Messy, Butch, and Queer

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth experience disparate treatment in schools that may result in criminal sanctions. In an effort to understand the pathways that push youth out of schools, we conducted focus groups with youth (n = 31) from Arizona, California, and Georgia, and we interviewed adult advocates from across the United States (n = 19). Independent coders used MAXQDA to organize and code data. We found that LGBTQ youth are punished for public displays of affection and violating gender norms. Youth often experience a hostile school climate, may fight to protect themselves, and are frequently blamed for their own victimization. Family rejection and homelessness facilitate entry in the school-to-prison pipeline. Narratives highlight new opportunities to challenge inequity in schools.

Advances in research with LGBTQ youth in schools.

“…Using teacher- and student-level data from 745 California schools, they documented support for both cases. These findings add to the literature that also indicates that LGBTQ students face disproportionately higher rates of punitive discipline than their heterosexual peers and that this may be due to bias (Himmelstein & Brückner, 2011; Palmer, Greytak, & Kosciw, 2016; Poteat, Scheer, & Chong, 2016; Snapp, Hoenig, Fields, & Russell, 2015). Thus, the findings point to additional concerns underlying the use of highly punitive and exclusionary discipline over more constructive and holistic forms of intervention.…”

Intersections Between Multiple Forms of Bias-Based Bullying Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Youth

“…Previous research emphasizes the importance of school-level factors such as perceived school safety and positive climate in protecting against negative effects of bias-based victimization (Gower et al 2018a, b;McGuire et al 2010). Yet LGBQ youth who also identify as having a disability, are students of color, or who are perceived to have nonconforming gender presentation may have different experiences of these contextual protective factors, or in fact, face disciplinary action or school pushout (Day et al 2018;Kahn and Lindstrom 2015;McGuire et al 2010;Snapp et al 2015). Specifically, these studies point to the role of school adultsteachers, counselors, school staff, administrators-in reinforcing intersecting systems of oppression such as heterosexism, cis-sexism, racism, and able-ism, in the context of bias-based bullying in schools.…”

Bullied and Punished: Exploring the Links between Bullying and Discipline for Sexual and Gender Minority Youth

“…Documented school discipline disparities also exist for adolescents of color (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010) and adolescents with disabilities (Skiba et al, 2006), and evidence is emerging that race and ability status lead to more severe disparities for SGMY of color or SGMY with disabilities (Chmielewski et al, 2016;Skiba, 2016). This research provides evidence that disparities in school discipline result when school administrators impose different consequences for the same or similar punishable behaviors, not because particular students engage more often in these behaviors (Losen & Haynes, 2016;Poteat et al, 2016a), suggesting that issues related to bias and discrimination may contribute to discipline disparities in the United States (Snapp, Hoenig, Fields, & Russell, 2015;Mediratta & Rausch, 2016;Skiba, 2016).…”

“…The still-limited research suggests that much of the punitive discipline experienced by SGMY (as well as youth of color and youth with disabilities) results from youth being sanctioned for minor violations of their schools' codes of conduct (e.g., tardiness; dress code) and violations of unwritten school norms, including norms around gender conformity (Bellinger et al, 2016;Gregory, Bell, & Pollock, 2016;Skiba, Arredonondo, Gray, & Rausch, 2016;Snapp et al, 2015). Unfortunately, punitive punishments do little to curtail these types of transgressions (Nucci, 2001) and actually put SGMY and other marginalized students at risk for adverse educational consequences such as academic disengagement, failure, and drop-out, as well as involvement within the juvenile justice system (Skiba et al, 2014;Skiba, et al, 2016;Snapp et al, 2015).…”

“…A few recent studies have highlighted connections between SGMY's experiences with bullying and harassment and their related punishment in school. In one qualitative study, Snapp et al (2015) identified a connection between bullying and discipline for SGMY, noting that young people were punished for retaliating against ongoing harassment that had been ignored by school personnel. Day et al (2016) investigated the impact of punitive discipline versus supportive practices (e.g., social emotional learning, school-wide positive behavioral interventions, and supports) on homophobic bullying and school connectedness and found that supportive practices decreased homophobic bullying and increased school connectedness.…”