Facts for Educators Concerning Pupil Harassment and Sexual Orientation

". . . uncertainty about sexual orientation is a normal part of growing up, and social influences do have a bearing on sexuality. Accordingly, students should be given the space and the freedom to move through that uncertainty without being pressured to label themselves as homosexual or heterosexual."

Alan Medinger

"Every child has the right to feel safe and secure in the school environment. There can be no tolerance of harassment, intimidation, or bullying." Wisconsin’s Pupil Nondiscrimination Law prohibits discrimination against pupils on the basis of fourteen factors. The law (118.13, Wis Stats.) states:

(1) No person may be denied admission to any public school or be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of or be discriminated against in any curricular, extracurricular, pupil services, recreational or other program or activity because of the person’s sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability.

Sexual orientation is one of the fourteen factors that schools have to consider in their anti-harassment policy. This has opened the door for debate on how to handle sexual orientation in schools. Well-intentioned and caring people have heard many statements concerning sexual orientation, teens and the need for special protection. There are widespread beliefs and assumptions about sexual orientation, however, that are simply accepted at face value. Take a closer look at a few of these:

5%-10% of the population is gay or lesbian. What does current research actually show?

· References using the 10% number are referring back to the outdated and flawed Kinsey Report

· Male homosexuality: 2.8%; Female homosexuality: 1.4%.   Source: Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 1994. (Comment by Stanford University Professor, Paul Robinson about the survey: "The great strength of the new study is that its participants were selected according to the most sophisticated techniques in probability sampling. . . Its findings can thus be generalized to the population at large with a high degree of confidence.")

· 1.6% of the American population as homosexual – Source: The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 1990.

· Similar findings have been reported in Great Britain, France, Canada, Norway, Denmark & Australia. Source: Wall Street Journal article entitled "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy," by J. Gordon Muir, 3/31/93.

Sexual orientation is determined at birth, i.e., people are "born gay." Is this true? This unspoken assumption lies at the heart of many arguments for special gay rights.

· ". . . even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and adolescence." Source: After the Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, PhD.

· "The existence of a genetic pattern among homosexuals doesn’t mean people are born gay, any more than the genes for height, presumably common in NBA players, indicate an inborn ability to play basketball."

· At age twelve, 25.9% of children were "unsure" of their sexual orientation. This figure declined to 5% by age 17, with an average "unsure" for all age groups of 10.7%. This indicates a fluidity in sexual orientation. Source: Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents, Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, (Vol. 89, April 1992. Abstract available online) by Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH; Michel Resnick, PhD; Robert Blum, MD, PhD; and Linda Harris.

· There is no scientific evidence that indicates a biological causation of sexual orientation. The three major research projects (Bailey and Pillard, LeVay, and Hamer) have all been discredited by their peers. Sources: Hidden Agendas Produce Biased Interpretations, Physician, July/August 1992; Nimmons (March, 1994) Discover, Sex and the Brain, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 64-71;: (1995) NIH "Gay Gene" Study Questioned. Science 268:184.

Gay and Lesbian Youth Commit Suicide at a Rate at Least Three Times Higher than Other Youth. This "study" is the source for most references to how youth respond to discrimination (including drop out rates, etc.). Even respected magazines such as Pediatrics mistakenly refer to this study when discussing teen gay issues. Here are the facts:

· The supporting document included in the 1989 Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS), written by homosexual activist Paul Gibson was denounced by then Secretary HHS, Dr. Louis Sullivan. Source: letter from Dr. Sullivann to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, October 1989.

· David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist and specialist on adolescent suicide said, "I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but, in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math." Source: "Political Science," The New Yorker, May 3, 1993, p. 116.

· Most studies of homosexual suicide attempts find other influencing factors present in their backgrounds that are common to all cases of suicide. For example, one 1989 study of suicidal behavior in young adult gay men found that the "suicidal" men were more than three times as likely as the "non-suicidal" men to have alcoholic fathers, and more than twice as likely to have no religious affiliation and a family history of suicide. Other harmful factors such as divorce were found to be disproportionate among the suicidal men. Source: Stephen G. Schneider, PhD, Norman L. Farberow, PhD, and Gabriel N. Kruks, "Suicidal Behavior in Adolescent and Young Adult Gay Men," Suicidal and Life-Threatening Behavior, Winter 1989, pp. 381- 394.

· "Paul Gibson's HHS paper is merely an "essay" that presents no new data on completed suicides." Source: Peter Muehrer, chief of the youth mental health program in the Prevention Research Branch of the National Institutes of Mental Health

· Gibson used the incorrect and largely inflated 10% figure for his calculations

Homophobic remarks are often cited as a form of harassment, but just what is the definition of homophobia? It has now come to mean that if you state you believe homosexuality is wrong because of your moral, family or religious beliefs you are homophobic. If you read medical reports and conclude that homosexual behavior is unhealthy you are now homophobic . . .

· A phobia is a marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation. Source: American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition

· Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Source: Mirriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

· Those who advocate homosexuality as a viable lifestyle choice equal to that of traditional heterosexual marriages label as bigoted, hateful and homophobic those who disagree with them; regardless if those disagreeing base their objections on sound logic, practical concerns or moral reasons. Source: Peter La Barbera, Family Research Council

So why is there so much confusion?

Since there is so much evidence that contradicts these popular beliefs, why would anyone promote this misleading information as factual? We can get a good idea from the book After the Ball written in 1989 by authors Kirk Marshall and Hunter Madsen, Ph.D. The Harvard-trained social scientists lay out the systematic blueprint to transform our society into the acceptance of homosexual behavior, unveiling key psychological principles and national strategies.

In their book, they propose eight strategic principles for public outreach. They are:

Don’t just express yourself: communicate!

Appeal to the Ambivalent Skeptics.

Keep talking about gayness.

Keep your issue focused: the issue is homosexuality.

Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.

Give potential protectors a just cause.

Make gays look good.

Make victimizers look bad.¹

The authors say in their book, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector."² They also realize that "Few straight women, and fewer straight men, will be bold enough to defend homosexuality per se. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society."³

The fact that many youth (up to 25%) at some point deal with gender confusion, but only about 1%-2% come to the conclusion they are gay or lesbian, propels us to ask some very difficult questions:

· How do we currently respond to students who are unsure about their sexual orientation?

· To whom are they sent for counseling?

· What biases might their counselors have?

· Is a student's uncertainty interpreted as a fear of facing his or her same-sex attraction, or does the counselor seek to help the student unpack feelings and look at a variety of ways of understanding what is happening?

It is important to provide all students a safe environment. The law requires us to maintain zero tolerance for any kind of harassment; including youth who because of their religion, creed, or national origin believe homosexuality is wrong. Do we need to introduce new curricula into our classrooms to promote every factor that is protected by law; or do we simply need to enforce a straight-forward, zero tolerance of any inappropriate language or behavior? Let’s be careful not to harm those confused youth who will find their true gender identity if they are given the freedom to come to their own conclusions without undue pressure.

1.  Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball, (Doubleday, New York), 1989, 191

2.  Ibid, p. 183

3.  Ibid, p. 187

Return to top