A weblog by Tom Coates concerning future media, social software and the web of data
Quote of the month: "This is not a brothel, there are no prostitutes here"
You can subscribe to an RSS feed, read the disclaimer or explore the archives

On the distribution of gay teenagers...

Posted August 16, 2003 9:44 PM.

Yesterday (via new-favourite-weblog Let Me Get This Straight), I stumbled upon an article about a Bronx senator and a conservative legal group in Florida who are suing the Harvey Milk school in New York with discrimination. The Harvey Milk school is the target of this attack because it is 'the gay school" - it's being accused of discrimination because (apparently) it discriminates against straight students (Lawsuit challenges gay high school). Now the school is unlikely to have too much trouble with this threat because it's actually open to students of any sexuality. It's perhaps not too much of a shock, however, that only gay students really want to enter into a programme that's marked as being particularly capable of meeting their needs of people who are experiencing problems at their schools on the basis of their sexuality. I'd love to see the barely-hidden smile when they say, "We're open to anyone who's having trouble at their schools because of their sexuality - so find me a straight kid who's being beaten up and harrassed by an overwhelming force of gay students and is being failed institutionally by an entirely gay staff and they're in..." In fact in many ways this whole enterprise is a really bad idea for the anti-gay people - they're just providing a platform for gay activists to detail all the ways in which our education systems fail gay teenagers [cf. On Homophobic Bullying in Schools].

Now I've had a couple of conversations with friends about the Harvey Milk school and they've been quite surprised by my feelings towards it. They assume it's a kind of ghettoisation and that we should instead be fighting to make all schools gay-friendly. Certainly, this isn't an uncommon feeling among gay people - the respondents to the Let me Get This Straight post aren't uncritical. But I'm not critical at all - in fact quite the opposite. First and foremost I'm supportive because the specifics of the functioning of the school aren't really encapsulated in the phrase 'gay school' very well - I think there's generally a misunderstanding about what the school is there to achieve and when you explain its function to people, they pretty much get it immediately. It's not there because gay children are a problem, and it's not there to try and detach them from straight people or 'normal' life in any way - it's there because the kids are getting regular, daily harrassment in their current school - harrassment that is almost impossible to control, permeates everywhere and can be extremely dangerous. Of course these things should be fixed at the source - school shouldn't be a homophobic environment - but while they are, in extreme cases, you can understand the reasoning...

The other aspect of this is more complicated and I think it's got something to do with the geographic distribution of gay children. Now the most obvious grounds for discrimination are probably things like religion, race, background or gender. For every single one of those things, while there are some schools in which one religion, race, background or gender might be in a significant minority, there are other schools in which the same 'type of person' will be in the majority. In religion, race and background these things are likely to be geographically determined - what's a minority in one place will be a majority elsewhere. And (all things being equal, as in fact they never are) that means that there's always the possibility of moving to a place where your child will not be judged on the basis of that one signifier.

Gender is different of course - there isn't (for example) a massive geographical clumping of women around Nottingham. But still - there's a roughly 50/50 split in boys and girls in pretty much every reasonably sized area in the world, so any places where there are lots of boys will mean a different place with lots of girls nearby. And of course - in terms of gender and schools - there are more often than not only really three stable states - girls only, boys only or roughly 50/50 (with exceptions of course for schools that place different emphases on subjects that attract one gender more than the other but are open to both - not uncommon, but also normally evened out by the presence locally of schools that complement them).

Now gay kids are in a different situation. Firstly, they're not in any way geographically clumped. If living in a specific area would normally mean that the people you go to school with would be on average more similar to you on all the axes of religion, background, income and race (language even), it bears no relationship to whether or not they're going to be gay or not. This makes it quite distinct from the geographical spread of gay adults, who tend towards cities where there's more opportunity to clump into interest communities and lifestyle communities. But gay parents don't necessarily have gay children, if they have children at all - so even in the most gay areas on the planet, there are still going to be no more gay kids than the 0.5% - 10% seem worldwide.

So they're not geographically clumped, but nor are they evenly balanced like the genders. Gay kids represent a disreet chunk of the school-attending population - but not a particularly large chunk. The figures for the incidence of homosexuality among adults vary dramatically depending on which study you believe, but the consensus is that it's probably somewhere between 0.5% and 10%. At school, the figure of kids who are out to their friends and families (let alone to the world at large) will be considerably smaller than this figure.

So what does this mean? It means, fundamentally, that gay kids will pretty much always be in the minority at their schools. They'll pretty much always be considered the freaks and they'll pretty much always have to see themselves as strange, different or abnormal. In this they probably have much more in common with groups with unusual inherited mental or physical attributes that have the potential to ostracise - and that's everything from severe physical handicaps all the way to the unusually bright. Some of these groups we don't have second thoughts about schooling differently - autistic children or the insanely clever for example. Others (those with physical problems for example) we try to integrate into local schools - because we believe that whenever possible a physical problem shouldn't be a reason to stop an individual having the same options and opportunities as anyone else.

So that brings us to gay teenagers - what group are they in? Do they deserve access to the same options and opportunities as everyone else - clearly yes. But do they also have needs that aren't likely to be met in a school in which they'll always be in a radical minority. I'd say yes to that too. A gay teenager should have the opportunity while at school to realise that there are loads of other people like themselves, to forget - for a while at least - that they are not like everyone else. They should also have the opportunity to meet and date and flirt with other teenagers without wondering if they're going to get beaten up. They should have the ability to have crushes on people without it being statistically inevitable that they'd have them on straight people. They should have the opportunity to do all that learning about relationships and going steady that are open in principle to straight people in general (even if many straight kids don't feel able to take advantage of them).

So where does that leave us? Clearly the Harvey Milk model isn't right for every gay kid or - indeed - even every big city. Nonetheless something needs to be done. There has to be some way for all gay teenagers to have someone to advise them without worrying that their secret will get back to their families before they're ready to tell them themselves. And there has to be a way for gay kids to have those Dawson's Creek moments that their straight friends wander through without realising how lucky they are. Maybe better guidance counsellors and gay summer-camps are the answer - who knows... But let's not close our minds to the option of schools that advertise themselves as gay-friendly just yet, eh? The situation's too grim at the moment to shut any options completely off...

Trackbacks

People who have linked to 'On the distribution of gay teenagers...' (What is a trackback?)

Comments

Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.

I agree with what you say about discrimination against gay teenagers compared to that by race or religion etc., but what about another common cause of bullying - obesity? You sort of allude to this in your bit about physical abnormalities, but I don't really see the difference between being bullied because you're fat and being bullied because you're gay (especially if the fatness comes from some sort of genuine physical problem).

Don't fat children have the same right to "wrealise that there are loads of other people like themselves, to forget - for a while at least - that they are not like everyone else"?

I'm not sure I'm against this school completely, but I do think there's a possible double standard here.

Posted by: raoul parekh at August 18, 2003 8:08 PM

Well at some level yes - certainly - I wouldn't see anything intrinsically wrong with a school for obese people, if the people concerned had specific needs and represented a sufficient percentage of the population for such a school to be in any way pragmatic (I don't know the percentage of people with serious weight problems in schools, so I don't know how much of a catchment area it would need to have to work). Having said that, there are some distinctions here - a child with an illness or physical abnormality would ideally not be obese - and if there's a way of helping them deal with that situation then it would be irresponsible not to try and offer them all the benefits of a totally integrated life as well.

Posted by: Tom Coates at August 19, 2003 12:08 AM

Hello,

One of my concerns is the fact that the school is being publicly funded via tax dollars. I feel this is something that needs private funds. Would you (not just you, anyone) be willing to have your tax dollars go to fund a Christian-based school or a school for obese children? Should an athiest have to pay for a school based on a belief in God?

Another idea...What if Muslim children in the US feel threatened because of 9/11 backlash? Would it be okay to set up a school just for them?

Posted by: Richard at August 19, 2003 1:21 AM

Well that's a different question I think - there are issues around what religious activity can happen in public schools in America I believe, and I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm going to stay with what I know and try and talk around that.

Whatever the percentage is of gay adults in the country, it's important to remember that they still all pay taxes and they're still all citizens. Every one of them also went to school at some point. In fact - as a percentage of the population - there's basically a direct analogy between the number of gay tax-payers and the number of gay students. I think it's really important that we don't assume that the people who pay for schools that are supportive to gay children would be exclusively straight, white, middle-class people. I'd be interested to know what the figures are on the amount of tax paid as well - while I don't believe that gay people are any more talented on average than anyone else, the fact that most out gay people move to cities at some point probably means that they're earning more money than average and hence paying more tax. The question you could ask here might be why - if they're paying all this money towards the state, it should go exclusively towards an education system that supports straight children but not gay children - particularly as gay men and women are less likely to have children themselves that would put pressure on the system.

Posted by: Tom Coates at August 19, 2003 8:37 AM

Also, in terms of tax dollars--the school isn't discriminating against straight students, it just doesn't necessarily appeal to them. And, with regards to tax dollars funding religious education, in the state of Louisiana, at least, state funds provide textbooks, computers, and various other supplies for every school, including parochial institutions. (The state-provided materials cannot be used to teach religion classes, but are used in every other area of the school.) Several other states have similar programs--I don't know if New York is one of them. So atheist tax dollars are funding Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, etc. education. And I wish I could answer the point about obesity without saying that "it's a choice" and is an entirely different problem to issues of sexuality and gender.

Posted by: Ryan at August 24, 2003 6:51 PM

In school (grade 7-11 or so) I was pretty severly harrased/abused/mocked as well as beaten quite a few times for being overly feminine. I'm a hetro-sexual male, who is also a born again christian, so while not neccesarrily the target market for the school, I would have been some-what of a likely canidate.

Posted by: Josh at September 2, 2003 5:53 PM

And this site just gets better. Just read wandered on to this post now.

I live in Ireland and the whole sexuality in schools never came up. We're still forced with catholicism in schools mostly and as a teen who was questioning his sexuality in school having the school not mention anything but heterosexuality in religion class or other subjects was hard.

It was all "lets talk about guys liking girls and girls liking guys. "

Its pretty much still the same and guys and girls are afraid to come out. Schools are meant to educate and get us ready for society and when it comes to sexuality they are ignoring a lot of peoples needs.

I also know that they are refusing to let gay organisations in to talk to students.

I'm no longer a teen although I still try and retain my teenage angst :) . I'm pretty well sorted now in life but from various gay discussion forums in Ireland gay teens are still pretty saddened by schools views on sexuality.

I've decided with some others to put up a website dedicated to Teenage Sexuality issues. I've talked to other Gay Adult Support groups and they are all afraid to broach the subject too. Theres a great website for kids in Northern Ireland - http://www.glyni.org.uk and I hope to create a resource as good as theirs.

As for what Richard commented about tax dollars. If the education program of the school matches and/or exceeds what the government stipulates a school has to carry out then it should not matter who attends the school, be it race ,physical appearance, religion or sexuality. Education is a basic human right. A lot of these schools are passionate about looking after their pupils and are moreso than some ordinary school who have burned out teachers. So schools founded cos they really give a damn should be welcomed. Its a good use of tax dollars isn't it ?

Posted by: Damien Mulley at September 7, 2003 5:56 PM

I completely disagree with robert from above. Religion and Sexual Orientation are two completely different things. And, although they overlap in a very few, select places, they are not to be confused.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2005 2:04 AM

Schools designed for a 'select' few should not be tolerated. Part of growing up is being able to handle diversity. It would be nice if all of us had the luxury of never having to go outside of our our comfort zone. Nice, but totally unrealistic.

Posted by: Johanna at April 23, 2007 10:07 AM

Well, that's all very well, but what if 'being outside your comfort zone' means failed by the education establishment, harrassed by other students and more likely than average to attempt suicide? It seems to me that you're willing to sacrifice children to some vague idea that it's good for them and for society if they try to get on with abusive, bullying environments. I'm not sure I can agree with that.

Posted by: Tom Coates at April 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Want to add your opinion?

© 1999-2007 Tom Coates