Bisexuals and Queer Youth in Canadian Classrooms
One of my guilty pleasures back in the day was the TV show, Glee. This TV show followed a group of students navigating the difficulties of high school with the support of a Glee club, kind of like a choir but nerdier. There were a few different depictions of queer youth in this TV show. In the earlier seasons I recall two prominent examples. The first was Kurt Hummel, a fashion-loving, musical-singing, stereotypical gay boy who was bullied by the popular kids. He was shoved against lockers and called names. He was one of the first members of the Glee club because he had nothing to lose: he was already unabashedly who he was. The other example was Santana Lopez who was a popular cheerleader and took much longer to come out. In contrast to Kurt Hummel she was the instigator of much of the bullying in the show. Among other queer characters, Brittany Pierce is another popular cheerleader and a bisexual girl. Brittany is casual and comfortable with her bisexuality and is romantically involved with Santana who struggles to accept her own lesbianism, despite her popularity and social dominance. These are common characterizations of young, queer TV characters. But do these characterizations represent the experience of queer youth in schools?
I was intrigued when I came across a 2011 report written by Canadian researchers about the experience of queer youth in Canadian schools. When reading the report, Every Class in Every School: Final Report on the First National Climate Survey on Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Canadian Schools I was originally intending to write a post on the sections that specifically addressed bisexual youth experience in Canadian schools. However, after reading the report I felt it would not be doing it justice to only address the sections discussing bisexuality. I wanted to bring to light some of the really interesting findings in their research and provide a wider context for any bisexual-specific sections.
The first thing that struck me was the impressively large scope of the project: both in number of individuals surveyed; the number of issues covered in the report; and the future implications. The survey included over 3700 students from across Canada. Responses were gathered from an open-access online survey as well as through in-school sessions with randomly selected school districts. (13) Issues addressed in the report include homophobic, transphobic, biphobic and sexist comments; verbal, physical, sexual and other harassment; distress experienced by students; feelings of safety based on different areas of the school building; predictors of school attachment; responses of teachers; students’ awareness of school’s anti-homophobia policies; inclusion of LGBTQ topics and individuals in curriculum; etc. The scope of this project is also captured in the title Every Class in Every School. I have heard previous estimates of the LGBTQ population put at less than 5% of the population. According to this study, and a similar large-scale study conducted in BC in 2007, the rate of students self-declaring as LGBTQ is 14%! (22) In other words, there are very few classes in Canada that don’t have an LGBTQ student in them. These issues impact far more Canadian youth than many previously thought.
The title the authors originally chose for the study only named homophobia in schools. However, based on the findings that “school climates for bisexual and trans students are equally – and in some ways even more hostile,” they chose to change the title of the study to include biphobia and transphobia. (135) In a section entitled Bisexual Youth the authors reject the false assumption that “society in general tolerates lesbians more than gay males, and that being a lesbian or a bisexual female is even trendy” (25, 86) with some striking statistics. The authors highlighted responses separated by female bisexual, lesbian, male bisexual and gay youth respondents. Six out of eight of the measures indicated that on average female bisexual and lesbian youth, i.e. female sexual minority youth, are more vulnerable in school settings. Female sexual minorities had a higher rate of physical harassment about being LGBTQ; experiencing mean rumors or lies about being LGBTQ; feeling unsafe at school because of actual or perceived sexual orientation; feeling generally unsafe at school; not knowing anyone out as LGBTQ at school; and not knowing of any school staff members who are supportive of LGBTQ matters. Specifically, out of all four of these LGBTQ subgroups, female bisexual youth had the highest rate of physical harassment about being LGBTQ; experiencing mean rumors or lies about being LGBTQ; skipping school due to feeling unsafe; feeling generally unsafe at school; not knowing of anyone out as LGBTQ at school; and not knowing of any school staff members who are supportive of LGBTQ matters. It strikes me that the measures where bisexual females fare the worst can be some of the most invisible, for example having lies spread about you; feeling isolated because you don’t know other students or teachers who are out or supportive of LGBTQ; and skipping school. Sadly, the rates for vulnerable youth are not just marginally higher. Three out of 4 female bisexual youth feel unsafe at school compared to only 3.4% of non-LGBTQ respondents! (85) That is a huge gap. The picture painted here for bisexual youth and female sexual minorities is absolutely nothing like the portrayal in Glee. These lesbian and bisexual female youth were not cheerleaders, at the top of the social-food chain at school, reveling in the trendiness of their sexualities. Female-sexual minorities were actually far more at-risk than the average student, even the average LGBTQ student.
As mentioned, I would not do this report justice if I only discussed the findings relating to bisexual youth. I will also highlight trends with other LGBTQ or LGBTQ-associated respondents that I found notable:
· Trans Youth – Reading the responses by trans youth was heartbreaking. Consider that 2 in 5 trans youth have been physically harassed or assaulted (!!) because of their gender expression (more than any other sexual minority or non-LGBTQ students); almost 8 out of 10 trans youth indicate feeling unsafe in some way at school (85)*; and 9 out of 10 of trans youth hear transphobic comments daily or weekly. (23) On top of these abysmal statistics, trans youth were the least comfortable talking about LGBTQ matters with teachers, principals, counsellors, school coaches, classmates, parents, other relatives and even close friends. (101) Trans. Youth. Are. At. Very. High. Risk. Regardless of a teacher, administrator, or school board’s stance on the “LGBTQ lifestyle” I imagine everyone can agree that an environment of fear, and harassment is unacceptable for anyone.
· Female versus Male Sexual Minorities – Female sexual minorities reported much higher rates of verbal and physical harassment and feeling unsafe at school than male sexual minorities. Oddly, female sexual minorities seemed to attribute feeling unsafe at school to sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation more than twice as often than they attributed these feelings of lack of safety to their gender or gender expression.** Essentially, if you are a female sexual minority you are especially vulnerable in school environments... And even if you don’t realize your gender puts you at higher risk, statistically it does. Again, this goes against the stereotype that queer females are somehow less vulnerable. It is important for teachers and administrators to know who the most vulnerable youth in their care are to respond appropriately.
· Youth with LGBTQ Parents – One vulnerable group that I had not previously considered were students who had LGBTQ parents. Students with at least one LGBTQ parent were more than double as likely to feel unsafe at school which led more than three times as many to have skipped school because of feeling unsafe. (88, 89) These youth noticed a lot more of the homophobic comments made in school. They also experienced far higher rates of verbal and physical harassment because of the sexual orientation of their parents and their own perceived sexual orientation. One participant wrote “I am not out about my family members because people are so stupid that they think that if you know someone who is LGBTQ then that means you are too.” (62) Similarly to other vulnerable groups, youth with at least one LGBTQ parent were less likely to feel comfortable talking to teachers, counsellors, classmates or close friends. (104)
· Ethnicity – A theme amongst youth of colour was that they were a lot more susceptible to feelings of isolation. (100) Almost half of youth of colour reported knowing no teachers or staff who were supportive of LGBTQ students, a rate higher than their Caucasian and Aboriginal counterparts. Youth of colour were less likely to know of open LGBTQ students or have friends who were open about being LGBTQ. Youth of colour also reported lower rates of comfort with discussing LGBTQ matters with teachers, coaches, classmates, parents, or even close friends. Youth of colour were less likely to report that staff or classmates intervened when homophobic comments were made. (112) These trends held for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth of colour. (104, 105) I was a little surprised at how few conclusive findings there were regarding Aboriginal youth. Sometimes Aboriginal youth seemed to respond more similarly to Caucasian youth and other times more similarly to youth of colour.
· Regional Variation – The regions within Canada surveyed were the North, Atlantic, Prairies, Ontario and BC. Quebec was excluded because they had a separate study. There was regional variation on a variety of the youth’s responses. Youth in the North were 50% more likely to report feeling unsafe at school than youth in the Atlantic provinces.*** (82) When it came to comfort in speaking to teachers, coaches, classmates and parents, again the Atlantic provinces came out on top, with students feeling more comfortable. BC students reported the highest rates of staff’s effectiveness in addressing anti-LGBTQ harassment and in seeing their school communities as supportive of LGBTQ people. There was significant regional variation in students reporting the presence of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs): less than 5% of students in the North and in the Atlantic provinces reported a GSA compared to 14% in the Prairies, 37% in Ontario and 40% in BC.**** (127) Keeping track of these regional variations and the corresponding policies and cultural attitudes in different regions can give us queues to helpful ways forward.
· Intersectionality – Most of the above point to the importance of intersectionality. Risk factors that overlap don’t just make someone a bit more at-risk. They often make someone way more at-risk. For example, if you are a trans youth and you are living in a region of Canada with very few GSAs or supportive teachers and staff, life gets a lot harder not just a little bit harder. Something I found interesting though was that individuals with intersecting vulnerable identities were more likely to experience harassment related to other areas of life. This is a whole other aspect of intersectionality. For example, students with one or more LGBTQ parent were three times more likely to be physically harassed or assaulted due to their religion, race or ethnicity. (65)*****
I grew up in Alberta and attended a Catholic school for a few years. In Alberta there are two separate school systems: the public and the Catholic school system (which also receives public funding). With a bit of assistance of my nearest search engine I gather that six of the thirteen provinces and territories allow faith-based school boards to be publically funded (AB, ON, SK, NWT, YK). Knowing how prominent these schools are, how many students attend them, and that certain officials from the Catholic divisions appeared willing to participate in the survey, I was appalled to read that they were “instructed not to participate by their governing Bishops’ councils” because “Catholic schools should not be involved in activities that affirm the viability of a ‘homosexual lifestyle,’ such as filling out a homophobia survey.” (132) The argument went that generic safe school policies protect all students equally. Sadly, all of the evidence in this report shows otherwise. Knowing that LGBTQ students are being verbally and physically harassed at exceptionally higher rates, but that this kind of harassment is reduced significantly with simple actions taken by schools is hopeful. However, in cases, such as this one with the Catholic school boards, it is also infuriating. It is one thing for teachers, and staff to inadvertently create unsafe environment for students but to be willing to hear ways to improve this environment. It is another thing to stick your head in the sand, and avert your eyes from abuse occurring to youth in your care in the name of your faith. Unfortunately we know this isn’t the first time this has happened with the Catholic church. But when will it be the last?
As I read through descriptions given by students of their attempts to start GSAs, I was struck by the tendency of staff to either not see it as a pressing issue or to not want to rock the boat. The problem with this is that the visibility of the objections to “affirming the viability of a homosexual lifestyle” ends up trumping the invisibility of the far more vulnerable youth who are in distress because of social isolation; verbal, physical and sexual harassment; and who are far less likely to feel like they are a part of their schools. Parents, administrators or, unfortunately, church officials, have the impunity to state their opinions on homosexuality and then walk out of the classroom. Students, however, are forced to stay in those same, sometimes dangerous, classrooms. Check out some of the responses by students who wanted to start GSAs:
· “I tried to start one, and approached staff to ask for assistance and help. I was told that in theory, although it was a nice idea, they believed that a) our school probably didn’t have enough interest ‘in that topic’; and b) there wasn’t a budget for it.”
· “I attempted to start a GSA in my school, but the principal simply replied, ‘I do not think that many students would be interested. Also, most people may find it offensive.’”
· “There were obstacles from the administration for fear of backlash from parents or ‘creating a problem where there wasn’t one.’ Though generally supportive, they were afraid of explicitly queer events for fear of ‘giving bullies ideas.’”
This reminds me of an interview with an occupational therapist who discussed a similar problem with healthcare providers. Some healthcare providers see themselves as open to LGBTQ folks because they are willing to provide the same services to LGBTQ people without discrimination, but because they don’t know of any of their patients being LGBTQ, they do not see the need to, for example, educate themselves on LGBTQ relevant healthcare, create inclusive forms, or put up rainbow flags in their offices to signal acceptance. The problem with this is that some LGBTQ people will not be willing to disclose their gender or sexuality in an environment that does not provide signals of acknowledgement or acceptance. Maybe these healthcare providers do have queer patients but they don’t even know! Similarly, these schools may not see the demand for GSAs because LGBTQ students are not currently out. It is unreasonable to expect LGBTQ folks to out themselves in potentially unsafe environments simply to gain access to the same quality of education, healthcare, and so on.
Of course I knew I was reading about youth as I was reading this report. However, it really hit me when I read the Ethics Protocol section of the report. The challenge of collecting data ethically was a question the researchers needed to face: would they ask students under 18 years of age to put themselves in harm’s way to seek permission from parents to participate, or otherwise deny them the benefits of participating in research? Ultimately the Ethics Committee agreed that “LGBTQ adolescents who lack a supportive parent or guardian to act as mature minors able to provide their own consent” lest they be exposed to the scholarly documented “reactions of parents to disclosure of LGBTQ identity.” Reading the list of references following that statement on the adverse “reactions of parents” leaves a lump in your throat. Studies from 2005, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008… All studies outlining how cruel your own family can be if you disclose your sexual or gender to them. It’s easy to forget how vulnerable you are as a youth: your parents, teachers, and other adults are expected to be your caregivers. Often these adults make many of your life choices for you until you are old enough to legally decide for yourself. Yet here they are: students being clearly targeted for verbal and physical harassment, without supportive adults around, and yet still dependent on these adults for something as simple as filling out a survey.
Despite all of these depressing statistics there is a strong message of hope in this report. Generic safe school policies that do not include specific measures on homophobia are ineffective at improving the school climate for LGBTQ students. (115) But in schools with safe school policies that explicitly address homophobia and where students are aware of these policies LGBTQ students and students with LGBTQ parents were:
· More likely to feel like they are respected as a part of the school;
· More likely to feel like they can talk to teachers, principals, counsellors, coaches and classmates about LGBTQ matters;
· Less likely to be exposed to homophobia and transphobic comments;
· Less likely to be targeted by verbal and physical attacks;
· More likely to report incidents when they are targeted; and
· More likely to find their teachers effective in addressing incidents. (115)
Other factors that were indicative of a more supportive and less abusive environment for LGBTQ students was the presence of GSAs and respectful depictions of LGBTQ examples in the curriculum. (128) Another very hopeful finding was that 58% of non-LGBTQ students were distressed at homophobic comments. (137) The authors ask the brilliant question: what can adults do to activate this silent majority “in finding the courage to move from being distressed and ashamed bystanders to becoming allies who intervene in abusive situations”? (137)
One of the first things you learn in any sort of statistics class is that correlation is not causation. For this reason, I’d be curious to know which came first – the chicken or the egg. Were the school climates that were the most tolerant and supportive of LGBTQ folks the most likely to implement these policies and create GSAs? Or did the policy implementation truly change the environment? What we can be certain of though is that it is possible to create micro-climates where LGBTQ students feel safer. We do not have to wait for all of society to be on the same page. We can make our youth safer today.
Taylor, C., & Peter, T., with McMinn, T. L., Elliott, T., Beldom, S., Ferry, A., Gross, Z., Paquin, S., & Schacter, K. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Toronto, ON: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust.
*Compare almost 8 out of 10 trans youth indicating feeling unsafe in some way at school to only 15% of non-LGBTQ youth. (85)
**Percentages of students attribute feeling unsafe to gender versus sexual orientation in the graph below (87).
*** Specifically youth in the North reported feeling unsafe 62.4% of the time and students in the Atlantic reported feeling unsafe 42.1% of the time.
****Gay-Straight Alliances, as defined in the report, are “official student clubs with LGBTQ and heterosexual student membership and typically one or two teachers who serve as faculty advisors. […] Some GSAs go by other names such as Rainbow Clubs, Human Rights Clubs, or Social Justice Clubs. This is sometimes done to signal openness to non-LGBTQ membership (though, of course, some of these are not GSAs and might not address homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia), and sometimes because ‘Gay-Straight Alliance’ seems problematic in that ‘gay’ does not necessarily refer to lesbians or bisexuals and trans identities are not explicitly encompassed by the expression. However, using the acronym ‘GSA’ to represent any student group concerned with LGBTQ matters has become commonplace.” (19) Thank you to the authors of the report for acknowledging “gay” does not encompass all LGBTQ identities!
