Category: sexual orientation

True Tolerance and bullying prevention, part 2

Last week, Anderson Cooper 360 examined the claims of Focus on the Family’s Candi Cushman that anti-bullying programs can be fronts for gay promotion. My initial post on the subject is here with the video of the segment here. Cooper links to the True Tolerance website where some of the claims are made and a list of bullying facts are listed. Given my interest in bullying prevention, I checked it out.

While I did not fact check every aspect of the site, I examined the reasons for bullying references, again an interest of mine. My contention is that kids are bullied, in part, for appearing to be different from social and gender norms which are crystalizing at late childhood and early adolescence. Early grade school is a lot kinder than later grade school (4-6) and middle school is often a brutal and unforgiving social order.

Here is what the True Tolerance document says about why kids are bullied:

Physical appearance —or the general concept of appearing different than one’s peers— is actually the most commonly reported reason for why victims are targeted.

Statistics also indicate that race, ethnicity issues, and even opposite-sex harassment actually account for more bullying problems than do homosexual related issues.

Immediately, it occured to me that appearing different is very relevant to GLB issues since kids who experience same-sex attractions are often gender atypical in their interests and behavior and are perceived to be gay because of their differing appearance. Looking further, I checked the references provided. The first reference was to a state of Virginia study which asked kids and teachers several reasons why they were bullied. The report disclosed: 

When asked about the general school climate, nearly three-fourths reported that students were teased about their physical appearance, about half reported teasing about sexual topics, and about one-third reported that students are often put down because of their race or ethnicity.

Teachers agreed on the first two topics but not with the race/ethnicity reason. The survey does not break down either physical appearance/clothing or sexual topics. It seems highly likely to me that one of those sexual topics was perceptions of sexual orientation but one cannot be sure.

The next reference to validate the point was from the 2007 Winter edition of the journal Adolecence, which again found that appearance was the most common reason given, followed by the victim’s behavior. This reference may not make the desired point since perceived sexual orientation is a matter of behavior and appearance.

The next reference was to a 2004 study reported in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. This study simply asked middle school students why kids were bullied and then grouped the answers by theme. The essential findings were:

Sources of teasing and bullying were physical appearance, personal behavior, family and environment, and school relations. “Being different in any way” was the underlying theme.

The authors provided descriptors for each of their categories which point to a variety of indicators of difference including “acting too much like the other sex” and “acting ‘gay.'” Click the graphic to see their rendering of the students’ answers.

 (Click on the graphic to see the image more clearly)

There are many reasons given and these may not all have the same frequency in each school. One of the hallmarks of a good bullying prevention program is districtwide assessment to learn what the hot button issues are in the different schools.

In the discussion section of this article, the authors provide a fuller description of the themes. Under the theme of “personality and behavior,” the authors address bullying associated with perceived orientation, first noting a student’s report:

“There’s a boy on my bus, and he acts like a girl, sort of. He has all these rings on his fingers and paints his nails clear. . . .And his voice is soft . . . people make fun of him . . . they call him gay and faggot all the time.” These quotations indicate that differences in personality or behavior can single out a student to be the object of teasing and bullying. Crossing a conventional line, such as acting in a way that is associated with the other gender or another race, or with “being gay,” placed a student in jeopardy for particularly malicious forms of harassment.

The next reference is to a 1996 special issue of the International Child and Youth Care Network, edited by a former professor of mine at Ohio University, Richard Hazler. I feel sure Hazler would not be happy to see his work referenced as a way to minimize the effects of bullying based on perceived orientation. At any rate, the reference is to a summary of the journal and so one cannot make any comparative assessments. According to the summary, physical appearance is at the top of the reasons for bullying:

Physical appearance (overweight, “the way my face looked”) and socio-familial context (“who my friends were,” “I was hot tempered”) were the most common factors reported by students as reasons for their victimization.

As noted, physical appearance is broad enough to include bullying that would include perceptions of sexual orientation.

The next set of references seek to support the contention that homosexual issues rank down the list of reasons people are bullied. The first reference is the New York City school districts report of bias related disciplinary incidents. According the January, 2010 news release:

The Department’s audit found that 6,207—or 4.7 percent—out of a total of 130,837 disciplinary incidents reported in the City’s public schools during the 2008-09 school year were bias-related. Of the biases associated with these incidents, 55 percent were gender-related, 21 percent were race/color-related, and 13 percent were related to students’ gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

While ranked third in the list, the number of kids bullied for gender/orientation issues is sobering when one considers the number of kids in the sexual minority category. This means that quite a few kids are perceived as a sexual minority and that a high percentage of them are being harassed. It also may mean that sexuality related slurs are being leveled at many kids due to perceived status.

 Several of the next bunch of references are not studies but news articles (e.g., racial strife in Philadelphia) which cannot address the reasons for being bullied. This is a distraction and not an appropriate means of supporting the desired points. A proponent of including sexual orientation issues could advance articles about students like Carl Hoover-Walker, Jaheem Herrera,  Eric Mohat and Justin Aaberg in order to make their points. All of those boys experienced anti-gay harassment and all committed suicide. The articles provided by the True Tolerance website identify real problems but they are not relevant to the prevalence of anti-gay bullying.

One of the references did not relate to bullying in general but rather was a study of sexual harassment. But even in this study, the researchers reported that sexual harassment involved verbal bullying, saying

With respect to perpetration, research suggests that African-American boys weremore likely than their Hispanic and White counterparts to engage in physical sexual harassment, whereas White boys were more likely to engage in nonphysical harassment such as calling someone gay or lesbian or spreading sexual rumors (AAUW, 2001).

While the report does not directly address bullying in general, this reference fails to support the fact sheet and in fact supports the idea that gay related teasing is an important aspect of the problem.

To me, if one approaches this from a neutral perspective, one has to name a problem to solve it. If in a given district, sexual minorities are being targeted, then one must train teachers and staff to recognize it and stop it. If anti-gay slurs are being used, then one must acknowledge the existance of gay students to make the point that such remarks are hurtful and manipulative. One would do this for any domain of bias, it seems to me. If belief indoctrination is of concern, then the programs should be evaluated on a case by case basis and local parent groups convened to find solutions that work at the local level.

Now an Anti-Pornography Bill; Uganda’s Plan B

According to this Afrik-News article, the Ugandan government is set to criminalize pornography. Scott Lively would approve. He told his Ugandan audience in March, 2009 that straight porn leads to homosexuality. Hon. Nsaba Buturo agrees:

“Pornography breeds homosexuality. I am happy that finally a bill to curb pornography in Uganda is out to punish the promoters of the vice. The draft bill is already in cabinet for discussion” Nsaba Buturo said.

According to the bill, any person found guilty of dealing in pornographic materials risks paying heavy fines or a 10-year jail sentence or both.

“The days of the homosexuals are over. The bill is good news to all morally upright Ugandans saying that pornography has contributed to moral decay and increased crimes among Ugandans,” he added.

While addressing the press in Kampala on Wednesday, the Minister of Uganda for Ethics and Integrity, Dr. James Nsaba Buturo said that Pornography is the mother of vice and so there is need to stop it immediately.

Buturo may have to do his crusading as a private citizen since he was defeated in his party primary. Again according to the article:

Dr. James Nsaba Buturo attacked homosexuals who celebrated his defeat in primary elections for his ruling political party in his constituency, saying they “sponsored my rivals and even helped in cheating the votes. But I have appealed to the party electoral commission.”

It is funny to think there is a massive gay vote that could topple Buturo in Uganda. Be interesting to see how this plays out. Most of the rest of the article is flawed but I suspect that most of the quotes attributed to Buturo are correct.

If I can find a copy of the draft, I will post it.

The New Yorker almost reports on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The New Yorker published online an article on The Fellowship, titled “Frat House for Jesus: The entity behind C street.”

The article is lengthy and I need to read it more thoroughly before I give an assessment of the completeness of the reporting but I am not encouraged by the author’s treatment of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

Hunter brought Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the former African rebel who became Uganda’s President, and other key Ugandan leaders into prayer groups. When Uganda’s Parliament took up a bill last year that would have punished some homosexual acts with death, Hunter and his friends in the Fellowship felt they had the standing to urge the proposed measure’s defeat. Museveni appointed a commission that studied the matter and then recommended that the bill be withdrawn.

That’s it. While Peter Boyer’s purpose was to report on the Fellowship – in advance of Jeff Sharlet’s new book on the subject coming out soon – he could have at least mentioned that the bill was not withdrawn and that the mover of the bill is a main figure in the Ugandan prayer breakfast movement (The Fellowship).

This paragraph makes it seems as though the bill is history because of the American opposition from the Fellowship. If anything, the American and Ugandan prayer breakfast groups are still at odds over the proper policy regarding the bill. The bill is still alive in committee with Fellowship associate and Ugandan member of Parliament, David Bahati, still advocating the application of Leviticus in Ugandan law.

Let me hasten to add that the American Fellowship group woke up about the issue after Jeff Sharlet reported that David Bahati was a Ugandan associate. From that time, Fellowship associate and spokesperson Bob Hunter’s opposition has been strong and unwavering. Spiritual leader Doug Coe spoke out against the bill. The February national breakfast committee would not have allowed Bahati to attend. And Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used their National Prayer Breakfast speeches to blast the Ugandan bill by name.

However, Boyer glossed over this history and current reality (did he talk to anyone in Uganda?) and the reader is left with the impression that the bill has been withdrawn or defeated because the American Fellowship used their “standing.” The American Fellowship group has used their influence but the Ugandan Fellowship group has not responded by withdrawing or urging defeat of the bill. My contacts tell me that the situation is no different than when I was at the National Prayer Breakfast in February and many of the Ugandan delegation were in favor of the bill.

Given this treatment of the Uganda situation in the New Yorker piece, I urge a cautious reading of the rest of the article.

For more on the current status of the AHB, see this post and most recently here.

Bullying prevention on CNN: FOF and GLSEN square off

Timothy Kincaid posted the link to this Anderson Cooper 360 segment on bullying prevention. Here is Candi Cushman and Eliza Byard discussing bullying policy along with author Rosalind Wiseman.

In the past I have favored laws which do not enumerate traits (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation) because the context of bullying can be so diverse that a category could be left out (e.g., gifted kids). However, I think that enumerated laws are better than no laws at all and certainly understand advocates who believe listing is the way to go. I do favor numeration of categories for statistical purposes as bullying prevention programs are implemented. This approach provides a way to know where the problems are and if a district is improving.

Furthermore, I think implementation of bullying prevention often requires directly addressing various social issues, such as race and sexual orientation. If the school-wide assessment finds that gays are being harassed and disrespected, then you have to address the worth and dignity of sexual minorities. Wiseman and Byard are correct to note that silence on the issue sends a loud message – some disrespect is ok, while other disrespect will not be tolerated. Simply saying, ‘all people deserve respect and a safe learning environment’ is not enough and often does not generalize. Human nature being what it is, it is easy to allow bias to convince us that our prejudices are ok, as long as we don’t generalize them. Where a problem exists, it has to be named.

At the same time, I do think that school personnel have a responsibility to avoid stigmatizing religious people who do not approve of homosexuality. This is a difficult challenge and one which mirrors the problem we have finding ways to live together in a society polarized over many issues. However, we have to try.

Lessons from the True Tolerance website: Discuss sexual orientation

Titles are meant to grab attenion and perhaps that one will for those who have followed the worries of Focus on the Family about bullying prevention programs. Essentially, FOF is concerned that gay activists are using anti-bullying programs to infiltrate schools with political messages. To counter that perceived threat, FOF placed a list of bullying facts on their True Tolerance website. Given my interest and current involvement in bullying prevention, I checked it out. I will have a more extensive look at it next week but for now I wanted to post something I was surprised to see there.

As a reference for the contention that bullying of kids who are gay and perceived to be gay is not a big problem, the fact sheet lists an article from the Newsweek blog. First here is one of the FOF bullet points:

Statistics also indicate that race, ethnicity issues, and even opposite-sex harassment actually account for more bullying problems, than do homosexual-related issues.

As a reference for that factoid, the author of the sheet lists a Newsweek blog article by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, titled, “Does Labeling Bias as “Bullying” Hide the Real Problem?” The authors first describe the case of a young man, Alex Merritt, who allegedly suffered sexual orientation related harassment and then report the research of Stephen Russell on reasons kids report being bullied.

Russell went to public and private schools in California, surveying 235,000 kids in 7th, 9th, and 11th grades. Russell asked each student if he had been bullied within the past 12 months, and if they answer was yes, to describe the incident.

37.4% of the kids said that they had been bullied. 

Then Russell broke that data down by category.

14% of the kids had been bullied because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. 9.1% of the kids said they’d been bullied because of their religious beliefs, while 10.3% said the bullying was gender-based. Like Alex Merritt, 7.5% said that the torments had been about their sexual-orientation – that includes kids who were actually homosexual, and those just perceived to be gay. Another 4.9% said that they were bullied because of they had a physical or mental disability.

By the end of his data analysis, Russell had concluded that 75% of all bullying came from some type of bias – racial, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

This article is apparently a reference designed to prove that anti-gay bullying is down the list of reasons why kids are picked on. I assume the reason for that point is to make a case that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a means of preventing bullying. However, that is not the message of the article referenced. Based  on the data, the Newsweek authors point out that bias is involved in the lion’s share of the bullying. The authors then raise the possibility that school personnel should be promoting discussions of the factors involved, including sexual orientation.

Dorothy Espelage has been analyzing the curriculum of the anti-bullying programs most commonly used in schools. She found that hardly any of the programs even addressed bullying relating to sexual orientation.

If the majority of bullying is bias-related, and yet we don’t even acknowledge this in anti-bullying programs, what does this mean? In the chapter of our book, excerpted in Newsweek, we presented evidence that demonstrated how many of us have assumed kids are race/color-blind, and thus we don’t need to talk about race with them – however, that leaves kids to their own devices on how they respond to racial and ethnic differences. Perhaps the same pattern is going on in other forms of bias. We think that we as a society are past making fun of people with disabilities, people of different religion or gender, etc. – and thus we don’t actively talk about these issues with our children. And that has inadvertently left the door open for kids to use these differences as the basis of torment. 

The implication is clear: at least in some schools, maybe most, we need to discuss the hidden elephants in the rooms, whether they be race, religion or sexuality. 

Looking again at the numbers, the 7.5% who were bullied due to sexual orientation is staggering. The prevalence of students who are gay or perceived to be gay is probably not much higher than 10-15%. That means a very high percentage of such children are getting harassed. In evaluating the meaning of the numbers it is not sufficient to simply rank order the reasons as FOF has done. One must also consider the prevalence of harassment in that population.

Schools differ and in some ethnicity might be the largest elephant in the room, but I suspect in many districts around the country and probably the corner, kids are being subjected to regular harassment based on real or perceived sexual minority status. In those situations, as this FOF referenced article reminds us, we need to talk about it.