example, if a male
student or a group of male students target a gay student for physical sexual advances,
serious enough to deny or limit the victim’s ability to participate in or benefit from
the school’s program, the school would need to respond promptly and effective-
ly…just as it would if the victim were heterosexual. On the other hand, if students
heckle another student with comments based on the student’s sexual orientation
(e.g., “gay students are not welcome at this table in the cafeteria”), but their actions
do not involve conduct of a sexual nature, their actions would not be sexual harass-
ment covered by Title IX…. Gender-based harassment, which may include acts of
verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or
sex-stereotyping, but not involving conduct of a sexual nature, is also a form of sex
discrimination to which a school must respond, if it rises to a level that denies or
limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program.
219
Title IX does not hold a school responsible for the behavior of students who harass; it
holds a school accountable for failing to correct harassment once school officials have
been notified about it. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1999 reinforced this policy,
specifically stating that schools are liable for student-to-student sexual harassment if the
school has been informed of the problem. In its decision, the Court wrote that schools
are liable for monetary damages “only if they were ‘deliberately indifferent’ to informa-
tion about ‘severe, pervasive, and objectively’ offensive harassment among students.”
220
The Equal Access Act
221
(EAA) was passed by a bipartisan majority of Congress and
signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The purpose of the bill was to
counteract perceived discrimination against religious speech in public high schools
while maintaining the constitutional separation of church and state. The legislation
was developed after two federal appellate courts held that student-led religious groups
could not meet on school property before or after school hours. The law was eventual-
ly challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was constitutional in 1990.
222
Under the EAA, a school cannot deny equal access to student activities because of the
“religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.”
223
This also had an unexpected, secondary effect: it provided legal standing for the for-
mation of gay-straight alliances in all public schools that allow any other school-spon-
sored clubs. In 2000, a federal judge in California ruled that under the Equal Access
Act, schools could not pick and choose among clubs based on what they think students
should or should not discuss:
The [school] Board members may be uncomfortable about students discussing sexual
orientation and how all students need to accept each other, whether gay or
straight…. [But they] cannot censor the students’ speech to avoid discussion[s] on
campus that cause them discomfort or represent an unpopular viewpoint. In order to
comply with the Equal Access Act…the members of the Gay-Straight Alliance must
be permitted access to the school campus in the same way that the District provides
access to all clubs, including the Christian Club and the Red Cross/Key Club.
224
45 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
219. Ibid.
220. Walsh, M. (1994, October 19). Harassment suit rejected. Education Week, p. 10.
221. 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-74 (2003).
222. Boyd County High Sch. Gay Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd County, Ky., 258 F. Supp. 667 (E.D. Ky. 2003). Available at
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=12417&c=106
223. 20 U.S.C. § 4071(a) (2003).
224. Colin v. Orange Unified Sch. Dist., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (C.D. Calif. 2000).
46 EDUCATION POLICY
In the same ruling, the judge recognized that violence and harassment against gay stu-
dents was “widespread,” and that his ruling was not just about promoting tolerance for
diverse viewpoints: “As any concerned parent would understand, this case may involve
the protection of life itself.”
225
STATE POLICIES
Without the formal protection of nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies that
specifically mention sexual orientation and gender identity, students may justifiably
continue to fear discrimination, including harassment, because they are LGBT.
Including sexual orientation and gender identity in nondiscrimination and anti-harass-
ment policies makes LGBT students feel welcome, and encourages the kind of social
change that makes schools safer.
226
As of November 2003, eight states and the District of Columbia had passed laws ban-
ning discrimination and/or harassment of students on the basis of sexual orientation:
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin.
227
California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia
prohibit discrimination and/or harassment in schools on the basis of gender identity or
expression as well. Four states have promulgated professional standards for educators
that forbid discrimination against students on the basis of sexual orientation: Alaska,
Florida, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
228
At least five other states (Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island)
plus Wisconsin have adopted nondiscrimination and/or anti-harassment regulations or
ethical codes through state administrative regulations.
229
Unfortunately, none of these
regulations prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity.
Nondiscrimination and anti-harassment laws and regulations often afford exemptions
for religious institutions. They also differ in their scope of coverage: some cover only
public schools, while others extend to private schools as well. The table opposite lists
specifically what each state bans, on what basis, and the scope of its law.
225. Ibid.
226. Bauer, A. F. (2002). State of the states 2002: GLSEN’s policy analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) safer schools
issues [Electronic version]. New York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Available at
http://www.GLSEN.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/1397.pdf ; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, &
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (2001). A guide to effective statewide laws/policies: Preventing discrimination against
LGBT students in K–12 schools [Electronic version]. New York: Authors. Available at
http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/61.pdf ; D’Augelli, 1996; Lipkin, 1994.
227. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 220 (West 2003); CAL. PENAL CODE § 422.6(a) (West 2003); CAL. PENAL CODE§ 422.76 (West 2003) ; CONN.
GEN. STAT. § 10-15c (2003); D.C. CODE ANN. § 2-1402.41 (2003); MASS. GEN. LAWS , ch. 71, § 89(l) (2003); MASS. GEN. LAWS ,
ch. 76, § 5 (2003); MINN. STAT. § 363A.02 (2003); MINN. STAT. § 363.03(5) (2003); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 10:5-5 (West 2003); N.J.
STAT. ANN. § 10:5-12(f)(1) (West 2003); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 18A:37-15 (West 2003); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, §§ 4501-02 (2003) ;
VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 16, § 11(26) (2003); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 16, § 565 (2003); WASH. REV. CODE § 9A.36.080(1)(c) (2003);
WASH. REV. CODE § 28A.300.285 (2003); WASH. REV. CODE § 49.60.030 (2003); WIS. STAT. § 118.13 (2003); WIS. STAT. § 118.40
(2003).
228. ALASKAADMIN. CODE tit. 20 § 10.020(b)(6) (2003); FLA. ADMIN. CODE r. 6B-1.006(3) (2003); MASS REGS. CODE tit. 603 § 7
(2003); 22 PA. CODE. § 235.8 (2003).
229. Haw. Dep’t of Educ. Nondiscrimination Policy Mem. August 17, 1996; Haw. Bd. of Educ. Admin. Rules § 8-41-1-15; MD. REGS.
CODE tit. 13A § 01.04.03 (2003); OR. ADMIN. R. 571-003-0025 (2003); Pa. Bd. of Educ. Rules & Regs. § 4.4(c) (1992); R.I. Dep’t of
Educ., State of R.I. and Providence Plantations, A Policy Statement of the State Board of Regents Prohibiting Discrimination Based
on Sexual Orientation; WIS. ADMIN. CODE § 9.01 (2003). This listing may not be comprehensive. Please contact the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute with updates at [email protected]. Put “Policy Institute” in the subject line.
3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS 47
DETAILS BY STATE
Protected from On the basis of Scope Notes
California Discrimination Sexual orientation Public and private Only private schools
and gender identity that receive state
funding are covered.
Connecticut Discrimination Sexual orientation Public
Washington, DC Discrimination Sexual orientation Public and private “Personal appearance” has
and personal been interpreted by DC courts
appearance to cover transgender people.
Massachusetts Discrimination Sexual orientation Public and charter
Minnesota Discrimination Sexual orientation Public and private
and gender identity
New Jersey Discrimination Sexual orientation Public and private New Jersey’s Law Against
Discrimination passed in 1992 and
Harassment Sexual orientation Public covers all schools. In 2002, the
and gender identity state passed a second,
and expression harassment-specific law.
Vermont Discrimination Sexual orientation Public The Vermont Human Rights Law
of 1992 covers education as a
Harassment Sexual orientation Public public accommodation. Vermont
also passed a specific anti-
harassment law in 2001.
Washington Harassment Sexual orientation Public
Wisconsin Discrimination Sexual orientation Public
STATES WITH NONDISCRIMINATION AND/OR ANTI-HARASSMENT LAWS
230
230. All discrimination laws include harassment as a form of discrimination, but some states have also passed specific anti-harassment
laws in addition to their nondiscrimination laws.
DE
WA
CA
OR
NV
UT
CO
WY
ID
MT
SD
NE
ND
KS
OK
TX
AK
HI
AL
GA
SC
TN
MS
MO
AR
LA
FL
WV
OH
MI
IN
KY
IL
IA
WI
MN
NM
AZ
NC
VA
NY
MA
PA
VT
NH
ME
DC
CT
NJ
RI
MD
48
During the 2003 legislative session, a number of state legislatures considered nondis-
crimination or anti-harassment bills, none of which have yet become law:
• Arizona H.B. 2453 stated that no person should be subjected to discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.
(Schools controlled by religious organizations whose beliefs are
not consistent with the bill would be exempt.)
• Florida H.B. 19, known as the Dignity for All Students Bill,
would protect students against harassment, discrimination, and
violence on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill would also
provide training to teachers, school administrators, and counsel-
ing staff; and guidance and counseling to students.
• Louisiana H.B. 1482 would add gender identity and sexual orien-
tation to the categories protected from discrimination and harass-
ment in schools.
• Maryland H.B. 345 would direct the board of education to prevent harassment and
intimidation based on sexual orientation.
• Montana H.B. 449 included language prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and
bullying in schools on the basis of sexual orientation. Diversity training for teach-
ers and staff would be provided to the extent that funds were available.
• South Carolina H.B. 3781, also known as the Safe Schools Act, would prohibit
harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender
identity.
• Texas H.B. 862 would add sexual preference and gender identity to existing school
nondiscrimination laws.
Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX are the
most often cited claims in lawsuits filed against school boards for failing to protect
LGBT students. However, cases relying on the Due Process Clause and the First
Amendment have also been pursued. The majority of cases brought against school dis-
tricts to date have either been won by the students, or settled in their favor. And such
settlements are costly. In 15 known lawsuits involving anti-LGBT harassment or dis-
crimination, school districts have paid between $40,000 and
$962,000 in settlements to the parents of harassed students.
231
And
these figures do not include district attorney’s fees, which in many
cases were far greater than the settlements themselves.
Five of the 15 cases that resulted in settlements were filed in states
that have nondiscrimination laws, including California and
Minnesota. (In California’s Ray v. Antioch, the plaintiff had urine-
soaked towels thrown on him and was beaten by another student, leaving him with a
concussion, hearing impairment, and severe, permanent headaches. The reason? He
was perceived to be gay, and one of his parents is transgender.)
232
Some of these law-
suits have even been filed in states that do not have statutes prohibiting such abuses,
231. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2003). Fifteen expensive reasons why safe
schools legislation is in your state’s best interest. Unpublished report.
232. Ray v. Antioch, 107 F. Supp.2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
EDUCATION POLICY
In 15 known lawsuits
involving anti-LGBT
harassment or discrimi-
nation, school districts have
paid between $40,000 and
$962,000 in settlements.
And DAs’ fees were in many
cases far greater than the
settlements themselves.
Rather than wait for a
lawsuit, schools should
take proactive steps to
support and protect
their LGBT students.
3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS 49
FIFTEEN LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Date of Monetary
State Settlement Award
Nabozny v. Podlesny
232
Wisconsin 1996 $962,000
Wagner v. Fayetteville Public Schools*
233
North Carolina 1998 None
Iverson v. Kent*
234
Washington 1998 $40,000
Vance v. Spencer County Public School District
235
Kentucky 2000 $220,000
Lovins v. Pleasant Hill Public School District*
236
Missouri 2000 $72,000
O.H. v. Oakland Unified School District
237
California 2000 Undisclosed
Ray v. Antioch Unified School District
238
California 2000 Undisclosed
Montgomery v. Independent School District
239
Minnesota 2000 Undisclosed
Putman v. Board of Education of Somerset Kentucky 2000 $135,000
Independent Schools*
240
Snelling v. Fall Mountain Regional School District
241
New Hampshire 2001 None
Dahle v. Titusville Area School District*
242
Pennsylvania 2002 $312,000
Gay/Straight Alliance Network California 2002 $130,000
v. Visalia Unified School District
243
Henkle v. Gregory
244
Nevada 2002 $451,000
*settled out of court
233. 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.1996).
234. Settled out of court. For more information, see Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1998, June 22). Complaint by gay
student triggers historic civil rights agreement. Retrieved October 22, 2003, from
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=252
235. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2003.
236. 231 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2000).
237. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2003.
238. No. C-99-5123 JCS, 2000 WL 33376299 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2000).
239. 107 F. Supp.2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
240. 109 F. Supp.2d. 1081 (D. Minn. 2000).
241. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2003.
242. No. CIV. 99-448-JD, 2001WL 276975 (D. N.H. Mar. 21, 2001).
243. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2003.
244. 262 F. Supp.2d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
245. Henkle v. Gregory, 150 F. Supp.2d 1067 (D. Nev. 2001).
including Kentucky, Missouri, and Nevada. But even in states with laws specifically
protecting them, LGBT students continue to experience daily, persistent harassment
and violence. While the passage and enforcement of such laws is a necessity, antidis-
crimination education at the local level must also continue to be a priority.
Unfortunately, state legislation does not usually mandate the inclusion of LGBT-posi-
tive curricula or safe schools training for students. However, many settlements have
required teachers and staff to receive sensitivity training. School districts throughout
the country should follow the lead of these court rulings. Rather than wait for a law-
suit, they should take proactive steps to support and protect their LGBT students from
harassment and discrimination. Concurrently, they should provide education and train-
ing to their students and employees.
50 EDUCATION POLICY
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND “NO PROMO HOMO” LAWS
Parental notification laws in four states—Arizona,
246
California,
247
Nevada,
248
and
Utah
249
—require students to obtain the written consent of their parents before they
participate in classes in which topics like sex, sexuality, and AIDS
are discussed. (These laws do not, however, require prior written con-
sent if teachers want to discuss discrimination or harassment related
to a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity.) In many
instances, these laws were introduced and supported by anti-LGBT
and right-wing religious activists.
State parental notification laws with opt-out provisions are also com-
mon. They allow parents to remove their children from classes or
assemblies that include education on sexuality, HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, abor-
tion, or even death. Such laws exist in several dozen states and the District of Columbia,
varying in their provisions and scope.
252
Massachusetts is considering a bill to convert its parental opt-out policy into a more
restrictive, opt-in law. The new policy would also expand the scope of parental con-
trol beyond “curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human
sexuality issues”
250
to also encompass “school sanctioned program or activity, which
primarily involves human sexual education, human sexuality issues, or sexual orien-
tation issues.”
251
A number of states have also passed laws preventing teachers from even mentioning the
word “homosexual” in the classroom, or mandating that homosexuality be presented in
an exclusively negative way. South Carolina bans discussion of “alter-
native sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but
not limited to, homosexual relationships, except in the context of
instruction concerning sexually transmitted disease.”
253
Arizona law
prohibits instruction that “promotes a homosexual lifestyle, portrays
homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle, or suggests that it is
possible to have ‘safe’ homosexual sex.”
254
Alabama requires any men-
tion of homosexuality to be made within the context “that homosexuality is not a lifestyle
acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under
the laws of the state.”
255
Texas
256
and Mississippi
257
require any mention of gay-related
issues to be followed by the admonition that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense in
those states, while Utah prohibits the “advocacy” of homosexuality.
258
246. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 15-716 (2003).
247. CAL. EDUC. CODE § 51550 (West 2003).
248. NEV. REV. STAT. 389.065 (2003).
249. UTAHCODE ANN. § 53A-13-101 (2003).
250. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, § 32A (2003).
251. H1445.
252. Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2003, August 1). State policies in brief. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_SE.pdf
253. S.C. CODE ANN. § 59-32-30(A)(5) (Law, Co-op 2003).
254. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 15-716(C) (2003).
255. ALA. CODE § 16-40A-2(c)(8) (2003).
256. TEX. HEALTH& SAFETY CODE ANN. § 163.002(8) (Vernon 2003).
257. MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-13-171(1)(e) (2003); MISS. CODE ANN. § 41-79-5(6)(d) (2003).
258. UTAHADMIN. CODE R277-474-3(A)(2) (2003); UTAHCODE ANN. § 53A-13-101 (2003).
A number of states have
passed laws mandating
that homosexuality be
presented in an
exclusively negative way.
Arizona law prohibits
instruction that “suggests
that it is possible to have
‘safe’ homosexual sex.”
3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS 51
State laws that require schools to teach that homosexual conduct is illegal will pre-
sumably be challenged and struck down in light of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court rul-
ing in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that sodomy laws—which made homosexual sex
a criminal offense in those states—violate the U.S. Constitution.
259
In the meantime, these laws are having an adverse impact on students. Kay Coburn, an
administrator with the Temple (Tex.) Independent School District, told Human Rights
Watch that there is “no discussion of homosexuality,” nor “any mes-
sage in the curriculum about how homosexuals might protect them-
selves from HIV. Abstinence is the only message. The traditional fam-
ily is where you have sex. The curriculum doesn’t address sex outside
this structure.”
260
Cheryl Cox, a health teacher and member of her
Robinson (Tex.) High School Health Education Advisory Council,
noted that coverage of homosexuality and other “lifestyle options” was
“not needed or necessary…. I can’t see it ever being acceptable to dis-
cuss homosexuality, as it’s a very conservative community. It’s a topic
that I’m not supposed to be talking about because of the standards set forth by the com-
munity and by the health advisory board.”
261
Terry Cruz, an abstinence educator in
Laredo, Texas, told Human Rights Watch that “probably the only time I touch on the
subject [of homosexuality] is with HIV, referring to how HIV originally started.”
262
Fear of “promoting homosexuality” due to these provisions sometimes prevents school
districts from protecting LGBT students. In response to violence and harassment
against gay students, the West Virginia Attorney General’s office searched for a pro-
gram that would promote tolerance through school curricula. The state received
$80,000 in federal grants from the U.S. Department of Justice to implement a model
program from Maine that included training manuals for teachers. However, when the
West Virginia Family Foundation, a conservative Christian group, found references in
those manuals to making LGBT students feel safer, they brought 200 people to a state
board of education meeting wearing antigay t-shirts, and accused the attorney general
of “promoting homosexuality.” The program was immediately suspended.
263
Anti-
LGBT activists around the country have forced LGBT youth to defend themselves not
only against their peers, but also against the parents, administrators, and religious lead-
ers who have targeted schools as the primary sphere for their moralistic crusades:
Schools are battlegrounds for the right. So much of their “cultural war” is waged
over curricula, teachers’ roles, parental rights, censorship, and privatization. Queer
youth are on the front lines of these battles, often in isolation and without organi-
zational support. In the name of family and community moral standards, the right
fights against any mention of homosexuality in schools, whether in books, sex edu-
cation classes, counseling sessions, or through the presence of openly queer youth
and teachers. This enforced silence leaves our schools riddled with homophobia
and provides no opportunities for young people to learn truths about queer lives
and to have open discussions of their own sexuality.
264
259. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).
260. Human Rights Watch. (2002, September). Ignorance Only: HIV/AIDS, Human Rights and Federally Funded Abstinence-Only
Programs in the United States; Texas: A Case Study, 14(5G), 35.
261. Ibid.
262. Ibid.
263. Winerip, M. (2003, February 5). Promoting tolerance, not paying heed. The New York Times, p. B9.
264. Pharr, 1997.
“Schools are battlegrounds
for the right.... Queer
youth are on the front
lines of these battles, often
in isolation and without
organizational support.”
52 EDUCATION POLICY
Although some state “no promo homo” laws are written to specifically cover sexuality
and health education, others use such sweeping language that their scope is unclear,
and they have a chilling effect not only on discussions of sexual orientation and gen-
der, but on scholarship in general. As a result of such a law in New Hampshire, teach-
ers decided not to discuss Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night because a female character dis-
guises herself as a man. They also declined to show a video about Walt Whitman that
mentioned he was gay.
265
STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
Staff training is an essential tool for creating a school atmosphere free of anti-LGBT
harassment and discrimination. School staffers must be able to assist students who are
struggling with their own, or another’s, sexual orientation or gender identity. And they
must be able to identify and intervene on behalf of students who are
harassed, discriminated against, or facing detrimental health conse-
quences as a result of prejudice.
266
In addition to providing the tools
to deal with such situations, training gives teachers, administrators,
and other staffers the opportunity to work out their feelings related to
sexual orientation and gender diversity, and learn how to handle the
discomfort of colleagues, students, and parents around such issues.
267
Most teachers interviewed for a 2001 Human Rights Watch report
said their teacher training programs had not addressed harassment or
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
268
A
study of 101 junior and senior high school counselors found that only
8% felt they had a high level of competence in counseling LGBT youth; almost the
same percentage indicated they had little or no competence. Eighty-nine percent of the
counselors said they would be interested in such training.
269
A study by the
Massachusetts Safe Schools Project found that 54% of students in schools where the
staff had been through training sponsored by that organization reported feeling sup-
ported by teachers and counselors, as opposed to only 26% of the students in schools
without trained staff.
270
The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) all offer training workshops
for school districts seeking to address and prevent anti-LGBT harassment and vio-
lence.
271
These workshops show teachers and administrators how to create a safe envi-
265. Bonauto, M. (2002, September 16). Background information on “no promo homo” policies. Retrieved August 29, 2003, from the Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network website:
http://www.GLSEN.org/templates/resources/record.html?section=14&record=42
266. Blumenfeld, W. J. (1994). “Gay/straight” alliances: Transforming pain to pride. The High School Journal, 77, 113–121; D’Augelli,
1996; Walling, D. R. (1993). Gay teens at risk. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
267. Lipkin, 1994.
268. Bochenek and Brown, 2001.
269. Fontaine, 1998.
270. Szalacha, L. (2001, Fall). Safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. Girls Coalition of Greater Boston Newsletter [Electronic
version]. Available at www.girlscoalition.com/researcherfall01.html ; Perrotti & Westheimer. (2001).
271. American Civil Liberties Union. (2002). Making schools safe [Electronic version]. New York: Author. Retrieved July 29, 2003,
from http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=11187&c=106#FileAttach ; Goldstein, N. (2001).
Zero indifference: A how-to guide to ending name-calling in schools [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from the Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight Education Network website: http://www.glsen.org/binarydata/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/1053.pdf
A study of school
counselors found that only
8% felt they had a high
level of competence in
counseling LGBT youth;
almost the same percent-
age indicated they had
little or no competence.
3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS 53
ronment for LGBT students. The training programs are designed to alert school districts
to their responsibility to change any environment hostile to LGBT youth, and to pro-
vide the skills and resources needed to promote an environment intolerant of harass-
ment. The ACLU emphasizes that its workshop is not about sex or teaching morality:
…[I]t is about safety, equal access and equal protection. It is about making sure every
student feels that they can achieve their best in school in an envi-
ronment free of hostility. And it is about taking proactive steps to
prevent the antigay attitudes that may exist in a school from turn-
ing into harassment and escalating into violence.
272
Staff development and training workshops can have a significant
impact on the experiences of LGBT students. One student described
her experience at a new school with more supportive teachers compared to the previ-
ous school she attended:
It’s wonderful here. My science and English teachers are so nice. If someone says
“fag” or “dyke,” they stop them. My teachers are really good about stopping homo-
phobic words from being spread. There was one girl who used to give me complete
hell. She’d tell me I’m fruity, stuff like that. The teacher took her into the hall and
talked to her. My teachers are really cool.
273
Unfortunately, most students never receive this kind of support. The most common
response to anti-LGBT harassment and violence is no response at all. One student inter-
viewed by Human Rights Watch described the lengths to which he went to document
the harassment he experienced, only to be completely ignored by his school principal:
I took a folder, wrote down dates and times every time I was harassed. I took it
down to the principal. He said, “Son, you have too much time on your hands to
worry about these folks. I have more important things to do than
worry about what happened two weeks ago.” I told him, “I want-
ed to give you an idea of what goes on, the day-to-day harass-
ment.” He took the folder away from me and threw it in the
trash. That was my freshman year, first semester. After that I real-
ized [the school] wasn’t going to do anything.
274
But staff development and training programs about anti-LGBT
harassment, in conjunction with nondiscrimination policies that
include sexual orientation and gender identity, can effectively address the ignorance,
fear, and apathy that prevent effective intervention on behalf of such students. The
teachers interviewed by Human Rights Watch emphasized that students would benefit
from staff training programs like the one described in the ACLU’s Making Schools
Safe.
275
According to one teacher in Georgia, “If a model was in place, something
designed to stop violence and take advantage of what teachers always refer to as ‘teach-
able moments,’ there’s a lot of kids that would embrace it.”
276
272. Goldstein, 2001.
273. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
274. Ibid.
275. American Civil Liberties Union, 2002.
276. Ibid.
The most common
response to anti-LGBT
harassment and violence
remains no response at all.
“If a model was in place
to stop violence and take
advantage of ‘teachable
moments,’ a lot of kids
would embrace it.”
—a Georgia teacher
54 EDUCATION POLICY
CURRICULA
Even at schools that recognize the need for the protection of LGBT students and teach-
ers, there has been little progress in making positive changes to curricula.
277
Having an
anti-harassment or nondiscrimination policy in the classroom is a first step toward
reducing the negative environment caused by anti-LGBT language, but educators must
do more. They can improve the efficacy of such policies by discussing why using slurs
is inappropriate, how they are damaging to people, and how they perpetuate homo-
phobia.
In many schools, the only time LGBT issues are discussed is in health classes, where gay
men are invariably linked to sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. Teachers
should be encouraged to include discussions about gay men and lesbians in other class-
es as well. Such curricular expansion might include a discussion of the Mattachine
Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and the Stonewall riots in the context of social change
movements in recent U.S. history, or the inclusion of a novel by a gay author like James
Baldwin in a class on American literature.
278
Information on same-sex-couple families
should be included in family-life planning curricula, and school
libraries should include books on the history of the LGBT rights
movement.
279
The National Education Association, among other
groups, supports the inclusion of LGBT issues in curricula.
280
In GLSEN’s 2001 National Survey of LGBT Youth, only 25% of respon-
dents reported that LGBT issues were taught in some of their classes; but
of those, nearly 80% said that the representation of LGBT topics was
positive. (The inclusion of LGBT issues most often occurred in history
or social studies, English, and health classes.) But less than one-third
reported having inclusive textbooks, and only about one-third said they
had LGBT resources in their libraries or Internet access to LGBT community websites.
There were also significant differences in availability and access to these resources between
youth in rural communities and those in suburban or urban communities:
• Only 5% of rural students reported that LGBT issues were taught in class, com-
pared with 24% of urban students and 29% of suburban students
• Less than 10% of rural students reported that LGBT issues were represented in their
textbooks, compared with over 21% of urban students and 23% of suburban students
• Forty-nine percent of rural students reported that LGBT resources were available in their
school libraries, compared with 55% of urban students and 64% of suburban students
• Forty-five percent of rural students had access to LGBT resources via Internet
connections at school, compared to 63% of urban students and 59% of suburban
students
281
277. Ginsberg, 1999.
278. For more information on other organizations that participated in the gay rights movement prior to the Stonewall riots of 1969, see
Marcus, E. (1992). Making history: The struggle for gay and lesbian equal rights 1945–1990. New York: Harper Collins; and D’Emilio,
J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
279. Proctor & Groze, 1994; Rubin, 1995.
280. National Education Association. (2002). Report of the NEA task force on sexual orientation. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from
http://www.nea.org/nr/02taskforce.html
281. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
In many schools, the only
time LGBT issues are
discussed is in health
classes, where gay men
are invariably linked to
sexually transmitted
diseases such as AIDS.
Multicultural education with curricular integration of LGBT issues reduces the alienation
felt by LGBT students who do not see themselves reflected in school materials. It also makes
all students more aware of a greater diversity of human experience. And the development
of LGBT students is enhanced through their exposure to their diverse and rich cultural his-
tory; even heterosexual students exposed to LGBT-inclusive education may come to better
understand themselves and their own sexuality.
282
Unfortunately, there is
an overall lack of support for the inclusion of LGBT-related materials in
school curricula. In 1993, Massachusetts Governor William Weld and his
education department rejected two key recommendations of the
Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth: that schools pur-
chase library books that positively portray gay men and lesbians, and that
curricula incorporate gay issues wherever appropriate. This rejection
came a year before Weld’s re-election, and at the height of the Children
of the Rainbow curriculum controversy in New York, during which the
proposed adoption of a multicultural curriculum that included two minor
references to gay people and gay families was defeated amid charges that
it “promoted” homosexuality. Seven years later, however, Massachusetts amended the state’s
Equal Educational Opportunity regulations regarding curricula and sexual orientation:
1. All public school systems shall, through their curricula, encourage respect for
the human and civil rights of all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, reli-
gion, national origin or sexual orientation.
2. Teachers shall review all instructional and educational materials for simplistic
and demeaning generalizations, lacking intellectual merit, on the basis of race,
color, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Appropriate activi-
ties, discussions and/or supplementary materials shall be used to provide bal-
ance and context for any such stereotypes depicted in such materials.
283
SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAMS
Massachusetts launched the country’s first safe schools initiative nearly a decade ago,
after the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth documented the hostile
school climate pervasive in most of the state’s schools and its negative impact on gay
and lesbian students, the children of gay parents, and other students who were per-
ceived as somehow different. The Safe Schools Program sought to fulfill four recom-
mendations the Massachusetts Board of Education made in 1993:
• Develop policies that protect gay and lesbian students from harassment, violence,
and discrimination
• Offer school personnel training in violence prevention and suicide prevention
• Offer school-based support groups for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual students
• Provide school-based counseling for family members of gay and lesbian students
284
55 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
282. Lipkin, 1994.
283. MASS. REGS. CODE tit. § 26.00 (2003) (Access to Equal Educational Opportunity Regulation). Available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr26.html
284. Perrotti & Westheimer, 2001.
Information on same-
sex-couple families
should be included in
family-life planning
curricula, and school
libraries should include
books on the history of
the LGBT rights movement.
56 EDUCATION POLICY
The Massachusetts legislature appropriated funds to support the Safe Schools Program
through the Departments of Education and Public Health. Within a few years more
than 140 schools across the Commonwealth had gay-straight alliances, and many
teachers and counselors were trained in how to deal with antigay harassment and vio-
lence. The program showed results very quickly. One study found that in schools with
GSAs (in-school support groups for LGBT, questioning, and straight students), 35% of
students said gay, lesbian, and bisexual students could safely choose to be open about
their sexuality. In schools without GSAs, only 12% said students could openly identi-
fy as lesbian, gay, or bisexual safely. It also discovered that in schools where the faculty
had undergone training on gay issues, 54% of students said that gay students felt sup-
ported by teachers and counselors. In schools that had not undergone faculty training,
only 26% of students said gay students felt supported.
285
The Massachusetts Safe Schools Program was a national model until 2002, when
Governor Jane Swift vetoed funding for the program—the only one fully funded by
state money. In other states and municipalities with safe schools programs, private
funding is the primary source of support. These initiatives cannot succeed without the
dogged determination of community-based supporters. Even in Massachusetts, many
urban and rural communities did not have GSAs and hadn’t conducted promised
teacher trainings until recently. Most safe schools activity occurred in white, subur-
ban, middle- and upper-class communities. In the past few years, however, the num-
ber of GSAs in Boston schools increased from one to 15, and more safe schools work
was done in other cities with large communities of color. In California, GSAs exist
across the state, in urban, rural, and suburban school districts. Minneapolis, St. Paul,
and Chicago also have many GSAs in their public schools, which are predominantly
comprised of students of color. But as of 2001, GSAs were still less likely to exist in
rural school districts.
286
Prior to the founding of Project 10, a school-based support program for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual (LGB) students in the Los Angeles public schools, informal discussions with
LGB students revealed that they felt they were without any traditional support systems,
sympathetic adults to talk to, or peers like themselves with whom to socialize. In 1985,
after Project 10 had been in place for a full school year at Los Angeles’ Fairfax High
School, a study of the general student population was conducted. Of the 342 (out of
500) surveys that were returned, 56% of the respondents said they knew a lesbian, gay,
or bisexual person, and felt that there should be outreach to such students on every
campus. Fifty-one percent felt that the effect of Project 10 on Fairfax High School had
been positive. Only 11% felt the effect had been negative and that it had given the
school a bad name; 38% were unsure as to the effect. Seventy-nine percent of students
surveyed felt that “the greatest benefit of Project 10 was that it provided all students
with a place to get accurate information” on LGB-related issues.
287
Portions of the
Project 10 model have since been replicated in schools across the country.
285. Szalacha, L. (2001). The sexual diversity climate of Massachussetts’ secondary schools and the success of the Safe Schools Program for gay
and lesbian students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Cited in 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.
286. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
287. Uribe, V., & Harbeck, K. (1992). Addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: The origins of Project 10 and
school-based intervention. In K. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet. New York: Haworth Press.
GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES
As of 2003, there are almost 2,000 gay-straight alliances in U.S. public schools.
288
GSAs are in-school, extracurricular groups that support LGBT students, those ques-
tioning their sexual orientation or gender identity, and their straight friends and allies.
They are an important part of an overall strategy to ensure that schools provide educa-
tion in a safe and welcoming environment.
289
GSAs, which are
always student-initiated, bring together students and school staff to
end anti-LGBT bias and homophobia or transphobia in their
schools.
290
They are the most visible and widely adopted component
of safe schools programs.
291
GSAs are often the only school-based place where LGBT youth can
safely discuss problems associated with their sexual orientation or gender identity, and
they foster communication with others who understand what they are going
through.
292
Students are thus able to make friends without hiding their sexual orienta-
tion or gender identity, helping them develop social skills and self-esteem.
293
GSAs also
increase interest in learning about cultural and social issues related to sexual orienta-
tion or gender identity among LGBT students and their allies.
294
Liz Welsh, a Connecticut teacher and GSA co-advisor, told Education World magazine:
I have seen changes in students who come to the GSA. Kids with support move
away from risk behaviors and experience school success. You can’t pretend these
kids don’t exist. Even kids who won’t step foot in the room benefit. At least they
know there is a safe place; someone is acknowledging them and the issues they
face.
295
A study involving seven students from the GSA at East High School in Salt Lake City
found that it had a positive impact on the their academic performance and enhanced
their sense of belonging to the school community. The students’ sense of physical safe-
ty improved as well. Several students reported that they attended school more often fol-
lowing their involvement with the GSA, and that they worked harder when they were
there. They also improved their relationships with their families and at school, devel-
oped a higher comfort level with their own sexual orientation, learned strategies for
dealing with others’ presumptions about their sexuality, and felt better about their abil-
ity to contribute to society.
296
A study of the Massachusetts Safe Schools Program found that the presence of GSAs
made a positive difference. In those schools with a GSA, 52% of the students indicat-
57 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
288. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network offers a state-by-state list of GSAs on its website:
http://www.glsen.org/templates/student/index.html?section=49
289. Blumenfeld, 1994.
290. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). About gay-straight alliances (GSAs). Retrieved August 20, 2003, from
http://GLSEN.org/templates/student/record.html?section=48&record=145
291. Griffin & Ouellett, 2002.
292. Ginsberg, 1999.
293. Radkowsky, M. & Siegel, L. J. (1997). The gay adolescent: Stressors, adaptations, and psychosocial interventions. Clinical
Psychology Review, 17(2), 191–216.
294. Griffin & Ouellett, 2002.
295. Bulion, L. (2000, December 19). Gay-straight alliances: Ground zero for school tolerance. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from Education
World website: http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues149.shtml
296. Lee, 2002.
As of 2003, there are
almost 2,000 gay-
straight alliances in U.S.
public schools.
58 EDUCATION POLICY
ed that there were members of the faculty, staff, or administration who supported LGBT
students, in contrast to only 37% of students in schools without a GSA. Students in
schools with a GSA were also more comfortable referring a friend with questions about
sexual orientation to a counselor. And staff in schools with a GSA were more com-
fortable assisting students with questions about sexual orientation.
297
A forthcoming study of GSAs in 22 schools describes four key roles that they can play
in the school environment:
1. Counseling and support: Two of the GSAs in the study served as places where stu-
dents could meet as a group or individually with the GSA advisor. These GSAs
focused on assisting students with issues about sexual orientation or gender identi-
ty issues.
2. Creating a “safe” space: Six of the GSAs became highly visible throughout the
school through announcements over the school’s public address system and posters
advertising their meetings. Their goal was to provide a place where students could
socialize and talk about common interests and experiences. Typical activities includ-
ed watching movies, eating pizza, listening to an invited speaker, and discussing
school safety issues. (Students of color or students who were not
openly gay were underrepresented in these GSAs. The authors of
the study consequently used the word safe in quotation marks to
underscore that not all students felt safe and included there.)
3. Raising awareness, educating, and increasing visibility: Nine of
the GSAs had regularly scheduled meetings that included both
social and educational or political activities. These groups were
not only visible through announcements and posters, but also
played a lead role in calling attention to safety issues affecting
LGBT students. These GSAs initiated LGBT-supportive school
programming and lobbied for staff training; students planned
schoolwide assemblies that addressed LGBT issues, and visited
classrooms to talk to their peers.
4. Becoming part of broader efforts: Five of the GSAs partnered with
other schools, community members, or groups addressing LGBT
issues. School-based safe schools task forces comprised of staff members, parents,
and students took on a primary role, and sponsored community-wide and school-
based projects, like administering school climate surveys to students. In partnership
with the GSAs, these organizations also developed mandatory staff development
programs on LGBT issues, and facilitated the inclusion of LGBT curricula in the
classroom. The staff in these schools also created intervention strategies for ending
anti-LGBT harassment, and fought for the inclusion of domestic partnership ben-
efits for LGBT staff.
298
297. Szalacha, 2001 Fall.
298. Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (in press). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools: From individual
support to school change. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3).
“Kids with support [from
a GSA] move away from
risk behaviors and
experience school success.
You can’t pretend these
kids don’t exist. Even
kids who won’t step foot
in the room benefit. At
least they know someone
is acknowledging them
and the issues they face.”
—Liz Welsh, teacher
59 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
299. Shahum, L. (1996, July/August). MoJo’s July Hellraiser, Mother Jones. Retrieved September 29, 2003, from
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JA96/shahum.html
300. Human Rights Resource Center. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights: A human rights perspective, Activity 3.
Retrieved October 21, 2003, from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/TB3/act3/act3f.htm
301. Shahum, 1996.
302. Bennett-Haigney, L. (1996, May). Young activists fight intolerance in Utah. National NOW Times. Retrieved September 30,
2003, from http://www.now.org/nnt/05-96/kelliut.html
303. The American Civil Liberties Unions of North Carolina and Utah, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National
Center for Lesbian Rights. The law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe was also involved.
GSA in Utah Fights for its Right to Meet
At School: A Profile of Kelli Peterson
A struggling student and out les-
bian, Kelli Peterson had been beaten up
on occasion. She also battled depres-
sion, isolation, and thoughts of suicide.
“I hated high school,” she recalls. “I did-
n’t feel like I had
anything there.”
299
In the autumn of
1995, her senior year
at Salt Lake City’s
East High School,
Kelli began talking
with a friend about
the difficulties LGBT
students faced.
“Wouldn’t it be
great,” they thought
as they compared sto-
ries, “to have a place
where we could meet
regularly and talk
about stuff…a place
where we could feel
safe and just be our-
selves?”
300
Kelli
found inspiration for
action in Candace
Gingrich, the openly gay sister of former
House Speaker and conservative Newt
Gingrich. After attending a November
1995 speech by Ms. Gingrich, Kelli and
25 other students formed the East High
Gay-Straight Alliance. In February
1996, the school board banned all
extracurricular clubs rather than allow it
to meet.
301
Although the gay-straight alliance’s
mission was initially approved, resis-
tance arose once some religious conser-
vatives got involved, and on February
20 the school board voted 4 to 3 to dis-
continue all clubs rather than permit
the existence of the GSA.
302
On
February 23, 1996, students of both East
and West High Schools walked out of
school in protest, marched to the Utah
State Capitol Building, and held a rally.
While protests against the ban con-
tinued, the school board began a reclas-
sification project, which allowed select-
ed clubs defined as “curricular” to con-
tinue their meetings. In a special ses-
sion, the state legislature passed a law
that allowed schools to deny a free
meeting space to any group that they
believed encouraged criminal conduct,
promoted bigotry, or involved human
sexuality. As a result, the school board
began charging the GSA rent for its
meeting space at the school. In addi-
tion, the school denied it official stand-
ing, and it was not allowed to announce
meetings or post notices of its activities,
nor was it represented in the high
school yearbook, as other clubs were.
Two years after Kelli and her friends
inadvertently caused a statewide contro-
versy simply because they wanted a safe
space for LGBT students to meet, three
civil rights groups joined forces to file a
lawsuit against the school board.
303
In
1999, the Utah District Court ruled that
the school board had violated the Equal
Access Act by banning some extracur-
KELLI PETERSON
60 EDUCATION POLICY
TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND STAFF
In a 1991 study of 289 school counselors, one in five reported that counseling adoles-
cent lesbian or gay students was or would be gratifying. An almost equal number report-
ed just the opposite. Seventy-one percent reported having counseled at least one les-
bian or gay student, although only 25% believed they were competent
to do so.
306
In a 1993 study of 120 gay and lesbian adolescents, the
same researchers also found that only one-quarter of students felt able
to talk with their school counselors about their sexual orientation;
none of the respondents identified school personnel as being a major
source of support.
307
Given the low level of interest and competence
reported by counselors in the earlier study, such an outcome was pre-
dictable.
Many teachers and other school staff members hesitate to discuss sex-
ual orientation or LGBT issues in general. For heterosexual teachers,
the reason may be a lack of knowledge or understanding, or moral or
religious objections. For LGBT teachers, such reticence may stem
from fears of eliciting parental complaints or jeopardizing their jobs.
308
One teacher
from rural Georgia, recalling what happened after she came out to her principal, said
he told her that “if the parents found out, he didn’t need that kind of shit in his life,
and he’d hang me out to dry.”
309
Human Rights Watch reported that these kinds of
fears were expressed most often in states and school districts that do not have nondis-
crimination policies.
A study of 15 lesbian and gay educators found that their apprehensions about disclosing
their sexual orientation centered on harassment and discrimination, job loss, and accu-
sations of child molestation or “recruiting” students into the “gay lifestyle.”
310
Many gay
and lesbians teachers have grown wary of charges of pedophilia. Anti-LGBT activists
A 2000 report titled
Homosexuals Recruit
Children claims that
“homosexual militants”
have a “campaign to
legalize sex with children,”
and are “pushing for
aggressive recruitment
programs in public schools.”
ricular clubs, while allowing others to
meet.”
304
Despite a senior year filled with hate
mail, scorn from her relatives, and a
death threat, Kelli finished high school
on a high note. Her grades, and her rela-
tionship with her friends, improved.
Kelli graduated with no regrets, believ-
ing that, “People should not always take
the middle ground, because you defi-
nitely need to take sides on issues.”
305
Standing up for the right of LGBT stu-
dents to meet on school grounds ulti-
mately led to positive changes in Kelli’s
personal life. For Kelli, a life of depres-
sion, isolation, and thoughts of suicide
turned into a life full of friendship and
support.
304. E. High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ., No. CIV. 2:98-CV-193J, 1999 WL 1390255 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 1999).
305. Shahum, 1996.
306. Price, J. H., & Telljohan, S. K. (1991). School counselors’ perceptions of adolescent homosexuals. Journal of School Health,
61(10), 433–8.
307. Telljohann & Price, 1993.
308. Harris, M. B. (1997). School experiences of gay and lesbian youth: The invisible minority. New York: Harrington Park Press.
309. Ibid.
310. Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In K. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the
classroom closet. New York: Haworth Press.
and right-wing politicians regularly conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, and claim
that gay men are more likely to molest children than heterosexual men, a claim regu-
larly repudiated by social science research (see below). A 2000 report titled Homosexuals
Recruit Children, published by the Traditional Values Coalition, even claims that “homo-
sexual militants” have an ongoing “campaign to legalize sex with children,” and are
“pushing for aggressive recruitment programs in public schools.” The report concludes,
“Since homosexual couples can’t reproduce, they will simply go after your children for
seduction and conversion to homosexuality.”
311
Such hate-filled lies are all too typical of
organizations on the far right.
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Any notion of a link between pedophilia and homosexuality has been definitively
refuted by peer-reviewed social science research. A 1998 study in the Journal of the
American Medical Association noted that 90% of pedophiles are men and that 95%
of these individuals are heterosexual.
312
One researcher explained this statistic by not-
ing, “Gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles
are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are
rarely sexually attracted to other adults.”
313
In fact, gay men and lesbians are less
likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children. Two studies that examined the
sexual orientation of convicted child molesters found that less than 1% in one study
and 0% in the other were lesbian or gay.
314
About four in five cases of child sexual abuse reported to child protection authorities
involve a girl who is abused. But because the sexual abuse of boys is less likely to be
reported, it is estimated that one-quarter to one-third of all sexually abused children
are boys, while two-thirds to three-quarters are girls.
315
Because 90% of child
molesters are men, some have argued that “homosexual child abuse” is widespread
and that homosexuals abuse children at a rate higher than their proportion of the
population.
316
Such claims are based on the false belief that men who sexually abuse
boys are homosexual. In fact, the overwhelming majority of men who sexually
abuse children live their lives as heterosexual men. One psychologist reviewed the
existing social science literature on the relationship between sexuality and child sexu-
al abuse and found that “a gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpe-
trate sexual activity with children.”
317
Further, “cases of perpetration of sexual
behavior with a pre-pubescent child by an adult lesbian are virtually nonexistent.”
318
A review of 352 medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse during a
12-month period at a Denver children’s hospital found that less than 1% had been
61 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
311. Sheldon, 2000.
312. Holmes, W. C., & Slap, G. B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definitions, prevalence, correlates, sequelae and management. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 280(21), 1855–1862.
313. Stevenson, M. R. (2000). Public policy, homosexuality and the sexual coercion of children. Journal of Psychology & Human
Sexuality, 12(4), 8.
314. Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
7(3), 175–181; Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 44.
315. Finkelhor, D. (1994). The future of children: Sexual abuse of children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 4(2), 46–47;
Stevenson, 2000.
316. Finkelhor, 1994.
317. Stevenson, 2000.
318. Ibid.
62 EDUCATION POLICY
Despite the evidence to the contrary, LGBT people are often characterized as a threat
to youth, and some argue that gay people should not be allowed to teach, parent, or
serve as Boy Scout troop leaders. Some conservatives have even suggested that nondis-
crimination laws protecting LGBT people and the recognition of
their rights will lead to an increase in child molestation. One
researcher has noted that due to fear of accusations of pedophilia,
LGBT adults are the “only oppressed group that is severed from its
relationships with youth. Youth then experience the absence of adult
mentoring, support, counseling, or befriending of both queer and non-
queer adults.”
321
Because LGBT youth usually grow up in heterosexu-
al households, they often lack role models who understand their
unique situations, and remain without access to accurate information
about their sexuality, their community, and themselves.
322
Researchers found that the
majority (77%) of the supportive adults in the lives of the 17 lesbian, gay, and bisexu-
al youth they interviewed were not family members.
323
Literature on the emotional development of ethnic minority children has revealed a
definitive need for affirmative adult role models from their own racial or ethnic back-
grounds. Similarly, research has shown that having an openly gay role model improves
health outcomes for gay youth.
324
An exploratory study with 12 self-identified LGBT
youth found that they perceived peers and unrelated adults to be more supportive than
family members. Peers and adults who were also LGBT provided especially valuable
information and support. Unfortunately, the participants reported that their teachers,
counselors, coaches, and administrators “strove to uphold the heterosexual model as
normative,” in direct conflict with the students’ emerging sexual identity.
325
In one
study of 101 school counselors, only six indicated that there was at least one faculty
member at their school who was openly gay or lesbian.
326
abused by a gay man or a lesbian. Of 269 adult perpetrators of child abuse identi-
fied among the 352 cases of abuse, only two were gay or lesbian. The vast majority
of the children in the study (82%) “were suspected of being abused by a man or a
woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the
child.” And the review concluded that in this sample, “a child’s risk of being
molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than
[the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homo-
sexual, lesbian, or bisexual.”
319
In an earlier study of convicted male child molesters
in Massachusetts, none of the 175 men were found to have an exclusively homo-
sexual adult sexual orientation or to be primary attracted to other adult men.
320
319. Jenny & Roesler, 1994.
320. Groth & Birnbaum, 1978.
321. Pharr, 1997.
322. Telljohan & Price, 1993; Walling, 1993.
323. Nesmith, A., Burton, D. L., & Cosgrove, T. J. (1999). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth and young adults: Social support in their
own words. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(106).
324. Diaz, R., & Ayala, G. (2001). Social discrimination and health: The case of Latino gay men and HIV risk. New York: National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Available at http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/DiazEng.pdf.
325. Munoz-Plaza, Quinn, & Rounds, 2002.
326. Ibid.
In one study of 101
school counselors, only
six indicated that there
was at least one faculty
member at their school who
was openly gay or lesbian.
Fortunately, some students are able to rely on teachers, counselors or coaches who are
LGBT or who are, in some way, perceived to be accepting.
327
According to Human
Rights Watch, when LGBT students reported positive school experiences, they attrib-
uted them to the presence of supportive teachers.
328
In GLSEN’s National School
Climate Survey, 60% of respondents reported that they knew of a teacher or staff per-
son supportive of LGBT students at their school. Thirty-five percent of youth who had
a supportive teacher or staff person felt as if they belonged at their school, compared
with 25% who did not have a supportive teacher or staff person.
329
Students’ awareness
of which teachers and school staff are unlikely to condemn them comes from a multi-
tude of sources, including rumors, a passing expression of tolerance, a poster or a book
in a classroom, and the enforcement of an anti-harassment policy.
330
While the school environment is often hostile toward LGBT students, supportive
teachers can help them avoid a broad range of problems often associated with being
young and LGBT.
331
In their analysis of the National Adolescent Health Study data,
one group of researchers found that “feelings about teachers play the largest role in pre-
dicting the troubles of both boys and girls with bisexual attractions in school—paying
attention, getting homework completed, and getting along with other students.”
332
Data from the 1998–1999 Nuestras Voces study of Latino gay and bisexual men show
that the presence of an adult gay role model while growing up increased self-esteem,
lowered psychological distress, and lessened the likelihood of engaging in high-risk sex-
ual behavior later in life.
333
The presence of out gay men and lesbians among teachers, administrators and staff has
a positive impact on all members of a school community.
334
The insight that students
gain from experiences with openly LGBT teachers in the school environment can be
significant. A survey of 11 former students in their late 20s and early 30s did not elicit
any intense concerns about having had a gay teacher while in middle school. The expe-
rience even seems to have left them with a more open-minded perspective on issues
related to sexual orientation. Though further research is needed with a larger popula-
tion, the results of this study suggest that openly LGBT teachers can be important role
models for both LGBT and heterosexual students.
335
Reporting on the decision of a Massachusetts teacher to come out to members of his
school community, one author writes:
His motivations for taking this action were twofold: first, he did it for the students.
“It was an attempt to alleviate some of the fear, shame, loneliness, and despair of
kids in high school today that I also felt as a closeted teen,” he told me. And sec-
ond, he did it for himself and other staff members. “It takes much more energy to
be closeted than it does to be out,” he continued. “All of the energy I used in wor-
63 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
327. Fontaine, 1998; Ginsberg, 1999.
328. Bochenek & Brown, 2001.
329. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
330. Lipkin, A. (1999). Know sexual identity, homosexual adjustment issues before counseling LGBT youth. The Brown University
Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 15(12), 1.
331. Russell, S. T. (2001). LGBTQ youth are at risk in U.S. school environment. SIECUS Report, 29(4), 19–22.
332. Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001.
333. Diaz & Ayala, 2001.
334. Woog, D. (1995). School’s out: The impact of gay and lesbian issues on America’s schools. Boston: Alyson; Kissen, R. (1993). Listening
to lesbian and gay teenagers. Teaching Education, 5(2), 57–68.
335. Rofes, E. (2000). Young adult reflections on having an openly gay teacher during early adolescence. Education and Urban Society,
32(3), 399.
64 EDUCATION POLICY
rying that I would say the wrong thing is now freed up for other things. I think I’m
a much more effective teacher now on many levels.”
336
The response to this teacher’s acknowledgement of his sexual orientation was decided-
ly mixed. While some students and parents expressed concern, there were also messages
of support and encouragement from the community. One father wrote, “I…support
your courageous statements. You will undoubtedly pay a price for your honesty, yet oth-
ers would pay a price for your silence, and that price could be fatal.”
337
THE HARVEY MILK HIGH SCHOOL
New York City’s Harvey Milk High School, named for the slain civil rights leader and
native New Yorker, was established to meet “the educational needs of children who are
in crisis or at risk of physical violence and/or emotional harm in a traditional education
environment, especially lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.”
338
The only
school of its kind, it provides a place for LGBT youth to go to high school in a safe and
supportive environment. It was established in 1984 as an accredited program of the
New York City Department of Education’s Career Education Center
in partnership with the Hetrick-Martin Institute, a social service
agency serving LGBT youth since 1979.
339
Employing the same cur-
ricula and teachers, and requiring the same regents exams and gradu-
ation standards as any other New York City public high school, it is
similar to other specialized public schools, like the Frederick Douglass
Academy in Harlem, which serves primarily African American stu-
dents; the Young Women’s Leadership School for Girls in East
Harlem; and the Urban Academy Laboratory School, a multicultural,
multiracial, 120-student school on Manhattan’s East Side.
340
Admissions standards are the same as those for other New York City
public schools.
341
The majority of students at Harvey Milk High School belong to
racial minorities: nearly three-quarters of the 71 enrollees in
2002–2003 were either African American or Latino. Forty percent
reported a family income below $20,000. Although the school is located in
Manhattan’s Greenwich Village, 60% of its students come from Brooklyn, the Bronx
and Queens. A significant number of its students are either homeless or living in
group homes with a guardian because they have been thrown out of their own homes
by their parents.
342
Ninety-five percent of the students at Harvey Milk High School
graduate, and over 60% go on to attend advanced programs or college.
343
Given that
Nearly three-quarters of
students at Harvey Milk
High School in 2001–
2002 were either African
American or Latino.
Forty percent reported a
family income below
$20,000. Ninety-five
percent of its students
graduate, and over 60%
go on to advanced
programs or college.
336. Blumenfeld, 1994. When he made the decision to come out in 1993, Peter Atlas was a math teacher at Concord Carlisle Regional
High School in Massachusetts.
337. Ibid.
338. Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) Q & A’s on HMS. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from
http://www.hmi.org/GeneralInfoAndDonations/QAndAsonHMS/default.aspx
339. Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) About HMI & HMS. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from
http://www.hmi.org/GeneralInfoAndDonations/AboutHMIAndHMS/default.aspx
340. Hetrick-Martin Institute. Q & A’s on HMS.
341. Hetrick-Martin Institute. About HMI & HMS.
342. Winerip, M. (2003, August 27). A safe haven finds itself under siege. The New York Times, p. B1.
343. Hetrick-Martin Institute. About HMI & HMS.
lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents drop out of school at a rate three times the
national average, such success is extraordinary.
344
In June 2002, the Board of Education approved $3.2 million in funds for the renova-
tion and expansion of the school, and in September 2003, the Harvey Milk High
School opened its doors as a full-fledged public high school, no longer operating in col-
laboration with the Hetrick-Martin Institute. Although the media took no interest in
the allocation of those funds, when the mainstream media got hold of the story the
month before the school was scheduled to re-open, it came under intense criticism.
Although it had been operating for nearly two decades with the sup-
port of a succession of mayors, including the sitting Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani (both Republicans),
its “creation” became international news, and opinion pages across
the country denounced its existence.
Acknowledging the good intentions behind the Harvey Milk High
School and supporting its basic aim, The New York Times nonetheless
could not “condone the concept of establishing a special school specif-
ically for students based on their sexual orientation.”
345
The Wall Street
Journal published a deceitful and especially polarizing editorial accusing
the school system of creating an institution for an “education elite” in
response to pressure from a “politically influential group.” Ignoring the
economic background of much of Harvey Milk High School’s student
body, it concluded, “Only in America’s big-city public schools do you
get better treatment if you’re gay than if you’re poor.”
346
Of the major newspapers in New York City, only the Daily News
called the concern over the school’s expansion overblown, noting
that many of the students at the school had been ostracized by their
families or their former schools. The paper wrote, “[A] lot of people reasonably contend
it would be better if New York didn’t have dozens of differently themed schools—that
students should adjust to their surroundings, as they one day will have to do when they
are adults…. But since the goal of education is not just to teach students, but to enable
them to learn, policies that help that process along are worth trying.”
347
No other news-
papers were supportive.
Although Republicans were largely silent on the issue, the chairman of the state’s
Conservative Party belittled that school in the press. And Democratic State Senator
Ruben Diaz, a politician with a long record of antagonism toward the LGBT commu-
nity, even sued to block the school’s opening, with the help of attorneys from the
Florida-based Liberty Counsel, a group that defends “traditional families, sanctity of life
and religious liberty.” Cloaked in the language of civil rights and decrying the school as
a “separate but equal” institution, Senator Diaz accused the school of “taking from the
poor and giving to the rich,” segregation, and “leaving my Spanish children, my black
children behind.”
348
65 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
The Wall Street Journal
published a deceitful
editorial accusing the
school system of creating
an institution for an
“education elite.”
Ignoring the economic
background of much of
Harvey Milk High
School’s student body, it
concluded, “Only in
America’s big-city public
schools do you get better
treatment if you’re gay
than if you’re poor.”
344. Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) LGBTQ youth statistics. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from
http://www.hmi.org/Community/LGBTQYouthStatistics/default.aspx
345. The New York Times. (2003, August 3). The Harvey Milk High School. [Editorial].
346. The Wall Street Journal. (2003, August 21). Choice, if you’re gay. [Editorial].
347. Daily News. (2003, August 7). School’s gay, that’s okay. [Editorial], p. 26.
348. Osborne, D. (2003, August 15–21). Diaz bashes Milk school. Gay City News, p. 1. Available at
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn233/diazbashes.html
Lesbian Youth Takes Control of Her Life
With the Help of the Harvey Milk High
School: A Profile of Tenaja Jordan
Tenaja Johnson’s high school career
began well. As a freshman at Staten
Island Technical High School, she felt
loved by her parents and accepted at
school. She knew she was a lesbian, but
she wasn’t out to anyone. But during her
sophomore year, Tenaja started seeing
her sexual orientation in a social and
political context, and began her coming
out process. By her junior year, everyone
at school knew that she was gay. She
never felt in physical danger, but she did
experience verbal harassment. Female
students would say, “At least I’m not a
lesbian like her,” while male students
taunted her by calling out, “Come with
me, I’ll make you straight.” Generally
speaking, Tenaja felt that students
viewed her lesbianism as “disgusting.”
The other students’ reactions to her sex-
ual orientation quickly took a toll on
Tenaja’s well being; she began to skip
66 EDUCATION POLICY
Even the LGBT community was ambivalent. Michael Bronski, a prominent journalist,
activist, and academic, writing in the Boston Phoenix, commented:
[S]egregating these students for their own protection also patronizes them, and that’s
why [the Harvey Milk School]—as helpful as it may be for a few queer kids at the
moment—is not really a solution.… The Harvey Milk School
made sense in the 1980s, when the prevailing politics on GLBT
youth favored carving out private spaces to protect them. But the
gay-rights movement has grown since then, and the politics of pri-
vacy has given way to a more forceful politics of public interven-
tion…. At this point the public-school system should mandate a
series of measures that will make all schools safe for all students.
349
In fact, a separate school is not the best solution. It is available only
to a small percentage of youth who need it: those whose parents have
either abandoned them or who will allow them to go. Making sure
that all schools are safe for LGBT youth is, of course, a better, although longer-term,
goal. But that goal for future LGBT youth must not be met by endangering the mental
and physical well-being of today’s students. Given the dismal statistics on the treatment
of these youth in American schools, LGBT-supportive institutions like the Harvey
Milk High School should be encouraged as an interim solution to the epidemic of vio-
lence and harassment against LGBT students in America’s public schools.
Only one other such school has ever existed. Founded in 1997, the Walt Whitman
School in Dallas, a private school with a sliding-scale tuition, closed its doors in 2003,
having repeatedly failed to win accreditation from the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools.
350
349. Bronski, M. (2003, August 8–14). Rethinking the Harvey Milk School: Not-so-fast times at Queermont High. Boston Phoenix.
Available at http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/03073221.asp
350. 365Gay.com. (2003, August 7). School for gay students to close. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from
http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/August%202003/School%20For%20Gay%20Students%20To%20Close.htm
The Harvey Milk High
School should be
encouraged as an interim
solution to the epidemic of
violence and harassment
against LGBT students in
America’s public schools.
67 3. EXISTING POLICY INTERVENTIONS
school, and her grades started to slip.
During the middle of her junior year, she
went to a guidance counselor for help.
Unfortunately, the guidance coun-
selor was not equipped to help Tenaja
deal with the harassment she was expe-
riencing. At a loss, the counselor called
Tenaja’s parents, even though Tenaja
was afraid to tell them about her les-
bianism: her parents
are devout Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and Tenaja
knew they would
have a difficult time
accepting her sexual
orientation. In a
meeting with her parents, Tenaja was
backed into a corner by the counselor,
who kept pushing her to tell her parents
what was bothering her. Feeling that she
had no choice, Tenaja came out to her
parents. Her mother refused to accept
that she was gay, while her father
refused to deal with it at all. Her moth-
er believed it resulted from the bad
influence of other students, and forbid
Tenaja from attending any extracurricu-
lar school activities. As Tenaja put it,
“All I had was school and home.”
Neither environment offered her much
in the way of support.
The situation went from bad to
worse when her Jehovah’s Witness con-
gregation excommu-
nicated her. Even
so, Tenaja’s mother
continued to take
her to church, where
she was forbidden to
speak to anyone and
others prohibited
from speaking to her. By the end of the
school year, Tenaja had made the deci-
sion to move out and live on her own.
She moved into an independent living
program in Brooklyn during the sum-
mer, determined to graduate from
Staten Island Tech and prove to her
parents that she could make it on her
own. However, Tenaja found it difficult
to return to her old school life and be
constantly reminded that she wasn’t
accepted.
Worse still, she was identified as a
“troubled teen” and an “underprivileged
kid” by the city’s Department of Youth
Services, which was trying to make
decisions for her at a time when Tenaja
felt it was important to make decisions
for herself. She fell into a deep depres-
sion, slept a lot, and rarely went to
school. When she did go, she was regu-
larly harassed. Fortunately, while
searching the Internet for LGBT youth
resources, Tenaja discovered the
Hetrick-Martin Institute, home of the
Harvey Milk High School.
During the middle of her senior year,
Tenaja transferred to Harvey Milk High
School, and the world became a brighter
place. She went from a school where she
was one of eight black students and the
only lesbian to a school where LGBT
youth of color were the majority. From
an environment where she was taught,
she recalls, that “everything that is white
is beautiful and everything that is beau-
tiful is white,” she moved to a place that
embraces diversity. Tenaja was szurprised
when other students asked her to identi-
fy as aggressive or femme. She responded
by declaring herself a “nondenomina-
tional lesbian.” She made friends with
other lesbians for the first time. “It was
great,” Tenaja explains. “It felt very, very
positive to me.” She also loved the
teachers at the Harvey Milk High
School, whom she describes as “really,
really nice people” who gave her the
freedom to make her own choices and
create a plan for her life.
Tenaja is now a freshman at Hunter
College, and she plans to go to graduate
school. She remains actively involved
During the middle of her senior
year, Tenaja transferred to Harvey
Milk High School, and the world
became a brighter place.
Tenaja was surprised when other
students asked her to identify as
aggressive or femme. She
responded by declaring herself a
“nondenominational lesbian.”
68 EDUCATION POLICY
with the Hetrick-Martin Institute and
serves as chairperson of its youth advi-
sory board. She has recently re-estab-
lished contact with her parents, and
hopes that they can all reconcile their
differences. In response to the criticism
that the publicly funded Harvey Milk
High School is a return to segregated
schools, Tenaja argues, “Separation of
at-risk students is not segregation. It is a
temporary solution to a problem. It sta-
bilizes young people so that they can get
an education. [In extreme cases,] it
saves a life. The Department of Education
owes kids a safe space.” The Harvey
Milk High School provided support and
guidance for Tenaja and enabled her to
draw on her own strength and follow
her own path. She says she shares her
experiences because “if my story helps
another queer minority youth, I’m all
for that.”
There’s no greater challenge than to make sure that every child…not just a few chil-
dren, every single child, regardless of where they live, how they’re raised, the income
level of their family, every child receive[s] a first-class education in America.
351
—President George W. Bush
President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act) in front
of a cheering crowd of high school students in Hamilton, Ohio on January 8, 2002.
352
A complex and comprehensive package of policies reauthorizing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, the NCLB Act ostensibly codifies
the Bush Administration’s campaign promise to improve public edu-
cation for every child in the United States.
353
Bush described the
NCLB Act as “the cornerstone” of his administration, and in
announcing the policy just three days after his inauguration, he said,
“These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their
mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every
background, in every part of America.”
354
His solutions focus on cre-
ating accountability for student performance through federally man-
dated standardized testing; allowing parents to choose their children’s
schools through vouchers and the creation of charter schools; and giving greater con-
trol of federally funded education programs to local governments.
355
The NCLB Act
received bipartisan support in Congress, including that of liberal Senator Edward
Kennedy (D-MA). Both houses symbolically assigned the bill the number “1” to illus-
trate that education policy was its top priority.
69
4. Leaving Our
Children Behind:
The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001
The NCLB Act fails to
address the needs of all
students—especially LGBT
students. And some of
its provisions are having
a negative impact on
LGBT youth nationwide.
351. The White House. (2002, January 8). President signs landmark education bill. Retrieved October 18, 2003, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html
352. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C § 1425 (2002).
353. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved July 16, 2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/NCLBexecsumm.pdf
354. Ibid.
355. The White House, 2002.
70 EDUCATION POLICY
Unfortunately, the NCLB Act fails to address the needs of all students—especially les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. And some of its provisions are
having a negative impact on LGBT youth nationwide.
Through its support for private and charter schools, for example, the NCLB Act grants
federal dollars to schools and religious organizations, which are often exempt from state
or local nondiscrimination or anti-harassment laws aimed at protect-
ing LGBT students. It also mandates Internet filtering for schools that
use federal funding to purchase computer-related Internet technology,
preventing LGBT youth from accessing educationally appropriate and
potentially lifesaving information online. Conservatives in Congress
saddled the NCLB Act with the Vitter Amendment and the Boy
Scouts of America Equal Access Act, which threaten schools with the
loss of all federal funding if they refuse to allow the U.S. military or
the Boy Scouts to hold activities on school grounds—even if the anti-
gay policies of these organizations violate the school district’s own
nondiscrimination policies. The NCLB ACT also gives parents the opportunity to
remove their children from antibias programs designed to prevent harassment and vic-
timization associated with prejudice and intolerance, which are funded under its Safe
and Drug-Free Schools provision.
The NCLB Act does not preclude schools from using other federal funds (or state and
local funds) to combat homophobia in schools. But if a school decides to address the
ongoing bullying of an LGBT student by using federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools
funding to conduct an assembly designed to address such harassment, it requires the
school to notify every parent first. And the parents of the bully could actually excuse
their child from attending that assembly.
This chapter analyzes several provisions of the NCLB Act, including its support for
school vouchers, single-sex education, and Internet filtering laws, and how they impact
LGBT youth in America’s public schools.
VOUCHERS AND SCHOOL CHOICE
…[W]e trust parents to make the right decisions for their children. Any school that
doesn’t perform, any school that cannot catch up and do its job, a parent will have
these options: a better public school, a tutor, or a charter school.
356
—President George W. Bush
Beginning with the 2003–2004 school year, the NCLB Act allowed parents of children
attending “schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring” to
send their children to a different public school or charter school within the same school
district.
357
Low-income students attending schools that have failed to meet state stan-
dards for at least three of the four preceding years must be allowed to use federal funds
to pay for “supplemental education services from the public- or private-sector provider
selected by the students and their parents.”
358
The NCLB Act also requires school dis-
The NCLB ACT allows
parents to remove their
sons and daughters from
some antibias programs
designed to prevent harass-
ment and victimization
associated with intolerance.
356. The White House, 2002.
357. Department of Education, 2002.
358. Ibid.
tricts to spend up to 20% of their federal funding to provide school choice and supple-
mental educational services to eligible students.
359
But instead of offering a financial
incentive to schools making real efforts to improve educational quality, this policy is
essentially punitive: when students go to a charter or private school, federal funding
goes with them, and their public schools are forced to try to improve with even less
money. In places where conservative religious institutions are the only alternative to
public schools, school choice programs provide no choices for parents who desire supe-
rior but secular educational alternatives for their children.
School vouchers allow public tax dollars to be used to pay for private, religious school-
ing, which had historically been a losing proposition for social conservatives. But in
2002, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled five-to-four that a school voucher program in
Cleveland was constitutional because it was “entirely neutral with respect to religion,”
and “provide[d] benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by finan-
cial need and residence in a particular school district.”
360
Referring to
a 1947 case in which the Court had ruled that “[n]o tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or insti-
tutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt
to teach or practice religion,”
361
Justice John-Paul Stevens called the
decision “profoundly misguided” in his dissent.
362
The Court’s ruling paved the way for the school vouchers provision in
the NCLB Act, which allows federal dollars to support private
schools—schools that may be exempt from state or local education
policies, including those that protect youth from harassment or dis-
crimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of
these private schools are religiously affiliated and have policies and practices that are dis-
criminatory toward LGBT teachers, parents, and youth.
363
Over 80% of the private
schools included in Cleveland’s voucher program are affiliated with a specific religion. As
a result, $8 million in public funds were distributed to schools in Cleveland that taught
religious doctrine to 3,700 economically disadvantaged children in the 1999–2000 school
year.
364
Nonetheless, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that religious schools may,
in some cases, provide a haven of sorts for LGBT students harassed in public schools. For
example, Jamie Nabozny (see Chapter 2) reports that he experienced less harassment and
violence in a religious school to which he was temporarily transferred than in public
school.
71 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
The NCLB Act allows
federal dollars to support
private schools—schools
that may be exempt
from state or local
policies that protect LGBT
youth from harassment
or discrimination.
359. Department of Education, 2002.
360. ABCNews.com. (2002, June 28). Supreme Court OKs vouchers that send kids to religious schools. Retrieved August 20, 2003,
from http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_vouchers020627.html
361. Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
362. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000), rev’d by, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
363. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). Parental “choice,” school “choice,” and school vouchers. Retrieved July 8,
2003, from http://www.GLSEN.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/695.pdf
364. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000), rev’d by, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
365. Center for Education Reform. (2003, March 24). Charter school highlights and statistics. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from
http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm ; U.S. Charter Schools. (n.d.). Overview of charter schools. Retrieved September 3, 2003,
from http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/gi/overview.htm
72 EDUCATION POLICY
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Beginning with a single school in Minnesota in 1992, the charter school movement has bur-
geoned into a nationwide phenomenon with over 2,600 schools serving more than 685,000
students in 37 states and the District of Columbia.
365
Publicly funded but
granted relative autonomy with regard to structure, curriculum, and edu-
cational focus, charter schools function more or less independently of the
public school system. Proponents argue that a charter school’s freedom
from the regulations and bureaucracy of a public school system allows for
greater innovations that can ultimately better meet students’ needs.
The types and quality of charter schools vary dramatically, as do the
state laws and regulations that govern them. Arizona, which has more
charter schools than any other state, imposes almost no restrictions
on them at all. In Rhode Island, charter schools’ curricula and teacher
certification standards are highly regulated. Some charter schools
have been created by groups of parents and teachers seeking an alter-
native to the neighborhood public school. Others have been established by private, for-
profit enterprises. Some are even former public schools that have converted to charter
status, seeking greater freedom to provide innovative education.
366
School choice is “not just about making opportunities for people to create new, poten-
tially more effective public schools[, but also] represents a dramatic change in the way
states offer public education.”
367
The same can be said about the charter school move-
ment itself. Both have become especially controversial issues that have forged unusual
political alliances (between conservative white members of Congress and black urban
parents, for example), and caused friction between other longstanding political allies,
like the national teachers unions and their local affiliates.
368
Some advocate for vouch-
ers and school choice programs because they use tax dollars to provide affordable alter-
natives to low-income, mostly black and Latino students in urban areas. In some urban
school districts, students may indeed get a better education at charter schools than at
struggling public school. But many educators and elected officials denounce such pro-
grams for draining scarce public funds from financially strained public school systems
and for funneling the brightest students to private and parochial schools, all the while
meeting the educational needs of a very small number of students.
The National Education Association supports “public charter schools that have the same
standards of accountability and access as other public schools,”
369
but, as the American
Federation of Teachers point out, very few can claim to.
370
Charter schools are also prob-
lematic because they often pay their teachers far less than public schools (which are often
unionized), may be more racially segregated than public schools, and are often unable to
meet the needs of students with disabilities.
371
The jury is still out on whether the quali-
ty of the education they provide is better than, or even equal to, public schools.
366. Ibid.
367. Nathan, J. (1999). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
368. Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter Schools in Action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
369. National Education Association. (n.d.). Charter schools. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.nea.org/charter/
370. American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). Charter schools. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.aft.org/issues/charterschools.html
371. Casey, L. (2000). The charter conundrum. Rethinking Schools Online, 14(3). Retrieved August 29, 2003, from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/14_03/char143.shtml
“Public money should be
spent on improving the
nation’s public schools
rather than diverted to
private institutions that
may not provide equal
treatment for all students.”
—Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network
The school choice movement is likely to continue to be a presence in the debate on
improving public education in the U.S. Ideally, all youth, gay and straight, would be
able to receive a first-rate education by attending a public school that is free of any type
of violence and harassment. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to ask today’s youth to bear
the entire burden of creating the public schools of tomorrow by not acknowledging that
some of today’s public schools are substandard, unsafe, and educationally unsound. For
LGBT youth experiencing harassment, progressive charter schools with explicit values
of acceptance may provide a much-needed alternative to their public schools. Charter
schools might also provide an opportunity to replicate successful LGBT-supportive
schools like New York City’s Harvey Milk High School. But the decentralized nature
of charter school governance leaves them particularly susceptible to homophobic poli-
cies. Given the increasing popularity of the charter school movement, it is important
to advocate for the inclusion of LGBT-friendly curricula and policies at all such schools.
Administrators of charter or private schools may simply be unwilling to implement safe
schools initiatives that promote tolerance, creating hostile environments for LGBT
youth and the children of LGBT families. Even in states with nondiscrimination laws
protecting LGBT people, such legislation often exempts private or religious institu-
tions.
372
Because of these serious limitations, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) warns of the negative impact that school voucher and other priva-
tization programs can have on LGBT youth:
Public money should be spent on improving the nation’s public schools rather than
diverted to private institutions that may not be accountable to local educational
policies and may not provide equal access or treatment for all students.
373
SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION
The NCLB Act allows federal education funds to be used for “programs to provide
same-gender schools and classrooms” as long as they comply with applicable civil
rights laws, including Title IX, which guarantees equal educational opportunities for
all students regardless of sex. That may be easier said than done. In 1996, the
Supreme Court declared that single-sex programs must have “an exceedingly persua-
sive justification” in order to be constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment.
375
Though it ruled out programs that “perpetuate the legal,
social, and economic inferiority of women,” the Court decided that single-sex educa-
tion would be permissible if it were used to “compensate women for particular eco-
nomic disabilities they have suffered…to promote equal employment opportuni-
ty…[and] to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our nation’s
people.”
376
Despite these specific directions from the Court, on May 8, 2002 the U.S
Department of Education issued a report supporting the amendment of Title IX “to
73 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
372. Ibid.
373. Ibid.
374. Simpson, M. D. (2002, May 30). Review of selected provisions of the Elementary & Secondary Act (ESEA). National Education
Association. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Organization of Lawyers for Educational Associations,
Anchorage, AK.
375. American Association of University Women. (2003, January). Single-sex education. Retrieved August 8, 2003, from
http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/policyissues/pdfs/SingleSexEducation.pdf ; United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
376. Ibid.
74 EDUCATION POLICY
provide more flexibility to educators to establish single-sex classes and schools at the
elementary and secondary levels.”
377
Civil rights groups opposed to single-sex education cite Brown v. Board of Education, the
historic 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared a separate public education sys-
tem for black children to be inherently unequal. “Separate but equal” single-sex edu-
cation could potentially result not only in inequities, but also in the reinforcement of
harmful gender-role stereotypes.
378
Opponents of single-sex education
argue that at best, it is a cheap solution to educational problems in
urban schools that would be better addressed by improving the quali-
ty of education for all students.
Proponents of single-sex education argue that it is merely a response
to what they view as the failure of schools to increase academic
achievement “even after allocating significant dollars,” particularly for urban
schools.
379
They also claim that there is no comparison between today’s single-sex
schools and the segregated schools of the past because today’s parents and children are
actively choosing a separate education. According to one author:
We have scores of books and articles on how disadvantaged boys just don’t identi-
fy with academic achievement. They gain their self-esteem from sports…even dis-
advantaged girls too often seek validation in early motherhood…. Equal doesn’t
necessarily mean the same kinds of services have to be provided. Sometimes to
achieve equal educational opportunity, we have to provide different kinds of oppor-
tunity to students.
380
Similar arguments, focusing on students’ safety and well-being, have been made about
the need for the Harvey Milk High School.
Organizations like the ACLU and the American Association of University Women
(AAUW) strongly disagree, and have even disputed the ability of single-sex schools to
meet the needs of female students. According to Maggie Ford, president of the AAUW
Educational Foundation, “[S]eparating by sex is not the solution to gender inequity in
education…. When elements of good education are present, girls and boys succeed.”
381
These elements include small classes, a rigorous curriculum, high standards, discipline,
good teachers, and attention to eliminating gender bias.
382
Strategies that help to
achieve an equitable learning environment for all students regardless of gender include
staff development for all teachers focusing on gender equity, recruitment of female and
minority administrators who can act as role models, adoption and dissemination of
school nondiscrimination policies, sexual harassment prevention programs, and equal
opportunities for female students in athletic programs.
383
Brown v. Board of Education overturned a government-enforced policy of racial segre-
377. Ibid.
378. Gandy, K. (2002, May 10). Segregation won’t help. USA Today. Available at
http://www.now.org/press/inTheNews/20020510.html
379. Teicher, S. A. (2003, July 1). The case for single-sex schools. The Christian Science Monitor. Available at
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0701/p15s01-lepr.htm
380. Ibid.
381. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (n.d.). Report finds separating by sex not the solution to gender
inequality in school. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.aauw.org/about/newsroom/press_releases/sspr.cfm
382. American Association of University Women, 2003.
383. Ibid.
Do single-sex schools
free their students from
gender role stereotypes,
or reinforce them?
gation that sanctioned an inherently inferior education system for blacks that was
indeed separate, but unequal to the education offered to white students. Today’s gener-
ation of single-sex schools, the Harvey Milk High School, and schools for students with
disabilities were created, in part, to respond to the failure of mainstream public schools
to serve certain populations of students, not out of a desire to exclude them. Dealing
with the gender inequality that girls experience in coeducational institutions is obvi-
ously the best long-term goal. But while the necessity for such schools might not exist
in a perfect world, it is hard to argue with parents who want the best for their children
today, and cannot find it in the public school system as it exists; or with youth who
merely want to go to school without being harassed, threatened, and assaulted.
Do single-sex schools free their students from gender-role stereotypes, or reinforce
them? Proponents of single-sex education believe the latter, and cite complex reasons
rooted in both sociology and biology. According to the National Association for Single
Sex Public Education, “At every age, girls in girls-only classroom[s] are more likely to
explore ‘non-traditional’ subjects such as computer science, math, physics, woodwork-
ing, etc.” But are single-sex institutions better? In 1998, the AAUW released a com-
prehensive report that analyzed existing research on single-sex education. Studies that
examined the effect of single-sex education on girls did find higher indicators of self-
esteem in single-sex schools than in coeducation institutions, a difference attributed to
a learning environment in which girls were less critical of their own behavior.
However, a 10-year study of student attitudes and achievements in one all-boys and one
all-girls high school in Australia reported conflicting results. After each school made
the transition from single-sex to coeducational, indicators of both girls’ and boys’ self-
esteem dropped slightly, but after five years actually increased to a higher level than
when students were in single-sex classrooms. Research on academic
achievement differences is also contradictory, with no clear evidence
that single-sex education is any better than coeducation.
384
Since many of the LGBT youth who are harassed are gender non-
conforming, would single-sex school environments be better for
them? Or would they fare better in coeducational environments
because they may be more likely to have friendship networks that
include members of the opposite sex? No one knows for sure. Very lit-
tle has been written about the impact of single-sex education pro-
grams on gender and sexuality development, or on anti-LGBT
harassment and violence. Despite the need for more research, there
is preliminary evidence and a historical context that indicates single-sex schools could
have a significantly negative impact on both gender equality and the gender develop-
ment of all students, particularly those that are transgender and gender nonconform-
ing. According to one education expert, “The underlying message of these schools is
that girls are less capable, and that the only way to control boys’ behavior is to sepa-
rate them from girls.”
385
A 2001 report on California’s pilot program for single-gender
schooling expressed similar concerns:
Our interviews and observations of the single-gender academies often revealed def-
initions of gender that were either limited, as was the case with masculinity, or
unrealistic, as was heard in messages about femininity. Gender was constructed as
75 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
384. Ibid.
385. Bailey, S. M. (1996). Shortchanging girls and boys. Educational Leadership, 53(8), 76.
Would a transgender
student who was born
male but identifies as
female be welcome at an
all-female school? Would
gender-nonconforming
boys be further stigmatized
in a boys-only school?
76 EDUCATION POLICY
a dichotomous entity within the single gender academies, promoting a paradigm of
girls as good, boys as bad.
386
Such environments raise other questions as well. Would a transgender student who was
born male but identifies as female be welcome at an all-female school? Would gender-
nonconforming boys be further stigmatized in a boys-only elementary school? Further
research into the potential impact of single-sex education is needed to specifically
assess how these schools would impact LGBT youth.
STANDARDIZED TESTING AND MULTICULTURAL
EDUCATION
[The] first principle is accountability…in return for federal dollars, we are asking
states to design accountability systems to show parents and teachers whether or not
children can read and write and add and subtract in grades three through eight….
I understand taking tests aren’t [sic] fun. Too bad.
387
—President George W. Bush
The NCLB Act requires school districts to administer annual exams in reading and math
to students in the third through eighth grades. Data from those exams become part of
annual report cards on school performance, which give parents information about the
quality of their children’s schools. Statewide reports also include perfor-
mance data specific to the race and gender of students “to demonstrate
progress in closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged students
and other groups of students” largely along economic, racial, and ethnic
lines.
388
Some educators argue, however, that relying almost exclusively
on standardized testing to measure school performance undermines
efforts to close that gap.
389
Though the effort to measure whether stu-
dents around the country are proficient in the same basic skills is an
important part of insuring access to an equal education, Bush’s policy is exclusively puni-
tive: it takes money away from failing school districts without offering any rewards for suc-
cess. Nor does the NCLB Act proffer any increase in funding for programs that attempt to
address the causes of the achievement gap itself, such as school construction and remodel-
ing programs that would make facilities in poorer, urban districts just as safe and modern
as those in wealthier, suburban locales.
Innovative studies in improving education policy and bridging the achievement gap
have focused on multicultural education, which centers on curricula that validate and
explore the diverse experiences of students, including LGBT students.
Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom,
justice, equality, equity, and human dignity…. It recognizes the role schools can
386. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the public sector? University of Toronto. Available
at http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final.pdf
387. The White House, 2002.
388. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Fact sheet: No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/factsheet.html
389. Fleming, J. (2000). Affirmative action and standardized test scores. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1–2), 27–37; Sex and race
differences on standardized tests: Oversight hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, 100th Cong. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED312276).
Bush’s policy is exclusively
punitive: it takes money
away from failing school
districts without offering
any rewards for success.
play in developing the attitudes and values necessary for a democratic society. It
values cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communi-
ties, and teachers reflect. It challenges all forms of discrimination in schools and
society…[and] helps students develop a positive self-concept by providing knowl-
edge about the histories, cultures, and contributions of diverse groups.
390
The highly prescriptive curricula required to meet objectives deter-
mined solely by standardized testing are incompatible with the goals
of multicultural education, as well as the policy changes required to
close the achievement gap. According to one researcher, textbooks
designed to help students achieve high scores on standardized tests
give students “predigested knowledge presented as indisputable
fact…written to be as non-controversial as possible…and are still
based largely around the worldview and sensibilities of the white male
middle and professional class.”
391
Another researcher adds:
Texts still completely ignore the idea that social classes exist in
this country…. Americans all appear to be happy, middle-class,
well-treated members of society enjoying equal access to success. One wonders how
those images fit with the experiences of many of the children who read those
texts…. When someone with the authority of a teacher, say, describes the world
and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked
into a mirror and saw nothing.
392
This is particularly salient for LGBT students. The inclusion of test questions on LGBT
literature, history, and the arts would be essential to insuring that LGBT issues are cov-
ered in curricula. However, the school environment in many school districts is hostile
to even the mention of homosexuality in the classroom, let alone the creation of
LGBT-inclusive curricula and textbooks.
Standardized testing operates on the assumption that all students have an equal oppor-
tunity to learn. Given that 85% or more of the variation in student
performance on these tests is attributable to factors outside of the
classroom—factors like school funding levels, class size, and other
socioeconomic issues—the playing field is anything but level.
393
Standardized tests that are culturally biased can adversely affect stu-
dents from many cultural groups and contribute to lower expecta-
tions of student performance, negative attitudes toward low-perform-
ing students, and decreased self-esteem.
394
This is especially true for
LGBT students, who are more likely than heterosexual students to
miss school because of harassment and violence, and who score lower
on other indicators of school performance, including grade point average.
395
77 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
390. National Association for Multicultural Education. (2003, February 1). Resolutions & Position Papers. Retrieved July 15, 2003,
from http://www.nameorg.org/resolutions/definition.html
391. Bohn, A. & Sleeter, C. (2002). Standards and multiculturalism. Rethinking Schools Online, 16(3). Retrieved August 25, 2003,
from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Mult163.shtml
392. Ibid., quoting Rich, A. (1986). “Invisible in academe,” in Blood, bread and poetry: Selected prose 1979–1985. New York: W. W.
Norton.
393. Bohn & Sleeter, 2002.
394. Taylor, O. L. (1990). Cross-cultural communication: An essential dimension of effective education (Rev. ed.) Washington: The
Mid-Atlantic Equity Center. Available at http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/ccc/
395. Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRand, 1998; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001.
“When someone with the
authority of a teacher,
say, describes the world
and you are not in it,
there is a moment of
psychic disequilibrium, as
if you looked into a
mirror and saw nothing.”
—Adrienne Rich
The limited focus on
standardized testing
mandated by the NCLB
Act further marginalizes
LGBT youth and other groups
largely ignored by school
curricula and textbooks.
78 EDUCATION POLICY
There is little room for the inclusion of LGBT youth and the children of LGBT par-
ents in the retaliatory climate of standardized testing mandated by the NCLB Act. This
limited focus on measuring educational achievement further marginalizes them, as well
as other groups largely ignored by many school curricula and textbooks. Addressing the
violence and harassment faced by LGBT students does not end with nondiscrimination
policies and the creation of GSAs. A school curriculum that accurately portrays the
contributions made by all people must also address the root causes of racism, sexism,
homophobia, and other forms of intolerance at the heart of social inequality. From the
writings of Walt Whitman,
396
Gertrude Stein,
397
and Audre Lorde
398
to the activism of
Emma Goldman,
399
Magnus Hirschfeld,
400
and Bayard Rustin,
401
when LGBT students
look at textbooks, they should see the faces of other LGBT people, and read about their
important contributions to world history and culture.
INTERNET FILTERING
The NCLB Act allows school districts to apply for federal funds to purchase computers and
other Internet-related technology. Schools receiving these funds must have a “…policy of
Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure
with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access…to
visual depictions that are obscene; child pornography; or harmful to minors….”
402
The
technology protection measure most readily available to public schools is Internet filtering
software. But the federal definitions of “obscene” and “harmful to minors” are unclear, and
have been used to prevent LGBT youth from accessing information about sex education,
sexually transmitted diseases, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
According to the ACLU, “There is no universal definition of obscenity that a block-
ing software company can employ.”
403
In fact, creating a definition for “obscene” has
396. For a biography of Walt Whitman, see Schmidgall, G. (1997). Walt Whitman: A gay life. New York: Plume.
397. For a biography of Gertrude Stein, see Souhami, D. (2000). Gertrude and Alice. London: Phoenix Press; or Hobhouse, J. (1975)
Everybody who was anybody. New York: Putnam.
398. For a biography of Audre Lorde, see De Veaux, A. (2004). (in press). Warrior poet: A biography of Audre Lorde. New York: W. W.
Norton. For her autobiography, see Lorde, A. (1982). Zami: A new spelling of my name. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
399. For biographical information on Emma Goldman, see the Emma Goldman papers. Available at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Gold-
man
400. For a biography of Magnus Hirschfeld, see Wolff, C. (1987). Magnus Hirschfeld: A portrait of a pioneer in sexology. London: Quartet
Books.
401. For a biography of Bayard Rustin, see D’Emilio, J. (2003). Lost prophet: The life and times of Bayard Rustin. New York: Free Press.
402. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 1425 (2002).
403. Johnson, M. J. (2000, July 25). Letter to the House and Senate on Internet blocking/filtering requirements. Retrieved August 20, 2003,
from http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=8968&c=252
EMMA
GOLDMAN
MAGNUS
HIRSCHFELD
AUDRE
LORDE
BAYARD
RUSTIN
GERTRUDE
STEIN
WALT
WHITMAN
plagued U.S. courts for over 50 years. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
tried to explain his definition for obscene: “I shall not today attempt further to define
the kinds of materials I understand to be embraced…but I know it when I see it.” The
spirit of Justice Stewart’s definition is not too far from the standard still used by courts
today, which was explained by Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1973:
(a) Whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards”
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual con-
duct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
404
According to these guidelines, the determination of obscenity is relative to individual
community standards. So one local school board might decide that information about
an LGBT youth group or local LGBT community center is obscene, while another
deems such material completely appropriate.
Because Internet filtering software is developed for a national audience, tailoring it to
individual community standards is nearly impossible, which, according to the ACLU,
makes the software both ineffective and constitutionally suspect.
405
The ACLU also argues that a community’s definition of obscenity
cannot be legally determined by government entities, such as school
boards or public libraries. Only a judge or a jury can make that deci-
sion, requiring a lengthy and costly court hearing.
406
Similar problems arise when applying the “harmful to minors” stan-
dard established by the NCLB Act. What is inappropriate for a five-
year-old may be perfectly appropriate for a 17-year-old. Recognizing
this, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a single “harmful to
minors” standard is not applicable to the Internet, as it would limit
some minors from accessing constitutionally protected speech.
407
The
case arose out of challenges to the Communications Decency Act
(CDA), signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It sought to protect minors from
harmful material on the Internet by criminalizing the transmission of obscene or inde-
cent messages to any recipient under 18.
408
The Supreme Court’s seven-to-two ruling that the CDA was unconstitutional also
declared that Internet content should enjoy the same First Amendment protections as
print media. This decision was influenced by the wide range of socially valuable speech
censored by the law, including speech about safe-sex practices and many other sexual-
ly related topics of importance to both youth and adults.
409
Supreme Court Justice John
Paul Stevens summarized the majority opinion:
79 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
404. Silver, J. (n.d.). Movie day at the Supreme Court or “I know it when I see it”: A history of the definition of obscenity. Retrieved August 21,
2003, from the FindLaw web site: http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00982/008860/title/subject/topic/
constitutional%20law_first%20amendment%20-%20freedom%20of%20speech/filename/constitutionallaw_1_86#edn1
405. Johnson, 2000.
406. Ibid.
407. Ibid.
408. Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Available at http://archive.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html
409. American Civil Liberties Union. (1997, June 26). Supreme Court rules: Cyberspace will be free! ACLU hails victory in Internet
censorship challenge. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://archive.aclu.org/news/n062697a.html
The federal definitions of
“obscene” and “harmful
to minors” are unclear,
and have been used to
prevent LGBT youth from
accessing information
about sexually transmitted
diseases, sexual orientation,
and gender identity.
80 EDUCATION POLICY
As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to
interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in
encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoret-
ical but unproven benefit of censorship.
410
This ruling against the Communications Decency Act did not keep Congress from
attempting to legislate Internet censorship again. In October 1998, it passed the
Childhood Online Protection Act (COPA).
411
Designed with the unconstitutionality
of its predecessor in mind, COPA criminalized the communication of any material for
commercial purposes deemed harmful to minors by community standards. Despite the
change in language, the ACLU argued that COPA was still unconstitutional because it
“effectively suppresse[d] a large amount of speech on the World Wide Web that adults
are entitled to communicate and receive,” even if that speech was
deemed harmful to minors by some community’s standards.
412
Examples of Internet websites that would have been censored under
COPA include Beacon Press, an independent publisher of a wide vari-
ety of books, including titles about gay, lesbian, and gender studies,
413
and the Sexual Health Network, which provides educational materi-
al to disabled persons about how they can express their sexuality
despite their disability.
414
The Childhood Online Protection Act was ruled unconstitutional by
multiple federal courts, and the National Academy of Sciences
released a report concluding that education was more likely to protect youth from harm-
ful content on the Internet than restrictive laws like COPA. Still, Congress opted to
introduce a new Internet censorship law: the Children’s Internet Protection Act
(CIPA), which was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000.
415
Like its forebears,
CIPA restricts the access of minors using computers and related equipment purchased
with federal funds in public schools and libraries to obscene or harmful material on the
Internet. However, it also includes a provision that allows any Internet filtering software
or device to be turned off at the request of any student or library patron who is 17 or
older.
416
In 2002, the American Library Association challenged only the provision that
restricted Internet access in libraries. But the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that CIPA
was constitutional because library patrons can turn off the filters at any time without
having to give a reason or revealing what information they are trying to access.
417
Consequently, both libraries and public schools must either implement Internet filtering
software by July 1, 2004, or choose to forfeit federal funds. It is unclear if adult library
patrons will be proactively informed that they have the right to turn off the filter, or if
they will be instructed how to do so.
410. Beeson, A. (2001). Round two: Cyber-censorship returns to Supreme Court. Retrieved August 25, 2003, from the American Civil
Liberties Union website: http://archive.aclu.org/court/beeson_01.html
411. Ibid.
412. Ibid.
413. For a list of Beacon Press’ publications, see http://www.beacon.org
414. Beeson, 2001. For a list of the Sexual Health Network’s publications, see http://www.sexualhealth.com
415. Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H. S. (Eds.). (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington: National Academic Press.
416. Electronic Frontier Foundation & Online Policy Group. (2003). Internet blocking in public schools: A study of Internet access in
educational institutions. Retrieved August 25, 2003 from
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/net_block_report/net_block_report.pdf
417. United States v. Am. Library Assoc., 537 U.S. 1170 (2003).
“The interest in encouraging
freedom of expression in
a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical
but unproven benefit
of censorship.”
—Justice John Paul Stevens
HOW INTERNET FILTERING WORKS
Despite the legislative focus on filtering as the solution for protecting youth from harm-
ful Internet content, many experts, Internet monitoring organizations, and civil liber-
ties groups warn that filtering software is not only ineffective, but also allows software
companies to censor Internet content based on their political beliefs and ideologies.
418
In testimony in a Senate committee hearing on the legislation, one expert summarized
the flaws inherent to filtering the Internet:
The word “filter” is much too kind to these programs. It conjures up inaccurate gee-
whiz images of sophisticated, discerning choice. When these products are examined
in detail, they usually turn out to be the crudest of blacklists, long tables of hapless
material which has run afoul of a stupid computer program or person, perhaps
offended by the word “breast” (as in possibly breast cancer)….
419
81 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
418. Miner, B. (1998). Internet filtering: Beware the cyber censors. Rethinking Schools Online, 12(4). Retrieved July 15, 2003, from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_04/12_04.shtml
419. Ibid.
420. Peacefire. (n.d.) CYBERsitter examined. Retrieved October 19, 2003 from http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter/
421. Miner, 1998.
422. Peacefire. (n.d.). “BESS, the Internet Retriever” examined. Retrieved August 28, 2003 from
http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/BESS
FILTERING SOFTWARE PROMOTES RIGHT-WING AGENDA
According to Peacefire, a youth-led group that monitors Internet censorship, one of
the most suspect filtering programs is CYBERsitter, which has been marketed by right-
wing Christian organizations like Focus on the Family and includes filtering categories
such as “advocating illegal/radical activities” and “gay/lesbian activities.” Websites
blocked by the program include those of the National Organization for Women
(NOW) and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
420
When an article by Peacefire about CYBERsitter’s censorship attracted widespread
media attention, the makers of the software threatened to block all of the websites
hosted by Peacefire’s Internet provider, Media3. (The company backed down when
threatened with a lawsuit.) An earlier article about CYBERsitter revealed that the com-
pany is indeed trying to enforce a moral code. When CYBERsitter’s chief executive
officer was asked about the software’s censorship of NOW’s website he replied, “If
NOW doesn’t like it, tough…. We have not and will not bow to any pressure from
any organization that disagrees with our philosophy.”
421
In 2000, Peacefire conducted an experiment to test whether Internet filtering software
companies would apply the same blocking standards to right-wing, Christian organiza-
tions that they apply to smaller or personal websites. Peacefire created four anti-LGBT
web pages consisting entirely of negative quotes about gay and lesbian people taken
from the websites of prominent conservative groups, including Focus on the Family.
Then the group submitted each of the websites to N2H2, the manufacturer of the pop-
ular filtering program Bess. After N2H2 agreed to block all four sites because they con-
tained “hate-speech,” Peacefire told the company about the true sources of the anti-
LGBT quotes. However, N2H2 refused to block the conservative groups’ web pages.
422
82 EDUCATION POLICY
There are three methods that filtering software uses to block access to various websites
on the Internet. Keyword filters are the least sophisticated. They compare the text of a
web page to a list of restricted words or phrases. The software then removes the words
from the web page, or blocks the site altogether. There are inherent
flaws to this method. Blocking access to web pages that include the
text string s-e-x may prevent youth from accessing some—though not
all—pornographic sites, but may also block sites with information
about musical sextets; Essex, England; the poet Anne Sexton; and the
Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage.
423
Address- or
URL-based filters block access to specific websites. Companies that
produce such software typically employ automated programs that
search the Internet for content deemed objectionable. Reviewers
then look at each site and rate it according to a corporate standard.
Internet filtering software can also use systems that require website
publishers to rate their own pages, or rely on third-party ratings of Internet sites. Given
that the number of web pages available on the Internet doubles every year, this method
is humanly impossible to maintain properly.
424
The manufacturer of Bess claims it is installed on “over 40% of all schools in the U.S.
that have chosen to filter Internet access,” and is “trusted to protect over 16 million
students.”
425
When GLSEN tested the home version of Bess in 2001, the software
blocked approximately 20% of LGBT youth advocacy sites it attempted to access. This
finding is consistent with a study by Consumer Reports, which found that several
Internet filtering programs blocked one in five sites that contained “serious content on
controversial subjects.”
426
More recently, the Frontier Foundation and the Online Policy Group conducted a
study on Internet blocking in public schools, which tested Bess and Surfcontrol, anoth-
er popular Internet filtering tool, by attempting to access almost one million web pages.
The goal of the study was “to measure the extent to which blocking software impedes
the educational process by restricting access to web pages relevant to the required cur-
riculum.”
427
The study found that “schools that implement Internet blocking software
even with the least restrictive setting will block at a minimum tens of thousands of web
pages inappropriately….”
428
In fact, when researchers elected to use all of the block
codes suggested by the software manufacturers for compliance with CIPA guidelines,
the software blocked and miscategorized up to 85% of the one million web pages in the
sample. The same study also found that schools using Internet filtering software’s most
restrictive settings block 70% or more of the websites listed in search results based on
state-mandated curriculum topics. The study concluded that Internet filtering software
cannot help schools comply with CIPA: while failing to block many sites deemed
423. Spear, J. (1999). How filtering software impacts our schools. In Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Access Denied
Version 2.0: The continuing threat against Internet access and privacy and its impact on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community. Los Angeles: Author. Available at http://www.glaad.org/documents/media/AccessDenied2.pdf
424. Ibid.
425. N2H2. (n.d.). Bess
TM
filtering for schools. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from
http://www.n2h2.com/products/bess.php?device=school
426. Consumer Reports. (2001, March). Digital chaperones for kids: Which Internet filters protect the best? Which get in the way? Retrieved
October 19, 2003, from
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=348251&bmUID=1066584995177
427. Electronic Frontier Foundation & Online Policy Group, 2003.
428. Ibid.
According to a recent study,
“schools that implement
Internet blocking software
even with the least
restrictive setting will
block at a minimum tens
of thousands of web
pages inappropriately.”
obscene or harmful to minors by some community standards, they restrict access to
many others protected by the First Amendment.
429
In United States v. American Library Association, the Supreme Court upheld the
Childhood Internet Protection Act, which the No Child Left Behind Act references
directly in its provision requiring schools to protect students from material that is
“obscene” or “offensive.” Because CIPA’s language was upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court, it is likely that any legal challenge to the similar language in the No Child Left
Behind Act would fail. Despite the inherent flaws of using Internet filtering software to
protect minors from harmful content, schools must either develop ways of providing
students access to Internet resources while employing such software, or refuse federal
funding for computers and related Internet technology.
This significantly impacts the educational experiences of both LGBT and straight
youth, who are forced to view the Internet through a politicized lens meant to filter out
material that may be an important part of their education, health, and safety. GLSEN
has developed alternative recommendations for protecting minors from pornographic
or other harmful content on the Internet while still maintaining access to educational,
and sometimes life-saving, information:
• Develop an acceptable use policy for the Internet. School administrators should cre-
ate policies on Internet usage, in partnership with students and teachers, allowing
access to valuable educational information while restricting access to pornography
and other inappropriate material.
• Conduct trainings on Internet usage. Schools should make instruction in this poli-
cy a prerequisite for Internet access, along with instruction on how to use the
Internet as an educational resource. Students should be made
aware of the privilege they exercise, and taught to respect its
power and inherent dangers.
• Enforce policies. If students are informed of their responsibilities
and the tentative nature of their connection to the Internet, they
will use it more responsibly. If Internet access is used inappropri-
ately, the student should be held responsible, in accordance with
the school’s acceptable use policy.
• Increase teacher presence. A $40 software program will never
replace an experienced teacher. The supervision of trained teach-
ers is much likelier to protect children from accessing inappropri-
ate Internet sites than any filtering program. But the debate over Internet filtering
software has largely ignored the shortage of teachers and resultant large class size at
many American schools.
430
President George W. Bush promised, “The federal government will not micromanage
how schools are run…we believe strongly that the best path to education reform is to
trust the local people.”
431
But mandatory Internet filtering is a “one-size-fits-all federal
solution” that “deprives parents, schools and local libraries the opportunity to consider
83 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
429. Ibid.
430. Spear, 1999.
431. White House, 2002.
432. Johnson, 2000.
A $40 software program
will never replace an
experienced teacher. The
supervision of trained
teachers is much likelier
to protect children from
accessing inappropriate
Internet sites than any
filtering program.
84 EDUCATION POLICY
other approaches to Internet safety.”
432
Denying LGBT youth access to appropriate
information on the Internet reinforces their isolation and puts them at greater risk. A
study of 120 gay people aged 14 to 21 found that 42% of the females and 30% of the
males reported negative responses from their families after coming out to them.
433
This
makes their ability to access such materials from schools and libraries all the more vital.
LGBT YOUTH AND THE INTERNET
Fear of rejection from family and friends and the anti-LGBT climate at public schools
has prompted millions of LGBT youth around the world to turn to the Internet for
social support and resources on sex education. “[The Internet] is a great place because
the electronic curtain is not a closet,” according to Reid Fishler, the
founder of Youth.org, an online service created to help gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and questioning youth by providing them with their own
safe, online space. “I did not want to see anybody go through what I
went through, basically four years of hell in high school, knowing I’m
different and not having anywhere to go,” Fishler said about his moti-
vation for creating the site.
434
The true number of youth who access the myriad of LGBT informa-
tional websites and youth-themed chat rooms on the Internet is
unknown. However, one study completed in 2001 concluded that the Internet is play-
ing a vital role in supporting the development or maintenance of a positive sexual ori-
entation or gender identity in LGBT youth, as well as providing them with a strong
sense of community. The study, which analyzed an online survey completed by 206
LGBT youth in Australia, also reported the following results:
• 85% believed the Internet played an important role in connecting them with other
LGBT youth
• 70% felt it played an important role in reducing their sense of isolation
• 50% reported that the Internet provided a sense of community and support when
they felt depressed or suicidal
• 67% said the Internet was very important in accessing sexual health information
• 62% of males and 26% of females used the Internet to facilitate personal contact
and friendship with other LGBT youth
435
Online, LGBT youth are more likely to be out of the closet, using the Internet as a
rehearsal space for coming out to peers and family. According to the online study, youth
reported that communication about sexuality on the Internet was safe and comfortable,
and the people they were coming out to tended to be more diverse, less judgmental, and
more open, worldly, and sophisticated than people in their day-to-day lives. These
youth also admitted that while they enjoyed being able to be out online, they found the
433. Telljohann & Price, 1993.
434. Gabriel, T. (1995, July 2). Some on-line discoveries give gay youths a path to themselves. The New York Times, p. A1.
435. Hillier, L., Kurdas, C., & Horsley, P. (2001). “It’s just easier”: The Internet as safety-net for same sex attracted young people [Electronic
version]. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. Available at
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/2ndpages/Internetreport.pdf
A 2001 study concluded
that the Internet is playing
a vital role in supporting
LGBT youth as well as
providing them with a
strong sense of community.
discrepancy between the “cyber” and “real” worlds uncomfortable and disconcerting.
When asked how their life would change without the Internet, however, those who
lacked any other connection to an LGBT-affirming support network admitted they
would again be lonely and isolated.
436
This dichotomy raises serious concerns. Experts fear that unmediated access to people
and information on the Internet places youth at risk, and is accompanied by a discon-
nection from peers, friends, and family that threatens growth and development.
Surprisingly, 58% of the youth surveyed agreed with this assessment, expressing con-
cern about the addictive nature of their Internet usage, as well as the negative and
sometimes life-threatening experiences they heard about online. Female youth were
significantly less likely to use the Internet for connecting to a support network
offline.
437
Further research on this issue is clearly warranted.
VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND UNSAFE SCHOOLS
Eight-five percent of LGBT youth are verbally harassed and 31% are physically
harassed on a regular basis.
438
The NCLB Act reauthorizes the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1986, which grants federal funds for the creation of
programs that “prevent and reduce violence in and around
schools…and foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that
supports academic achievement.”
439
The NCLB Act specifically
defines “violence prevention” as:
[T]he promotion of school safety, such that students and school
personnel are free from violent and disruptive acts, including sex-
ual harassment and abuse, and victimization associated with prej-
udice and intolerance, on school premises, going to and from
school, and at school sponsored activities, through the creation
and maintenance of a school environment that…fosters individ-
ual responsibility and respect for the rights of others.
440
This provision of the NCLB Act addresses the need for programs that
both protect LGBT youth and educate teachers and students about tolerance and vio-
lence prevention. In fact, the provision calls for programs to “assist localities most
directly affected by hate crimes” in developing educational and training programs to
prevent them. It also uses the definition of “hate crime” from the Hate Crimes Statistics
Act of 1990: “[A] crime against a person or property motivated by bias toward race, reli-
gion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, or sexual orientation.”
441
This provision could be interpreted to address bias-motivated harassment and violence
against LGBT youth, as such harassment and violence is motivated by “prejudice and
85 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
436. Ibid.
437. Ibid.
438. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
439. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference (Section IV-A: Safe and drug-free schools and
communities). Retrieved September 2, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference/4a.html
440. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C.§ 1425 (2002).
441. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 534 (2003) (passed 1990). Available at
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/race/hate/28usc534.htm ; The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 4121.
The NCLB Act does not
specifically mention
characteristics such as
race, ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, or
gender identity, which
are often the basis of
bias-motivated
harassment or violence.
86 EDUCATION POLICY
intolerance.” However, it does not specifically mention characteristics such as race, eth-
nicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, which are often the basis of bias-
motivated harassment or violence. Because sexual orientation and gen-
der identity are not specifically enumerated categories, some school
administrators and teachers may claim that the law does not require
them to protect LGBT youth. This concern is supported by the U. S.
Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, in which Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote, “Enumeration is the essential device used to make the
duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those
who must comply.”
442
Specific inclusion of sexual orientation and gen-
der identity (as well as race, religion, and ethnicity) in this provision of
the NCLB Act would have provided clearer direction about its scope
and impact, and given teachers and school administrators the backing they need to feel
confident in their response to harassment and violence against LGBT students.
443
Despite this shortcoming, the law does provide opportunities for an LGBT student in
an unsafe school to go to a different, and hopefully safer, school. Under the Unsafe
School Choice Option of the NCLB Act, every state that receives federal funds under
the act must establish and implement a statewide policy that allows a student attend-
ing a persistently dangerous public school, or who is a victim of a violent criminal
offense while on school grounds, to attend a different and safer school, including a
public charter school.
444
While this school choice option establishes the right of
LGBT youth to attend school in a safe environment, there are few school districts that
have alternative public or charter schools that are any safer. It also places the burden
of going to a safe school on students and parents, who must arrange, on their own, to
travel to a different school.
Every state that receives
federal funds must
establish a policy that
allows a student attending
a persistently dangerous
public school to attend a
different and safer school.
442. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
443. National Center for Lesbian Rights & Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). Inclusion of enumerated categories in
safe school legislation/policies. Retrieved September 2, 2003, from http://www.nclrights.org/publications/pubs/inclusion.pdf
444. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 1425 (2002).
445. Meenan, M. (2003a, May 16–23). Lesbian teen dies in hate stabbing. Gay City News. Available at
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn220/lesbianteendies.html
Lesbian Youth Killed in Newark:
A Profile of Sakia Gunn
Fifteen-year-old African American
lesbian Sakia Gunn was stabbed to
death while waiting at a bus stop in
Newark, New Jersey during the early
morning hours of Sunday, May 11, 2003.
A sophomore at West Side High School
in Newark, Sakia had just spent
Saturday night with her friends in
Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. The
Christopher Street Pier is a popular area
for LGBT youth of color to hang out,
and Sakia and her friends had spent the
evening there and on the promenade
along West Street. “The pier is some-
where we go to feel open about our-
selves and have fun,” explains Victoria
Dingle, a 16-year-old lesbian friend and
fellow West Side student who was with
Sakia on the night of her murder, “Me
and Sakia and some friends were just
chilling and having fun and feeling good
about being together.”
445
They all
87 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
446. Ibid.
447. Strunsky, S. (August 9, 2003). A young lesbian’s stabbing death is far from resolved. Associated Press. Available at Bucks County
Courrier Times website: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-08092003-139007.html
448. Fouratt, J. (2003, May 23–29). Thousands mourn Sakia. Gay City News. Available at
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn221/thousandsmorn.html
449. Strunsky, 2003.
450. Meenan, 2003a.
451. Strunksy, 2003.
452. Cogswell, K., & Simo, A. (2003, June 6). Erasing Sakia: Who’s to blame? The Gully. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from
http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/030606_sakia_gunn_murder.html
returned to Newark via the PATH train.
Victoria took a cab home from there,
while Sakia waited at a bus stop with
four other friends.
While awaiting the
bus, a car with two
men in it pulled up to
the curb. Valencia
Bailey, a friend of
Sakia, recalls what
happened next. “Yo,
shorty, come here,”
one of them said. We
told them, “No, we’re
okay. We’re not like
that. We’re gay.”
446
After refusing the
men’s sexual advances,
Sakia’s alleged killer,
later identified as 29-
year- ol d Ri char d
McCullough, got out
of the car, and a fight
ensued. During the
fight, McCullough
al l egedl y gr abbed
Sakia by the neck and
thrust a knife into her
heart. Rushed to the
hospital by a Good
Samaritan, Sakia died
i n t he emer gency
room in the arms of
her friend Valencia.
Saki a had al ways
been candid about
her sexual orienta-
tion. She spoke openly about it, publicly
showed affection for her girlfriend, and
wore boyish clothing that marked her
within the black community as “AG,”
for “aggressive lesbian.”
447
Her murder
deeply affected the LGBT youth of
Newark, who turned out en masse for
Sakia’s funeral on May 16, 2003. The
turnout was extraordinary: predomi-
nately black high school students, and
mostly lesbians.
448
Local lesbian youth
also played a prominent role in planning
and participating in the vigils and
marches immediately following Sakia’s
death, as well as initiating memorials
and shrines at both the site of the mur-
der and at West Side High School.
Citing a lack of school-sponsored sup-
port, Sakia’s friends Valencia Bailey and
Jamon Marsh founded the Sakia Gunn
Aggressive and Fem Organization as a
support group for young lesbians.
449
School officials were not as support-
ive. They were silent at best and overtly
homophobic at worst. After the murder,
West Side High School principal
Fernand Williams instructed his recep-
tionist to inform the media that all
inquires were to go through the school
di s t r i ct ’s s pokes per s on, Mi chel l e
Baldwin. Five days later, Baldwin still
had not responded to at least one jour-
nalist’s calls.
450
Meanwhile, Baldwin
claimed that she had referred requests for
interviews to Williams and other school
officials, none of whom responded.
451
Principal Williams further angered stu-
dents and journalists when he refused a
request by students for a moment of
silence to honor Sakia’s life. Williams
also reportedly refused requests for a
memorial and threatened students with
suspension if they wore rainbow colors to
SAKIA GUNN
“The only antidote to fear is
love. No matter how much some
people choose to hate, we can
still live our lives with dignity
and create a world where love is
rewarded over fear. That won’t
bring Sakia Gunn back to life,
but it will ensure that her death
was not in vain.”
—activist Keith Boykin
88 EDUCATION POLICY
PARENTAL RIGHTS PROVISIONS
The NCLB Act kept a provision from its predecessor, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, which gives parents the right to inspect “any instructional
material used as part of the educational curriculum for the student,” as well as student
surveys that ask questions about political affiliations, mental illness, sexual behavior,
illegal or antisocial behavior, family members, religious beliefs, or family income. This
provision only applies to surveys that students are “required, as part of an applicable
program, to submit to.”
455
An additional provision requires school districts to develop
written policies and procedures, in consultation with parents, regarding any student
survey. At a minimum, these policies must specify how parents will be notified about
surveys and how they will be given the opportunity to excuse their children from par-
ticipating. School districts are required to notify parents of these rights annually.
456
As written, this provision does not dramatically inhibit researchers’ ability to collect
information. Many schools regularly choose to notify parents about surveys adminis-
tered to students, allowing them to request that their child not participate. In practice,
however, few parents exercise their opt-out option, and it has had no substantial impact
on survey results. But any policy requiring that parents actively opt in by sending prior
written consent for their child’s participation makes collecting reliable data extremely
difficult. The danger inherent in the parental rights provision of the No Child Left
Behind Act is that conservative activists may attempt to modify it in the future, or use
it to pressure their state legislatures or local school boards to adopt active permission or
opt-in requirements for surveys. Once in place, such active parental consent regulations
would make it virtually impossible to collect data on large representative samples of stu-
dents. This has already occurred in three states—Alaska, New Jersey, and Utah—which
require the prior written informed consent of a parent before any survey, even one that
people choose to hate, we can still live
our lives with dignity and create a world
where love is rewarded over fear. That
won’t bring Sakia Gunn back to life, but
it will ensure that her death was not in
vain.”
454
In the wake of this homophobic
murder, it is the love, as well as the sorrow
and anger, expressed by Sakia’s friends
and thousands of LGBT youth, that must
always be remembered; for it is the pas-
sions of today’s LGBT youth that will
change the world tomorrow.
school.
452
However, his most horrifying
response came in the form of a remark he
allegedly made to students and reported
in a local gay newspaper: “If someone
chooses to live a certain lifestyle, they
must pay a certain price.”
453
It is hard to accept Williams’
response in the wake of Sakia’s death; yet
homophobia often knows no bounds.
Fortunately, neither does love. As activist
Keith Boykin stated: “The only antidote
to fear is love. No matter how much some
453. Meenan, M. (2003b, May 23–29). Tears and then, perhaps, respect. Gay City News. Available at
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn221/tearsandthen.html
454. Boykin, K. (2003, May 13). She didn’t have to die. Retrieved October 8, 2003, from
http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/000737.html
455. 20 U.S.C. § 1232h(b) (2003).
456. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 1061 (2002).
is mandatory, can be administered to a student.
457
Alaska’s opt-in law actually pre-
vented the state from obtaining a high enough response rate for it to participate in the
national 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
Additionally, if a school uses federal Safe and Drug Free Schools money to fund edu-
cation programs to prevent illegal drug use, sexual harassment, “victimization associ-
ated with prejudice and intolerance,” or programs that foster “respect for the rights of
others,” the school must make “reasonable efforts” to inform parents about such pro-
grams. If parents disagree with the content in these programs, they can excuse their
child from of participating.
458
Fortunately, very few programs designed to prevent such
victimization are actually funded through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program,
but school districts should be aware of the potential repercussions of paying for them
with these monies.
PREVENTING THE PROMOTION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY,
“WHETHER HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL”
NCLB Act funds cannot be used “to develop or distribute materials, or operate pro-
grams or courses of instruction directed at youth, that are designed to promote or
encourage sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual.”
459
This is significantly different from (and, in fact, somewhat preferable
to) some existing state laws that prohibit any positive discussion of
homosexuality entirely (see Chapter 3).
The NCLB Act provision prevents schools from directly promoting
sexual activity of any kind—gay or straight—with NCLB money. But
schools can still develop and implement curricula or programs
designed to provide age-appropriate and comprehensive sex educa-
tion, because such curricula and programs are not designed to encour-
age or promote sexual activity of any kind, and focus on enhancing
the physical and emotional health of all students. They must treat homosexuality no
differently than heterosexuality, and “include the health benefits of abstinence.”
460
The
NCLB Act also explicitly states that the federal government has no right “to mandate,
direct, review, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s instructional
content, curriculum, and related activities,” nor does it have a right to “require the dis-
tribution of scientifically or medically false or inaccurate materials.”
461
None of the provisions in the NCLB Act restricts the ability of schools to implement
programs designed to prevent anti-LGBT harassment or discrimination. Indeed, school
districts have both a legal responsibility and an ethical obligation to insure that LGBT
students, like all students, can receive the benefits of education without being subject-
ed to harassment or discrimination.
89 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
457. ALASKASTAT. § 14.03.110 (Michie 2002); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 18A: 36-34 (West 2001); UTAHCODE ANN. § 53A-13-302 (1999).
458. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. §§ 4151–4153 (2002).
459. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 9526 (2002).
460. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 9526 (2002).
461. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C. § 9526 (2002).
None of the provisions in
the NCLB Act restricts
the ability of schools to
implement programs
designed to prevent
anti-LGBT harassment
or discrimination.
90 EDUCATION POLICY
THE BOY SCOUTS EQUAL ACCESS ACT AND
THE VITTER AMENDMENT
Included in the Family Protections section of the NCLB Act are the Boy Scouts of
America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act) and the Vitter Amendment. These pro-
visions threaten public schools with the loss of federal funding if they prevent the Boy
Scouts or the U.S. military from using public school facilities for meetings or recruit-
ment. Both additions to the NCLB Act were crafted in response to the increasing num-
ber of school districts that limited the Boy Scouts’ access to school
grounds, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the
Boy Scouts’ right to discriminate against gay scouts and scoutmas-
ters.
462
In order to legally prevent the Boy Scouts from using school
facilities, school districts would have had to prohibit all outside orga-
nizations from using them, and the few that only limited the Boy
Scouts’ access eventually garnered the attention of Congress.
Specifically, the Boy Scouts Act states:
…[N]o public elementary school, public secondary school, local
educational agency, or State educational agency that has a desig-
nated open forum or a limited public forum and that receives funds made available
through the Department [of Education] shall deny equal access or a fair opportuni-
ty to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy
Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in title 36 of the United States
Code (as a patriotic society), that wishes to conduct a meeting within that desig-
nated open forum or limited public forum, including denying such access or oppor-
tunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria
or oath of allegiance to God and country of the Boy Scouts of America or of the
youth group listed in title 36 of the United States Code….
463
The 74 organizations listed as “patriotic societies” in the U.S. Code include a number
of national organizations that regularly provide services to youth, like Big Brothers-Big
Sisters of America, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the Girl Scouts, and Little League
Baseball.
464
The Boy Scouts Act redundantly affirms the legal right for any and all of
the 74 private organizations to access the resources of public schools whose policies pro-
hibit anti-LGBT discrimination while openly discriminating against LGBT youth and
adults. (Except for the Boy Scouts, to our knowledge none of the 74 currently does so.)
The act does not require schools to officially sponsor any of the organizations.
In Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Scouts’ right to
prohibit openly gay scoutmasters from participating in scouting. Under the First
Amendment, Boy Scouts have the right to both exclude gays and still have access to
public school facilities regardless of state and local nondiscrimination laws.
House sponsor Van Hilleary (R-TN) and Senate sponsor Jesse Helms (R-NC)
introduced the Boy Scouts Act because “the Boy Scouts are under attack and
being thrown out of public facilities that are open to other similarly situated
The Boy Scouts Act
affirms the legal right of
these organizations to
access the resources of
public schools while openly
discriminating against
gay youth and adults.
462. Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); May, M. (2001, December 23). Conservative caveats threaten schools: They lose
millions if scouts are banned from using space. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A3.
463. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 U.S.C § 9525 (2002): Equal Access To Public School Facilities.
464. 36 U.S.C. § 10101 (2003).
groups…as retribution for the Supreme Courts’ ruling…. This amendment is
designed to stop this wasteful cycle in litigation and harassment.”
465
Those in
favor of the amendment argued that protecting the Boy Scouts from unequal treat-
ment was necessary to insure that America’s children could continue to embrace
the “timeless values” of the Boy Scouts as “a model of integrity, strong ethics,
devotion to God and the public good.”
466
Those opposed to the Boy Scouts Act, however, rejected the notion that it was the
Boy Scouts that was being treated inequitably. According to Representative Bill
Delahunt (D-MA):
The reality is that this amendment is not about the Boy Scouts. It is about a con-
servative social agenda that holds passionate views about sexual orientation. The
Boy Scouts’ policy on sexual orientation is well known. That is fine. [Rep. Hilleary]
is entitled to his views, and the Boy Scouts are entitled to their views. But they
ought not to be entitled to use the Congress of the United States to make a polit-
ical statement that promotes intolerance and discrimination.
467
Holding a letter of support signed by 22 organizations, including the National Parent
Teacher Association, the National School Boards Association, and the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
summarized her arguments against the Boy Scouts Act: “…[W]e should vote against
this because it is not necessary in the first place…. [A] vote against this amendment
would be a vote telling our children that all children are important, not just some chil-
dren.”
468
In a May 2001 letter to the Senate, the ACLU argued that the amendment
represented an unconstitutional endorsement of a specific viewpoint.
“By punishing schools for excluding the Boy Scouts and other youth
groups for their discriminatory membership criteria, the [Boy Scouts
Act] would provide protection for the Boy Scouts’ discriminatory
viewpoint that no other viewpoint receives. Such unequal treatment
of different viewpoints is unconstitutional.”
469
Its opponents did not
prevail, and the Boy Scouts Act passed by a voice vote.
The Vitter Amendment forces public schools to allow the military to
actively recruit on their campuses, regardless of school nondiscrimi-
nation policies, by threatening to cut off federal funds if they refuse.
Supporters of the amendment in Congress actually claimed the mil-
itary was the victim of discrimination, not the nearly 9,000 gay men
and lesbians who have been investigated and discharged since 1994 because of its
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
470
According to Representative David Vitter (R-LA),
“This amendment will prevent discrimination against armed services recruiters and
will simply offer them fair access to secondary schools that accept Federal funding.”
471
91 4. LEAVING OUR CHILDREN BEHIND
“The Boy Scouts are
entitled to their views.
But they ought not to be
entitled to use the Congress
of the United States to
make a political statement
that promotes intolerance
and discrimination.”
–Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
465. 147 CONG. REC. H 2611.
466. Ibid.
467. Ibid.
468. Ibid.
469. Murphy, L., & Anders, C. (2001, May 21). Letter to the senate on First Amendment issues in Sen. Helms’ “Boy Scouts of America Equal
Access Act” amendment to ESEA. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from the American Civil Liberties Union website:
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=284&c=106
470. Cleghorn, J. M., Greer, S. E., Osburn, C. D., Ralls, S. E., & Westcott, K. S. (2003). Conduct unbecoming: The ninth annual report on
“Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass” [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from the Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network website: http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/837.pdf
471. 147 CONG. REC. H 2396.
92 EDUCATION POLICY
In 2002, the U.S. Defense Department reported that 2,000 of more than 21,000 high
schools did not allow the military to actively recruit on campus.
472
According to
Representative Vitter, this was “because of school administrators’ own personal anti-
military bias…. [W]hat is clearly going on is pure, old-fashioned bad
political correctness and antimilitary ideology being shoved down
the throats of our young people.”
473
As is often the case with legisla-
tion associated with supporting the U.S. military, there was no real
opposition to the Vitter Amendment in Congress, and it passed by a
voice vote.
The Orwellian inversion of reality that allowed supporters of these
provisions to argue it was the Boy Scouts and the U.S. military that
were victims of discrimination and harassment was disturbingly effec-
tive. Opponents of education policies protecting LGBT youth often
claim that they impart “special rights” to a group of people. Despite
this argument, these same opponents granted “special rights” to a few
select organizations, reaffirming their right to discriminate against LGBT youth using
facilities at schools funded in part by LGBT taxpayers, and educating LGBT youth and
the children of LGBT parents.
Ironically, the office within the U.S. Department of Education responsible for enforc-
ing the Boy Scouts Act is the Office for Civil Rights. On March 25, 2002, that office
sent a letter to every school district in the United States, explaining the Boy Scouts
Act and warning, “If a public school or agency does not comply with the requirement
of the Boy Scout Act, it would be subject to enforcement action by the Department [of
Education].” The letter also encouraged school districts to file complaints against other
districts that were not in compliance with the policy. Signed by the Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights, the letter ends, “I look forward to working with you to insure equal
access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.”
474
The Orwellian inversion
of reality that allowed
supporters of these
provisions to argue it was
the Boy Scouts and the
U.S. military that were
victims of discrimination
and harassment was
disturbingly effective.
472. Gailey, P. (2002, December 1). Schools shouldn’t be wary of military recruiters. The St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, p. 3D.
473. 147 CONG. REC. H 2396.
474. Jones, C. T. (March 25, 2002). Dear colleague letter. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from Department of Education website:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/boyscouts_letter.html
On February 7, 2002, 77 organizations, including the American Psychiatric
Association, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force, sent a letter to President George W. Bush
urging him to support comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically
accurate sex education in public schools. The letter cited research
indicating that these programs delay the onset and reduce the fre-
quency of sexual activity, and increase condom and contraceptive use.
The letter also quoted Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson, who expressed concern about the “paucity of evidence”
on the effectiveness of abstinence-only-until-marriage sex educa-
tion.
475
Comprehensive sex education is widely supported: 76% of
parents believe that teens should get more information about both
abstinence and birth control, rather than just one or the other.
476
Nonetheless, federal law allows the use of certain federal funds for
sexuality education programs only if they teach that abstaining from sex until marriage
is the only way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This policy is par-
ticularly problematic for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students
because it does not specifically address their health needs or acknowledge that only het-
erosexuals can legally marry in the United States.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs assume that LGBT people do not exist, or
that they will remain celibate their whole lives, or that it simply does not matter if
they contract sexually transmitted diseases. They are having a devastating effect on
LGBT youth.
93
475. Advocates for Youth. (2002, February 7). [Official communication]. Retrieved July 11, 2003, from
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/feature/president.htm
476. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. (2002). With one voice 2002: America’s adults and teens sound off about teen
pregnancy [Electronic version]. Washington: Author. Available at
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/WOV2002_fulltext.pdf
5. Abstinence-
Only-Until-Marriage
Sex Education
Comprehensive sex edu-
cation is widely support-
ed: 76% of parents
believe that teens should
get more information
about both abstinence
and birth control, rather
than just one or the other.
94 EDUCATION POLICY
HISTORY
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 promotes the policy of teaching that sex outside the
context of marriage is intrinsically dangerous, both physically and psychologically. This
policy is premised on the unproven claim that the high rate of family poverty in the
United States is directly related to the high rate of out-of-wedlock births. Each year since
1996, nearly $100 million in government funds has been spent on abstinence-only sex
education aimed at preventing teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births. The George W.
Bush Administration achieved a $20 million increase in annual abstinence-only funds for
fiscal year 2003, and is seeking an additional $15 million for for the 2004 fiscal year.
As of 1999, nearly one-third of the nation’s high schools were teaching abstinence-
only-until-marriage sex education, which, by definition, excludes information about
contraception and safer sex.
478
A study of all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District
of Columbia found that more than 10% of the abstinence-only funds had been
granted to “faith-based entities” in 22 states.
479
Another 40% of the funds were
spent through other private, nonreligious, entities. Twenty-eight of the 52 jurisdic-
ABSTINENCE EDUCATION DEFINED
Section 912 of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 defines “abstinence education” as:
An educational or motivational program which—
(A) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains
to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected stan-
dard for all school age children;
(C) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated
health problems;
(D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage
is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have
harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful conse-
quences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
(G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug
use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sex-
ual activity.
477
477. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Section 912 §§ 502(c)(1)(B)(ii)(b)(2). Available at
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3734_en.htm
478. Lerner, S. (2001, August 1–7). An orgy of abstinence: Federal funding pushes no-sex education into the mainstream. Village Voice.
Available at http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0131/lerner.php
479. Sonfield, A., & Gold, R. B. (2001, July/August). States’ implementation of the section 510 abstinence education program, FY
1999. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(4), 166–172. Available at http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3316601.html
tions sampled prohibited organizations from providing information on contracep-
tion and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) even if asked direct-
ly by a student or client.
480
Research indicates that sex education that promotes delaying the first
sexual experience while simultaneously teaching about contraception
and safer sex practices is more effective than abstinence-only educa-
tion. A World Health Organization review of 35 sex education pro-
grams around the world documented the relative ineffectiveness of
abstinence-only education in stemming the spread of STDs. Youth in
the United States have higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and STDs
than their counterparts in Europe, where comprehensive sex educa-
tion is the norm.
481
A report released by U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001
noted that there has been little research demonstrating the effectiveness of abstinence-
only education.
482
FEAR, SHAME, AND MISINFORMATION
The abstinence-only approach to sex education is counterproductive, potentially danger-
ous, and harmful to youth. Relying on shame and fear, its message spreads inaccurate
information about STDs and contraceptives; presents rarely occurring, worst-case scenar-
ios as routine; stigmatizes and evokes hostility toward people with
AIDS; and largely ignores homosexuality except as a context for HIV
transmission. Premarital sex is presented as intrinsically damaging. At
least two curricula are explicitly hostile toward lesbians and gay men.
483
This approach to sex education does not enjoy very much support at
all. Seventy-six percent of parents believe that teenagers should get
more information about both abstinence and birth control, rather
than just one or the other. In fact, there is a strong disparity between
what is taught in sex education programs and what parents actually
want: According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation
in 2000, 76% of parents of youth in grades seven through twelve felt that sex education
should include discussion of homosexuality, while only 41% of students reported the
topic was actually covered.
484
Yet the majority of schools in this country continue to
teach abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education, and the number of those schools
continues to grow. A more recent Kaiser poll found that 19 in 20 Americans agree that
“how HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted and how to protect
against them” should be discussed in high school sex education classes.
485
95 5. ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE SEX EDUCATION
480. Ibid.
481. Baldo, M., Aggleton, P., & Slutkin, G. (1993). Does sex education lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in youth? Paper presented
at the 9th Annual International Conference on AIDS, Berlin.
482. Satcher, D. (2001). The surgeon general’s call to action to promote sexual health and responsible behavior [Electronic version].
Washington: Office of the United States Surgeon General. Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/
483. Ibid.
484. Hoff, T., Greene, L., McIntosh, M., Rawlings, N., & D’Amico, J. (2000). Sex education in America: A series of national surveys of
students, parents, teachers, and principals. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at
http://www.kff.org/content/2000/3048/SexED.pdf
485. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Inside-OUT: A report on the experience of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in America
and the public’s views on issues and policies related to sexual orientation. Cambridge: Author. Available at
http://www.kff.org/content/2001/3193/LGBSurveyReport.pdf
A World Health
Organization study
documented the relative
ineffectiveness of
abstinence-only
education in stemming
the spread of STDs.
Youth in the United
States have higher rates
of unwanted pregnancy
and STDs than their
counterparts in Europe,
where comprehensive
sex education is the norm.
96 EDUCATION POLICY
“[T]here is no such thing as ‘safe’ or ‘safer’ premarital sex,” warns FACTS, a set of cur-
ricula designed by a federally funded nonprofit “dedicated to providing excellent edu-
cational materials…that enhance and protect the dignity of the human person and
enhance successful family life.”
486
The curriculum continues, “There are always risks
associated with it, even dangerous, life-threatening ones.”
487
Echoing the religious
right’s sentiment that AIDS represents divine or natural retribution
on gay men,
488
Sex Respect, another abstinence-until-marriage cur-
riculum, wonders whether AIDS and other STDs are “nature’s pun-
ishment for sex outside of marriage”:
No, not at all. These are natural consequences. For example, if you
eat spoiled food, you will get sick. If you jump from a tall building,
you will be hurt or killed…. If you have sex outside of marriage,
there are consequences for you, your partner, and society.
489
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United
States (SIECUS) documents numerous ways in which the incidence
and effects of several STDs are misrepresented in abstinence-only
curricula. And SIECUS warns that these scare tactics can discourage
students from seeking treatment for STDs like chlamydia that are easily cured if treat-
ed early. Condoms are presented as a dangerous and ineffective form of birth control:
“Relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette,” declares Me, My World, My
Future. Condom failure rates are overstated; and their improper use is inaccurately
translated into an intrinsic product defect. FACTS warns that even if condoms are
properly used, they may still allow “the transmission of HIV/AIDS.”
490
This is in
direct opposition to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
which concluded that condoms are highly effective in stopping the spread of STDs
when used properly.
491
Skewed information about HIV and AIDS is common in abstinence-only curricula.
Kissing is not a risk factor for HIV transmission, yet Sex Respect devotes three paragraphs
to the possibility of contracting HIV that way. People with AIDS are also stigmatized as
dangerous bearers of death. Sex Respect warns, “How can you tell if someone has AIDS?
There is no way for you to predict. Anyone can be carrying your death warrant.”
492
IMPACT ON HIV PREVENTION
Several states and municipalities have turned down or stopped applying for federal dis-
ease prevention funds out of a mistaken belief that accepting abstinence-only funds
precluded them from accessing federal funds for disease prevention. Nebraska decided
not to reapply for HIV prevention grants from the CDC because its HIV prevention
There is a disparity
between what is taught
and what parents want:
According to a 2000 study,
76% of parents felt that
sex education should
cover homosexuality, while
41% of students reported
the topic was covered.
486. Northwest Family Services. FACTS. Available at http://www.facts.cc/curriculum.htm
487. Satcher, 2001.
488. For example, on June 23,1983, Patrick Buchanan wrote about AIDS in his syndicated column, “The poor homosexuals—they
have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution.”
489. Kempner, M. (2001a). Controversy over CDC’s research to classroom project. SIECUS Report, 29(6), 7.
490. Ibid.
491. Centers for Disease Control. (1997). Questions and answers on condom effectiveness, CDC update. Atlanta: Author; Kestelman, P.
& Trussell, J. (1991). Efficacy of the simultaneous use of condoms and spermicide. Family Planning Perspectives, 23(5), 227.
492. Kempner, 2001a.
program has traditionally combined abstinence promotion with safer sex education.
Since 1997, Nebraska has limited all state-sponsored sex education to an abstinence-
until-marriage message. The National Abstinence Clearinghouse actively lobbied
Nebraska’s education commissioner not to reapply for any CDC
funds, putting the health of all of the states’ students in jeopardy.
493
In 1998, Ohio state legislators prevented the state’s department of
education from spending federal funds unless it promoted an absti-
nence-until-marriage approach to HIV prevention. During a two-year
battle, a compromise that would have required programs to emphasize
abstinence but not limited them exclusively to that message was
rejected by hardliners. As a result, the state lost $1 million in funding,
even though only 10% of those CDC funds were earmarked for HIV
prevention: the rest were for other important health initiatives,
including the prevention of tobacco use, diabetes, and cancer.
494
In 2001, the Northern Kentucky Independent District Health
Department voted to limit sex education efforts paid for with state dollars to the absti-
nence-only-until-marriage approach. That same year, the New Jersey legislature passed
a bill that forces schools to stress or emphasize abstinence over safer-sex curricula. The
state legislature in Maine considered a bill that would have mandated abstinence-only
sex education. And in Arkansas, which has long limited its state-funded sex education
to an abstinence-only model, legislators introduced a bill that would have further
restricted sex education.
495
Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced in March 2001 that
he wanted to take $1 million in state funds for family planning services at health clin-
ics and redirect them to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—even though
Florida already has 35 abstinence-only education programs funded by federal welfare
funds and run by private organizations.
496
INHERENT SEXISM AND ANTIGAY BIAS
Gender stereotypes are widespread in abstinence-only curricula. Boys are presented as
sex-crazed; girls as less interested in sex than in finding love. And girls are given the
primary responsibility of managing the sexual predations of boys. Sex Respect admon-
ishes girls: “Watch what you wear. If you don’t aim to please, don’t aim to tease.”
Feminism is blamed for everything from promiscuity to emasculation: “The liberation
movement has produced some aggressive girls today, and one of the tough challenges
for guys who say no will be the questioning of their manliness.”
497
The curriculum Clue 2000 engages in the standard right-wing tactic of conflating
homosexuality with pedophilia and incest when it dissembles, “Among Kinsey’s most
outrageous and damaging claims are the beliefs that pedophilia, homosexuality, incest,
and adult-child sex are normal.”
498
Facing Reality assures teachers and parents that pre-
97 5. ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE SEX EDUCATION
Misinformation about
HIV and AIDS is com-
mon in abstinence-only
curricula. Kissing is not a
risk factor for HIV trans-
mission, yet Sex Respect
devotes three paragraphs
to the possibility of
contracting HIV that way.
493. Ibid.
494. Ibid.
495. Ibid.
496. Kempner, M. (2001b). State-level debates over abstinence-only-until-marriage. SIECUS Report, 29(6), 7.
497. Ibid.
498. Ibid.
98 EDUCATION POLICY
senting homosexuality as intrinsically dangerous is actually in the best interests of stu-
dents, and is not homophobic. It also furthers the lie that AIDS is an exclusively gay
disease that was always completely avoidable:
Many homosexual activists are frustrated and desperate over their own situation
and those of loved ones. Many are dying, in part, due to ignorance. Educators who
struggle to overcome ignorance and instill self-mastery in their
students will inevitably lead them to recognize that some people
with AIDS are now suffering because of the choices they made….
Teachers, in order to preserve an atmosphere of intellectual free-
dom, should feel confident that when examining health issues
and moral implications of homosexual behaviors, they are not
engaging in an assault on a particular person or group.
499
The irony of that last sentence is particularly rich: abstinence-only
education is by definition a suppression of alternative points of view,
and supplants a methodology scientifically proven effective in
decreasing the spread of STDs with another, unproven method. Yet
this approach is constructed as furthering intellectual freedom.
Studies have shown that LGBT youth who receive LGBT-sensitive
HIV instruction in school tend to engage in risky sexual behavior less frequently than
similar youth who do not receive such instruction. In a random sample of high school
students and HIV education instructors in Massachusetts, among sexually active het-
erosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents, LGB adolescents had more
sexual partners, used drugs and alcohols before sex more frequently, and had higher
rates of pregnancy than their straight counterparts. However, the LGB youth who
received gay-sensitive HIV instruction reported fewer sexual partners and less frequent
substance use before sex than the LGB youth who did not receive such instruction.
500
Programs that rely on an abstinence-only model are detrimental to lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, and transgender youth, those youth questioning their sexual orientation, the chil-
dren of LGBT parents, and LGBT teachers and administrators. Homosexuality is large-
ly ignored except as a context for HIV transmission. But homosexuality is implicitly,
and sometimes explicitly, stigmatized. Sex Respect teaches students that “[R]esearch and
common sense tell us the best ways to avoid AIDS are: Remain a virgin until mar-
riage…[and a]void homosexual behavior.”
501
When homosexual sexual practices are
discussed in this context, they are always portrayed as unnatural.
The explicitly anti-LGBT and stigmatizing language of abstinence-only-until-marriage
curricula is intended to have a chilling effect on any discussion of homosexuality in the
schools, including attempts to deal with the harassment of LGBT students. The link
between the promotion of abstinence-only programs and homophobia was made explic-
it in comments by Boston University president John Silber, who disbanded a two-year-
old gay-straight alliance at a university-run high school, claiming it encouraged teen sex.
“We’re not running a program in sex education,” Silber told the Boston Globe. “If they
want that kind of program, they can go…to public school and learn how to put a con-
Gender stereotypes are
widespread in abstinence-
only curricula. Boys are
presented as sex-crazed;
girls are given the
responsibility of managing
boys’ sexual predations.
Feminism is blamed for
everything from promiscuity
to emasculation.
499. Ibid.
500. Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001). Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay,
lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal of Public Health,
91(6), 940–946.
501. Kempner, 2001b.
dom over a banana.” Silber threatened to cut funding to the school if the gay-straight
alliance (GSA) wasn’t shut down, forcing the school’s headmaster to comply.
502
SEX EDUCATION AND HIV PREVENTION
When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush argued, as most abstinence-only edu-
cation supporters have, that teaching safer sex and abstinence together “sends a contra-
dictory message that tends to undermine the message of abstinence.”
503
He went as far
as to tell young people that they should avoid sex until they are in “a biblical marriage
relationship.”
504
As president, Bush has vociferously advocated for grants to churches
and faith-based groups that promote abstinence-only sex education.
505
Consequently, federal incentives favoring abstinence-only-until-mar-
riage policies are becoming more entrenched during his presidency.
Although HIV and AIDS has disproportionately affected gay and bisex-
ual men in the U.S., transmission rates are increasing for heterosexual
women, African Americans, and Latinos. Within the gay and bisexual
male community, men of color—and particularly younger men of
color—are at greater risk for HIV and AIDS. In New York City, one
recent study of 15 to 22 year-olds found that 4% of white men who have
sex with men are HIV-positive, while 10% of their Latino and 22% of
their African American peers are infected.
506
From 1999 to 2000, 69% of new HIV infec-
tions were among blacks and Latinos, most of them men who have sex with men.
507
Efforts to stigmatize homosexuality continue to have a disastrous effect on LGBT
youth. A three-city study of Latino gay and bisexual men funded by the National
Institutes of Health found a correlation between experiences of homophobia and
increased likelihood to engage in behaviors associated with HIV transmission.
508
Homophobia and ignorance about AIDS and other STDs hurts all students, but espe-
cially those who are LGBT or are from LGBT families. Youth continue to get infected
with HIV unnecessarily because some public health professionals and many elected
officials have abdicated their responsibility to deal with HIV and AIDS as public health
issues. Instead, too many impose their religiously inspired morality on the rest of the
population and promote policies that have failed to prevent the continued spread of
this disease. By denying youth access to potentially life-saving information, abstinence-
only-until-marriage sex education may, in the end, contribute to the transmission of
HIV and other STDs.
99 5. ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE SEX EDUCATION
By denying youth access
to potentially life-saving
information, abstinence-
only-until-marriage sex
education may contribute
to the transmission of
HIV and other STDs.
502. Associated Press. (2002, September 8). BU Academy gay alliance shut down. The Standard-Times. D7. Available at
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-08-02/d07sr133.htm
503. AIDS Action Council. (1999, August). Election 2000 presidential candidate report. Retrieved September 2, 2003 from
http://www.thebody.com/aac/candidates.html ; Dailard, C. (2000, April). Fueled by campaign promises, drive intensifies to boost
abstinence-only education funds [Electronic version]. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 3(2). Available at
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/gr030201.html
504. Broder, D. S. (1999, June 22). Bush defends gun record, pushes teen abstinence in S.C. foray. Washington Post, p. A4.
505. Associated Press. (1999, June 22). Bush promotes abstinence for teenagers.
506. Elovich, R. (1999, June). Beyond condoms…how to create a gay men’s culture of sexual health. POZ. Available at
http://www.poz.com/index.cfm?p=article&art_id=1568
507. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2001, July 12). With CDC HIV infection rates on the rise, new NGLTF report examines direct
impact of discrimination on Latino gay men. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=404
508. Diaz & Ayala, 2001.
100 EDUCATION POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The collection and analysis of data on the lives and experiences of lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual and transgender youth have enabled researchers and policymakers to begin address-
ing the needs of this diverse population. Questions about sexual identity, behavior, and
attraction have been added to population-based surveys like the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey (YRBS) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. This has
enabled researchers to collect information from large samples of lesbian, gay, and bisex-
ual (LGB) youth, and to analyze the correlations between sexual orientation, sexual
identity, and the health and educational experiences of these youth.
509
As a result, we
know that LGB youth not only have an increased risk for suicide and substance abuse,
but also exhibit remarkable strength and resiliency despite facing prolonged periods of
adversity at school and at home. This information has provided the foundation upon
which advocates and policymakers have developed interventions like gay-straight
alliances and anti-harassment policies at the local and state levels, which support les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and the children of LGBT parents.
These studies, and the new public policies they support, further the cause of equal pro-
tection for LGBT youth; the demographic information they provide is one of their most
important contributions.
The authors of this publication have endeavored to create a comprehensive summary
of the research and literature available on LGBT youth, their experiences in public
schools, and the public policies that have been developed and implemented to inter-
vene on their behalf. This summary has more clearly identified gaps in research and
knowledge about this population. For example, the overwhelming majority of academ-
6. Filling in the Gaps:
A Research Agenda
509. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Youth Sexual Orientation Measurement Work Group. (2003). Measuring Sexual Orientation of
Young People in Health Research. San Francisco: Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from
http://www.stophiv.com/lgbtc/measure_young2003.pdf
ic, social science-based research cited does not specifically include or identify trans-
gender youth as a cohort within the population from which data were collected.
Chapter 1 briefly discusses some of the contributing methodological barriers to research
on LGBT youth. This final chapter is a more pointed narrative designed to inspire grad-
uate students, professors, government-based researchers, and community activists to
overcome those obstacles, and help fill the research gaps they create.
The majority of the subheadings in this chapter were inspired by research questions
developed during a meeting held in Minneapolis in October 2002, sponsored by the
Kevin J. Mossier Foundation and attended by more than a dozen researchers and poli-
cymakers with expertise on LGBT issues in primary and secondary education. Also par-
ticipating were four LGBT youth advocacy groups, the National School Boards
Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Psychological
Association. Where possible, these questions are wreathed in additional information
and citations that may aid in the development of future research. Some questions, how-
ever, stand on their own, highlighting the areas of greatest need within the growing
body of research and knowledge about the educational experiences of LGBT youth.
POLITICS AND RESEARCH ON LGBT YOUTH
The intersection of politics and social science forces researchers to break through mul-
tiple barriers that threaten the quality and scientific integrity of their work. The fact
that much of this research is supported by federal funding through
agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires
researchers to be accountable to elected officials and bureaucrats
often biased by their political or religious ideologies. This became
readily apparent in the spring of 2003, when the journal Science
reported that program staff at the NIH had warned researchers not to
include terms such as “condom effectiveness,” “transgender,” and
“men who have sex with men” in federal grant proposals in order to
avoid extra scrutiny.
510
This was followed by a close vote in the U.S.
House of Representatives narrowly defeating an amendment to a bill
funding NIH research grants in the 2004 fiscal year. The amendment
would have forbidden the NIH from funding four proposals that focused on sexuality
and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including:
• $237,000 for a study on mood arousal and sexual risk-taking by the Kinsey Institute
• $500,000 for a study of LGBT and two-spirit Native Americans and Alaskan
Natives by researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle
• $69,000 for a study on the sexual habits of older men who have sex with men, con-
ducted by the New England Research Institutes, Inc.
• $641,000 for a study conducted by the University of California-San Francisco’s
Department of Medicine on drug use and HIV-related behaviors in Asian prosti-
tutes in San Francisco
511
101
510. Kaiser, J. (2003). Politics and biomedicine: Studies of gay men, prostitutes come under scrutiny. Science, 300, 403.
511. Fram, A. (2003, July 10). House rejects conservative bid to block four federal grants for sex research. Associated Press.
Program staff at the NIH
warned researchers not
to include terms such as
“transgender” and “men
who have sex with
men” in federal grant
proposals in order to
avoid extra scrutiny.
102 EDUCATION POLICY
Representative Pat Toomey (R-PA), the congressman who sponsored the amendment,
questioned the scientific value of this research: “I ask my colleagues, who thinks this
stuff up[?]… These are not worthy of taxpayer funds.”
512
According to Rep. Toomey,
“There are far more important, very real diseases that are affecting real people” that
NIH funding should be used for.
513
It is tragic that Representative Toomey believes that LGBT Native Americans, old gay
men, and Asian American sex workers are not real people experiencing real health
risks. In fact, Native American LGBT youth are among the most understudied and
underserved populations in the U.S. Groundbreaking research by Dr.
David Barney at the University of Oklahoma on health risk factors for
gay American Indian and Alaskan Native adolescent males revealed
that prior to his analysis of data from the Indian Adolescent Health
Survey, only two studies had been published that provided any infor-
mation about this population.
514
Dr. Barney’s analysis found statisti-
cally significant difference between gay male Native American and
Alaska Native adolescents and their heterosexual peers: they were
nearly twice as likely to be physically abused and were almost six times as likely to be
sexually abused by a family member. They were also twice as likely to have thought of
or attempted suicide.
515
Perhaps if Congressman Toomey had read Dr. Barney’s study,
he would have realized that although LGBT Native American and Alaska Native
youth are a small population often hidden from view on reservations or in urban indige-
nous communities, they are still real people in need of real programs and targeted social
service interventions to protect and support them.
Representative David Obey (D-WI) spoke out against Representative Toomey’s
amendment and the politicization of scientific, peer-reviewed research in the U.S:
…[T]he day we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going
to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in the House of
Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place who do not even know
what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country….
We have the NIH for a reason…I would rather trust 10 doctors sitting around a
table than I would 10 politicians sitting around a table when we decide how to allo-
cate taxpayer money for those grants.
516
Most recently, the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) prompted the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a list of some 250 research projects
funded by the NIH. HHS staffers have called many of the 150 senior researchers
involved, asking questions prompted by TVC’s opposition to sexuality-related research.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) denounced this as “scientific McCarthyism”
and an effort to “undermine peer-reviewed research at NIH.”
517
New York Times colum-
nist Bob Herbert called the Traditional Values Coalition and their Bush
512. Ibid.
513. 149 CONG. REC. H 6565.
514. Remafedi, G., Resnick, M., Blum, R., & Harris, L. (1992). Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics, 89(4),
714–721; Rowell, R. (1996). HIV prevention for gay/bisexual/two-spirit Native American men. Oakland, CA: National Native
American AIDS Prevention Center.
515. Barney, D. D. (in press). Health risk-factors for gay American Indian and Alaska Native adolescent males. Journal of Homosexuality.
516. 149 CONG. REC. H 6565.
517. Radow, J. (2003, October 28). Researcher “hit list” undermines NIH peer-review process, charges Rep. Waxman. Washington Fax.
518. Herbert, B. (2003, November 3). The big chill at the lab. The New York Times, p. A19.
“The day we politicize
NIH research is the day
we will ruin science
research in this country”
—Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Administration allies “know-nothings…traipsing through the laboratories, infecting
the research with their religious beliefs and political ideologies.”
518
The current troubled political landscape profoundly impacts the work of researchers for
one simple reason: without funding, there is no research. The research questions that
follow would help to provide critical data on the experiences of LGBT youth. But it is
equally as important to lay a foundation for successful research in the future. Creating
partnerships with political and bureaucratic allies who are capable of supporting the
changes necessary for collecting population-based data is essential to identifying the
most effective policy interventions. The Policy Institute of the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force is dedicated to bridging the gaps between research and policy.
Collaboration between researchers and LGBT rights advocates may even succeed in
convincing the Centers for Disease Control to include mandatory questions about sex-
ual orientation and gender identity on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and
similar, national, population-based studies. At present, questions about sexual orienta-
tion and behavior are optional.
THE NEED FOR STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS
There are many ways of asking about or conceptualizing sexuality. Researchers have var-
iously measured sexual orientation or attraction, behavior, and self-identity. Among
other factors, the political barriers to research on LGBT youth and the
lack of coordination of federally funded research on LGBT people in
general have prevented the creation of standardized definitions and
measures of sexual orientation, such as those created for determining
race and ethnicity for the 2000 Census.
519
Even less work has been
done to develop a measure for gender identity or expression. This is
particularly problematic for youth, as the formation of sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity is central to adolescence. Consequently, the
need for the development, testing, and selection of standard defini-
tions and measures of sexual orientation and gender identity based on
sound methodological research is paramount.
520
Imprecision in the measurement of sexual orientation has resulted in inadequately
specified population parameters and differing criteria for research and analysis. And
survey instruments that use differing criteria for measuring sexual orientation prevent
the comparison of data, because portions of population parameters may either overlap
or be mutually exclusive.
521
The following table compiled by Sell and Becker lists the
Department of Health and Human Services–sponsored surveys and data sets that assess
sexual orientation in adolescents.
103 6: A RESEARCH AGENDA
519. Krieger, N. (2000). Counting accountability: Implications of the new approaches to classifying race/ethnicity in the 2000
Census. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1687–1689.
520. Sell, R. L., & Becker, J. B. (2001). [Data on sexual orientation for inclusion in Department of Health and Human Services
databases]. Unpublished data.
521. Ibid.
The need for the
development, testing,
and selection of standard
definitions and measures
of sexual orientation and
gender identity based on
sound methodological
research is paramount.
104 EDUCATION POLICY
POPULATION-BASED SURVEYS THAT HAVE ASSESSED SEXUAL
ORIENTATION IN ADOLESCENT POPULATIONS
522
NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH (NSFG), CDC
Periodic survey of women ages 15–44 in the civilian non-institutionalized population, providing current information
on childbearing, contraception, and closely related aspects of maternal and child health Cycle 5 of NSFG, conduct-
ed in 1995, also included a broad range of information related to HIV and STD risk. Because of national need for
data on HIV risk behavior, family formation, and fatherhood, NSFG Cycle 6 included interviews with men ages
15–49. Cycle 6 was pretested in early 2001, and the main study was conducted in 2002.
Locality Years Sexual Orientation Questions
U.S. 1995 “These next questions are about the sexual partners you have had in the past 12 months.
JE-3: Have ANY of your partners in the past 12 months had sex with men since 1980? 1) Yes 2) No”
A Pretest of these KJ-1. “Thinking about your entire life, how many female sex partners have you had? Please count every
questions was partner, even those you had sex with only once.”
conducted in 2001. KJ-2. “Thinking about the last 12 months, that is, since (MONTH, 2000), how many female sex partners
Questions may have have you had? Please count every partner, even those you had sex with only once.”
been modified as a
result of the pre-test. KM-1. “Thinking about your entire life, how many male sex partners have you had?”
KM-2. “During the last 12 months, that is, since (MONTH, 2000), how many male sexual partners have
you had?”
KN-1. “People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings?
Are you...Only attracted to females, Mostly attracted to females, Equally attracted to females and males,
Mostly attracted to males, Only attracted to males, Not sure.”
KN-2. “Do you think of yourself as... Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Or something else? SPECIFY: __”
(NATIONAL) YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (YRBSS), CDC
The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) was developed to monitor priority health-risk behaviors that
contribute to the leading causes of mortality, morbidity, and social problems among youth and adults in the United
States. The YRBSS monitors six categories of behaviors: (1) behaviors that contribute to unintentional and inten-
tional injuries; (2) tobacco use; (3) alcohol and other drug use; (4) sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection; (5) dietary
behaviors; and (6) physical activity.
Locality Years Sexual Orientation Questions
U.S. 1999, 2000 “With whom have you had sexual intercourse? a) I have not had sexual intercourse with anyone b)
Females c) Males d) Females and males”
This question has NEVER appeared on the core set of questions in the national YRBSS model. However,
the CDC puts out the “Optional questions for consideration by state and local education and health
agencies,” which presents a list of suggested questions that states can add at their leisure. The wording
of these questions is often based on previous wordings that states have used on their past surveys. In
1999 and 2000, The above question appeared on this optional list.
Boston 1993 Q64: “The person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are): (a) female(s), (b) male(s) (c)
female(s) and male(s) and (d) I have not had sexual contact with anyone”
1995 Q67: Same as Q64, 1993, but response options are in different order: “a) I have not had sexual contact
with anyone; b) Female(s); c) Male(s); d) Female(s) and male(s)”
Q68: “Which of the following best describes you? a) Heterosexual (straight); b) Bisexual; c) Gay or
lesbian; d) Not sure; e) None of the above”
1997 Q7: Same as Q68, 1995, but response options “b” and “c” are reversed, and “e) None of the above”
response is eliminated
Q69: Same as Q67, 1995
1999 Q9: Same as Q7, 1997
Q72: “During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are): a) I have not had
sexual contact with anyone; b) Female(s); c) Male(s); d) Female(s) and male(s)”
522. Sell & Becker, 2001.
YRBSS CONTINUED
Locality Years Sexual Orientation Questions
Maine 1995, 1997, 1999 Q94: “The person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact during your life is (are): (1) Never had
sexual contact; (2) Female; (3) Male; (4) Males and Females”
Massachusetts 1993 Q64: “The person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are): (a) Female(s), (b) Male(s)
(c) Female(s) and male(s) and (d) I have not had sexual contact with anyone”
1995 Q67: Same as Q64, 1993, but response options are in different order: “a) I have not had sexual contact
with anyone; b) Female(s); c) Male(s); d) Female(s) and male(s)”
Q68: “Which of the following best describes you? a) Heterosexual (straight); b) Bisexual; c) Gay or
lesbian; d) Not sure; e) None of the above”
1997 Q7: Same as Q68, 1995, but response options “b” and “c” are reversed, and “e) None of the above”
response is eliminated
Q69: Same as Q67, 1995
1999 Q9: Same as Q7, 1997
Q72: “During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are): a) I have not had
sexual contact with anyone; b) Female(s); c) Male(s); d) Female(s) and male(s)”
Oregon 1997 Q24: “In the past 30 days, what were you harassed about? (If more than one reason, what was the most
upsetting or offensive to you?): I was not harassed; Race or national origin; Unwanted sexual attention or
comments; Perceived sexual orientation (gay/lesbian/bisexual); Physical disability; Other not listed; Don't
know why I was harassed.”
1999 Q12: “During the past 12 months, have you ever been harassed at school (or on the way to or from
school) because someone thought you were gay, lesbian or bisexual?”
Philadelphia 1999 Q63: “With whom have you had sexual intercourse? a) I have not had sexual intercourse with anyone
b) Females c) Males d) Females and males”
San Diego 1999 “With whom have you had sexual intercourse? a) I have not had sexual intercourse with anyone
b) Females c) Males d) Females and males”
San Francisco 1997 Q62: “Have you ever had sexual intercourse with a male? a)Yes b) No”
Q63: “Have you ever had sexual intercourse with a female? a) Yes b) No”
1999 Q67: “With whom have you had sexual intercourse? a) I have not had sexual intercourse with anyone
b) Females c) Males d) Females and males
Seattle 1995 Q23: “Has anyone ever made offensive comments or attacked you because of your sexual orientation/
preference – at school or on the way to or from school? Yes; No”
Q58: “How would you describe your sexual orientation/preference?” Heterosexual – attracted to the
opposite sex; Bisexual – attracted to both sexes; Homosexual (gay or lesbian) – attracted to the same sex;
Not sure”
1999 Q25: “Has anyone ever made offensive comments or attacked you because they thought you were gay
or lesbian - at school or on your way to or from school? Yes; No”
Q46: “How would you describe your sexual orientation? Heterosexual – attracted to the opposite sex;
Bisexual – attracted to both sexes; Homosexual (gay or lesbian) – attracted to the same sex; Not sure
Vermont 1995 Q55: “During your life, with how many males have had sexual intercourse?”
Q56: “During your life, with how many females have had sexual intercourse?”
Q57: “During the past three months, with how many males have had sexual intercourse?”
Q58: “During the past three months, with how many females have had sexual intercourse?”
1997 Q78: “The persons you have had sexual activity with are: (1) I have not had sexual activity with anyone;
(2) Females; (3) Males; (4) Females and males”
1999 Q69: “The persons you have had sexual intercourse with are: (1) I have never had sexual intercourse;
(2) Females; (3) Males; (4) Females and males”
2001 Q67: “With whom have you had sexual intercourse?” (Response options same as 1999)
Wisconsin 1997 Q21: “Have you ever been threatened or hurt because someone thought you were gay, lesbian or
bisexual? (a) Yes (b) No (c) I’m not sure”
1999 Q23: Same as Q21, 1997
105 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
Studies that use measures of attraction as the basis for research do not measure the same
thing as studies that ask about sexual behavior. For example, the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health found that 6% of participants between the ages of 13 and
18 reported same-sex attraction, with 1% reporting that they were only attracted to
members of their own sex and 5% reporting attraction to both sexes.
523
A 1999 Safe
Schools Coalition of Washington report found that among eight population-based
studies administered over 10 years to 83,042 youth, 4 to 5% of teens in secondary
schools either identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, had engaged in same-
sex sexual activity, or had experienced same-sex attractions.
524
Which percentage
should be used to most accurately identify lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth?
There is little consensus on how sexual orientation and gender identity should be mea-
sured in social science research. Sell and Becker recommend that the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) take a leadership role in both the development
of standardized measures of sexual orientation and the collection of these data by:
• Creating working groups within the Data Council and National Committee on
Vital Health Statistics to examine the collection of sexual orientation data and
reporting
106 EDUCATION POLICY
STATE SURVEYS BASED ON OR SIMILAR TO THE YRBSS:
ADOLESCENT HEALTH SURVEY (AHS)
Locality Years Sexual Orientation Questions
Minnesota 1987 1) “Which of the following best describes your feelings? (a) 100% heterosexual (attracted to persons of
the opposite sex) (b) Mostly heterosexual (c) Bisexual (equally attracted to men and women) (d) Mostly
homosexual (e) 100% gay/lesbian; attracted to persons of the same sex) (f) Not sure”
2) “Have you ever had any kind of sexual experience with a male? (a) yes (b) no. Have you ever had any
kind of sexual experience with a female? (a) yes (b) no”
3) “Which of the following best describes your feelings? (a) I am only attracted to people of the same sex
as mine, and I will only be sexual with persons of the same sex (b) I am strongly attracted to people of
the same sex as mine, and most of my sexual experiences will be with persons of the same sex as mine
(c) I am equally attracted to men and women and would like to be sexual with both (d) I am strongly
attracted to people of the opposite sex, and most of my sexual experiences will be with persons of the
opposite sex (e) I am only attracted to people of the opposite sex, and I will only be sexual with persons
of the opposite sex.”
4) “When you think or daydream about sex, do you think about: (a) males (b) females (c) both?”
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN ADOLESCENT HEALTH SURVEY (NAIAHS)
55 Tribes in 1991 Same wording as Minnesota, above
12 Indian Health
Service Areas
VOICES OF CONNECTICUT YOUTH (VCY)
Connecticut 1996, 1999 Q22k: “Have you done the following things in the past YEAR (12 months) … Been made fun of because
of your sexual orientation? (a) No (b) Yes, Once (c) More than Once”
523. Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001.
524. Reis & Saewyc, 1999.
• Creating a set of guiding principles to govern the process of selecting standard def-
initions and measures of sexual orientations
• Recognizing that race, ethnicity, immigration status, age, and socioeconomic and
geographic differences must be taken into account when selecting standard mea-
sures and assessing the validity and reliability of these measures
• Selecting a minimum set of standard sexual orientation measures for use in HHS
databases and information systems
• Developing a long-range strategic plan for the collection of sexual orientation data
525
The Sell Assessment of Sexual Orientation
526
in Appendix A, and the Friedman
Measure of Adolescent Sexual Orientation
527
in Appendix B of this publication are
examples of proposed data collection instruments that could be used to standardize the
assessment of sexual orientation in population-based surveys like the YRBS. The devel-
opment of standard measurements and definitions of sexual orientation and gender
identity is perhaps most hampered by the political context of publicly funded research.
While many researchers may not include political lobbying in their curricula vitae,
increased collaboration between academics and LGBT advocacy organizations may
hasten the bureaucratic decisions necessary to meet this objective.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
The gaps in research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people widen to chasms
for LGBT youth.
528
Many are due to the methodological difficulties associated with
research on small, often hidden, populations. Of course, methodological problems
afflict and impede social science research regardless of the population being studied, but
they do not negate the need for it. An awareness of the problems common in research
on LGBT youth is a critical step toward the development of strategies to overcome
these limitations.
QUANTITATIVE VERSUS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
METHODOLOGIES
Solid, conclusive evidence, facts, or data on LGBT youth and their lives are often dif-
ficult to gather or simply not available.
529
The belief that research is worthwhile only
when it involves the analysis of quantitative data is common among researchers,
regardless of the population being studied. While there is an important role for empir-
ical, quantitative research that permits the study of correlations or causal relationships,
there is also an important role for data collection and analysis that employs qualitative
107 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
525. Sell & Becker, 2001.
526. Sell, R. L. (1997). The Sell assessment of sexual orientation: Background and scoring. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(6), 643–658.
527. Friedman, M. S., Silvestre, A. J., Gold, M. A., Markovic, N., Savin-Williams, R. C., Huggins, J., & Sell, R. C. (in press).
Adolescents define sexual orientation and suggest ways to measure it. Journal of Adolescence.
528. Ryan, C. (2002). A review of the professional literature & research needs of LGBT youth of color. Washington: National Youth
Advocacy Coalition.
529. Ibid.
108 EDUCATION POLICY
methods.
530
These methods allow for an in-depth understanding of beliefs, behaviors,
and experiences, particularly when studying LGBT youth. Qualitative methods can
facilitate the collection of valuable information, especially on hard-to-reach segments
of LGBT youth, such as youth of color. Qualitative approaches can be valuable for pre-
liminary research about a specific population, which can be a guiding force in the
development of future, more representative research projects. However, the value of
qualitative research can also stand on its own. Qualitative techniques can provide con-
textual information that cannot be captured via statistical analysis. A number of stud-
ies on LGBT and questioning youth have employed interviews, ethnographies, surveys,
and case studies.
531
However, few studies have employed mixed-method approaches,
and none has employed participatory action research.
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH
An innovative approach to gathering information about LGBT youth is Participatory
Action Research (PAR), a method in which the people being studied are given control
over the purpose and procedures of the research.
532
There are five major guidelines for
conducting PAR:
1. The community’s interests are identified and defined as a starting point
2. The process of doing research is connected to the potential for community action
3. The researcher stands with the community, not outside of it as an objective observer
4. Flexibility is maintained in research methods and focus, changing them as neces-
sary; the outcome is intended to benefit the community, with risks acknowledged
and shared between researchers and the community
5. Differences between participants from the community and the researcher are
acknowledged, negotiated at the outset, or resolved through a fair and open process
533
PAR is typically used with historically disadvantaged populations. Because it allows
them to define their own problems, the remedies they desire, and the direction of the
research that will help them realize their goals, it is seen as more socially conscientious
and less exploitative than other kinds of social science research.
534
PAR could be par-
ticularly relevant to the study of LGBT youth, giving them a voice while allowing
researchers to learn in-depth information about their lives and unique experiences.
530. Diaz, R. (1998). Latino gay men and HIV: Culture, sexuality, and risk behavior. New York. Routledge. Diaz’s research provides an
important framework for conceptualizing and conducting in-depth qualitative research.
531. Ryan, 2002.
532. Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
533. Deshler, D. & Ewert, M. (1995). Participatory action research: Traditions and major assumptions. Retrieved August 19, 2003, from
http://www.parnet.org/tools/tools_1.cfm
534. Babbie, 2002.
SAMPLING AND BIAS
Sampling methods, such as probability sampling, can be powerful tools for understand-
ing large or hidden populations. Probability sampling offers an opportunity to make
generalizations about individuals who were not studied directly. In order to gather these
data, appropriate questions can be added to existing population-based surveys.
Although researchers are beginning to identify lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth by
including questions about sexual orientation and/or same-sex behavior or attraction on
these surveys, most research still relies on convenience sampling.
While convenience sampling is often the only viable solution for research limited by
population, financial, or time constraints, it hinders researchers from making general-
izations about the larger population. Unfortunately, until sexuality and gender identity
are no longer stigmatized, and LGBT and questioning youth no longer face harassment
and violence, only some will be willing to discuss their sexual orientation or gender
identity, forcing researchers to employ convenience sampling methodologies. Selective
disclosure of sexual orientation and gender identity can have an adverse effect on sam-
ples as well as on the results of a study. Any sample that only includes youth who are
openly gay is not necessarily generalizable to the greater LGBT youth population.
LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH
One of the continuing challenges to understanding the lives of LGBT youth is the lack
of longitudinal data. Longitudinal research would enhance our understanding of the
evolution of sexual orientation, behavior, and identity from adolescence to adulthood.
While some representative surveys, such as the YRBS and the National Adolescent
Health Survey, are collecting time-series data, none is collecting enough data to ana-
lyze all segments of the LGBT youth population—whether by race, ethnicity, specific
age cohorts, or geography—to make statistically significant comparisons. Nor do these
surveys collect any data on gender identity.
More important than collecting data over time is the need to collect longitudinal data
on the same population of youth about their identity, attraction, and sexual behavior.
The longitudinal data currently collected on LGBT youth are trend data. Trend stud-
ies collect similar data over time, but use different samples. Unlike trend studies, panel
studies collect information over time from the same sample. Panel data would improve
our understanding of how sexuality and gender identity develops. To date, there have
been no panel studies of LGBT youth.
This lack of longitudinal studies is not surprising. The inherently small size of the
LGBT youth population makes it difficult to study the same adolescents over time.
Most samples of LGBT youth number between 100 and 500, which falls short of the
magnitude required for panel studies. Representative studies from Vermont,
Massachusetts and Washington indicate that about 1 to 4% of youth identify as les-
bian, gay, or bisexual.
535
The number of youth identifying as transgender is typically
1% of the identified LGB population: a small percentage of an already small minori-
109 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
535. Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001.
110 EDUCATION POLICY
ty.
536
Given that longitudinal studies typically suffer from attrition, such a study
could only be conducted with appropriate oversampling of LGBT youth. Even then,
there is a chance that the people who drop out of the study may differ from people
who remain, and such differences may distort the ultimate results.
ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN RESEARCH ON LGBT YOUTH
While any research involving human subjects involves weighty ethical considerations,
they become even more acute when the subjects are children and adolescents. Federal
law requires the informed consent of parents or legal guardians when minors are
involved in research.
537
However, parental consent may be waived if securing parental
consent would jeopardize the participant’s welfare or violate a teenager’s privacy.
538
Because of the physical and psychological risks teens often face if their parents find out
they are LGBT, institutional review boards should consider granting such a waiver
when considering proposed research on LGBT youth.
539
Researchers should always
obtain written assent from participants under the age of consent.
540
THE NEED FOR RESEARCH ON UNDERSTUDIED LGBT
POPULATIONS
There is a dearth of research on the school experiences of a number of understudied
populations, including lesbian and transgender youth of color, immigrant LGBT youth,
LGBT youth who live in rural school districts, and transgender and gender-noncon-
forming youth.
• What are the differences among the experiences of LGBT youth of color from dif-
ferent racial and ethnic groups?
• How do we currently talk about LGBT issues? Is it through predominantly white
models? Are these models effective? How can they become more inclusive of the
experiences of LGBT youth and families of color?
• How do LGBT youth of color integrate their racial and ethnic identities with their
sexual or gender identities? What interventions can be used or altered to better
facilitate this process?
536. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
537. Putnam, F. W., Liss, M. B., & Landsverk, J. (1996). Ethical issues in maltreatment research. In K. Hoagwood, P. S. Jensen, & C. B.
Fisher (Eds.), Ethical issues in mental health research with children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cited
in Elze, D. E. (2003). 8,000 miles and still counting…Reaching gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents for research. In W. Meezan
& J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender populations. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
538. Fisher, C.B. (1993). Integrating science and ethics in research with high-risk children and youth. Social policy report: Society for
Research in Child Development, 7(4), 1–27. Cited in Elze, D. E. (2003). 8,000 miles and still counting…Reaching gay, lesbian and
bisexual adolescents for research. In W. Meezan & J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
populations. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press; Rosario, M., Hunter, J. & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance use
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: prevalence and correlates. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 454–476. Cited in Martin,
J. I., & Meezan, W. (2003). Applying ethical standards to research and evaluations involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender populations. In W. Meezan & J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
populations. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
539. Elze, 2003.
540. Martin & Meezan, 2003.
• How can we address the heightened HIV risk among some LGBT youth of color
without further stigmatizing and pathologizing them?
Ryan’s review of the academic literature on LGBT youth found that of 166 publications
addressing health, mental health, and identity development among lesbian, gay and/or
bisexual youth from 1972–1999, only nine of these publications focused on the partic-
ular issues affecting LGB youth of color. None focused on the particular issues affecting
lesbian or transgender youth of color.
541
Ryan then identified the 14 primary and sec-
ondary journals most widely read among key school practitioners, such as teachers,
guidance counselors, and social workers. Only 25 of approximately
2,500 articles published in these journals during a 27-year period
(1%) addressed the health concerns of LGB youth. Of those 25 arti-
cles, only one (4%) focused on LGB youth of color, and none
addressed transgender youth of color.
542
In her more recent review of the literature on LGBT youth, pub-
lished in 2002 by the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, Ryan
identifies the need for in-depth qualitative studies of how sexuality
and gender identity are experienced in ethnic minority communities,
both by LGBT youth of color and by the predominantly heterosexu-
al majority within each ethnic community.
543
She also calls for research on “the life
trajectories and health outcomes of LGB youth of color in the context of coming
out.”
544
Citing Diaz’s work, Ryan notes the impact of gendered notions of homosexu-
ality in some communities of color, as well as the impact of various forms of cultural
oppression (racism, homophobia, poverty, xenophobia) on HIV-related risk behavior
and other health risks.
545
• Are immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, less likely to report anti-
LGBT harassment and violence due to a desire to minimize their interactions with
governmental authorities?
• Does the reliance of immigrant LGBT youth and the children of immigrant LGBT
parents on their ethnic communities make them or their parents less likely to self-
identify as LGBT or to be out?
• How does culture influence identity and disclosure of sexual orientation and gen-
der identity?
Particularly complex forces shape identity, attraction, and behavior among immigrant youth:
Many youth are reared in immigrant families and are themselves immigrants who
are adjusting to a new mainstream culture with different social and gender roles,
and media representations of sexuality. Values and beliefs from their countries of
origin also inform behavior, collectively through the influence of their family and
ethnic community, and individually, through internalized representations that
shape attraction and desire.
546
111 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
541. Ryan, C. (2000). Analysis of the content and gaps in the scientific and professional literature on the health and mental health concerns of
lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Unpublished manuscript, American Psychological Association’s Healthy Lesbian, Gay and
Bisexual Students Project.
542. Ryan, 2002.
543. Ibid.
544. Ibid.
545. Diaz, 1998; Diaz & Ayala, 2001.
546. Ryan, 2002.
Of 166 publications
addressing lesbian, gay
and/or bisexual youth
from 1972–1999, only
nine focused on the
particular issues affecting
LGB youth of color.
112 EDUCATION POLICY
The experiences of immigrant LGBT youth, especially the children of undocumented
immigrant parents, in negotiating a homophobic school environment also warrant
inquiry. While immigrant youth of color share experiences different from white immi-
grant youth, it is important to understand the cultural specificities of each group’s expe-
riences. Southeast Asian immigrants’ experiences differ greatly from those of East
Asian or South Asian immigrants. Similarly, Eastern European immigrants’ experiences
differ from those of immigrants from Latin America or West Africa.
There is no literature on the issues specific to LGBT youth growing up in rural areas. The
2001 Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) survey did differentiate
among students in rural, suburban, and urban areas. The survey revealed significant vari-
ations in availability and access to educational and informational resources about LGBT
issues between youth in rural communities and youth in suburban or urban communities:
• Only 5% of rural students reported that LGBT issues were taught in class compared
with 24% of urban students and 29% of suburban students
• Less than 10% of rural students reported that LGBT issues were represented in text-
books, compared with over 21% of urban students and 23% of suburban students
• 49% of rural students reported that LGBT resources were available in their school’s
library, compared with 55% of urban students and 64% of suburban students
• 45% of rural students had access to LGBT resources via Internet connections at
school, compared with 63% of urban students and 59% of suburban students
547
Future research should attempt to correlate these differences among rural, suburban,
and urban LGBT youth with educational achievement measures, as well as with mea-
sures of psychological and social well-being. For example, since LGBT youth in subur-
ban areas have greater access to LGBT resources in their school libraries, are they more
likely to report fewer incidents of depression or suicidal ideation? Do they have higher
grade point averages than youth in rural areas?
Correlations between access to resources and education and measures of mental and
physical health can be a powerful tool for influencing public policy. For example,
LGBT youth in rural areas may be more dependent on the Internet to access LGBT
resources than youth in metropolitan areas who can, for example, take the subway or
drive downtown to visit the local community center or an LGBT youth program.
Consequently, Internet filtering software may disproportionately impact LGBT youth
in rural areas. The role of the Internet in LGBT identity and community development,
particularly among rural and ethnic minority youth, warrants further research.
Despite the increased attention to transgender theory in popular culture, the media, the
law, and politics, no books specifically address transgender youth, and there is a similar
dearth of research on transgender youth in academic journals.
• What is the link between gender nonconformity and victimization?
• What interventions help transgender and gender-nonconforming youth to deal
effectively with harassment and violence while remaining in school?
• What is the impact of single-sex education on transgender and gender-noncon-
forming youth?
547. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
Researchers may benefit from partnerships with the growing number of national trans-
gender rights organizations, such as the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, the
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GenderPAC), and the Transgender Law and
Policy Institute. These organizations may, in turn, further advance their missions by
seeking funding for the sponsorship of research that could provide valid and reliable
data on the diverse experiences of transgender youth.
SOME GENERAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
HOW MANY LGBT YOUTH ARE THERE?
Data from population-based studies allow for estimates of the prevalence of homosexu-
ality and bisexuality among adolescents. The National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health, a comprehensive study of over 12,000 youth in grades seven
through twelve, found that 6% of participants between the ages of 13 and 18 reported
same-sex attraction, with 1% reporting that they were only attracted to members of
their own sex and 5% reporting attraction to both sexes. Similarly, a 1999 Safe Schools
Coalition of Washington report found that among eight population-based studies
administered over 10 years to 83,042 youth, 4 to 5% of teens in sec-
ondary schools either identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexu-
al, had engaged in same-sex sexual activity, or had experienced same-
sex attractions.
548
More recent population-based studies have similar
results:
• The 2001 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported
that 5% of respondents either self-identified as gay or bisexual or
reported same-sex sexual experiences
549
• The 2001 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported that 3%
of students had engaged in same-sex sexual relations
550
To estimate the number of LGBT youth in public schools in the
U.S., researchers could focus on high school students (ages 15 to 18),
who are likely to be aware of their sexual attractions and orientation. In 2002, the
U.S. Department of Education estimated that there were 13.8 million students in this
grade range. Five percent of that figure would be approximately 689,000 students who
may identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, have same-sex attractions, or have same-sex
sexual experiences.
LGBT PARENTING
• How many school-age youth have LGBT parents?
• What are the similarities and differences between the experiences of LGBT-identi-
fied youth and children of LGBT parents? Do they experience harassment and dis-
crimination differently?
113 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
548. Reis & Saewyc, 1999.
549. Massachusetts Department of Education, 2002.
550. Vermont Department of Health, 2002.
Among eight population-
based studies administered
to 83,042 youth, 4 to 5%
of teens in secondary
schools either identified
themselves as gay, lesbian,
or bisexual, had engaged
in same-sex sexual activity,
or had experienced
same-sex attractions.
• Where are the policy gaps that fail to protect or account for the children of LGBT
parents?
• What are the school experiences of LGBT parents who adopt children of other
races, and what are the experiences of these youth in school?
• How can we utilize the information gathered from a small sample of parents in
same-sex relationships in the National Adolescent Health Study?
• Does the degree to which their LGBT parents are out affect the way children expe-
rience harassment and violence?
• What are the particular experiences of the children of transgender parents?
As noted in Chapter 1, same-sex couples reported high parenting rates on the 2000
Census—lesbian couples parent at about three-quarters the rate of straight married couples,
and gay male coules parent at about half the rate of straight married cou-
ples. Some data show higher parenting rates among lesbians of color than
among white lesbians. These data on the incidence of parenting among
lesbians of color offer new research opportunities that could alter the
stereotypical picture of gay parenthood: well-off, white, and urban, with
adopted or artificially conceived children. Where are African American
and Latina lesbians with children geographically located? What percent-
age are raising their children with a same-sex partner? Are these children
adopted or were they conceived through a heterosexual relationship that
occurred prior to the mother’s coming out as gay or bisexual? This ques-
tion is particularly important given the legislative focus on abstinence-
only-until-marriage sex education, marriage promotion, and fatherhood promotion initia-
tives. Do cultural, religious, and other social factors specific to lesbian and bisexual women
of color make them more likely to have heterosexual relationships prior to coming out?
What impact are heterosexual marriage promotion initiatives and fatherhood initiatives
having on lesbian and bisexual mothers who first parent in a heterosexual context?
PRIMARY SCHOOL EXPERIENCES
• What are the elementary school experiences of LGBT youth, the children of LGBT
parents, and youth who are perceived to be LGBT, and what successful interven-
tions, if any, have worked at those grade levels?
The experiences of harassment and violence reported by the parents of children in ele-
mentary schools in the five-year study sponsored by the Safe Schools Coalition of
Washington, described in Chapter 2, represent the largest body of research available on
this age group. GLSEN’s National School Climate Surveys focuses primarily on stu-
dents in high school, with over 92% of participants in grades 10, 11, and 12. In fact,
only 0.3% of the participants in GLSEN’s study (n=3) were in sixth grade.
551
The qual-
itative research presented in Human Rights Watch’s Hatred in the Hallways report
included retrospective accounts of violence and harassment in elementary school by
LGBT students who were in high school, but no direct accounts by elementary school
students. Given this lack of data on the prevalence of harassment and violence in ele-
mentary schools, it is not surprising that there is little information on specific inter-
ventions that would help to prevent it.
114 EDUCATION POLICY
551. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
These data on the incidence
of parenting among LGBT
people of color could alter
the stereotypical picture
of gay parenthood: well-
off, white, and urban,
with adopted or artificially
conceived children.
The data cited by the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington, Human Rights Watch,
and LGBT youth who discuss their past experiences underscore the need for a coordi-
nated effort on behalf of researchers and LGBT activists to conduct research on harass-
ment and violence in elementary schools. Researchers will have to be innovative in
their approaches to collecting this information. The Safe Schools Coalition of
Washington was able to successfully involve parents in the process by creating a hot-
line for them to call if their children were being harassed or abused at school. Another
approach might ask participants in population-based surveys like the YRBS to report
their experiences of anti-LGBT harassment and violence prior to sixth grade.
LIFE OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL
• What are the experiences of LGBT youth outside of schools, and how do we con-
duct research that produces information representative of their whole lives?
The quality and magnitude of research on the experiences of LGBT youth in schools,
the harassment and violence they face, and its impact on their educational, physical,
and mental health outcomes has grown significantly during the past decade. However,
researchers need to be wary of creating an incomplete picture of the lives of LGBT
youth. What are their experiences outside of school? Do they face discrimination in
their part-time jobs? Do the activities they participate in outside of school differ from
the activities of their heterosexual peers? How do they find support networks to coun-
terbalance harassment and bias they experience in school? There is no research avail-
able to shed light on these questions. Again, the most effective method of collecting
data on these issues may be to add questions to existing population-based surveys
administered in schools, like the YRBS, which can assess the broader context in which
LGBT students live their lives.
TEACHERS AND SCHOOL STAFF
• What are the attitudes of school personnel (teachers, school staff, school board
members, etc.) toward LGBT issues in education?
• How are teachers and other school staff trained on LGBT-related issues?
— Are they incorporated into teacher education, staff training, and re-credentialing?
— How can this be institutionalized as an ongoing process?
— What types of training are effective?
• How is multicultural education conceptualized, and is it inclusive of LGBT issues?
• How can LGBT issues be integrated into school curricula?
The only academic journal article found in a literature search for the inclusion of gay
or LGBT issues in multicultural education was published in Multicultural Education in
1997. Pohan and Bailey highlight some common goals cited in implementing a multi-
cultural approach to education, which are also applicable to LGBT issues:
• Combating a narrow and/or monodimensional curriculum; affirming and legit-
imizing the presence and contributions of diverse groups
115 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
116 EDUCATION POLICY
• Creating a climate that promotes an appreciation of diverse peoples, values,
perspectives, and ways of life
• Reducing prejudice and working toward the elimination of discrimination in
teaching and in society
• Working toward equality and justice for all
• Respecting the rights and the dignity of all individuals
• Supporting pluralism within the educational system
• Broadening and/or diversifying the values schools promote
552
School are, however, reluctant to support these common goals when they are applied
to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender iden-
tity, or the development of curriculum and a school environment that is more inclusive
and representative of LGBT students. Pohan and Bailey call upon teachers and admin-
istrators who support multicultural education to confront this reluctance and incorpo-
rate LGBT issues into multicultural curricula.
553
Future research could collect data
from elementary and secondary education programs in colleges and universities to
assess whether and how LGBT issues are raised within the context of multicultural edu-
cation courses offered to future teachers. These data could provide the foundation for
the development of a more uniform college curriculum that could be disseminated to
teacher training programs around the U.S.
• What is the short- and long-term impact of LGBT teachers and school staff who
are out at school?
Rofes’s survey of eight of his former middle school students found that having an open-
ly gay teacher in the 1970s had a number of positive effects. Respondents said this expe-
rience served to “normalize” lesbians and gay men for them, and made
them believe they were “less xenophobic.”
554
None said having an openly gay teacher made them question their own
sexual orientation (all eight are heterosexual adults). And they report-
ed a number of positive impacts. One said she was “more comfortable
with my entire sexuality” because of Rofes’ honesty about being gay. “I
also respected him. This is all-important because it all, coupled with his
seeming security in his sexuality and his self-respect, was a definite influence in shaping
my opinion of the entire spectrum of sexuality.” Other students “felt that witnessing a
teacher who was politically active as a gay liberationist affected their views about politi-
cal activism and discrimination against gay people.”
555
Rofes’ study provides a good model for research examining the impact of openly LGBT
teachers, guidance counselors, and administrative staff on students. Diaz and Ayala
found that having an openly gay adult role model while growing up is a resiliency fac-
552. Pohan, C. A., & Bailey, N. J. (1997). Opening the closet: Multiculturalism that is fully inclusive. Multicultural Education, 5(1),
12–15.
553. Ibid.
554. Rofes, E. (1999). What happens when kids grow up? The long-term impact of an openly gay teacher on eight students’ lives. In
Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
555. Ibid.
Having an openly gay adult
role model while growing
up is a resiliency factor
for gay and bisexual
Latino men at risk for HIV.
tor for gay and bisexual Latino men at risk for HIV.
556
Are there other ways the pres-
ence of openly gay role models among school staffers benefits LGBT youth?
The impact of the political activism of openly LGBT students on the school commu-
nity would also make for an interesting inquiry. Are schools with active GSAs, or legal
battles over LGBT youth, sites of greater civic engagement in general? Rofes suggests
provocatively that:
…[T]he greatest influence of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers may be on
students’ relationship to political activism and social movements. By witnessing up
close the important of political advocacy on a teacher’s job security and social posi-
tion, children’s understanding of the importance of activism and its relevance to
their lives might be enhanced.
557
GLSEN’s 2001 survey found more than 25% of LGBT students surveyed knew an open-
ly LGBT teacher, and 60% knew of an LGBT-supportive teacher at their school.
558
Both GLSEN and Human Rights Watch have documented the positive effect support-
ive teachers and staff have on a school’s climate. Future studies could ask about the
impact of openly LGBT teachers and staff members on school environments and the
lives of LGBT youth in those schools.
• What is the role of LGBT-protective nondiscrimination language in union contracts?
• Does it protect school personnel?
• Does it encourage school personnel to be out as LGBT or as gay-supportive allies?
• Does it help to support LGBT youth and youth who are targeted by anti-LGBT
harassment?
There is no research on the prevalence or impact of nondiscrimination language that
includes sexual orientation in teachers union contracts. Nor are there existing teachers
union contracts that specifically enumerate gender identity and expression, which war-
rants further research as well. The following are a few examples of existing contracts
with language that includes sexual orientation as an enumerated category:
• The City Union of Baltimore (CUB) FY 2002–3: All provisions of this
Agreement shall be applied equally to all employees in the bargaining units for
which CUB is the certified representative without discrimination as to age, sex,
marital status, race, color, creed, national origin, political affiliation, disability
or sexual orientation.
• The Local 4200-AFT/CSFT, AFL-CIO in Connecticut (Effective July 1, 1999–June
30, 2003): The parties agree that neither shall discriminate against any employ-
ee, because of the individual’s race, color, religious creed, age, sex, marital sta-
tus, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation,
history of mental disorder or mental retardation, except on the basis of bona
fide occupational qualifications.
• The Albuquerque, New Mexico Teachers Federation, Local 1420 of the
117 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
556. Diaz & Ayala, 2001.
557. Rofes, 1999.
558. Kosciw & Cullen, 2001.
118 EDUCATION POLICY
American Federation of Teachers (August, 2002): The Board shall not dis-
criminate against any teacher in the bargaining unit on the basis of race, color,
religion, gender, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, place of
residence, disability, membership or non-membership in any teacher organiza-
tion, except when the District determines there is a bona fide occupational
qualification.
559
A comprehensive data set of similar contracts would allow for the testing of a wide vari-
ety of questions about their impact on teachers and students. For example, it would be
interesting to locate school districts with similar socioeconomic demographics, one
with a contract inclusive of sexual orientation, and one without. The experiences of
both students and teachers in those districts could then be compared, perhaps using
existing data from the YRBS or GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey, to assess
whether there are statistically significant differences in the incidence of anti-LGBT
harassment and violence, whether or not teacher interventions occur to challenge such
harassment, and the number of students who know an openly gay teacher.
The expansion of enumerated categories to include “gender identity and expression” would
protect the rights of transgender teachers and could benefit transgender youth in particular.
GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES AND OTHER SCHOOL-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS
• How many gay-straight alliances or similar school-based student organizations are
there? How do they differ demographically and geographically?
• How are these organizations changing? How are GSA models being adapted for
rural and urban communities? How are organizations purposefully diversifying their
membership and leadership?
• What is the impact of student activists’ use of GSA models to build social change
organizations?
• How do GSAs function as sites of civic engagement and leadership development?
What is their impact on school environment, personal development, and the com-
munity at large?
• What is the development process of the straight allies of LGBT students (other stu-
dents, teachers, school personnel, etc.)? How do student clubs affect this process?
• How do community-based LGBT groups support youth and school communities?
What are the connections and distinctions between school-based and community-
based groups?
Griffin and Ouellett’s analysis of the Massachusetts Safe Schools Program found that
“clear policy statements (both statewide and local) backed up by technical, legal, and
financial resources, along with improvement from key administrators (e.g., building
principals, district superintendents and school committees), educators, community
leaders, and student leaders are at least as important as GSAs in creating lasting school
559. Source: Connie Cordovilla, American Federation of Teachers. October, 2003.
560. Griffin & Ouellett, 2002.
safety.”
560
Unfortunately, as noted in Chapter 3, former Massachusetts Governor Jane
Swift vetoed an appropriation of funds for the Safe Schools Program in 2002. This fol-
lowed nearly a decade of opposition by local and national antigay religious extremists.
Although Governor Swift and her supporters vowed to redirect other funds to make up
for defunding of the $800,000 program, it never happened. It is unlikely Massachusetts’
model program will be as effective without the significant resources for staff training
and support it had enjoyed for the previous decade. A follow-up study to Griffin and
Ouellett’s analysis could document the impact of defunding the program on youth,
teachers, and administrators, and make the case for restoring funding. This could be
useful in other states considering public funding for safe schools programs.
EVALUATION OF SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAMS AND
INTERVENTIONS
• How are safe schools programs and other interventions being evaluated? How do
they differ across social, class, and racial differences?
• How are interventions and policies implemented and enforced? How aware of them
are members of the school community, and how are they perceived? How do dif-
ferent community members (students, teachers, members of the board of education,
etc.) access and evaluate them?
• What is the impact of zero-tolerance policies? Are they effective in preventing
anti-LGBT harassment and violence, or do they reinforce oppression?
• How can such interventions be woven into policies and programs addressing other
issues, like racism and sexism? What different outcomes are facilitated when these
links are made?
Szalacha’s survey of 1,700 students at 33 schools in Massachusetts documented a statis-
tically significant, more positive, “sexual diversity climate” in schools with “higher lev-
els of implementation of the Safe Schools Program.” More specifically, students in
schools that had implemented staff training, nondiscrimination policies, or gay-straight
alliances reported “less homophobic school climates” and “higher levels of personal
safety for sexual minority students.”
561
Future research in this area could examine the relative impact of nondiscrimination
laws, anti-harassment laws, and state education regulations on school climate. As noted
in Chapter 3, 13 states and the District of Columbia have either passed a law or issued
a regulation related to sexual orientation bias and/or harassment in schools. Do laws
have a greater impact than regulations? Since harassment is a form of discrimination
that violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, are anti-harassment laws
as effective as nondiscrimination laws, or is one preferable to the other?
562
Research
examining the implementation of such laws and regulations, and evaluations of their
effectiveness would enable policymakers to adopt the most effective interventions.
119 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
561. Szalacha, L. A. (2001). The sexual diversity climate of Massachusetts’ secondary schools and the success of the Safe Schools Program for
gay and lesbian students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
562. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2003, August 7). EEOC settles color harassment lawsuit with Applebee’s
neighborhood bar and grill. Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-07-03.html
120 EDUCATION POLICY
THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF NOT PROTECTING LGBT YOUTH
• What is the impact of the lawsuits brought against school districts and school
administrators who fail to protect LGBT youth?
Chapter 3 highlights a report that summarizes 15 lawsuits against school districts that
failed to protect students from pervasive anti-LGBT harassment and violence at school.
Settlements in these cases ranged from $40,000 to almost $1 million, and the combined
total of the known settlements for these lawsuits was over $2.3 million.
563
Future
research should focus on how they affected policy change at the local or state level.
What happened after these school districts lost these lawsuits or settled out of court?
Did they implement policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity? If not,
why not? Given the precedent-setting nature of these lawsuits, data on their impact on
school districts could be a valuable lobbying tool in states and school districts that lack
LGBT-inclusive anti-harassment and nondiscrimination policies.
RESILIENCY
Some researchers are attempting to balance the attention given to at-risk LGBT youth
with a better understanding of those LGBT youth who are resilient in the face of adver-
sity.
564
This research on resiliency “seeks to identify protective, nurturing factors in the
lives of LGBT youth” that “frame the preeminent health and human services delivery
question…. [T]o what extent and under what circumstances can protective factors be
transplanted into the lives of young people who have been socialized in a stressful climate
of uncertainty and fear?”
565
Factors that have been found to support resiliency in the gen-
eral adolescent population include connectedness with parents and family members, per-
ceived social connectedness, and associations with caring adults outside the family.
566
Diaz and Ayala found family acceptance and presence of an openly gay role model
while growing up to be resiliency factors for Latino gay men. Latino gay men whose
immediate families contained someone they could “talk openly with about…homosex-
uality/bisexuality” were less likely to have low self-esteem or engage in unsafe sex.
Latino gay men who had an openly gay adult role model while they were children or
adolescents also had higher self-esteem and lower health risk behaviors as adults than
Latino gay men who did not.
567
Recent research on lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth using National Adolescent Health
Survey data correlated similar factors with reduced likelihood to attempt suicide,
including:
• Perceived parent and family connectedness
• Emotional well-being
563. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2003.
564. Hunter, J. (1999). Beyond risk: Refocus research on coping. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 3(3), 75–76.
565. Resnick, M. D. (2000). Protective factors, resiliency, and healthy youth development. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art
Reviews, 11(1), 157–164; Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Youth Sexual Orientation Measurement Work Group, 2003.
566. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, P. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protection of adolescents from
harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10),
823–832.
567. Diaz & Ayala, 2001.
• High parental expectations for school achievement
• Actual school achievement
• More people living in the household
• Religiosity
568
This list of variables that impact resiliency may be incomplete, with each affecting the
experiences of LGBT youth differently. For example, LGBT youth are likely to experi-
ence barriers to feeling connected with their parents and families different from those
experienced by heterosexual youth.
569
More research is needed to further explore how
these variables specifically help or hinder resiliency in LGBT youth.
Savin-Williams examines the experiences of sexual minority youth who have performed
particularly well in the classroom social space and in their everyday lives. Research
emphasizing self-harming practices among LGBT youth is limited, he argues. These
“studies include only those willing to identify themselves as gay or at least acknowledge
same-sex attraction.” These samples, Savin-Williams argues, are “significantly smaller
than the total number who will eventually turn out to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans-
gender. Many teenagers in the larger group may be adjusting very well but simply prefer
to keep their sexual orientations to themselves even on anonymous surveys.”
570
While the implications of Savin-Williams’ comments are significant, data to support
these claims are scarce. However, the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education
plans to publish a special issue addressing this topics entitled Beyond Risk: Resilience in
the Lives of Sexual Minority Youth.
571
This special issue is being edited by Dr. Stephen T.
Russell at the University of California-Davis, who is also an advocate for research on
the “paradox of adolescent resilience and risk.”
572
Russell hopes to include research or
reflection articles that address some important questions:
• How do LGBT youth develop and exhibit resilience in light of their origins in cul-
tures characterized by sexual prejudice?
• How can schools and educators work to prevent risk outcomes while fostering
resilience?
• With regard to educational policy, what purpose has the historic focus on risk
among LGBT youth served, and at what cost?
573
More systematic research on LGBT youth resiliency must be published before a strong
argument can be made regarding the need to shift attention to the population of LGBT
youth who thrive in spite of bias, harassment, and violence. This research may coun-
terbalance the potentially pathologizing effect of a disproportionate emphasis on drug
abuse, unsafe sexual behavior, and suicide. Resilience research would certainly present
a more balanced picture of both the difficulties faced by LGBT youth, and their capac-
ity to succeed despite such hardships.
574
121 6. A RESEARCH AGENDA
568. Borowsky, I. W., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. D. (2001). Adolescent suicide attempts: Risks and protectors. Pediatrics,107(3), 485–493.
569. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Youth Sexual Orientation Measurement Work Group, 2003.
570. Fuller, D. (2002, December 24). A new dimension in snapshot of gay teenagers. The New York Times, p. 7.
571. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education. (n.d.). Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth.[Call for papers and
forthcoming thematic special feature]. See http://www.jtsears.com/JGLIEthemes4.htm for more information.
572. Ibid.
573. Ibid.
574. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Youth Sexual Orientation Measurement Work Group, 2003.
SELL ASSESSMENT OF
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
575
I. SEXUAL ATTRACTIONS.
The following six questions are asked to assess how frequently and intensely you are
sexually attracted to men and women. Consider times you had sexual fantasies, day-
dreams, or dreams about a man or woman, or have been sexually aroused by a man or
woman.
1. During the past year, how many dif-
ferent men were you sexually
attracted to (choose one answer):
a. None
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3–5
e. 6–10
f. 11–49
g. 50–99
h. 100 or more
122 EDUCATION POLICY
575. Sell, 1997.
Appendix A
2. During the past year, on average,
how often were you sexually attract-
ed to a man (choose one answer):
a. Never
b. Less than 1 time per month
c. 1–3 times per month
d. 1 time per week
e. 2–3 times per week
f. 4–6 times per week
g. Daily
123
3. During the past year, the most I was
sexually attracted to a man was
(choose one answer):
a. Not at all sexually attracted
b. Slightly sexually attracted
c. Mildly sexually attracted
d. Moderately sexually attracted
e. Significantly sexually attracted
f. Very sexually attracted
g. Extremely sexually attracted
4. During the past year, how many
different women were you sexually
attracted to (choose one answer):
a. None
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3–5
e. 6–10
f. 11–49
g. 50–99
h. 100 or more
II. SEXUAL CONTACT.
The following four questions are asked to assess your sexual contacts. Consider times
when you had contact between your body and another man or woman’s body for the
purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
7. During the past year, how many dif-
ferent men did you have sexual con-
tact with (choose one answer):
a. None
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3–5
e. 6–10
f. 11–49
g. 50–99
h. 100 or more
5. During the past year, on average,
how often were you sexually attract-
ed to a woman (choose one answer):
a. Never
b. Less than 1 time per month
c. 1–3 times per month
d. 1 time per week
e. 2–3 times per week
f. 4–6 times per week
g. Daily
6. During the past year, the most I was
sexually attracted to a woman was
(choose one answer):
a. Not at all sexually attracted
b. Slightly sexually attracted
c. Mildly sexually attracted
d. Moderately sexually attracted
e. Significantly sexually attracted
f. Very sexually attracted
g. Extremely sexually attracted
8. During the past year, on average,
how often did you have sexual con-
tact with a man (choose one
answer):
a. Never
b. Less than 1 time per month
c. 1–3 times per month
d. 1 time per week
e. 2–3 times per week
f. 4–6 times per week
g. Daily
9. During the past year, how many dif-
ferent women did you have sexual
contact with (choose one answer):
a. None
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3–5
e. 6–10
f. 11–49
g. 50–99
h. 100 or more
III. SEXUAL IDENTITY.
The following two questions are asked to assess your sexual identity.
11. I consider myself (choose one
answer):
a. Not at all homosexual
b. Slightly homosexual
c. Mildly homosexual
d. Moderately homosexual
e. Significantly homosexual
f. Very homosexual
g. Extremely homosexual
124 EDUCATION POLICY
10. During the past year, on average,
how often did you have sexual con-
tact with a woman (choose one
answer):
a. Never
b. Less than 1 time per month
c. 1–3 times per month
d. 1 time per week
e. 2–3 times per week
f. 4–6 times per week
g. Daily
12. I consider myself (choose one
answer):
a. Not at all heterosexual
b. Slightly heterosexual
c. Mildly heterosexual
d. Moderately heterosexual
e. Significantly heterosexual
f. Very heterosexual
g. Extremely heterosexual
125
FRIEDMAN MEASURE
OF ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION
576
SEXUAL ATTRACTION: PHYSICAL
This set of questions is about your sexual attraction to males and females. Think about
times when you experienced some or all of the following physical sensations when you
were around another male or female: change in your voice, an erection (for males), get-
ting wet (for females), a sense of “raging hormones”, your heart beating faster, feeling
sexually excited.
There may have been periods of time over the last year when you experienced lots of
these physical sensations and other periods of time when you experienced few of these.
Think of a week when you experienced an average number of these physical sensations.
1. During the week you selected, how often did you experience these physical sensa-
tions (listed in the above paragraph) when you were around males and females?
(check one answer for males and check one answer for females)
Males Females
Never
1 time
2–3 times
4–6 times
Daily
Several times daily
576. Friedman, Silvestre, Gold, et. al., (in press).
Appendix B
2. During the week you selected, approximately how many different males and females did you
feel these physical sensations for? (check one answer for males and one answer for females):
Males Females
1
2–3
4–9
10–19
20–40
Over 40
3. During the week you selected, think of the male and female you felt the strongest
physical sensations for. Which of the following best describes the physical sensations
you felt? (check one answer for males and one answer for females):
Males Females
None
Weak
Slight
Moderate
Strong
Very Strong
SEXUAL ATTRACTION: THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS
The last set of questions asked about sexual attraction in terms of what you experience
inside your body. The next set of questions ask about sexual attractions also but this
time in terms of your thoughts and emotions about others. Consider when you experi-
enced thoughts and emotions similar to the following: “She/He is really cute” “Look
at that (part of the body) on him/her,” “She/He has such a nice (part of body),” “Oh
how I’d like to touch or have sex with him/her.”
There may have been periods of time over the last year when you experienced lots of these
thoughts and emotions and other periods of time when you experienced few of these. Think
of a week when you experienced an average number of these thoughts and emotions.
4. During the week you selected, how often did you experience these thoughts and
emotions (listed in the above paragraph) when you were around males and females?
(Check one answer for males and check one answer for females.)
Males Females
Never
1 time
2–3 times
4–6 times
Daily
Several times daily
126 EDUCATION POLICY
127 APPENDIX B
5. During the week you selected, approximately how many different males and females
did you feel these thoughts and emotions for? (Check one answer for males and check
one answer for females.)
Males Females
None
1
2–3
4–9
10–19
20–40
Over 40
6. During the week you selected, think of the male and female you felt the strongest
thoughts and emotions for. Which of the following best describes the thoughts and
emotions you experienced? (Check one answer for males and one answer for females.)
Males Females
None
Weak
Slight
Moderate
Strong
Very Strong
RELATIONSHIPS
7. Take a moment to think about your ideal romantic relationship. This may include: a
long-term commitment, falling deeply in love, raising children together, the person
who is most primary in your life. Think about who this ideal person might be. (Check
one answer.) Is this person:
Male
Female
Both
Unsure
365Gay.com. (2003, August 7). School for gay students to close. Retrieved October
16, 2003, from
http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/August%202003/School%20For%20Gay%
20Students%20To%20Close.htm
ABC News.com. (2000, June 22). A profile of courage: High school athlete reveals
homosexuality, community rallies behind him. Retrieved September 29, 2003, from
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000622_coreyjohnson_feature.html
ABCNews.com. (2002, June 28). Supreme Court OKs vouchers that send kids to reli-
gious schools. Retrieved August 20, 2003, from
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_vouchers020627.html
Advocates for Youth. (2002, February 7). [Official communication]. Retrieved July 11,
2003, from http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/feature/president.htm
AIDS Action Council. (1999, August). Election 2000 presidential candidate report.
Retrieved September 2, 2003 from http://www.thebody.com/aac/candidates.html
Alan Guttmacher Institute. (2003, August 1). State policies in brief. Retrieved August
11, 2003 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/spib_SE.pdf
American Association of University Women. (2003, January). Single-sex education.
Retrieved August 8, 2003, from
http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/policyissues/pdfs/SingleSexEducation.pdf
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (n.d.). Report
finds separating by sex not the solution to gender inequality in school. Retrieved October
19, 2003, from http://www.aauw.org/about/newsroom/press_releases/sspr.cfm
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1993). Hostile
hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s schools. Washington:
Harris/Scholastic Research.
128 EDUCATION POLICY
Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union. (1997, June 26). Supreme Court rules: Cyberspace will
be free! ACLU hails victory in Internet censorship challenge. Retrieved August 22, 2003,
from http://archive.aclu.org/news/n062697a.html
American Civil Liberties Union. (2002). Making schools safe [Electronic version].
New York: Author. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=11187&c=106#FileAttach
American Civil Liberties Union. (2003, April 8). ACLU sues Arkansas school district
to guarantee gay student’s rights to be “out” at school. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=12298&c=106
American Civil Liberties Union. (2003, July 17). ACLU secures sweeping changes in
Arkansas school district. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from
http://aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=13163&c=106
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (2003, April 8). Federal
appeals court say schools must protect gay students from harassment. Retrieved October
21, 2003, from http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/030409-flores.html
American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.). Charter schools. Retrieved October 19, 2003,
from http://www.aft.org/issues/charterschools.html
Associated Press. (1999, June 22). Bush promotes abstinence for teenagers.
Associated Press. (2002, September 8). BU Academy gay alliance shut down. The
Standard-Times. D7. Available at http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-08-
02/d07sr133.htm
Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bailey, S. M. (1996). Shortchanging girls and boys. Educational Leadership, 53(8), 76.
Baldo, M., Aggleton, P., & Slutkin, G. (1993). Does sex education lead to earlier or
increased sexual activity in youth? Paper presented at the 9th Annual International
Conference on AIDS, Berlin.
Barney, D. D. (in press). Health risk-factors for gay American Indian and Alaska
Native adolescent males. Journal of Homosexuality.
Battle, J., Cohen, C. J., Warren, D., Fergerson, G., & Audam, S. (2001). Say it loud
I’m black and I’m proud: Black pride survey 2000. New York: The Policy Institute of
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Bauer, A. F. (2002). State of the states 2002: GLSEN’s policy analysis of lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) safer schools issues [Electronic version]. New York:
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Available at
http://www.GLSEN.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/1397.pdf
Beeson, A. (2001). Round two: Cyber-censorship returns to Supreme Court. Retrieved
August 25, 2003, from the American Civil Liberties Union website:
http://archive.aclu.org/court/beeson_01.html
Bennett, L. (1997). Break the silence [Electronic version]. Teaching Tolerance
Magazine, 12. Available at
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/printar.jsp?p=0&ar=110&pi=ttm
129
130 EDUCATION POLICY
Bennett-Haigney, L. (1996, May). Young activists fight intolerance in Utah. National
NOW Times. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from http://www.now.org/nnt/05-96/kel-
liut.html
Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E.
(2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 151–166.
Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001).
Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The
benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal of Public Health,
91(6), 940–946.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (1994). “Gay/straight” alliances: Transforming pain to pride. The
High School Journal, 77, 113–121.
Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimina-
tion against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in U.S. schools [Electronic ver-
sion]. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uslgbt/toc.htm
Bohn, A. & Sleeter, C. (2002). Standards and multiculturalism. Rethinking Schools
Online, 16(3). Retrieved August 25, 2003, from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_03/Mult163.shtml
Bonauto, M. (2002, September 16). Background information on “no promo homo” poli-
cies. Retrieved August 29, 2003, from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network website: http://www.GLSEN.org/templates/resources/record.html?sec-
tion=14&record=42
Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and
sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of
Adolescent Health 30(5), 364–374.
Borowsky, I. W., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. D. (2001). Adolescent suicide attempts:
Risks and protectors. Pediatrics,107(3), 485–493.
Boykin, K. (2003, May 13). She didn’t have to die. Retrieved October 8, 2003, from
http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/000737.html
Broder, D. S. (1999, June 22). Bush defends gun record, pushes teen abstinence in
S.C. foray. Washington Post, p. A4.
Bronski, M. (2003, August 8–14). Rethinking the Harvey Milk School: Not-so-fast
times at Queermont High. Boston Phoenix. Available at
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/docu-
ments/03073221.asp
Bulion, L. (2000, December 19). Gay-straight alliances: Ground zero for school toler-
ance. Retrieved July 15, 2003 from Education World website: http://www.education-
world.com/a_issues/issues149.shtml
Casey, L. (2000). The charter conundrum. Rethinking Schools Online, 14(3). Retrieved
August 29, 2003, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/14_03/char143.shtml
Casper, V. & Schultz, S. B. (1999). Gay parents/straight schools: Building communication
and trust. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cassels, P. (2000) A brave athlete, supportive school. Bay Windows. Available at
Outsports website: http://www.outsports.com/gaymassplayer.htm
Center for Education Reform. (2003, March 24). Charter school highlights and statistics.
Retrieved September 3, 2003, from http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm
Centers for Disease Control. (1997). Questions and answers on condom effectiveness,
CDC update. Atlanta: Author.
Clair, R. (n.d.). Making school safe for queer kids. Curve. Retrieved October 16,
2003, from http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/7.html
Cleghorn, J. M., Greer, S. E., Osburn, C. D., Ralls, S. E., & Westcott, K. S. (2003).
Conduct unbecoming: The ninth annual report on “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t
harass” [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from the Servicemembers
Legal Defense Network website: http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTI-
CLES/pdf_file/837.pdf
Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges
faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-
gender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of
Public Health, 92(5), 773–776.
Cogswell, K., & Simo, A. (2003, June 6). Erasing Sakia: Who’s to blame? The Gully.
Retrieved October 14, 2003, from http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymun-
do/030606_sakia_gunn_murder.html
Consumer Reports. (2001, March). Digital chaperones for kids: Which Internet filters pro-
tect the best? which get in the way? Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://www.con-
sumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=34825
1&bmUID=1066584995177
Currah, P. & Minter, S. (2001). Transgender equality: A handbook for activists and poli-
cymakers. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force & National Center for
Lesbian Rights.
Dailard, C. (2000, April). Fueled by campaign promises, drive intensifies to boost
abstinence-only education funds [Electronic version]. The Guttmacher Report on Public
Policy, 3(2). Available at http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/gr030201.html
Daily News. (2003, August 7). School’s gay, that’s okay. [Editorial], p. 26.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the
public sector? University of Toronto. Available at
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final.pdf
D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Enhancing the development of lesbian, gay and bisexual
youths. In E. Rothblum & L. Bonds (Eds.), Prevention of heterosexism and homophobia.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and Sexual Orientation. California:
Sage Publishing.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and
youth: Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
131 BIBLIOGRAPHY
132 EDUCATION POLICY
Deshler, D. & Ewert, M. (1995). Participatory action research: Traditions and major
assumptions. Retrieved August 19, 2003, from http://www.parnet.org/tools/tools_1.cfm
Di Ceglie, D., Freedman, D., McPherson, S., & Richardson, P. (2002). Children and
adolescents referred to a specialist gender identity development service: Clinical fea-
tures and demographic characteristics. International Journal of Transgenderism, 6(1).
Retrieved July 30, 2003, from http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo06no01_01.htm
Diaz, R. (1998). Latino gay men and HIV: Culture, sexuality, and risk behavior. New
York. Routledge.
Diaz, R., & Ayala, G. (2001). Social discrimination and health: The case of Latino gay
men and HIV risk. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Available at http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/DiazEng.pdf
Dube, E. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1999). Sexual identity development among
ethnic sexual-minority male youths. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1389–1398.
DuRant, R. H, Krowchuk, D. P., & Sinal, S. H. (1998). Victimization, use of vio-
lence, and drug use at school among male adolescents who engage in same-sex sexual
behavior. The Journal of Pediatrics, 133(1), 113–118.
Edwards, W. (1996). A sociological analysis of an in/visible minority group: Male ado-
lescent homosexuals. Youth and Society, 27(3), 229–251.
Electronic Frontier Foundation & Online Policy Group. (2003). Internet blocking in
public schools: A study of Internet access in educational institutions. Retrieved August 25,
2003 from
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/net_block_report/net_block_report.pdf
Elovich, R. (1999, June). Beyond condoms…how to create a gay men’s culture of sex-
ual health. POZ. Available at http://www.poz.com/index.cfm?p=article&art_id=1568
Elze, D. E. (2003). 8,000 miles and still counting…Reaching gay, lesbian and bisexual
adolescents for research. In W. Meezan & J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender populations. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2003, August 7). EEOC settles color
harassment lawsuit with Applebee’s neighborhood bar and grill. Retrieved October 23,
2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-07-03.html
Faulkner, A. H. & Cranston, K. (1998). Correlates of same-sex behavior in a random
sample of Massachusetts high school students. American Journal of Public Health,
88(2), 262–266.
Feinstein, R., Greenblatt, A., Hass, L., Kohn, S., & Rana, J. (2001). Justice for all: A
report on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth in the New York juvenile justice
system. New York: Urban Justice Center.
Ferrero, E., Freker, J. and Foster, T. (2002). Too high a price: The case against restricting
gay parenting. New York: ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. Available at
http://www.lethimstay.com/pdfs/gayadoptionbook.pdf
Fineran, S. (2001). Sexual minority students and peer sexual harassment in high
school. Journal of School Social Work, 11.
Fineran, S. (2002). Sexual harassment between same-sex peers: Intersection of men-
tal health, homophobia, and sexual violence in schools. Social Work, 47(1), 65–74.
Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1998). Implications of peer sexual harassment between
same-sex teens. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Social Work
Research Conference, Miami.
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The future of children: Sexual abuse of children. Journal of
Psychology & Human Sexuality, 4(2), 46–47.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter Schools in Action:
Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fleming, J. (2000). Affirmative action and standardized test scores. The Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1–2), 27–37.
Fontaine, J. (1998). Evidencing a need: School counselors’ experiences with gay and
lesbian students. Professional School Counseling, 1(3), 8–14.
Fouratt, J. (2003, May 23–29). Thousands mourn Sakia. Gay City News. Available at
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn221/thousandsmorn.html
Fram, A. (2003, July 10). House rejects conservative bid to block four federal grants
for sex research. Associated Press.
Friedman, M. S., Silvestre, A. J., Gold, M. A., Markovic, N., Savin-Williams, R. C.,
Huggins, J., & Sell, R. C. (in press). Adolescents define sexual orientation and sug-
gest ways to measure it. Journal of Adolescence.
Fuller, D. (2002, December 24). A new dimension in snapshot of gay teenagers. The
New York Times, p. 7.
Gabriel, T. (1995, July 2). Some on-line discoveries give gay youths a path to them-
selves. The New York Times, p. A1.
Gailey, P. (2002, December 1). Schools shouldn’t be wary of military recruiters. The
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, p. 3D.
Gandy, K. (2002, May 10). Segregation won’t help. USA Today. Available at
http://www.now.org/press/inTheNews/20020510.html
Gardner, R. (2002, February). Destination graduation: Dropout prevention New York
State style. Paper presented at annual conference of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention Division of Adolescent and School Health, Washington.
Garner, A. (2002, February 11). Don’t “protect” me; give me your respect. Newsweek.
Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J. & DuRand, R. H. (1998). The associ-
ation between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based
sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101(5), 895–902.
Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Wissow, L. S., Woods, E. R. & Goodman, E. (1999).
Sexual orientation and risk of suicide attempts among a representative sample of
youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(15), 487–501.
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). About gay-straight alliances
(GSAs). Retrieved August 20, 2003, from
http://GLSEN.org/templates/student/record.html?section=48&record=145
133 BIBLIOGRAPHY
134 EDUCATION POLICY
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). Parental “choice,” school
“choice,” and school vouchers. Retrieved July 8, 2003, from
http://www.GLSEN.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/695.pdf
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network & National Center for Lesbian Rights.
(2003). Fifteen expensive reasons why safe schools legislation is in your state’s best interest.
Unpublished report.
Gender PAC (2002, July 15). Time for schools to stand up to gender stereotyping in the
classroom. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from
http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/index.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0411
Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In Report of the Secretary’s
Task Force on Youth Suicide (DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-1623. Vol. 3, pp.
3-110–3-142). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
Gilliam, J. (2002). Respecting the rights of LGBTQ youth, a responsibility of youth-
serving professionals. Transitions: A Newsletter of Advocates for Youth, 14(4), 1–2.
Ginsberg, R. (1999). In the triangle/out of the circle: Gay and lesbian students facing
the heterosexual paradigm. The Educational Forum, 64, 46–56.
Goldstein, N. (2001). Zero indifference: A how-to guide to ending name-calling in schools
[Electronic version]. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network website: http://www.glsen.org/binary-
data/GLSEN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/1053.pdf
Goodrum, A. J. (2002). Gender identity 101: A transgender primer. Retrieved July 24,
2003, from The Southern Arizona Gender Alliance website:
http://www.sagatucson.org/tgnetaz/gender_101.htm
Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual
parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692.
Green, R. (1998). Transsexuals’ children. International Journal of Transgenderism, 2(3).
Available at http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0601.htm
Greene, B. (1997). Ethnic minority lesbians and gay men. In B. Greene (Ed.), Ethnic
and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators.
In K. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet. New York: Haworth Press.
Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (in press). Describing roles that gay-
straight alliances play in schools: From individual support to school change. Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3).
Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M. L. (2002). Going beyond gay-straight alliances to make
schools safe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. Angles, 6(1).
Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to
underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7(3), 175–181.
Harris, M. B. (1997). School experiences of gay and lesbian youth: The invisible minority.
New York: Harrington Park Press.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Inside-OUT: A report on the experi-
ence of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in America and the public’s views on issues and policies
related to sexual orientation. Cambridge: Author. Available at http://www.kff.org/con-
tent/2001/3193/LGBSurveyReport.pdf
Herbert, B. (2003, November 3). The big chill at the lab. The New York Times, p. A19.
Herdt, G., & Boxer, A. (1996). Children of horizons (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their resolution for
gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 14(1&2), 25–43.
Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) About HMI & HMS. Retrieved August 22, 2003,
from
http://www.hmi.org/GeneralInfoAndDonations/AboutHMIAndHMS/default.aspx
Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) LGBTQ youth statistics. Retrieved August 22, 2003,
from http://www.hmi.org/Community/LGBTQYouthStatistics/default.aspx
Hetrick-Martin Institute. (n.d.) Q & A’s on HMS. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from
http://www.hmi.org/GeneralInfoAndDonations/QAndAsonHMS/default.aspx
Hillier, L., Kurdas, C., & Horsley, P. (2001). “It’s just easier”: The Internet as safety-net
for same sex attracted young people [Electronic version]. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe
University, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. Available at
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/2ndpages/Internetreport.pdf
Hoff, T., Greene, L., McIntosh, M., Rawlings, N., & D’Amico, J. (2000). Sex educa-
tion in America: A series of national surveys of students, parents, teachers, and principals.
Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Available at
http://www.kff.org/content/2000/3048/SexED.pdf
Holmes, W. C., & Slap, G. B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definitions, prevalence,
correlates, sequelae and management. Journal of the American Medical Association,
280(21), 1855–1862.
Human Rights Resource Center. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights:
A human rights perspective, Activity 3. Retrieved October 21, 2003, from
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/TB3/act3/act3f.htm
Human Rights Watch. (2002, September). Ignorance Only: HIV/AIDS, human rights
and federally funded abstinence-only programs in the United States; Texas: A case study,
14(5G), 35.
Hunter, J. (1999). Beyond risk: Refocus research on coping. Journal of the Gay and
Lesbian Medical Association, 3(3), 75–76.
Hunter, J. & Mallon, G. P. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescent development:
Dancing with your feet tied together. In B. Greene & G. L. Croom (Eds.), Education
research and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunter, J. & Schaecher, R. (1987). Stressors on lesbian and gay adolescents in
schools. Social Work in Education, 9(3), 180–190.
135 BIBLIOGRAPHY
136 EDUCATION POLICY
Intersex Society of North America. (n.d.). What is an intersex condition? What do these
diagnoses mean? Retrieved October 18, 2003, from http://www.isna.org/faq/faq-med-
ical.html#what
Intersex Society of North America. (2003). Frequency: How common are intersex con-
ditions? Retrieved August 4, 2003, from http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency.html
Irvine, J. M. (2001). Educational reform and sexual identity. In A. R. D’Augelli & C.
J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosex-
uals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 44.
Johnson, M. J. (2000, July 25). Letter to the House and Senate on Internet blocking/filter-
ing requirements. Retrieved August 20, 2003, from the American Civil Liberties
Union website: http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=8968&c=252
Johnson, S. M., & O’Conner, E. (2002). The gay baby boom. New York: New York
University Press.
Jones, C. T. (March 25, 2002). Dear colleague letter. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from
Department of Education website:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/boyscouts_letter.html
Jordan, K. M. (2000). Substance abuse among gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning adolescents. School Psychology Review, 29(2), 201–206.
Kaiser, J. (2003). Politics and biomedicine: Studies of gay men, prostitutes come
under scrutiny. Science, 300, 403.
Kempner, M. (2001a). Controversy over CDC’s research to classroom project.
SIECUS Report, 29(6), 7.
Kempner, M. (2001b). State-level debates over abstinence-only-until-marriage.
SIECUS Report, 29(6), 7.
Kestelman, P. & Trussell, J. (1991). Efficacy of the simultaneous use of condoms and
spermicide. Family Planning Perspectives, 23(5), 227.
Kissen, R. (1993). Listening to lesbian and gay teenagers. Teaching Education, 5(2), 57–68.
Kissen, R. (1999). Children of the future age: Lesbians and gay parents talk about
school. In W. J. Letts & J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing
the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kosciw, J. G., & Cullen, M. K. (2001). The GLSEN 2001 national school climate sur-
vey: The school-related experiences of our nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
youth. New York: The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Krieger, N. (2000). Counting accountability: Implications of the new approaches to
classifying race/ethnicity in the 2000 Census. American Journal of Public Health, 90,
1687–1689.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1996). Nabozny v. Podlesny: Victory!
Retrieved July 28, 2003, from
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/cases/record?record=54
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2001). Youth in the margins. New York: Author.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund & Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network. (2001). A guide to effective statewide laws/policies: Preventing discrimination
against LGBT students in K-12 schools [Electronic version]. New York: Authors.
Available at http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/61.pdf
Leach, C. (2002). Transgender youth and the role of service providers. Transitions: A
newsletter of advocates for youth, 14(4), 12–13.
Leck, G. M. (2000). Heterosexual or homosexual? Reconsidering binary narratives on
sexual identities in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 324–348.
Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. High
School Journal, 85(3), 13–26.
Lemp, G. F., Hirozawa, A. M., Givertz, D., Nieri, G. N., Anderson, L., Lindegren, M.
L., et al. (1994). Seroprevalence of HIV and risk behaviors among young homosexual
and bisexual men. The San Francisco/ Berkeley Young Men’s Survey. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 272(6), 449–454.
Lerner, S. (2001, August 1–7). An orgy of abstinence: Federal funding pushes no-sex
education into the mainstream. “Village Voice. Available at
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0131/lerner.php
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Youth Sexual Orientation Measurement Work
Group. (2003). Measuring Sexual Orientation of Young People in Health Research. San
Francisco: Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. Retrieved September 16, 2003,
from http://www.stophiv.com/lgbtc/measure_young2003.pdf
Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dia-
logue about sexualities and schooling. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lewin, T. (2003, March 25). Arkansas school is accused of harassing a gay student.
The New York Times. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/education/25GAY.html
Lipkin, A. (1994). The case for a gay and lesbian curriculum. The High School Journal,
77(1&2), 95–107.
Lipkin, A. (1999). Know sexual identity, homosexual adjustment issues before counsel-
ing LGBT youth. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 15(12), 1.
Lum, M. (n.d.). Corey Johnson: Confident, courageous and coming to Texas. Retrieved
September 29, 2003, from http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/921/coverstory.htm
Mallon, G. P. (1998). We don’t exactly get the welcome wagon: The experiences of gay
and lesbian adolescents in child welfare system. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mallon, G. P. (1999). Social services with transgendered youth. Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Martin, J. I., & Meezan, W. (2003). Applying ethical standards to research and evalu-
ations involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. In W. Meezan &
J. I. Martin (Eds.), Research methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender popula-
tions. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
137 BIBLIOGRAPHY
138 EDUCATION POLICY
Massachusetts Department of Education. (1996). 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Results [Electronic version]. Boston, MA: Author. Available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrb95/yrb95111.html#
Massachusetts Department of Education. (1999). Massachusetts high school students and
sexual orientation results of the 1999 youth risk behavior survey [Electronic version].
Boston: Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs99/glb_rslts.html
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2000). 1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk
Behavior Study [Electronic version]. Boston: Author. Available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs99/toc.html
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002). 2001 Massachusetts youth risk behav-
ior survey results [Electronic version]. Malden, MA: Author. Available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/yrbs/01/results.pdf
May, M. (2001, December 23). Conservative caveats threaten schools: They lose mil-
lions if scouts are banned from using space. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A3.
Mays, V. M., Chatters, L. M., Cochran, S. D., & Mackness, J. (1998). African
American families in diversity: Gay men and lesbians as participants in family net-
works. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29(1), 73–87.
McCready, L. (2001). When fitting in isn’t an option, or why black queer males at a
California high school stay away from Project 10. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling
intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Meek, J. (2000, November 17). Brockton students protect transgendered classmate.
Brockton (Mass.) Enterprise. Available at National Transgendered Advocacy Coalition
website: http://www.ntac.org/news/00/11/21doe.html
Meenan, M. (2003a, May 16–23). Lesbian teen dies in hate stabbing. Gay City News.
Available at http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn220/lesbianteendies.html
Meenan, M. (2003b, May 23–29). Tears and then, perhaps, respect. Gay City News.
Available at http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn221/tearsandthen.html
Miner, B. (1998). Internet filtering: Beware the cyber censors. Rethinking Schools
Online, 12(4). Retrieved July 15, 2003, from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_04/12_04.shtml
Moon, M. W., McFarland, W., Kellogg, T., Baxter, M., Katz, M. H., MacKellar, D., et
al. (2000). HIV risk behavior of runaway youth in San Francisco: Age of onset and
relation to sexual orientation. Youth & Society, 32(2), 184–212.
Munoz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S., & Rounds, K. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-
gender students: Perceived social support in the high school environment. High School
Journal, 85(4), 52–63.
Murphy, L., & Anders, C. (2001, May 21). Letter to the senate on First Amendment
issues in Sen. Helms’ “Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act” amendment to ESEA.
Retrieved July 29, 2003, from the American Civil Liberties Union website:
http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=284&c=106
N2H2. (n.d.). Bess
TM
filtering for schools. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from
http://www.n2h2.com/products/bess.php?device=school
Nathan, J. (1999). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American educa-
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association for Multicultural Education. (2003, February 1). Resolutions &
Position Papers. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from http://www.nameorg.org/resolutions/def-
inition.html
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. (2002). With one voice 2002:
America’s adults and teens sound off about teen pregnancy [Electronic version].
Washington: Author. Available at
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/WOV2002_fulltext.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Enrollment trends, public and private
schools. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65
National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2002). Harassment & discrimination: A legal
overview. Retrieved October 16, 2003 from
http://www.nclrights.org/publications/pubs/harass-overview0902.pdf
National Center for Lesbian Rights & Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
(n.d.). Inclusion of enumerated categories in safe school legislation/policies. Retrieved
September 2, 2003, from http://www.nclrights.org/publications/pubs/inclusion.pdf
National Education Association. (n.d.). Charter schools. Retrieved October 19, 2003,
from http://www.nea.org/charter/
National Education Association. (2002). Report of the NEA task force on sexual orien-
tation. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from http://www.nea.org/nr/02taskforce.html
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2001, July 12). With CDC HIV infection rates
on the rise, new NGLTF report examines direct impact of discrimination on Latino gay
men. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.ngltf.org/news/release.cfm?releaseID=404
National Network of Runaway and Youth Services [now the National Network for
Youth]. (1991). To whom do they belong? Runaway, homeless and other youth in high-risk
situations in the 1990s. Washington: Author.
Nesmith, A., Burton, D. L., & Cosgrove, T. J. (1999). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual
youth and young adults: Social support in their own words. Journal of Homosexuality,
37, 106.
The New York Times. (2003, August 3). The Harvey Milk High School. [Editorial].
Newman, B. S., & Muzzonigro, P. G. (1993). The effects of traditional family values
on the coming out process of gay male adolescents. Adolescence, 23(109), 213–227.
Northwest Family Services. FACTS. Available at http://www.facts.cc/curriculum.htm
Osborne, D. (2003, August 15–21). Diaz bashes Milk school. Gay City News, p. 1.
Available at http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn233/diazbashes.html
139 BIBLIOGRAPHY
140 EDUCATION POLICY
Patterson, C. J. (1995b). Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists.
Washington: American Psychological Association. Available at
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
Patterson, C. J. (1995a). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children. In A. R.
D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over the lifespan.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbian and gay men. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 62(4), 1052–1070.
Peacefire. (n.d.). “BESS, the Internet Retriever” examined. Retrieved August 28, 2003
from http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/BESS
Peacefire. (n.d.) CYBERsitter examined. Retrieved October 19, 2003 from
http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter/
Perrin, E. C., & The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family
Health. (2002). Technical report: Co-parent or second-parent adoption by same-sex
parents. Pediatrics, 109(2), 341–344.
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.
Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. California: Chardon Press.
Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23(1), 34–56.
PlanetOut. (2000, October 13). Trans teen’s school dress allowed. Retrieved October
1, 2003, from http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?date=2000/10/13/1
Pohan, C. A., & Bailey, N. J. (1997). Opening the closet: Multiculturalism that is
fully inclusive. Multicultural Education, 5(1), 12–15.
Price, J. H., & Telljohan, S. K. (1991). School counselors’ perceptions of adolescent
homosexuals. Journal of School Health, 61(10), 433–8.
Proctor, C., & Groze, V. K. (1994). Risk factors for suicide among gay, lesbian, and
bisexual youths. Social Work, 39(5) 504–513.
Radkowsky, M. & Siegel, L. J. (1997). The gay adolescent: Stressors, adaptations, and
psychosocial interventions. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(2), 191–216.
Radow, J. (2003, October 28). Researcher “hit list” undermines NIH peer-review
process, charges Rep. Waxman. Washington Fax..
Reis, B., & Saewyc E. (1999) Eighty-three thousand youth: Selected findings of eight popu-
lation-based studies as they pertain to antigay harassment and the safety and well-being of
sexual minority students. Seattle: The Safe Schools Coalition of Washington.
Remafedi, G. (1987). Male homosexuality: The adolescent perspective. Pediatrics, 79,
326–330.
Remafedi, G. (1994). Predictors of unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual
youth: Knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. Pediatrics, 94, 163.
Remafedi, G., Resnick, M., Blum, R., & Harris, L. (1992). Demography of sexual ori-
entation in adolescents. Pediatrics, 89(4), 714–721.
Resnick, M. D. (2000). Protective factors, resiliency, and healthy youth development.
Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 11(1), 157–164.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, P. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J.,
et al. (1997). Protection of adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longi-
tudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association,
278(10), 823–832.
Rofes, E. (1999). What happens when kids grow up? The long-term impact of an
openly gay teacher on eight students’ lives. In Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (Eds.),
Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rofes, E. (2000). Young adult reflections on having an openly gay teacher during
early adolescence. Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 399.
Rosario, M., Hunter, J., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1992). [Lesbian adolescents].
Unpublished data, HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, New York State
Psychiatric Institute.
Rosario, M., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. M. (1996). Gay-related stress and its
correlates among gay and bisexual male adolescents of predominantly black and
Hispanic background. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 136–159.
Rowell, R. (1996). HIV prevention for gay/bisexual/two-spirit Native American men.
Oakland, CA: National Native American AIDS Prevention Center.
Rubin, S. A. (1995). Children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents: How are today’s
schools meeting this “invisible” group’s needs? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386290).
Russell, S. T. (2001). LGBTQ youth are at risk in U.S. school environment. SIECUS
Report, 29(4), 19–22.
Russell, S. T., Franz, B. T., & Driscoll, A. K. (2001). Same-sex romantic attraction
and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6),
903–906.
Russell, S. T. & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk:
Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1276–1281.
Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority
youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
111–127.
Russell, S. T, & Truong, N. L. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation, race and eth-
nicity, and school environments: A national study of sexual minority youth of color.
In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of
color and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Russell, S. T., Truong, N. L., & Driscoll, A. K. (2002). Adolescent same-sex romantic
attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American
Journal of Public Health, 92, 198–202.
141 BIBLIOGRAPHY
142 EDUCATION POLICY
Ryan, C. (2000). Analysis of the content and gaps in the scientific and professional litera-
ture on the health and mental health concerns of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth.
Unpublished manuscript, American Psychological Association’s Healthy Lesbian,
Gay and Bisexual Students Project.
Ryan, C. (2002). A review of the professional literature & research needs of LGBT youth
of color. Washington: National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (2001). Social and developmental challenges for lesbian,
gay and bisexual youth. SIECUS Report, 29(4) 4–18.
Ryan, D., & Martin, A. (2000). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents in the
school system. School Psychology Review, 29(2) 207–216.
Safe Schools Coalition. (n.d.). Quick facts on sexual minority youth. Retrieved July 21,
2003, from http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org
The Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State (1999, January). They don’t even
know me: Understanding antigay harassment and violence in schools [Electronic version].
Seattle: Author. Available at http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/theydonteven-
knowme.pdf
Satcher, D. (2001). The surgeon general’s call to action to promote sexual health and
responsible behavior [Electronic version]. Washington: Office of the United States
Surgeon General. Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1998). The disclosure to families of same-sex attractions by
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 49–68.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths.
Journal of Adolescence, 24, 5–13.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Lenhart, R. E. (1990). AIDS prevention among lesbian and
gay youth: Psychosocial stress and health care intervention guidelines. In D. G.
Ostrow (Ed.), Behavioral aspects of AIDS. New York: Plenum.
Scanlan-Stefanakos, V. (2001, April 10). Youth trans-action. The Advocate. Available
at http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/835/835_cvr_transaction.asp
Schneider, M. E. & Owens, R. E. (2000). Concern for lesbian, gay and bisexual kids:
The benefits for all children. Education & Urban Society, 32(3), 349–68.
Sears, J. T. (1994). Challenges for educators: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual families. The
High School Journal, 77, 138–54.
Sell, R. L. (1997). The Sell assessment of sexual orientation: background and scoring.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(6), 643–658.
Sell, R. L., & Becker, J. B. (2001). [Data on sexual orientation for inclusion in
Department of Health and Human Services databases]. Unpublished data.
Shahum, L. (1996, July/August). MoJo’s July Hellraiser, Mother Jones. Retrieved
September 29, 2003, from
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JA96/shahum.html
Sheldon, L. P. (2001). Homosexuals recruit public school children. Traditional Values
Coalition Special Report, 18(11). Available at http://www.traditionalvalues.org/mod-
ules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=7&min=10&orderby=titleA
&show=10
Silver, J. (n.d.). Movie day at the Supreme Court or “I know it when I see it”: A history of
the definition of obscenity. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from the FindLaw web site:
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00982/008860/title/subject/topic/
constitutional%20law_first%20amendment%20-%20freedom%20of%20speech/
filename/constitutionallaw_1_86#edn1
Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003, February). Married-couple and unmarried-partner
households: 2000. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
Simpson, M. D. (2002, May 30). Review of selected provisions of the elementary & sec-
ondary act (ESEA). National Education Association. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Organization of Lawyers for Educational Associations,
Anchorage, AK.
Sonfield, A., & Gold, R. B. (2001, July/August). States’ implementation of the sec-
tion 510 abstinence education program, FY 1999. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(4),
166–172. Available at http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3316601.html
Speak Truth.com. (n.d.). Alana Flores. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from
http://www.speak-truth.com/bio/flores_alana.html
Spear, J. (1999). How filtering software impacts our schools. In Gay & Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation. Access Denied Version 2.0: The continuing threat against
Internet access and privacy and its impact on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community. Los Angeles: Author. Available at
http://www.glaad.org/documents/media/AccessDenied2.pdf
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of the parent mat-
ter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 164.
Stein, N. (1999). Classrooms & courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in K–12 schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Stevenson, M. R. (2000). Public policy, homosexuality and the sexual coercion of
children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(4), 8.
Strunsky, S. (August 9, 2003). A young lesbian’s stabbing death is far from resolved.
Associated Press. Available at Bucks County Courrier Times website:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-08092003-139007.html
Szalacha, L. (2001). The sexual diversity climate of Massachusetts’ secondary schools and
the success of the Safe Schools Program for gay and lesbian students. Unpublished doctor-
al dissertation, Harvard University.
Szalacha, L. (2001, Fall). Safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. Girls
Coalition of Greater Boston Newsletter [Electronic version]. Available at www.girlscoali-
tion.com/researcherfall01.html
143 BIBLIOGRAPHY
144 EDUCATION POLICY
Taylor, O. L. (1990). Cross-cultural communication: An essential dimension of effective
education (Rev. ed.) Washington: The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center. Available at
http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/ccc/
Teicher, S. A. (2003, July 1). The case for single-sex schools. The Christian Science
Monitor. Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0701/p15s01-lepr.htm
Telljohann, S. K., & Price, J. H. (1993). A qualitative examination of adolescent
homosexuals’ life experiences: Ramifications for secondary school personnel. Journal
of Homosexuality, 22, 9–28.
Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H. S. (Eds.). (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet.
Washington: National Academic Press.
Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the “outsider within”: Homophobic pejoratives and the
verbal abuse of lesbian, gay and bisexual high school pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
25–38.
Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 9, 105.
U.S. Charter Schools. (n.d.). Overview of charter schools. Retrieved September 3,
2003, from http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/gi/overview.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Fact sheet: No Child Left Behind Act.
Retrieved July 11, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/factsheet.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference
(Section IV-A: Safe and drug-free schools and communities). Retrieved September 2,
2003, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference/4a.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Retrieved July 16, 2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/NCLBexecsumm.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2001, January). Revised sexual
harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students, or third
parties [Electronic version]. Washington: Author. Available at
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/pdf/shguide.pdf
Uribe, V. (1994). Project 10: A school-based outreach to gay and lesbian youth. The
High School Journal, 77, 108–112.
Uribe, V., & Harbeck, K. (1992). Addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
youth: The origins of Project 10 and school-based intervention. In K. Harbeck (Ed.),
Coming out of the classroom closet. New York: Haworth Press.
Varney, J. A. (2001). Undressing the normal: Community efforts for queer Asian and
Asian American youth. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling intersections of race and
sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Vermont Department of Health Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs. (2002)
2001 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey [Electronic version]. Burlington, VT:
Author. Available at http://www.state.vt.us/health/adap/pubs/2001/yrbs2001.pdf
The Wall Street Journal. (2003, August 21). Choice, if you’re gay. [Editorial].
Walling, D. R. (1993). Gay teens at risk. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Walsh, J. (1996, February). Profiles in Courage: Jamie Nabozny, 20, of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Oasis. Retrieved October 6, 2003, from Youth.org website:
http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/States/Minnesota/jamie.html
Walsh, M. (1994, October 19). Harassment suit rejected. Education Week, p. 10.
The White House. (2002, January 8). President signs landmark education bill. Retrieved
October 18, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-
1.html
Winerip, M. (2003, February 5). Promoting tolerance, not paying heed. The New York
Times, p. B9.
Winerip, M. (2003, August 27). A safe haven finds itself under siege. The New York
Times, p. B1.
Woog, D. (1995). School’s out: The impact of gay and lesbian issues on America’s schools.
Boston: Alyson.
WORKS ALSO CITED
Callahan, C. J. (2001). Protecting and counseling gay and lesbian students. Journal of
Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 40(1), 5–10.
Carter, K. (1997, March 7). Gay slurs abound. Des Moines Register, p. B1.
D’Augelli, A. R. & Patterson, C. J. (Eds.). (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities
and youth. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Veaux, A. (2004). (in press). Warrior poet: A biography of Audre Lorde. New York:
W. W. Norton.
D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual
minority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
D’Emilio, J. (2003). Lost prophet: The life and times of Bayard Rustin. New York: Free
Press.
The Emma Goldman papers. Available at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman
Fisher, C.B. (1993). Integrating science and ethics in research with high-risk children
and youth. Social policy report: Society for Research in Child Development, 7(4), 1–27.
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (1999). Access Denied Version 2.0: The
continuing threat against Internet access and privacy and its impact on the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender community. Los Angeles: Author. Available at
http://www.glaad.org/documents/media/AccessDenied2.pdf
Greene, B. (Ed.). (1997). Ethnic and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay men.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
145 BIBLIOGRAPHY
146 EDUCATION POLICY
Greene, B., & Croom, G. L. (Eds.). (1999). Education research and practice in lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harbeck, K. (Ed.). (1992). Coming out of the classroom closet. New York: Haworth Press.
Herek, G. M. (Ed.). (1998). Stigma and Sexual Orientation. California: Sage.
Hoagwood, K., Jensen, P. S., & Fisher, C. B. (Eds.). Ethical issues in mental health
research with children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hobhouse, J. (1975) Everybody who was anybody. New York: Putnam.
Hutchins, L. & Kaahumanu, L. (1991). Bi any other name: Bisexual people speak out.
Los Angeles: Alyson.
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education. (n.d.). Beyond risk: Resilience in the
lives of sexual minority youth.[Call for papers and forthcoming thematic special fea-
ture]. See http://www.jtsears.com/JGLIEthemes4.htm for more information.
Kumashiro, K. K. (Ed.). (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer stu-
dents of color and anti-oppressive education. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. (1998, June 22). Complaint by gay student
triggers historic civil rights agreement. Retrieved October 22, 2003, from
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=252
Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (Eds.). (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the
dialogue about sexualities and schooling. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lorde, A. (1982). Zami: A new spelling of my name. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
Marcus, E. (1992). Making history: The struggle for gay and lesbian equal rights
1945–1990. New York: Harper Collins.
Meezan, W., & Martin, J. I. (Eds.). Research methods with gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender populations. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Ostrow, D. G. (Ed). (1990). Behavioral aspects of AIDS. New York: Plenum
Putnam, F. W., Liss, M. B., & Landsverk, J. (1996). Ethical issues in maltreatment
research. In K. Hoagwood, P. S. Jensen, & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), Ethical issues in mental
health research with children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rich, A. (1986). “Invisible in academe,” in Blood, bread and poetry: Selected prose
1979–1985. New York: W. W. Norton.
Rosario, M., Hunter, J. & Gwadz, M. (1997). Exploration of substance use among les-
bian, gay, and bisexual youths: prevalence and correlates. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 12, 454–476.
Rothblum, E. & Bonds, L. (Eds.). Prevention of heterosexism and homophobia. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Schmidgall, G. (1997). Walt Whitman: A gay life. New York: Plume.
Souhami, D. (2000). Gertrude and Alice. London: Phoenix Press.
Wolff, C. (1987). Magnus Hirschfeld: A portrait of a pioneer in sexology. London:
Quartet Books
147
American Federation of Teachers
http://www.aft.org
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 879-4400
[email protected]
American Civil Liberties Union
Lesbian and Gay Rights Project
http://www.aclu.org
125 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2627
[email protected]
American Psychological Association
Healthy Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Students Project
http://www.apa.org/ed/hlgb/
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(800) 374-2721, (202) 336-5510
[email protected]
Audre Lorde Project
http://www.alp.org
85 South Oxford Street, 3rd floor
Brooklyn, NY 11217
(718) 596-0342
[email protected]
BiNet
http://www.binetusa.org
4201 Wilson Boulevard #110, Box 311
Arlington, VA 22203
(800) 585-9368
[email protected]
Bisexual Resource Center
http://www.biresource.org
P.O. Box 1026
Boston, MA 02117
(617) 424-9595
[email protected]
Center for Anti-Oppressive Education
http://www.antioppressiveeducation.org/
index.html
P.O. Box 627
El Cerrito, CA 94539
[email protected]
Children of Lesbians and Gays
Everywhere
http://www.colage.org
3543 18th Street, Suite 1
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 861-5437
[email protected]
Resources
Family Pride Coalition
http://www.familypride.org
P.O. Box 65327
Washington, DC 20035
(202) 331-5015
[email protected]
Federation of Statewide Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Advocacy Organizations
http://www.federationlgbt.org
1222 South Dale Mabry #652
Tampa, FL 33629
(813) 870-3735
[email protected]
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network
http://www.glsen.org
121 West 27th Street, Suite 804
New York, NY 10001
(212)727-0135
[email protected]
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
http://www.gsanetwork.org/
160 14th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 552-4229
[email protected]
Gender PAC
http://www.gpac.org
1743 Connecticut Avenue NW, 4th floor
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 462-6610
[email protected]
Hetrick-Martin Institute
Home of the Harvey Milk School
http://www.hmi.org
2 Astor Place
New York, NY 10003
(212) 647-2400
[email protected]
Human Rights Campaign
http://www.hrc.org
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 628-4160
[email protected]
Intersex Society of North America
http://www.isna.org
4500 9th Avenue NE, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98105
(206) 633-6077
Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
http://www.rsvp.net/KJMfoundation1.htm
46 East 4th Street, Suite 830
St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 222-2331
Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund
http://www.lambdalegal.org
120 Wall Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10005
(212) 809-8585
[email protected]
LLEGO-National Latina/o Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Organization
http://www.llego.org
1420 K Street, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
(888) 633-8320
[email protected]
Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
Youth Services Department
http://www.laglc.org
McDonald/Wright Building
1625 North Schrader Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90028
(323) 993-7450
[email protected]
148 EDUCATION POLICY
149
National Center for Lesbian Rights
http://www.nclrights.org
870 Market Street, Suite 570
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 329-6257
[email protected]
National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs
http://www.ncavp.org
240 West 35th Street, Suite 200
New York, NY 10001
(212) 714-1184
National Education Association
http://www.nea.org
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-4000
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
http://www.ngltf.org
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 393-5177
[email protected]
National Parent Teacher Association
http://www.pta.org
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 670-6782
National Transgender Advocacy
Coalition
http://www.ntac.org
P.O. Box 76027
Washington, DC 20013
[email protected]
National Youth Advocacy Coalition
http://www.nyacyouth.org
1638 R Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20009
(800) 541-6922
[email protected]
National School Boards Association
http://www.nsba.org/site/index.asp
1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 838-6722
[email protected]
Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays
http://www.pflag.org
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 467-8180
[email protected]
Sexuality Information and Education
Center of the United States
http://www.siecus.org
130 West 42nd Street, Suite 350
New York, NY 10036
(212) 819-9770
[email protected]
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual &
Transgender Community Center
Youth Enrichment Services
http://www.gaycenter.org/program_folders/
yes/program_view
208 West 13th Street
New York, NY 10011
(212) 620-7310
[email protected]
150 EDUCATION POLICY
CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS
AUTHORS
Jason Cianciotto, M.P.A., Policy Analyst, NGLTF Policy Institute
Sean Cahill, Ph.D., Director, NGLTF Policy Institute
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
Sarah Holmes
Michelle Agostini, Andrew Miller, Bernard Schlotfeldt, Samuel Slater, Dawn Walsh
AUTHOR, YOUTH PROFILES
Dawn Walsh
COPY EDITOR
Andrew Miller
EDITORS
Sean Cahill, Chris Chen, Jason Cianciotto, Roddrick Colvin,
Matt Foreman, Lisa Mottet, Samuel Slater
GRAPHIC DESIGNER
Samuel Buggeln
REVIEWERS
Reviewers include attendees of an October 2002 research meeting and others who were
asked to review all or parts of this report. We list reviewers here to acknowledge them
and to thank them for their assistance. Institutional affiliations are for identification
Acknowledgements
151
purposes only. The content of this report reflects the views of the authors and the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and not necessarily the views of these reviewers
or the institutions with which they are affiliated.
Craig Bowman, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Steve Brandwein, Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Eliza Byard, Ph.D., Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
Larry Bye, Ph.D., Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Connie Cordovilla, Ph.D., American Federation of Teachers
Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Center
Susan Fineran, Ph.D., University of Southern Maine
Carole Goodenow, Massachusetts Department of Education
Brenda Greene, National School Boards Association
Pat Griffin, Ed.D., University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Cathie Hartnett, Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Courtney Joslin, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Steve Kaufman, Office of New York State Assemblyman Steven Sanders
Kevin Kumashiro, Ph.D., Center for Anti-Oppressive Education
Carolyn Laub, Gay-Straight Alliance Network
Arthur Lipkin, Ph.D., Cambridge, MA
Martha Matthews, American Civil Liberties Union
Lance McCready, Ph.D., Carleton College
Bic Ngo, University of Wisconsin at Madison
Donald Ofstedal, Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Pauline Park, Ph.D., New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy
Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., University of Virginia
Clarence Patton, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
Dusty Porter, Ph.D., American Psychological Association
Beth Reis, M.S., Public Health—Seattle & King County/Safe Schools Coalition
Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., University of Minnesota Youth & AIDS Projects
Paula Ressler, Ph.D., Illinois State University
Eric Rofes, Ph.D., Humboldt State University
Charlie Rounds, Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Kathleen Russell, Eastern Michigan University
Caitlin Ryan, M.S.W., ACSW, Institute on Sexuality, Inequality & Health,
San Francisco State University
152 EDUCATION POLICY
Ritch Savin-Williams, Ph.D., Cornell University
Ron Schlittler, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
James T. Sears, Ph.D., University of South Carolina
Dean Spade, Sylvia Rivera Law Project, Urban Justice Center
Laura Szalacha, Ph.D., Brown University
Dinh Tu Tran, New York, NY
Joan Varney, University of Minnesota at Duluth
Kim Westheimer, Boston, MA
Beth Zemsky, M.A.Ed., LICSW, University of Minnesota
OCTOBER 2002 RESEARCH MEETING ORGANIZERS
Mitra Ellen, Sarah Holmes, Kenneth Jones, Emily Marker
SPECIAL THANKS
Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
153
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NATIONAL GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Alan Acosta
San Francisco, CA
Marsha C. Botzer (Treasurer)
Seattle, WA
Maureen Burnley
New York, NY
Glenn W. Carlson
Cambridge, WI
Candy S. Cox
Washington, DC
Susan Culligan
Provincetown, MA
Danny R. Gibson
Los Angeles, CA
Craig Hoffman
Washington, DC
Ernest C. Hopkins
San Francisco, CA
EXECUTIVE TEAM
Matt Foreman
Executive Director
Rea Carey
Senior Strategist
Sean Cahill
Director of Policy Institute
Dave Fleischer
Director of Organizing and Training
Sandi Greene
Director of Finance and Administration
Sheri Lunn
Director of Communications
Charles Robbins, CFRE
Director of Development
Roberta Sklar
Communications Consultant
Juan M. Jover, Ph.D.
Miami Beach, FL
Yoseñio V. Lewis
San Francisco, CA
Mary F. Morten
Chicago, IL
Loren S. Ostrow (Co-Chair)
Los Angeles, CA
Ken Ranftle
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Mark M. Sexton
New York, NY
Kevin Wayne Williams, M.D., J.D. (Secretary)
New York, NY
Beth Zemsky (Co-Chair)
Minneapolis, MN
154 EDUCATION POLICY
$1 million +
Arcus Foundation (over 3 years)
Anonymous
$300,000 to $999,999
Ford Foundation
$100,000 to $299,999
Gill Foundation
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
$50,000 to $99,999
Open Society Institute
Wells Fargo Foundation
Kevin J. Mossier Foundation
Unitarian Universalist Veatch
Program at Shelter Rock
$25,000 to $49,999
Lesbian Equity Foundation of
Silicon Valley
Anderson Prize Foundation
Management Assistance Group
$10,000 to $24,999
Albert A. List Foundation
Paul Rapoport Foundation
David Bohnett Foundation
Johnson Family Foundation
$2,500 to $9,999
B. W. Bastian Foundation
David Geffen Foundation
Kicking Assets Fund of the Tides
Foundation
Richard Nathan Anti-
Homophobia Trusts
Underdog Fund of the Tides
Foundation
Gay Block and Malka Drucker
Philanthropic Fund
FOUNDATIONS
The following have generously provided general operating and program-related funding:
CORPORATIONS
We extend our thanks to the following companies for their generous support:
Premier Sponsors - $50,000 + Official Sponsors - $25,000 +
The Advocate Radisson Barceló Hotel, Washington PlanetOut Partners
Affinia Wyndham Bel Age Hotel, West Hollywood Wells Fargo
American Airlines
COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
Special thanks to the many individuals who enabled the Task Force to receive
contributions through the Combined Federal Campaign. (CFC#2262).
NGLTF Funders
155
Emily Rosenberg &
Darlene Demanicor
Eric Shore & Fred Paul
Jim Stepp & Peter Zimmer
Andrew Tobias & Charles Nolan
Urvashi Vaid & Kate Clinton
Ignacio Valdes & Damon Wolf
David M. Waterbury &
Ruth Waterbury
Advocate’s Circle ($2,500-$4,999)
Reuben J. K. Chong
Candy S. Cox & Debra L. Peevey
Jere Ford
Gary H. Hickox &
Alan D. Lambert
Craig Hoffman & Albert Lauber
Ernest C. Hopkins
Dr. Juan Jover &
Dr. Ken Ahonen
Jeremiah F. Kelly, M.D. &
Paul G. Oostenburg
Jeffrey C. Lamkin
Jason Lowen
John M. Messer &
Stephen G. Peck
David Mizener & Arturo Carrillo
Ken Ranftle & Craig Leiby
Marianne G. C. Seggerman
Elliott R. Sernel &
Aaron L. Hobbs
Curtis F. Shepard &
Alan Hergott
John A. Silberman
Loren Dunlap Smith
Jeffrey B. Soref
Charles Spiegel &
James M. Emery
Martha J. Trolin
James D. Wagner
Leonie A. Walker &
Katherine A. O’Hanlan
Kevin Wayne Williams, M.D., J.D.
Reid Williams
Dr. Myron Wojtowycz
Beth Zemsky &
Jennifer F. Martin
President’s Circle ($50,000 and up)
Anonymous
Rosie & Kelli O’Donnell
Ric Weiland
Executive’s Circle ($25,000-49,999)
Tom Bombardier & John Fowler
Daniel Renberg & Eugene
Kapaloski
Ambassador’s Circle
($10,000–$24,999)
Larry Courtney
Amy Mandel & Katina Rodis
Michael H. Morris &
Richard Blinkal
Stanley Newman &
Brian Rosenthal
Loren Ostrow & Brian Newkirk
Nancy D. Polikoff
Shad Reinstein & Jody Laine
Rachel R. Rosen &
Barbara Zusman
Henry van Ameringen
Director’s Circle ($5,000-$9,999)
Susan E. Anderson
Margaret A. Burd &
Rebecca A. Brinkman
Jerry N. Clark
Donna Deitch & Terri Jentz
Robert P. Denny
Matt Foreman &
Francisco de León
Allan D. Gilmour & Eric Jirgens
Robert T. Hanley
Fred P. Hochberg &
Thomas P. Healey
Lorri L. Jean & Gina M. Calvelli
Michael K. Keeley
Mickey MacIntyre &
Scollay Petry
John S. McDonald &
Rob Wright
Katharine Pillsbury &
Cindy Marshall
William J. Resnick &
Douglas Cordell
Sheryl A. Robertson &
Lori D. Anderson
Delegate’s Circle ($1,200-$2,499)
Bruce M. Abrams
Alan Acosta & Thomas Gratz
Meryl Allison & Elisa Burns
Jane Anderson & Tess Ayers
Anonymous
Eric Bacolas & Michael Bonomo
Patricia M. Bartlett
Bruce W. Bastian
Alvin H. Baum Jr.
Edwin Bayrd
David Beatty
David P. Becker
Don Beeman
Dana Beyer & Catherine Beyer
Beth Beymer & Sandra S. North
David Bjork & Jeff Benetson
Marsha C. Botzer & Kim Harms
Kevin Brown
Sean Cahill
Warren L. Campbell &
Michael L. McClung
Rea Carey & Margaret Conway
Jose F. Castro
Art Cayley & Alex Lane
Gregg Church & Jesus Lopez
Chadwick Cipiti
David A. Clark
Brett Cobb
Bruce L. Cohen
John Cowles Jr. &
Sage Fuller Cowles
Joseph Culligan & Paul Menard
Susan Culligan
Darrel Cummings & Tim Dang
Donald E. Davis
Richard J. Day
John Dorry
Robert M. Eichler
Brian Esser
Joseph Falk
Gavin Feinberg &
Mickey Maxwell
Art Flores
Dwight Foley
Liebe Gadinsky & Seth Gadinsky
Dylan Cameron Gailey
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
We extend a heartfelt thanks to our Leadership Council members for their continued and gen-
erous support of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
156 EDUCATION POLICY
A significant source of funding for the Task Force comes from its major donor program, the Leadership
Council. Leadership Council members make an annual pledge of $1,200 or more in non-event-related
contributions. The donors listed above made pledges from October 16, 2002–October 15, 2003. If we
have inadvertently omitted or incorrectly listed your name, please contact Steve Ramirez, director of
donor relations, at (323) 857-8747, or at [email protected].
Timothy I. McFeeley &
Robert Mondzak
Mary Beth McInerney &
Susan Barclay
Rodney Mckenzie, Jr.
Bill Melamed
Judy Mencher & Marty Epp
Friedrike Merck
Ed Meyer
Robert F. Miailovich
Monty Miller
Weston F. Milliken
Robert Minton & M. Neil Spidell
Scott Mitchell & Ed Neppl
Mary Morten
Dennis Nix
Daniel Nuemann
Milo Pinkerton & Virgil Taus
Michael J. Piore & Rodney Yoder
Paula Prettyman &
Kelly Schlageter
Kirk Psenner
Esteban Ramirez &
M. Scott Martin
Charles W. Robbins &
Damon Romine
Christine Robert &
Clarissa Filgouin
Ralph Robinson & Myron Tucker
Gene Rogolsky & Joe Boutell
John Roncalio
Howard Rosner &
Thom Capozzela
Lee Rubin & Jim Walker
Rand Rusher & Curt Meeuwsen
Wayne M. Ryerson &
George F. Finch
Kevin Schoeler &
Philip van der Voet
Mark Sexton & Kirk Wallace
Bill Shaw & Dennis Lynch
Neal E. Sheldon
Andrew I. Shore
Mark D. Smith &
John T. O’Keefe
Ronna Stamm & Paul Lehman
Richard J. Stanley
Steven Steiner
Danny R. Gibson &
William E. Weinberger
Ian Gibson-Smith
Stephen Glassman
Emily Gochis
Sandi Greene
Dana S. Greenwald, D.D.S. &
Suzanne Goldstein
Will Halm & Marcellin Simard
Dean Hansell & Jason Murakawa
Thomas W. Harshman
Mel Heifetz
Joan Heller & Diane Bernard
Marjorie J. Hill, Ph.D. &
Stacey Bridgeman
Leonard Hirsch &
Kristian Fauchald
Mary Ann Horton
Douglas Houghton
Daniel R. Hovenstine
Harold L. Ivey
Steve Jensen
Frederick Johnson
Kent Johnson
J. Kevin Jones
Michael B. Keegan
Mara Keisling
Bobby Kelley
J. Christopher Kennedy
Sandy Kennedy & Linda Lack
Mark T. King &
Jonathan D. Lubin
Patti A. Klinge &
Connie McArthur
Cindi Knudtson-Koulax &
Danielle Knudtson-Koulax
Daniel W. Lass & Peter Kruzan
Yosenio Lewis
Jeff Lins
L. Gay Linvill & Kathy Ketchum
David Litty
Kerry Lobel
Dilia Loe
Donna Marburger
David Mariner
Ilane L. Mathews &
Neena Giallombardo
Kate Mayne & Dianne Hamilton
M. E. Stephens & Julie Greiner
Marla & Phyllis Stevens
Frank Stiriti
Frank A. Suchomel, Jr.
Richard Swenson
Stephen Thayer
Charles E. Wagner
Vallerie D. Wagner
Tom Wagstaff &
Enrique Hernandez
Marc Ware & Robert F. Nunes
Margery Waterbury &
Mary Newstrom
Keith Weaver
John D. Weeden & David Davies
Timothy C. Weeder
Clay Williams & David Groff
Trip Wilmot
Henry Woodside
Richard Wulfsberg
Harvey Zuckman &
Philip Oxman
Legacy Circle—Estate Giving Program
The following bequests have been
received since January 1, 2001
$1 million+
Estate of Clarence E. Anderson
$25,000 to $999,999
Estate of Craig Lindhurst
$5,000 to $24,999
Estate of Stephen Clover
Estate of Harry Seigel
Estate of Jarloslav Zivney
Estate Planning
The following individuals have
named the Task Force in their
estate plans:
David Abramson
Dixie Binning
Luke Farrell
Stephen Glassman, AIA
Charles Robbins, CFRE
Policy Institute
bestsellers
A handbook providing activists and
policymakers with the tools they need
to pass transgender-inclusive nondis-
crimination and anti-violence legisla-
tion. Written by Paisley Currah and
Shannon Minter, with an introduction
by Jamison Green. This handbook is an
invaluable resource guide providing
model legislative language, talking
points, responses to frequently asked
questions, and a comprehensive
resource listing. (June 2000; 96 pp.;
$10.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
USER’S A
Households
ex S - e m Sa
us s Cen 0 0 0 2
and
The
GUIDE
This report, by Susan R. Rankin, details
the experiences of GLBT people at 14
colleges and universities across the
country. Based on a survey of nearly
1700 students, faculty, and staff, Campus
Climate documents anti-GLBT bias and
harassment, along with levels of institu-
tional support for GLBT people. It high-
lights differences in experiences between
various identity groups and concludes
with recommendations for creating an
inclusive and supportive environment
for GLBT people. (May 2003; 70 pp.;
$10.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
This report details the positions of the
2004 Democratic contenders on GLBT
issues. It evaluates the candidates’ posi-
tions on sexual orientation and gender
identity nondiscrimination laws, AIDS
prevention and treatment, the military
ban, domestic partnership, civil unions
and marriage, adoption, education poli-
cy and Social Security survivor benefits.
This is the most pro-GLBT field of can-
didates to seek the Democratic nomina-
tion for President. (May 2003; 56 pp.;
$10.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
This largest-ever study of Black GLBT
people is the result of a two-year col-
laboration between nine Black GLBT
Pride organizations, the NGLTF Policy
Institute, and five African-American
researchers: Juan Battle, Cathy J.
Cohen, Dorian Warren, Gerard
Fergerson, and Suzette Audam. The
survey of nearly 2,700 respondents doc-
uments significant and often surprising
demographics, experiences, and policy
priorities of Black GLBT people.
(March 2002; 86 pp.; $10.00;
www.ngltf.org/library/)
By Judith Bradford, Kirsten Barrett and
Julie A. Honnold. In 2000, the U.S.
Census allowed same-sex couples living
together to identify themselves as
“unmarried partners.” This national
data set offers a rich trove of informa-
tion on members of our community,
easily accessible on-line. Maps show
concentrations of same-sex households
in all 50 states and a dozen major
cities. (October 2002; 162 pp.; $20.00;
www.ngltf.org/library/)
By Sean Cahill, Mitra Ellen and Sarah
Tobias. Groundbreaking in its breadth
and depth, this report examines family
policy as it relates to GLBT people and
their loved ones. It provides information
useful to those advancing supportive leg-
islation and policy, particularly at the
state and local levels. Covers partner
recognition; antigay adoption and foster
policies; youth and elder issues; health
care and end-of-life concerns; and the
impact of welfare reform and the faith-
based initiative. (December 2002; 216
pp.; $20.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
OTHER NGLTF PUBLICATIONS
Leaving Our Children Behind
WELFARE REFORM AND THE GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY
This report, by Sean Cahill and Kenneth T. Jones, describes the reactionary agenda of senior policymakers in the Bush administration to change social service provi-
sion in the United States. Examines welfare reform and the impact of marriage and fatherhood initiatives, abstinence-only-until-marriage education, and the faith-
based initiative on the GLBT community. (December 2001; 112 pp.; $10.00 www.ngltf.org/library/)
Social Discrimination and Health
THE CASE OF LATINO GAY MEN AND HIV RISK
This report, by renowned AIDS researchers Rafael Diaz and George Ayala, documents the correlations among homophobia, racism, poverty, and HIV risk, and has
significant implications for prevention strategies. Although Latinos were the subject of this case study, the findings are relevant to other communities of color and
marginalized groups. Available in English and Spanish. (July 2001; SOLD OUT; download at www.ngltf.org/library/)
Outing Age
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER ELDERS
This groundbreaking report reviews social science literature and explains what we do and do not know about the demographics of GLBT elders. Outing Age outlines
major public policy issues facing GLBT seniors—including federal aging programs, disability, long-term care and caregiving, nursing homes, and Social Security—and
presents recommendations for advocacy to move public policy toward equal treatment of this population. (Nov. 2000; SOLD OUT; download at www.ngltf.org/library/)
The 2000 National Election Study and Gay and Lesbian Rights
SUPPORT FOR EQUALITY GROWS
For the first time in 2000, a solid majority of Republican voters expressed support for sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws. Columbia University Political Scientist
Alan Yang documents increased support for gay adoption and strong majority support for military service. (June 2001; 10 pp.; www.ngltf.org/library/)
Out and Voting II
THE GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL VOTE IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, 1990-1998
An in-depth profile of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual voting bloc and the first-ever analysis of the impact of this emerging constituency in national congressional
elections. By Dr. Robert Bailey of the Rutgers University School of Public Policy and Administration. Among the report’s findings: out GLB voters comprise roughly
5% of the national electorate, and 8.8% of voters in cities of 500,000 or more. (January 2000; 54 pp.; $10.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
This manual, by Policy Institute Research Fellow Sally Kohn, provides comprehensive information on what domestic partnership benefits are, why employers should
adopt these benefits, and how employees and citizens organize effectively for policy change. Sample policies and lists of who offers domestic partnership benefits are
included. (May 1999; 140 pp.; $10.00; www.ngltf.org/library/)
FOR A MORE COMPLETE AND UPDATED LIST OF PUBLICATIONS, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.NGLTF.ORG
We should mail publications to:
Name __________________________________________
Address ________________________________________ City/State/Zip____________________________________
Phone __________________________________________ E-mail __________________________________________
To order NGLTF publications by check or money order, make checks payable to NGLTF and return with this order form to:
NGLTF/Publications • 1325 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20005
To charge your order to Visa Mastercard Amex Discover (circle one) we require a minimum order of $15.
Signature ________________________________________ Name____________________________________________
Card#____________________________________________ Expiration Date __________________________________
If ordering by credit card, you may fax this form to NGLTF at 202.393.2241, order by phone at 202.393.5177, or email [email protected].
PRICES ARE CURRENT AS OF MAY 2003. PUBLICATIONS WILL BE SENT OUT UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT. PLEASE ALLOW 3-5 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY.
PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM
QUANTITY TOTAL PAGES UNIT COST TOTAL COST PUBLICATION NAME
POSTAGE & HANDLING
$2 FOR ORDERS TOTALLING UNDER 20PP; $3 FOR ORDERS 20-100PP;
$4 FOR ORDERS 100-200PP; $6 FOR ORDERS OVER 200PP
TOTAL ORDER $

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close