Destabilizing Anti-Gay Environments through Gay-Straight Alliances: Possibilities and Limitations through Shifting Discourses

Abstract

Drawing upon research with Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) advisors, high-school principals, and two district-level administrators, we examine the potential and limits of the safe-space discourse that encompasses the aims of GSAs. We argue that this discourse conceals heteronormative school environments, which supplies the groundwork for hostility perpetrated against LGBT students. We then delineate three strategiesorganizational, pedagogical, and systemic-toward altering the safe-space discourse to a forward-looking, social-justice discourse that fosters the eradication of heteronormative school processes.

The Interactive Impacts of High School Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) on College Student Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals: An Investigation of High School Characteristics

“…Although safety is certainly an important issue, some researchers are challenging this "at risk" discourse. Currie, Mayberry, and Chenneville (2012) suggest that this type of discourse obscures the heteronormativity in school environments, which can, in turn, enhance the likelihood of continued oppression of LGBT students and their allies. Instead, they suggest that we should shift our focus from providing safe spaces for an at-risk school population to examining the effects of injustice (Currie et al, 2012; see also Mayberry, 2008).…”

Gay–straight alliance (GSA) members’ engagement with sex education in Canadian high schools

“…Empirical data reveal how the presence of GSAs can help cultivate more inclusive learning environments (Kosciw et al 2012;Taylor et al 2011), with group members learning about oppression (Mayo Jr. 2013), educating the school community about equity issues (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Network 2007;Mayo Jr. 2013), confronting injustice (Currie, Mayberry, and Chenneville 2012;Mayo Jr. 2013), and lobbying for social change (Conway and Crawford-Fisher 2007;Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network 2009). Many GSAs aim to challenge heterosexist and gender-normative knowledge (see Currie, Mayberry, and Chenneville 2012;Mayo 2004;Mayo Jr. 2013;Schindel 2005), with participation empowering students to contest homophobia (Currie, Mayberry, and Chenneville 2012) and setting the stage for student activism that can help transform schools (Russell et al 2009).…”

“…Lapointe pedagogical practice in school curricula (Currie, Mayberry, and Chenneville 2012) in part because queer sexualities are widely viewed as abnormal and unnatural (Britzman 1995) and additionally because sexuality is considered a private matter (Loutzenheiser and MacIntosh 2004) that is perceived to be too mature for students (Ferfolja 2007). These homophobic and adult-centric ideologies are used to justify negligible LGBTQ content in formal education and highlight how heteronormativity is promoted through formal education systems (Khayatt 2006).…”

The GSA Difference: LGBTQ and Ally Experiences in High Schools with and without Gay-Straight Alliances

“…Since this was a practice that was never resolved, just something that her friend had to endure throughout his high school days, perhaps it is difficult for her to name it as a more serious problem.The issue of naming is an important one as Currie, Mayberry and Chenneville note in their analyses of discourses surrounding gay-straight alliances [31]. Although they focus on how discourses surrounding gay-straight alliances as "safe spaces" need to be renamed in terms of "social justice" in order to challenge heteronormative school environments, a similar argument can be made in regards to renaming "teasing" in terms of "harassment" in order to challenge the normalization and acceptance of bullying and antigay sentiments within school environments.…”

“…The social divisions at the intersection of class, race, and gender are not solved by gay-straight alliances, and the supports found in the literature may not extend to these groups. In addition, although gay-straight alliances empower their members to "break the silence" around homophobic school practices, they do not challenge, reshape or expose heteronormative school environments [31,32] nor do they empower members at the organizational or community level to create coalitions with community organizations outside the school setting [20]. These findings reflect Fetner et al's ([2], p. 204) conviction that "scholars cannot assume a priori that safe spaces [namely gay-straight alliances] lead to mobilization".…”