Homophobia

 

One of the main reasons why people tend to be prejudice against gay, lesbian, and bisexual are based on inaccurate stereotypes and lack of information that is provided by society. Society portrays sexual minorities as sick, perverted, or nonexistent. There are quite a few people who are not aware that they may know healthy gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Many people, fearing they might be gay, lesbian, and bisexual, prefer to attack individual who are as a way of avoiding self-identification.

Society began to rethink homosexuality in the 1960’s when heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined the term “homophobia.” Weinberg used the term to label heterosexuals’ fear of being in contact of homosexuals as well as the self-loathing of homosexuals, meaning that homosexuals hated themselves for being gay. As of the new millennium, there has been a new special term that has been born to define the fear, hate and disgust that people show towards anyone’s sexual orientation called “sexual prejudice.” Like other types of prejudice, there are three main principals that surround sexual prejudice: it is an attitude, it is directed at social groups and its members, and it is negative as involving hostility or dislike. As time goes by there has been differing perspectives on sexual prejudice (homophobia).

In an interview with Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist and former criminal investigator, which was conducted by PBS’s program “Frontline,” reveals her interest and perspective on anti-gay hate crimes that relate to homophobia. Franklin has interviewed multiple perpetrators of anti-gay hate crimes and with San Francisco Bay Area College students that has lead to the production of important data of the nature and extent to the negative reactions to gays.

When Karen Franklin was asked, “What makes a person become a gay basher?” she answered, “there is no simple answer to that question.”Homophobia refers to a prejudicial belief that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are threatening. They see them as sick, unnatural, immoral, or disgusting people that are inferior to heterosexuals and they deserve to be hated. Homophobia tends to occur on several distinct but joined levels. These levels are personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural.

People tend to link homosexuality and bisexuality with sexual behavior. Since we live in a culture that is reluctant to acknowledge any form of open sexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality is slowly becoming a problem. Our society is more accepting of the traditional male or female relationship. However, we fail to notice that people can lead successful and creative lives without having to fit a set pattern. People who feel uncomfortable or uncertain about their sexual orientation or relationships think that going against the norm can be disturbing and intimidating.

Through the years it would be delightful to believe that society has gotten more accepting of minorities. While in many ways this is true, it  is also a false statement as well. The United States has gone through  leaps and bounds over the last century. Women were the first to win  their rights, and after that African Americans broke through the barriers  of oppression. Since both of those movements only took a good hundred  years to happen, how long will it be before the United States accepts  gays? Gays have rights, and are not faced with the same challenges as women and blacks were, but they are not being treated as equals. There  are thousands more homosexual assaults than any other minority. Gays are treated as outcasts, and all because why? What causes people to fear or loath homosexuals? Are they fearing inner feelings that they hide from  the rest of the world, or is it simply the case that society has warped  their fragile minds into believing that gays are a threat?

Homophobia continues in our society, urban and rural, which is apparent in Michael Lassell's poem 'How to Watch Your Brother Die' and in Neil Miller's essay 'In Search of Gay America: Ogilvie, Minnesota.' What are homophobic people afraid of? Do they know? Knowledge and awareness of homosexuality is the best way to prevent homophobia. According to Religioustolerance.com 'Homophobia has a variety of meanings, including hatred of homosexuality, hatred of homosexuals, fear of gays and lesbians, and a desire or attempt to discriminate against homosexuals. The suffix 'phobia' is derived from the Greek word 'phobos'. In English, it means either fear or loathing.

Gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals suffer from homophobia. Some gays and lesbians suffer from internalized homophobia. Internalized homophobia is the negative attitudes they have concerning homosexuality. It usually occurs more often in gays and lesbians who are unsure or confused of their sexual preference and those who have not come out of the closet.

Some argue that homophobia itself stems from a clinical condition, suggesting that the term should be taken literally as a medical definition of ill aversion to homosexuals, for the state of individuals and their associated interactions with society. The scientific community is unsupportive as to this notion, though some still speculate on evolutionary reasons for homophobia in today's society.

Internalized homophobia (or ego-dystonic homophobia) usually refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by LGBT people against themselves and others like them. It includes a discomfort with or disapproval of one's own LGBT status (e.g. sexual orientation).

Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires. In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong emotional desires and needs. This discordance often causes clinical depression, and the unusually high suicide rate among LGBT teenagers may be partly attributed to this phenomenon (the opinions and actions of others is obviously also a factor in both).

Many people in this situation attempt to resolve it, at least for a period of time, through chastity. This is an attractive option because many belief systems are neutral or only mildly disapprove of, for example, homosexual feelings, but strongly disapprove of acting on those feelings. Advocates of the ex-gay movement believe that in addition to behavior, sexual orientation is a malleable attribute, and advocate attempting to change it (this is highly controversial, and most mental health professionals warn that such therapies have not been proven to be effective, and that they may be psychologically harmful).

The label of internalized homophobia is sometimes applied to conscious or unconscious behaviors which an observer feels the need to promote or conform to the expectations of heteronormativity or heterosexism. This might include making assumptions about the gender of a person's romantic partner, or about gender roles. Some also apply this label to LGBT persons who support "compromise" policies, such as those that find civil unions an acceptable alternative to same-sex marriage. Whether this is a tactical judgment call or the result of some kind of internal prejudice (whether in a cause-and-effect fashion, or definitionally) is a matter of some debate.

Heterosexism

Some claim (including Sigmund Freud in his psychoanalytic theory) that some or most homophobes are repressed homosexuals, but this claim is highly controversial. The notion, however, suffers from a serious logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual (by experience and self-reported orientation) men at the University of Georgia found the allegedly homophobic men (as measured by the Index of Homophobia considerably more likely to experience more erectile response when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men. However, the homophobic men also tended to report more negative emotions in response to those particular images (not sexual arousal), and the researchers noted that general anxiety has been shown to enhance erectile response. There was no significant difference in results on the Aggression Questionnaire. The group recommended further research.

A component considered to play into homophobia, as considered by some theorists, such as Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler, is an individual's fear of being identified as homosexual him or herself.

This notion suggests that when expressing homophobic viewpoints and emotions, the individual who does so is not only expressing his thoughts as to homosexuals, but also actively attempting to distance himself from this category and attributed social status. Therefore, by distancing him or herself from the people in question, he/she is reaffirming his/her role as a heterosexual, within heteronormativity, and contributing to the avoidance of his/her potential labeling and consequent treatment as a homosexual.

Heterosexual

This interpretation plays into notions of violent opposition to "the Other" as a means of establishing one's identity as part of the majority and therefore, validated by society. This concept is also recurrent in interpretations of racism and xenophobia

Whether viewed as unfounded prejudices or legitimate moral opinions, anti-LGBT attitudes have been reflected in legislation and have had a profound impact on political debates over LGBT civil rights in general. They have also result in violence against LGBT people, sometimes by individuals, sometimes state-sanctioned or organized.

Sexist beliefs

Some gender theorists interpret the fact that male-to-male relationships often incite a stronger reaction in a homophobic person than female-to-female (lesbian) as meaning that the homophobic person feels threatened by the perceived subversion of the gender paradigm in male-to-male sexual activity. According to such theorists as D.A. Miller, male heterosexuality is defined not only by the desire for women but also, and more importantly, by the denial of desire for men. Therefore, expressions of homophobia serve as a means of limiting those who they view as displaced in heteronormativity, and also of accenting their male nature, by isolating the threatening concept of their own potential feminity in gay men, and consequently belittling them, as not real males. They regard the reason male homosexuality is treated worse compared to female homosexuality as sexist in its underlying belief that men are superior to women and therefore for a man to "replace" a woman during intercourse with another man is his own subjection to (non-male) inferiority.

However, this view would imply that only the passive male partner in homosexual acts would be thought of as "offensive". Miller's specific claim that male heterosexuality does not require "desire for women" would seem to preclude the possibility of asexuality or bisexuality. Nor is it clear why male heterosexuals would "need" or even fear homosexuals in order to affirm maleness – unless their sexuality was already experienced as threatened by some other cause.

Opposition to homophobia

To combat homophobia, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community uses events such as pride parades and political activism. Some parts of the festivities are criticized for reinforcing stereotypes about LGBT people (e.g. Dykes on Bikes, the prominence of cross-dressing, a gay male fascination with musicals, the color pink, a sex-positive atmosphere that may seem to give endorsement to a promiscuous lifestyle which in turn relates to the problem of AIDS, etc). Other portions tend to challenge stereotypes, including the presence of religious organizations who support gay rights and oppose homophobia, the families of LGBT people, and LGBT people with children. Much of the color, glamour, and noise of pride parades can also be seen as a simple celebration of LGBT culture, or of life in general.

Some activists also call homophobia straight supremacism equating it to white supremacism. Anti-gay groups see this as an attempt to marginalize those who disapprove of homosexuality. Besides public expression, specific laws have been made to oppose homophobia, as in hate speech, hate crime, and laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Discrimination

Some argue that anti-LGBT prejudice is immoral or unwise above and beyond the effects on that class of people. Warren J. Blumenfeld argues that this emotion gains a dimension beyond itself, as a tool for extreme far-right conservative and religious groups and as a restricting factor on gender-relations as to the weight associated with performing each role accordingly. Furthermore, Blumenfeld in particular claimed: Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias inhibits the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs.

It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures.

Homophobia in popular culture

Eminem garnered a lot of controversy as he rose to success, because of what were seen as highly homophobic lyrics, which ultimately led to GLAAD actively receiving hate-mail from fans of his. This led to a number of reactions against him, in the forms of public manifestations and even a commercial specifically filmed for the night he played at the 2001 Grammys, with the mother of a homosexual teenager, Matthew Shepard, who was beaten to death, speaking out to the general public as to the use of homophobic terms. Ironically, Eminem performed with openly gay artist Elton John that very night.

In 2004 the reggae artist Sizzla cancelled his tours of the United Kingdom and France after protests over his homophobic lyrics, and at one point the British government considered banning him from entry into the country

In 2001 the Russian pop-band Chugunnyi, literally, "The fast-walker of pig-iron" released a song Pidory idut! "Fags are marching!” The song is about how it is hard for a straight man to live in a world where gays rule (particularly, in fields of TV, show business, etc.). It contains lines like "You were born a man - you're trapped! There's no way if you are straight!" "Any hairdresser or stylist must be a homosexual! How can a straight man work, if gays want him immediately?" The reaction in the Russian society was mixed: while some gay magazines and web sites accused the authors of fascism, many people accepted it quite warmly.

Counseling Considerations

Counselors bring with them their own degree of effectiveness with these generic characteristics. They also bring with them their cultural manifestations as well as their unique personal, social and psychological background. These factors interact with the cultural and personal factors brought by the client. The interaction of these two sets of factors must be explored along with other counseling-related considerations for each client who comes for counseling. The effective counselor is one who can adapt the counseling models, theories, or techniques to the unique individual needs of each client. This skill requires that the counselor be able to see the client as both an individual and as a member of a particular cultural group. Multicultural counseling requires the recognition of: (1) the importance of racial/ethnic group membership on the socialization of the client; (2) the importance of and the uniqueness of the individual; (3) the presence of and place of values in the counseling process; and (4) the uniqueness of learning styles, vocational goals, and life purposes of clients, within the context of principles of democratic social justice (Locke, 1986).

The Multicultural Awareness Continuum (Locke, 1986) was designed to illustrate the areas of awareness through which a counselor must go in the process of counseling a culturally different client. The continuum is linear and the process is developmental, best understood as a lifelong process.

Self-awareness. The first level through which counselors must pass is self-awareness. Self-understanding is a necessary condition before one begins the process of understanding others. Both intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics must be considered as important components in the projection of beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and values. The examination of one's own thoughts and feelings allows the counselor a better understanding of the cultural "baggage" he or she brings to the situation.

Awareness of one's own culture. Counselors bring cultural baggage to the counseling situation; baggage that may cause certain things to be taken for granted or create expectations about behaviors and manners. For example, consider your own name and the meaning associated with it. Ask yourself the cultural significance of your name. Could your name have some historical significance to cultures other than the culture of your origin? There may be some relationship between your name and the order of your birth. There may have been a special ceremony conducted when you were named.

The naming process of a child is but one of the many examples of how cultural influences are evident and varied. Language is specific to one's cultural group whether formal, informal, verbal, or nonverbal. Language determines the cultural networks in which an individual participates and contributes specific values to the culture.

Awareness of racism, sexism, and poverty. Racism, sexism, and poverty are all aspects of a culture that must be understood from the perspective of how one views their effect both upon oneself and upon others. The words themselves are obviously powerful terms and frequently evoke some defensiveness. Even when racism and sexism are denied as a part of one's personal belief system, one must recognize that he/she never-the-less exists as a part of the larger culture. Even when the anguish of poverty is not felt personally, the counselor must come to grips with his or her own beliefs regarding financially less fortunate people.

Exploration of the issues of racism, sexism, and poverty may be facilitated by a "systems" approach. Such an exploration may lead to examination of the differences between individual behaviors and organizational behaviors, or what might be called the difference between personal prejudice and institutional prejudice. The influence of organizational prejudice can be seen in the attitudes and beliefs of the system in which the counselor works. Similarly, the awareness that frequently church memberships exist along racial lines, or that some social organizations restrict their membership to one sex, should help counselors come to grips with the organizational prejudice which they may be supporting solely on the basis of participation in a particular organization.

Awareness of individual differences. One of the greatest pitfalls of the novice counselor is to overgeneralize things learned about a specific culture as therefore applicable to all members of the culture. A single thread of commonality is often presumed to exist as interwoven among the group simply because it is observed in one or a few member(s) of the culture. On the contrary, cultural group membership does not require one to sacrifice individualism or uniqueness. In response to the counselor who feels all clients should be treated as "individuals," I say clients must be treated as both individuals and members of their particular cultural group.

Total belief in individualism fails to take into account the "collective family-community" relationship which exists in many cultural groups. A real danger lies in the possibility that counselors may unwittingly discount cultural influences and subconsciously believe they understand the culturally different when, in fact, they view others from their own culture's point of view. In practice, what is put forth as a belief in individualism can become a disregard for any culturally specific behaviors that influence client behaviors. In sum, counselors must be aware of individual differences and come to believe in the uniqueness of the individual before moving to the level of awareness of other cultures.

Awareness of other cultures. The four previously discussed levels of the continuum provide the background and foundation necessary for counselors to explore the varied dynamics of other cultural groups. Most cross-cultural emphasis is currently placed upon African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans or Hispanics, and Asian Americans. Language is of great significance and uniqueness to each of these cultural groups, rendering standard English less than complete in communication of ideas. It is necessary for counselors to be sensitive to words which are unique to a particular culture as well as body language and other nonverbal behaviors to which cultural significance is attached.

Awareness of diversity. The culture of the United States has often been referred to as a "melting pot." This characterization suggests that people came to the United States from many different countries and blended into one new culture. Thus, old world practices were altered, discarded, or maintained within the context of the new culture. For the most part, many cultural groups did not fully participate in the melting pot process. Thus, many African American, Native American, Mexican American, and Asian American cultural practices were not welcomed as the new culture formed.

Of more recent vintage is the term "salad bowl" which implies that the culture of the United States is capable of retaining aspects from all cultures (the various ingredients). Viewed in this manner, we are seen as capable of living, working, and growing together while maintaining a unique cultural identity. "Rainbow coalition" is another term used in a recent political campaign to represent the same idea. Such concepts reflect what many have come to refer to as a multicultural or pluralistic society, where certain features of each culture are encouraged and appreciated by other cultural groups.

Skills/Techniques. The final level on the continuum is to implement what has been learned about working with culturally different groups and add specific techniques to the repertoire of counseling skills. Before a counselor can effectively work with clients of diverse cultural heritage, he or she must have developed general competence as a counselor. Passage through the awareness continuum constitutes professional growth and will contribute to an increase in overall counseling effectiveness, but goes much further than that. Counselors must be aware of learning theory and how theory relates to the development of psychological-cultural factors. Counselors must understand the relationship between theory and counselors' strategies or practices. Most importantly, counselors must have developed a sense of worth in their own cultures before attaining competence in counseling the culturally different.

Cultural Constraints

People define cultural constructs within the context of their own life histories, growth, and current situations. A working framework for competence in the care of HIV-infected clients must take the following areas of cultural concern into account for each individual:

• Demographics: race, ethnicity, gender, age, generation
• Communication: language(s), literacy (reading, speaking, health)
• Education level: functional as well as actual
• Economic status of the individual and the environment in which s/he functions
• Occupation/means of support: work status, current means of income (legal? illegal? borderline?), labor, profession
• Geography: current residence, community/neighborhood, place of birth, legal status, travel, nationality, etc.
• Environment and situational context: safety of communities in which the individual spends a significant amount of time; risks related to violence, fear of violence, or coercion; communities of risk (i.e., drug/alcohol use, anonymous sex)
• Personal relationships: family, friends, partnerships, sex, drugs, etc.
• Health (physical, emotional, mental): norms, beliefs, practices, preferred providers, taboos; definitions of health, disease/sick role, disability, and care; HIV and other disease diagnoses, treatments, achievements; perceptions (developed over time) of efficacy, value, and disparity/discrimination in relationships with various healthcare systems and providers
• Gender and sex: gender, gender roles, transitions, sexual orientation, sexual intercourse
• Community affiliations: religious, political, service, social, etc.
• Culture-specific definitions: spirituality, art, ethics, value, locus of control, power
• Individual experiences: development over time that has lead the individual to accept, reject, and/or modify cultural components that were imparted to him/her as a child; life experiences that have expanded, challenged, realigned, or reinforced early cultural influences; individual constellation of factors that make up her/his cultural orientation
• Culture comfort: has the individual integrated a personal set of cultural influences into his/her life? how do those beliefs and practices intersect with health practices and self-acceptance? Can the individual function within larger social systems (family, community, social structures)? Is the individual in a state of cognitive dissonance, discord, or discomfort with/between the values of personal, familial, and/or social cultures?

Providers. Healthcare providers possess knowledge and skills that were developed in a process of professional education. They have their own language, expectations, and professional cultures.  They also have responsibilities:

• To develop skills to assess individual client cultures and to work with the client to integrate components of that culture into a care and treatment plan that the client can accept.
• To be open to learning about the ways of others and willing to see past stereotypes when working with individuals and families.
• To suspend judgment, especially in the assessment phases of care.
• To remember that individuals are unique even within groups: some Hispanics do not speak Spanish, some women are not mothers, some Catholics use birth control, and some college-educated people use alternative/traditional healthcare practices.
• To adopt an attitude of service to the client and the community.
• To explore, understand, and honor their own cultural definitions and values.
• To constantly compare personal culture(s) within the context of professional obligations.
• To deal with any dissonance that occurs between cultures by “honoring and setting aside” or by making personally acceptable changes and developing methods of dealing with larger culture clashes and ethical dilemmas that can occur in cross-cultural settings.
• To accept responsibility as the power broker in healthcare situations to address healthcare in a holistic manner that includes culture.

Client. The client also has obligations:

• To share the components of her/his culture that will impact on the ability to seek care, to participate in the process of developing a healthcare plan, and to implement care prescriptions.
• To seek care from providers who understand his/her culture.
• To teach providers who are open to these discussions.

Unfortunately, many clients feel that they are in a “one down” position in ANY healthcare setting, especially if they are poor, do not understand healthcare systems, have cultural constraints against disagreeing with authority figures, or already suffer from discrimination by virtue of race, ethnicity, gender, status, or diagnosis (especially HIV, drug use, mental health problems, and STDs).  Because of this, the provider’s responsibility to honor various cultures is imperative.

Overview of Cultural Diversity and Mental Health Services

The U.S. mental health system is not well equipped to meet the needs of racial and ethnic minority populations. Racial and ethnic minority groups are generally considered to be underserved by the mental health services system (Neighbors et al., 1992; Takeuchi & Uehara, 1996; Center for Mental Health Services [CMHS], 1998). A constellation of barriers deters ethnic and racial minority group members from seeking treatment, and if individual members of groups succeed in accessing services, their treatment may be inappropriate to meet their needs.

Awareness of the problem dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, with the rise of the civil rights and community mental health movements (Rogler et al., 1987) and with successive waves of immigration from Central America, the Caribbean, and Asia (Takeuchi & Uehara, 1996). These historical forces spurred greater recognition of the problems that minority groups confront in relation to mental health services.

Research documents that many members of minority groups fear, or feel ill at ease with, the mental health system (Lin et al., 1982; Sussman et al., 1987; Scheffler & Miller, 1991). These groups experience it as the product of white, European culture, shaped by research primarily on white, European populations. They may find only clinicians who represent a white middle-class orientation, with its cultural values and beliefs, as well as its biases, misconceptions, and stereotypes of other cultures.

Research and clinical practice have propelled advocates and mental health professionals to press for “linguistically and culturally competent services” to improve utilization and effectiveness of treatment for different cultures. Culturally competent services incorporate respect for and understanding of, ethnic and racial groups, as well as their histories, traditions, beliefs, and value systems (CMHS, 1998). Without culturally competent services, the failure to serve racial and ethnic minority groups adequately is expected to worsen, given the huge demographic growth in these populations predicted over the next.

This section of the chapter amplifies these major conclusions. It explains the confluence of clinical, cultural, organizational, and financial reasons for minority groups being underserved by the mental health system. The first task, however, is to explain which ethnic and racial groups constitute underserved populations, to describe their changing demographics, and to define the term “culture” and its consequences for the mental health system.

Support Groups

Groups help lesbian and gay students, both those who are out and those who do not publicly acknowledge their orientation, overcome their fear and isolation, and encourage them to remain in school (Lipkin, 1992). Their services include counseling, peer support, health information (including safer sex), and referrals. Since some teens are estranged from their families, housing and legal services may also be provided. Some groups work with families and do antibias training with teachers. Groups can be funded by the government and/or private sources, and work city-wide (e.g., Hetrick-Martin Institute, New York; Project 10, Los Angeles; University of Minnesota Youth and AIDS Project, St. Paul) or in a single school (Project 10 East, Rindge and Latin School, Cambridge). The Bridges Project is a national network of groups serving lesbian and gay youth.

Like all efforts to increase the multiculturalism in curricula, infusing information about homosexuality can be done in several ways, as appropriate for grade level (Hart & Parmeter, 1992): portraying lesbians, gays, and bisexuals matter-of-factly; using neutral language to describe lesbians and gays; identifying lesbians and gays of accomplishment; gay and lesbian literature courses; and gay studies courses.

School staff is crucial to establishing and maintaining a climate where lesbian and gay students feel safe and able to learn. Staff, therefore, may receive training that includes: basic information and about homosexuality and the needs of gay students, crisis intervention and violence prevention strategies, and appropriate responses to expressions of homophobia.

Several gay service organizations offer staff development activities and materials. The National Education Association (NEA) offers its members (especially those unfamiliar with homosexuality) two workshops for dealing sensitively with colleagues and students. NEA also responds to requests from its locals with referrals on materials, speakers, and additional trainers.

One school especially for lesbian and gay students has been in operation nearly a decade: the Harvey Milk High School in New York City, a joint project of the Board of Education and Hetrick-Martin. Its purpose is to provide a supportive environment for students who were on the verge of dropping out of traditional school. Another high school, the EAGLES Center in Los Angeles, has been operating for two years (Project 10 Handbook, 1993).

Districts and schools that want to provide a supportive environment for lesbian and gay students and educate straight students about homosexuality, without necessarily implementing a full-scale program and without adding significantly to their budgets, can choose from the following list of suggestions:

* Include gays and lesbians in non-discrimination policies, and expressions of homophobia on the list of prohibited behaviors in the school policy manual.

* Offer support and protection for teachers who come out so lesbian and gay students can have role models and a source of support.

* Give organizations of lesbian and gay students the same privileges as other groups, and allow same-sex couples to attend events.

* Create an atmosphere where students can feel free to reject sex stereotyped roles.

* Provide anti-bias and violence prevention training that includes self-protection strategies.

* Include books on homosexuality, both informational and fiction, in the library.

Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses

Participants in the ongoing dialogue surrounding multiculturalism and inclusiveness on community college campuses are beginning to incorporate the topic of sexual minorities - lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students - in the debate. This digest provides a review of current literature on the topic. Notably absent in the literature is research specific to community colleges; however, several publications have begun to address the topic of LGBT undergraduate students.

A number of problems complicate the study of the LGBT student population. First, since there are no data available on the number of LGBT students in American higher education, it is impossible to determine the size or prevalence of the LGBT student population on community college campuses. Current numbers are grounded in sociological studies dating back more than 50 years. Second, an obstacle to be understood when studying LGBT students is the identification of a population that, due to social stigma, may not wish to be identified. Any study of sexual minorities relies on self-reporting because, by definition, the "coming out" process is a form of self-selection; those who do not come out are never included in research efforts. Finally, this research is being conducted across a disparate set of disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, political science, law, and education, making comparisons difficult.

One reason for the paucity of study may be fear that faculty, staff, and administrators who wish to study LGBT students may be perceived as gay (Leider, 1999). Often, such perceptions are more than just a damper on an academic career; they can lead to the end of that career. According to Sanlo (1999), the mere perception of faculty or staff as gay may result in termination of employment in some states.

HATE CRIMES

One area of concern to both researchers and the higher education community is anti-gay violence and harassment. Research in this area is complicated by the fact that many LGBT student victims fail to report crimes of this nature to campus or legal authorities (Downey & Stage, 1999). One researcher's response to this problem has been to study the perpetrators of anti-gay violence and harassment instead of their victims (Franklin, 1998).

Anti-gay sentiment toward LGBT students by their fellow students is a subject well represented in the educational literature on four-year institutions (Reinhardt, 1997). Findings from the only study to examine anti-gay violence and harassment on community college campuses (Franklin, 1998) indicate that the problem is more widespread than previously thought. Franklin's anonymous survey, conducted at six San Francisco Bay-area community colleges, indicated that of the 484 respondents, 24 percent had engaged in verbal harassment of individuals perceived to be gay or lesbian. Another 10 percent admitted to committing physical violence or threats of violence against presumed gay men or lesbians. In other words, more than 1 in 3 community college students had engaged in hate speech or hate crimes on the six campuses studied.

Student development is another concern. It is well documented that college students undergo significant measurable change in factual knowledge, cognitive abilities, values, attitudes, and psychosocial development (Chickering and Reisser, 1993). In addition to these changes, LGBT students often undergo an additional and unique sexual identity process. A series of discrete steps in the process of identity formation are discernible. Cass's (1979) six-stage Theory of Homosexual Identity Formation informs much of the present work in the field. Present day researchers theorize five stages (Sanlo, 1998) while others identify four (Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Regardless of the number of stages posited, it is now common to see students arriving at community colleges and four-year institutions already in some stage of this developmental process and seeking the services of student affairs professionals (Sanlo, 1998).

There are added challenges for those students whose identities are complicated by multiple group membership or rejection of sexual labels. Students of color who also happen to be sexual minorities are frequently confronted with the problem of identifying with one or the other group. In their racial group they may be subject to homophobic bigotry, while in their sexual identity group they may have to deal with racism and prejudice (Wall, 1991). There are those students, too, who engage in same-sex behavior but do not identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, who reject sexual labels altogether but who nevertheless experience confusion regarding their feelings and behaviors (Green, 1998). As LGBT students undergo the process of sexual identity formation in largely hostile community college environments, they may fail to persist to graduation or they may exhibit other problems, thereby necessitating intervention by the institution (Sanlo, 1998).

Many LGBT issues are common to community college campuses and four-year institutions. One is the "commuter campus syndrome." This syndrome, in which students attend classes but don't become involved in campus life, contributes to students' inability to establish relationships with LGBT peers or create a sense of LGBT community on campus (Sanlo, 1998). LGBT students living off campus with parents are especially affected, as are those working full- or part-time while attending college. Both situations adversely affect students' ability to become involved in campus-based LGBT activities.

A lack of institutional support services and inadequate opportunities to interact with other LGBT students, faculty, and staff may also play a significant role in sexual minority students' failure to persist. Finally, administrative barriers to the formation of LGBT student groups may interfere with these students' abilities to form contacts and friendships. Typical of these is the practice of some institutions of printing the home telephone numbers of LGBT student group leaders in campus publications. For those students who may not be "out" to family or friends, this is a violation of their privacy. Making this information public may also leave these students vulnerable to anti-gay telephone harassment as well (Sanlo, 1998).

Few studies concerning LGBT students on community college campuses are being conducted. While we know little about these students, we do know that they are being subjected to harassment and hate crimes by their peers. Recent changes in state and federal law seem to indicate that failure by community college administrators to protect these students may lead to legal action against administrators and institutions. While a legal discussion is beyond the scope of this digest, it is clear that LGBT community college students have a set of needs that are clamoring for attention.

Two resources have become available to those working with LGBT students at post-secondary educational institutions. Edited by Ronni Sanlo in 1998, Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender College Students: A Handbook for Faculty and Administrators is a practitioner's handbook that compiles together forty essays written by researchers and practitioners, who cover a broad range of topics pertinent to LGBT college students.

Improving campus life for LGBT students should begin with an assessment of the current state of campus efforts. Nan Ottenritter (1998) has created an "Institutional Assessment of Sexual Minority Status Checklist" containing twelve assessment areas by which institution's leaders may judge whether it is meeting its LGBT students' needs.

Hate Crime Prevention

According to the most recent hate crime statistics, roughly 15% of bias-motivated crimes are committed on the basis of perceived sexual orientation.

Hate crime laws are enacted based on the principle that bias-motivated crimes are crimes against both the individual and the identifiable community to which the individual belongs--that they are, in other words, acts of terrorism. Because of this, federal law (18 U.S. 245) and the laws of 44 states mandate additional penalties for those who commit illegal acts on the basis of race, color, religion, or perceived national origin. Yet federal law and the laws of 20 of those 44 states include no such protections for those targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation, or perceived sexual orientation. Is it time to expand this definition of hate crimes?

In January 2005, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 (H.R. 259), which would have increased federal prosecutorial authority over violent crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, disability status, as well as the established hate crime criteria of race, color, religion, and perceived national origin. The bill died in committee, but will likely be resurrected in 2007 under the new Democratic Congress.

Hate Crimes and "Free Speech"

Opponents of sexual orientation-based hate crime legislation often claim that the laws would criminalize religious condemnation of lesbians and gay men. This concern is entirely baseless. No U.S. law criminalizing anti-gay speech has been proposed, much less passed. Hate crime bills only increase penalties and investigative powers with respect to acts that are already classified as illegal; they do not criminalize any behavior that is currently legal.

On October 10th, 2004, a group of eleven anti-gay activists attempted to disrupt the OutFest National Coming Out Day Block Party in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by verbally abusing attendees and blocking a public street. When police officers asked them to move, they refused to do so and were arrested. Other anti-gay activists immediately began to mischaracterize the nature of the eleven protesters' offense, claiming that they had been arrested for merely "[quoting] what the Bible has to say about homosexuality in public." The protesters were ultimately acquitted. Mainstream religious conservatives, to their credit, didn't fall for the hype; even Bill O'Reilly condemned the protesters' behavior as "overly aggressive and anti-Christian."

Under current FDA guidelines, gay men are not allowed to donate blood unless they have been celibate for at least five years.

In 1985, when AIDS was perceived as a "gay plague," the Food and Drug Administration enacted a requirement that men who had sexual relations with a male partner after 1977 would not be allowed to donate blood or bone marrow. The policy was later revised so that gay and bisexual men who had been celibate for five years would be allowed to donate blood, a policy that is still in place to this day. In 2004, the policy was extended to cover anonymous sperm donors as well, though gay and bisexual men may still make directed sperm donations.

Gay Blood Donors and the AIDS Scare

The original policy was based on a concern that HIV seemed especially prevalent among gay men. Now, in 2006, there are several factors that render this policy suspect:

• HIV has spread into the heterosexual population, and is now the leading cause of death for all men aged 25 to 44, and the fourth-leading cause of death for women in that age group. It is also the number one cause of death for African-American women aged 25-44, the fastest-growing HIV demographic. If the testing system is not safe enough to weed out HIV in blood donated by gay men, then it isn't safe enough to weed out HIV in blood donated by heterosexuals, either.
• The restriction is based on the honor system; closeted gay men, who are less likely to practice safe sex than openly gay men, can donate to their hearts' content as long as they're willing to keep their love lives secret.
• HIV testing procedures have improved dramatically since 1985. The FDA has certified that approved laboratory HIV tests have an 100% chance of detecting HIV infection if performed after an initial three-month incubation period. (Blood can be safely stored for up to ten years.)
• The restriction does not ask whether the sexual behavior is high-risk. A heterosexual who has had unprotected intercourse with many different partners may donate without restriction; a monogamous gay man who practices safe sex is ineligible. If any sexual behavior based screening takes place, the more sensible option would be to base screening on high-risk sexual behavior, and not strictly on sexual orientation.
• The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America's Blood Centers have all stated that the anti-gay screening policy is ineffective and should be discontinued.

The FDA is currently reexamining its policies on gay tissue donors, and is expected to render a decision soon.

Political leaders often savagely condemn alleged lesbian and gay promiscuity during speeches in support of legislation that punishes lesbian and gay monogamy.

Why this is a Civil Liberties Issue

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws against same-sex marriage blatantly violate the spirit of this amendment. What's more, these laws are most often explicitly written to "protect the sanctity of marriage." If the government is in the business of protecting sanctity with this kind of legislation, then in what way is it not "[making] law respecting an establishment of religion," an activity expressly prohibited under the First Amendment?

Does the Federal Government Recognize Gay Marriage?

No. In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that same-sex couples would not be eligible for federal benefits.

The Federal Marriage Amendment

Conservatives have repeatedly attempted to codify the DOMA as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but have never been able to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in Congress to pull it off.

What Are Civil Unions?

Civil unions are state policies granting most, but not all, state marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Domestic partnerships, often established by city governments (such as in New York City, for example), serve a similar function but are generally weaker. Civil unions and/or same-sex domestic partnerships are recognized in Alaska (for state employees only), California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont.

About 80,000 foster children go unadopted every year. Thousands of childless same-sex couples want to adopt. The solution is obvious, but there's a problem

The Big Question

Should lesbian and gay families be excluded from the adoption system?

What is the Status of Gay Adoption in Other States?

Ambiguous. Other states allow adoption by single adults (regardless of sexual orientation), and joint adoption by married couples, but do not allow joint adoption by unmarried couples.

Is There Any Legitimate Reason to Deny Adoption Rights to Same-Sex Couples?

Not really. Opponents of gay adoption generally make three arguments, all of them rather spurious:

1."A child is better off with one father and one mother." Even if this claim were true (and there's no evidence that it is), it would be irrelevant. States allow adoption by individuals, and not just by married couples, precisely because they recognize that any healthy, stable family environment is a better option than the foster care system.

2."Gay men should not be allowed to adopt, because they are statistically more likely to be child molesters." Actually, according to a 1998 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, only about 2% of convicted child molesters identify as gay. The confusion here rests in the fact that adult men are more likely to molest male children (after all, they're more likely to have unsupervised access to male children), but there is no established connection between pedophilia and adult male homosexuality.

3."Children who grow up in gay households are more likely to turn out to be gay themselves." There is no statistical basis for this belief, but it does stand to reason that adoptees who grow up to become lesbian women and gay men will be less likely to hide or repress their sexual orientation if they were themselves raised by lesbian or gay parents.

The ban on lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in the military is cruel and petty, and it needlessly deprives the overworked U.S. Armed Forces of personnel.

Question

Should the ban on lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in the U.S. Armed Forces be overturned?

What is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, implemented by President Bill Clinton in 1993, is a slight improvement over the old policy (which could be described as "ask, but don't tell"). Under the old policy, closeted lesbian, gay, and bisexual officers were subjected to investigation and, if found "guilty," would be dishonorably discharged immediately, depriving them of pension and other benefits regardless of the duration of their military service. Now, non-heterosexual officers are still subject to dishonorable discharge (and the subsequent loss of pension and other benefits) if officials learn of their sexual orientation, but officials are prohibited from conducting specific investigations into the sexual orientation of personnel. In practical terms, it isn't much of an improvement; under the current policy, closeted lesbian, gay, and bisexual officers have to just cross their fingers and hope investigators don't happen to catch wind of their sexual orientation.

What is the Cost of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

In 2005, the Congressional Accounting Office estimated that the policy had cost the military approximately $200 million over a 12-year period. Over 11,000 military personnel have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" and, according to the Service members' Legal Defense Network, approximately 41,000 potential recruits are presently excluded from military service.

Do Other Countries Allow Non-Heterosexuals to Serve in the Military?

Yes. Nearly every major western democracy allows lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to serve openly in the military, and have suffered no discernible adverse consequences as a result. This list includes Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Poland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom, among many others. Examples of countries that ban non-heterosexuals from military service include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Venezuela--and the United States, of course.

How Can This Policy Be Changed?

This is one of the few policies that can be changed by any sitting President without congressional assistance. All the President has to do is issue an executive order, and the ban will be rescinded. President Clinton promised to do this prior to his election in 1992, then later reneged on his promise. President Bush has indicated that he supports "don't ask, don't tell."

Until 2003, just being a non-celibate lesbian or gay man was illegal in many states. These laws were seldom enforced, but the message was unmistakable...

Question

Does the government have the authority to ban private, consensual, and victimless sexual acts between adults?

A Brief History of American Sodomy Laws

The first gay man executed for sodomy in the United States was Guillermo, a French translator who worked for the staunchly (and rather fanatically) religious Spanish conquistadors. It is not known what happened to his paramour, an American Indian man whom history does not name, but Guillermo would not be the first victim of colonial sodomy laws.

By the time of the American Revolution, executions for same-sex intercourse were relatively uncommon but the laws enforcing same were certainly on the books--enough so that Jefferson helpfully offered castration as a more humane penalty in one 1776 letter. Over time, the penalties for sodomy became less severe, the laws bringing those penalties into effect even less frequently enforced (if not repealed altogether), but many state laws still mandated that private decisions regarding use of appendages and orifices ought to be strictly regulated by law. During the 1990s, Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) vowed to veto any attempt to overturn his state's sodomy law, declaring it "a symbolic affirmation of traditional values." (The law essentially banned all gay sex, but did not apply to heterosexual couples.) Some residents might have been a bit surprised to hear that their traditional values were all that explicit, but the law was, if not wholly symbolic, at least unenforced.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

On September 17th, 1998, Texas law enforcement officials stormed the apartment (and, more to the point, bedroom) of a gay couple at a most inopportune time. A homophobic neighbor had reported, presumably with his ear to the wall, that there was a man "going crazy with a gun" inside. (The neighbor later admitted that he had made the story up, and spent 15 days in jail for filing a false police report.) The law enforcement officials saw more than they really wanted to see, and arrested the couple on sodomy charges. The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a 6-3 majority led by Justice Anthony Kennedy overturned the conviction, and Texas' sodomy law, on the grounds that "[t]he petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," and that "[t]he State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

In most states, a homophobic employer can still legally fire an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.

Question

Should civil rights laws protecting employees from discrimination also outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

The Price of Coming Out

In 34 states, it is still perfectly legal for lesbian and gay employees to be fired simply because their employers discover, and disapprove of, their sexual orientation.

States That Have Passed Anti-Discrimination Laws

California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin all have laws on the books prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Federal Intervention

85 percent of Americans oppose job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 61 percent would like to see such job discrimination prohibited at a federal level. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been proposed several times since 1996, failing each time under the Republican-controlled Congress despite broad bipartisan support. Its chances in the new Democratic Congress are perhaps better than they have ever been in the past.

Two Approaches to Workplace Discrimination

An increasing number of corporations already have policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some fiscal libertarians who support lesbian and gay rights, such as former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, actually oppose ENDA in part because they believe that changes in corporate policy would represent a more democratic, and therefore more culture-changing, approach to the problem of workplace discrimination--while ENDA would abruptly introduce a new rule that, if unnecessary, could actually put an end to a very productive national movement to make corporate policies more inclusive.

This argument is similar to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's argument that Roe v. Wade (1973) may have done damage to the pro-choice cause, in the long run, by stunting a more gradual but highly successful national abortion legalization movement. "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped," she once argued (in reference to Roe), "may prove unstable." Still, changes in national corporate policy may do little good for lesbian and gay employees who work for local or regional corporations in socially conservative states, and there is no indication that public opinion vis-a-vis workplace discrimination is likely to backlash against the ENDA.

Question: What the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and how will it help gays and lesbians?

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed through Congress on October 22, 2009 as part of a defense department bill. The current hate crimes law defines a "hate crime" as one motivated by religion, race, national origin or color. The new hate crimes act expands the federal definition of hate crimes to include assaults based on sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity.

Answer: I spoke with Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign about Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill before congress. A hate crimes bill has nothing to do with sentencing crimes, but has to do with funding.

The hate crimes bill which is also known as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act or the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act will make federal funds from the Justice Department available to local law enforcement organizations to aid in investigating crimes against gays, lesbians and trans people. The language of the bill gives the Justice Department power to investigate a crime if the perpetrator is motivated by a person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Are Hate Crimes Really a Problem?

Yes. From HRC's website: "According to 2006 FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation constituted the third highest category reported and made up 15.5 percent of all reported hate crimes. Only race-based and religion-based prejudice crimes were more prevalent than hate crimes based on sexual orientation."

What the Hate Crimes Bill Is:

• Current federal hate crime law, passed by Congress is 1968, allows federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin.
• Makes money and resources available for local communities when a hate crime has been committed.
• Allows federal authorities to assist in investigations if needed.
• It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.

What the Hate Crimes Bill is Not:

• It is not about increasing jail time or sentencing for perpetrators.
• Does not give funding to prevent hate crimes.

Matthew Shepard and Hate Crimes Bill

Ms. Scanlon said that when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming, because that crime took so much time and money to investigate and prosecute, four local officers were furloughed.

Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard, who worked hard to pass the bill released the following statement:
"Dennis and I are extremely proud of the Senate for once again passing this historic measure of protection for victims of these brutal crimes. Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile. Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

The Federal Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913) passed the U.S. House on April 29, 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175. The bill expands 1969 federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation, gender expression or identity and disability. Previous hate crime laws gave the Justice Department authority to prosecute crimes motivated only by race, color, national origin and religion.

The Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 was first introduced in 2007. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), passed by a vote of 237 to 180.

Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act Dies In The Senate:

April 12, 2007 Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced the expanded hate crimes bill in the Senate as the Matthew Shepard Act (S. 1105). The bill was included as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1585), which increased military personnel pay. President Bush threatened to veto the defense bill if the Matthew Shepard Act was included. The Matthew Shepard Act failed in the Senate. However, President Barack Obama urged Congress to make the bill a priority and it was reintroduced in April of 2009.

Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Passes House:

The Federal Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, dubbed H.R. 1913, was reintroduced in 2009. The bill passed the House on April 29, 2009 by a vote of 249 to 175.

Why We Need The Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009:

Race-based hate crimes leading up to the civil rights movement prompted federal legislation to help deter and prevent such acts. However, these law enforcement "definitions" of what makes a crime a hate crime have not been expanded since 1969. The need for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in hate crime legislation has become more apparent given the continual increase in violence against LGBT people.

Are Hate Crimes A Problem?:

Hate crimes against LGBT people has steadily increased year to year. The FBI reported 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias in 2007 alone, up from 1,415 the previous year.

Public Opinion:

A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of Americans favored expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

How You Can Support Hate Crime Legislation:

Including sexual orientation and gender expression and identity in federal hate crime legislation can help ensure that resources are available to properly investigate anti-LGBT crimes and help deter these heinous crimes. You can still help make federal hate crime laws more inclusive by contacting your local house representative or senator.

The following are the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:

2008: According to FBI.gov, 2008 hate crimes statistics will be published on the Web in the fall of 2009.

2007: 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
• 24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
• 12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
• 1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
• 1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

2006: 1,415 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 62.3 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual biased.
• 20.7 percent were classified as anti-homosexual biased.
• 13.6 percent were classified as anti-female homosexual biased.
• 2.0 percent were classified as anti-heterosexual biased.
• 1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual biased.

2005: 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:

• 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
• 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
• 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
• 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
• 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.

Hate Crime Laws and Sexual Orientation

Hate crime laws have been adopted on the federal and state level that increases the penalties for crimes committed when the motivation by the race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim.

There are several controversial issues surrounding hate crime legislation, including questions about freedom of speech violations, but the most hotly debated issues have arisen from the inclusion in the laws of the term "sexual orientation."

Latest Developments

The federal hate crime laws do include the term "sexual orientation." As of July 2004, seven states have no hate crime laws at all, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that do include sexual orientation. In 2002, 12,073 law enforcement agencies reported 7,462 hate crime incidents, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2002.

Background

There has been very little controversy over the adoption of laws increasing the penalty for crimes against victims because of their age, gender or disability, but adding "sexual orientation" to the list of groups protected by hate crime laws has produced much controversy. Conservative Christian groups have become active in opposing laws they believe will prohibit their ability to teach, preach or speak out against homosexuality.

The Traditional Values Coalition for example, believes hate crime laws "violate the free speech rights of Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds. This is a direct attack against the First Amendment and freedom of religion."

According to the People for the American Way, however, hate crimes do not address thought and speech. They write, "Only crimes can become hate crimes. That is, some criminal act -- assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. must happen first. Only then can the crime be considered a criminal act."

Those who believe that sexual orientation should be included hate crime laws make the following arguments: More than 40 percent of homosexuals and bisexuals report having been attacked because of their sexual orientation sometime during their life, despite official FBI statistics that report only a fraction of actual incidents.

Existing hate-crime laws do not mention gays, lesbians or homosexuals. By using the term "sexual orientation," the laws protect everyone equally, including heterosexuals.

Crimes against an individual usually affects only that individual, but hate crimes are intended to terrorize an entire group or class of people. Therefore, the impact of a hate crime is far greater and should be penalized more severely.

Rather than dividing the country into groups or classes, hate crimes act to reduce bigotry and lowers the level of hatred in society in general, which leads to more tolerance and peace.

No existing hate crime legislation has any affect on parental teaching of children or affects teaching the public schools. The laws only punish actual crimes committed, they do not affect freedom of speech or expression.

Those who are opposed to including sexual orientation in hate crime legislation make the following arguments:

Including protection for gays and lesbians provides them special privileges.

Hate crimes legislation hinder parents who seek to protect their children from a lifestyle that is unhealthy and which they believe to be morally and spiritually wrong.

Rather than unite the country, hate crime laws divide us into politically correct subgroups and advance an agenda which is contrary to the values of most Americans.

Legislation which protects homosexuals will criminalize anti-gay speech and make it a crime for pastors to teach biblical passages about homosexuality and potentially make the pastor a conspirator if someone in his congregation commits a hate crime.

Hate crime laws give the government the power to interpret or classify as illegal some speech, thought, theology and moral beliefs.

Where It Stands

There have been two Supreme Court rulings regarding hate crime laws, but neither of them dealt specifically with the sexual orientation issue. Cases in several states are continuing to challenge hate crime statues on constitutional grounds, but no rulings have been recorded thus far dealing directly with the sexual orientation issue.

Question: Why are people afraid to come out?

Answer: There can be many reasons people are afraid to come out as lesbian, gay or bisexual. It depends on the culture you were brought up in, your religion and the point of view of your family and friends.

People coming out now, don’t necessarily realize the stigma associate with being gay as little as ten years ago. Forty years ago, people could and were thrown in jail for dancing with same-sex partners in gay and lesbian bars. It was only in 2003 that the Texas sodomy law was overturned, finally making sex between two same-sex consenting adults legal. In 33 states you can still be fired for being gay.

Culturally, we are making progress. Gay marriage is legal in two states in the U.S. and a handful of countries. Many schools have gay/straight alliances, businesses offer same-sex partner benefits and civil unions are common in more and more places. Even if times are changing and we are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians, the homophobia and negativity are still part of our cultural fiber. Even if people don’t think they’re homophobic, or even if they have gay friends, they still grew up with all the messages and stereotypes about gays and lesbians.

Gay Jokes and Put-Downs

Gays and lesbians don’t escape those either. We’ve heard just as many gay jokes, religious condemnations, rap music put-downs, judgments and snide remarks as everyone else in our culture. To come out, there is always a little voice in the back of your head wondering, “Will I be accepted?”

And the truth is, for many people that answer is “no.” Families reject children for being gay. Churches certainly do. Others may say they’re not homophobic, yet say they believe marriage is only made for one man and one woman and don’t think gays and lesbians should teach children. Our culture still has a long way to go in fully accepting gays and lesbians. These are some of the reasons people are afraid to come out.

Steps for Coming Out

Coming out as lesbian, gay or bisexual is a process. There are natural stages or steps you will go through. Although there are different models and theories about coming out, the six-step process developed by Vivienne Cass in 1979 is still regarded as a good model. Certainly not everyone will go through all of these steps and you may not go through them in this order. But this six-step coming out process can help you make sense of what you are going through.

Step One: Identity Confusion

"Who am I?" is the major question in this step. You start to notice your attraction to same-sex and really question what it means. Am I a lesbian? Am I bisexual?

I am totally confused right now. I'm 19, and attend college. I've always been in long relationships with men. I'm attracted to men, and they turn me on. But recently I met this lesbian in my class and we've been talking. When we chat I get turned on. I have never done anything with a woman, besides making out drunk. Could I be a lesbian, or is this a normal/new experience feeling?
--College Freshman

Step Two: Identity Comparison

In this phase you might try to find an explanation for why you are having the feelings you are having. "Maybe I am a lesbian. Or maybe I'm bisexual." You might feel totally alone, like you are the only one who has gone through this. You could be asking yourself, "Is this a phase?" "Am I only attracted to this one friend or will this be a life-long thing?"

I am very confused right now and I have no one to talk to about what I am feeling. I am getting worried that I want to be a lesbian, and not that I just happen to be lesbian. (I’m not saying being a lesbian is bad!) I worry because my parents are homophobic, plus I am only 17, I worry that this is a phase, but the feeling I had for this woman I've never felt for a man before. Please help me find out who I am!

Step Three: Identity Tolerance

In this stage you might begin to accept that you probably are lesbian or bisexual. Or you might come to terms with some parts of being a lesbian, but not fully embrace it. You might feel that being sexual with another woman is okay, but you're not ready to identity as lesbian or bisexual. Or you might come to accept the fact that you have fallen in love with your friend, but that it will never happen with another woman. You might seek out others online or in your life to socialize with. You might get into counseling or a support group.

I am a woman married to a man. Currently we are separated but I have always had attractiveness to women. I guess you can call me bicurious. Right now in my life, I feel that I am about to completely crazy cause I have this desire and I feel a strong need to release what I am feeling. I am having trouble finding other lesbians or bisexual women I can talk to. My dilemma is this, I fantasize about sex with women all day, but I don't feel like I could be in a relationship with them.
--Bicurious and Married

Step Four: Identity Acceptance

In this stage you begin to accept, rather than just tolerate your sexual identity. You begin to form friendships with other lesbians and bisexual women. You begin to realize that being lesbian or bisexual is okay and that your life can and will be happy and fulfilling. You may begin to come out to a few people or close friends.

By now, I am sixteen years old but I have more or less known I am lesbian since I have been twelve. I have been struggling with it for three years and did very intensively try getting out with boys. I had problems accepting my own homosexuality and that caused me to be even more afraid of coming out. The day that changed my life, was when I sent a picture to a very good friend of mine, who is an open lesbian. She followed the address of the picture; saw it was from a lesbian site and asked directly whether I was lesbian. Surprised, I confirmed. It really kitted us together and it was so positive I told some other friends of mine (but none attending my school except from that friend of mine). All reacted in a positive way and I was enthusiastic about it.

Step Five: Identity Pride

You may start to feel a sense of belonging in the community and start to come out to more and more people. Sometimes you might get angry and militant in this phase, pissed off at the rights that gays and lesbians don't have. May get involved in gay and lesbian activism.

Make no bones about it, I am proud of what I am but it makes no difference what others think. I can go where I want, do what I want and be free to love the person of my choice. I have committed myself to a wonderful woman.

Step Six: Identity Synthesis

In this stage being lesbian or bisexual is integrated into who you are. It's so much a part of you that you rarely think about it, unless there is a reason, like witnessing homophobia. You might have a more holistic view of yourself and feel equally comfortable in straight and glbt environments. Your lesbian identity is integrated with all aspects of yourself.

Is being gay or lesbian a choice?

Most gay and lesbian people will tell you being gay is not a choice. Most scientific organizations also believe that homosexuality is not a choice, that biology plays some role. The National Mental Health Association says, “Most researchers believe sexual orientation is complex, and that biology plays an important role. This means that many people are born with their sexual orientation, or that it’s established at an early age.”

No one really knows why some people are gay or lesbian and others are straight or bisexual. But what we do know is that homosexuality has existed all throughout history and is present in birds and mammals, as well as humans.

Certainly those who believe homosexuality is a sin say it's a choice. Even some gay and lesbian people believe being gay is a choice. Most, however, believe that they were born gay or lesbian. The honest answer is, we think being gay is not a choice, but there hasn't been any conclusive studies to prove it.

What we do know is that therapies that attempt to change people from gay to straight have a very poor success rate. Sometimes people change their behavior, but the attraction is still there. My left-handed mother as a child was forced to use her right hand in school. She learned to change her behavior, but this did not change the fact that she is left-handed.

The thing you do have a choice about is your attitude about being gay, lesbian or bisexual. You can choose to hide your sexual orientation, or even be involved in a heterosexual relationship, but that does not mean you are not lesbian or bisexual.

What we do know is that people who are out and accepting of their sexual orientation live happier and more fulfilled lives than those who try to suppress their feelings or live their lives in the closet.

HIV/AIDS and Stigma

 HIV-related stigma refers to all unfavorable attitudes, beliefs, and policies directed toward people perceived to have HIV/AIDS as well as toward their significant others and loved ones, close associates, social groups, and communities. Patterns of prejudice, which include devaluing, discounting, discrediting, and discriminating against these groups of people, play into and strengthen existing social inequalities—especially those of gender, sexuality, and race—that are at the root of HIV-related stigma.

Erving Goffman is widely credited for conceptualizing and creating a framework for the study of stigma. His work was seminal in creating an environment for ongoing academic research on the topic. In his landmark book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963), Goffman described stigma as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting within a particular social interaction” (p. 3). His explanation of stigma focuses on the public’s attitude toward a person who possesses an attribute that that falls short of societal expectations. The person with the attribute is “reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 3). Goffman further explained that stigma falls into three categories:

1.   Abominations of the body—various physical deformities.

2.   Blemishes of individual character—weak will, domineering or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid beliefs, or dishonesty. Blemishes of character are inferred from, for example, mental disorder, imprisonment, addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, unemployment, suicidal attempts, or radical political behavior.

3.  Tribal stigma of race, nation, and religion—beliefs that are transmitted through lineages and equally contaminate all members of a family (Goffman, 1963).

The stigma concept has been applied to myriad circumstances (Link and Phelan, 2001). Goffman’s ideas are a common thread in much of the published research and provide the theoretical underpinnings for much of the literature on stigma and stereotyping.

According to Goffman and other researchers, diseases associated with the highest degree of stigma share common attributes:

• The person with the disease is seen as responsible for having the illness
• The disease is progressive and incurable
• The disease is not well understood among the public
• The symptoms cannot be concealed.

HIV infection fits the profile of a condition that carries a high level of stigmatization (Goffman, 1963; Herek, 1999; Jones et al., 1988). First, people infected with HIV are often blamed for their condition and many people believe HIV could be avoided if individuals made better moral decisions. Second, although HIV is treatable, it is nevertheless a progressive, incurable disease (Herek, 1999; Stoddard, 1994). Third, HIV transmission is poorly understood by some people in the general population, causing them to feel threatened by the mere presence of the disease. Finally, although asymptomatic HIV infection can often be concealed, the symptoms of HIV-related illness cannot. HIV-related symptoms may be considered repulsive, ugly, and disruptive to social interaction (Herek, 1999).

The discrimination and devaluation of identity associated with HIV-related stigma do not occur naturally. Rather, they are created by individuals and communities who, for the most part, generate the stigma as a response to their own fears. HIV-related stigma manifests itself in various ways. HIV-positive individuals, their loved ones, and even their caregivers are often subjected to rejection by their social circles and communities when they need support the most. They may be forced out of their homes, lose their jobs, or be subjected to violent assault. For these reasons, HIV-related stigma must be recognized and addressed as a life-altering phenomenon.

HIV-related stigma has been further divided into the following categories:

Instrumental HIV-related stigma—a reflection of the fear and apprehension that are likely to be associated with any deadly and transmissible illness (Herek, 1999)

Symbolic HIV-related stigma—the use of HIV/AIDS to express attitudes toward the social groups or “lifestyles” perceived to be associated with the disease (Herek, 1999)

Courtesy HIV-related stigma—stigmatization of people connected to the issue of HIV/AIDS or HIV- positive people (Snyder, 1999, based on Goffman, 1963).

Stigma and Access to Care

The literature devoted to stigma and access to care falls roughly into three categories. Most of the literature deals with barriers to care that HIV-positive individuals encounter across the continuum from HIV diagnosis to end of life. The next largest category of studies documents the reluctance of health care providers to treat individuals with HIV infection. Finally, a few studies cover the stigma experienced by providers of ancillary and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS.

Individuals

HIV/AIDS-related stigma affects issues related to HIV testing including delays in testing, the effect of delay on further transmission of HIV, and individuals’ responses to testing positive (Chesney and Smith, 1999). Early detection of HIV infection is important. Knowledge of one’s HIV seropositivity can lead to earlier treatment and improved outcomes (Herek, 1990). Knowledge of seropositivity also can lead to changes in risk behaviors that can reduce or eliminate the risk of HIV transmission. A Kaiser Health Poll report (2000) suggested that fear of being stigmatized by HIV/AIDS has some relationship to people’s decisions about getting tested for HIV. One-third of survey respondents said that if they were tested for HIV, they would be “very” or “somewhat” concerned that people would think less of them if they discovered that they had been tested. In addition, 8 percent of people who had never been tested for HIV said that worries about confidentiality played a part in their decision not to have the test.

Studies provide evidence that stigma is associated with delays in HIV testing among individuals who are at high risk of being infected with HIV (Myers et al., 1993; Stall et al., 1996). In a study of gay and bisexual men who were unaware of their HIV status, two-thirds of the participants expressed a fear of discrimination against people with HIV and said it was a reason for not getting tested (Stall et al., 1996). Earlier in the epidemic, HIV stigmatization was shown to influence the way in which at-risk populations approached HIV testing. People at risk for HIV infection were more likely to seek testing that was offered anonymously (i.e., no names were recorded) than testing that was offered confidentially (i.e., names were kept in confidential files) (Fehrs et al., 1988; Johnson et al., 1988).

HIV/AIDS-related stigma also influences individuals’ responses to testing positive: It aggravates the psychological burden of receiving a positive HIV test (Chesney and Smith, 1999). Earlier in the epidemic, there were reports of severe psychological responses to notification, including denial, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Coates et al., 1987; Ostrow et al., 1989). Over time, studies have shown a decrease in severe reactions to being notified of positive test results; however, research continues to show that notification is associated with high distress. Distress is greatest immediately after notification and typically declines within 2 to 10 weeks (Ironson et al., 1990; Perry et al., 1990). Stigma also affects the care of HIV-positive individuals. After a person tests positive, he or she faces decisions that include how to enter and adhere to care and whether to disclose HIV seropositivity to partners, friends, family, colleagues, employers, and health care providers (Chesney and Smith, 1999). At each level, a decision to disclose seropositivity may either enhance access to support and care or expose the individual to stigmatization and potential discrimination.

HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Accessing health care can be a challenge for people who are HIV positive, because the health care system itself is often a source of stigma. Health care professionals, particularly those who infrequently encounter HIV-positive people, can be insensitive to their patients’ concerns about stigma. In addition, health care professionals are not always knowledgeable about appropriate procedures for maintaining patient confidentiality (Herek et al., 1998).

The literature on caregiving reveals that stigmatization is evident among health care providers. Fear of contagion and fear of death have clear negative effects on health care providers’ attitudes toward and treatment of HIV-positive patients (Gerbert et al., 1991; Weinberger et al., 1992).  Health care providers also may fear stigmatization themselves because of their work with HIV-positive patients (Durham, 1994). Caregivers, whether professionals or volunteers, risk what Goffman called “courtesy stigma,” in which they are stigmatized as a result of their association with HIV/AIDS and people living with HIV disease. That stigma may influence their willingness to work with people with HIV or may make their work more difficult (Snyder et al., 1999).

Introduction

Executive Order 13087, issued on May 28, 1998, prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian employment. The Executive Order states this policy uniformly by adding sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited. The other categories are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, and age. On May 2, 2000, Executive Order 13153 added "status as a parent" to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited.

It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an equal opportunity to all of its employees. Federal employees should be able to perform their jobs in workplaces free from discrimination-whether that discrimination is based on color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or sexual orientation. The President's Executive Order states, as a matter of Federal policy, that a person's sexual orientation should not be the basis for the denial of a job or a promotion. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government sets an example for other employers that employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not acceptable.

Existing Federal law prohibits discrimination in certain employment decisions when the decisions are based upon conduct that does not adversely affect employee performance. Federal employees should be able to perform their jobs in workplaces free from discrimination.

The new Executive Order amends section 1 of Executive Order 11478 (1969), which now reads, in part, as follows:

Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal employment opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government, to the extent permitted by law.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

Gender identity not a basis for criminal penalties

Washington — The United States is joining 66 other United Nations member states in condemning the persecution of individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world. We will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people.

The U.N. Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity calls on all member states and relevant international human rights mechanisms “to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The statement further urges all states to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity “may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.”

Some 70 U.N. member nations outlaw homosexuality, and in some countries homosexual acts are punishable by death. But the U.N. statement reaffirms the 60-year-old Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

During her recent visit to Brussels, Belgium, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told young European leaders during a March 6 town hall meeting that “the persecution and discrimination against gays and lesbians is something that we take very seriously.”

Clinton condemned human rights abuses against homosexuals, and called for “a recognition that human rights are the inalienable right of every person.

The U.N. statement on sexual orientation and gender identity was initiated by France and was backed by the European Union. The document, presented to the U.N. General Assembly on December 18, 2008, is an authoritative statement of principles but is not legally binding.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, in December 18, 2008, remarks to a high-level U.N. panel discussion on human rights, said that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation “are increasingly recognized as anachronistic and as inconsistent both with international law and the traditional values of dignity, inclusion and respect for all.”

“Those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, those who are transgender, transsexual or intersex, are full and equal members of the human family and are entitled to be treated as such,” Pillay said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do. The relevant federal agencies are listed below. For assistance in locating your state or local agency, contact the EEOC office nearest you.

In the federal government the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, prohibits federal employees who have authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action from discriminating against applicants and employees on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation and from discriminating against an applicant or employee on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on "conduct" to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. EEOC has jurisdiction of the prohibitions against employment discrimination codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability.

The Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board enforce the prohibitions against federal employment discrimination codified in the CSRA. The OSC will defer those bases of discrimination under EEOC's jurisdiction to the respective federal agency and its EEO process. The CSRA also prohibits employment discrimination in the federal government based on marital status, political affiliation and conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee, none of which are within EEOC's jurisdiction. Moreover, the law defines ten other prohibited personnel practices in the federal government, all of which fall under the jurisdiction of the OSC and the MSPB. Executive Order 13087, amending Executive Order 11478, was signed on May 28, 1998, to provide a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Executive Order 11478 section 1 reads:

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.

Executive Order 13087 did not create any new rights, however it did set the stage for positive and constructive action by all units of the federal government to make certain that the workplace is one free from harassment and discrimination. Many of the Cabinet level agencies have also issued policy statements prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some of the agencies have developed parallel EEO complaint procedures allowing federal employees to file EEO complaints based on sexual orientation within their agencies.

Executive Order 13152, also amending Executive Order 11478, was signed on May 2, 2000, to provide for a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's status as a parent. Executive Order 11478 section 1 now reads:

Improving the School Experience for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students

Interest in meeting the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth is growing, largely as a result of three general trends: (1) acknowledgment by educators that all identifiable groups of students need support unique to their situation; (2) the increasing number of students declaring their homosexuality; and (3) increasing victimization of lesbians and gays. Among the supporting arguments is that educators have a social responsibility to provide an environment that supports the ability of all students--including lesbians and gays--to learn and that is free from physical and psychological abuse (Sears, 1987).

Lesbian and gay student initiatives to date have been in urban areas, where these students feel most free to be visible and to request services, and where opposition to support is least likely. Also, cities have gay and lesbian service organizations for adults that include youth programs or that lobby boards of education to implement programs.

Studies have shown that gay and lesbian students are far more likely to have been abused or otherwise victimized, abuse substances, prostitute themselves, attempt suicide, and be homeless, than straight youth (Uribe & Harbeck, 1992). Many fear violence and harassment from their peers, and constant anxiety inhibits their ability to learn. Some try to make themselves invisible in school so their homosexuality will not be detected, and as a result, limit their learning experiences. Even gay students without such severe problems have a more difficult adolescence than straight students because they feel even more confined by the pressure to conform, and believe that an essential part of them is being dismissed, despised or deleted from school life (Khayatt, 1994).

Although these factors may cause poor school performance and high dropout rates, lesbian and gay students "are perhaps the most underserved students in the entire educational system...discrimination often interfere[s] with their personal and academic development" (Uribe, 1994, p. 112).

Homophobia also negatively affects straight students' education in ways that transcend simply the effects of hating. Fear of being considered gay can drive them to embrace narrowly defined and limiting sex roles. The decision about whether to participate in sports--real guys must; real girls won't--is a prime example (Grayson, 1987).

Many policy makers oppose presenting homosexuality in a positive way, or even mentioning it at all, in school. Locally, groups have been quite effective in stopping school efforts to teach positively about homosexuality, or even to provide information about it. The most publicized example is the successful campaign against the New York City Rainbow Curriculum for elementary grades. Around the country, an increasing number of school board candidates are emphasizing their opposition to education on homosexuality in their campaigns.

Laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination against specific groups not only provide penalties for violators, but also dignify the existence of those groups and suggest that the climate is not sympathetic to people who express bigotry in even legally protected ways. There have been some government initiatives to protect the rights of lesbian and gay students (and sometimes teachers) in particular, a sampling of which is provided below. Some school districts and schools have developed specific policies, but local antidiscrimination legislation and policies that protect gays overall also protect gay students.

At the Federal level, activity has largely consisted of court decisions, which have generally been narrow, and apply only to districts in which the court is located. An early decision in Rhode Island (Fricke v. Lynch, 1980) can be considered one of the most radical: it allowed two men to attend their senior prom as a couple (Dutile, 1986).

A Wisconsin law, the first statewide legislation of its kind, mandates that every public school district adopt and disseminate a policy prohibiting bias, stereotyping, and harassment. Nevertheless, state support for lesbian and gay students has been limited to workshops for counselors and distribution of a pamphlet describing the policy and materials from private organizations.

Massachusetts has established the only statewide Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. Its first report reviewed the lives of Massachusetts lesbian and gay adolescents and presented a comprehensive set of recommendations that became the basis of the Massachusetts Department of Education's Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students, which includes workshops for school people and students (Governor's Commission, 1993).

One of the seven Los Angeles Unified School District commissions is devoted to gay and lesbian education. It makes recommendations to the Board of Education on meeting the needs of lesbian and gay students.

Urban schools around the country have implemented many different types of programs both to help lesbian and gay students feel included and respected and to educate other students about homosexuality and the achievements of gays throughout history.

 

 

 Home |FAQs |Accreditations |Contact Us |Login |Course Catalog | Create Account