By Emma Blackwood

“It is hugely important that every child understand the complexity of human history in all different dimensions in order to have a full understanding of the past, present and possible futures, and that’s what this is ultimately about.”

The above quote is from Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) executive director Eliza Byard in reference to changes surrounding public school history curriculum. In the summer of 2019, Illinois became the fourth state to require the addition of LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) history in public schools, after California, Colorado, and New Jersey. The bill will not go into effect until July 2020, but school administrators and teachers have already begun creating new study plans.

Because there have been no previous templates, teachers are trying to figure out which aspects of LGBTQ+ history should be included in regular courses. Certain educational organizations have been assisting in the process. The National Council for Social Studies currently advocates for “contexutalizing LGBTQ+ within the American story,” much like the way black history and feminist movements are now incorporated into American history books to further explain the periods in which they began. 

Despite the progress that’s being made, curriculum focused on LGBTQ+ history and issues can be difficult to design. Much like the broad topic of black history, there are too many moments that don’t make it into our current history classes. Teachers must decide which events make it into their school’s curriculum, choosing from lengthy lists of events like the Stonewall Riots, the AIDS Crisis, the 1966 Sip In, and the Lavender Scare. The lack of gay representation in textbooks shows. Less than 25% of American students say they’ve ever learned about LGBTQ+ related issues in any class, including history. Experts say this can be incredibly detrimental to children’s health, and studies show that LGBTQ+ students whose schools offer LGBTQ+ curriculum are 13% less likely to be bullied based on their sexuality. 

It’s not a coincidence that so few students have ever encountered LGBTQ+ friendly curriculum in their classes. Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas all have what are colloquially referred to as “No Pro Homo” laws. These laws state that public education cannot condone, normalize or even mention any LGBTQ+ sexualities in sexual education. However, these laws are so vaguely worded that they can be misconstrued to be applicable to other subjects and can even be extended to allow schools to ban GSA’s (Gay-Straight Alliance clubs) and other LGBTQ+ focused student resource groups. Alabama, for example, has one of the more extreme implementations of the law, and it can be much more difficult for non-straight students to find support in their communities. GSA’s are student-led middle and high school organizations that advocate against sexuality and gender-based bullying and are often one of few outlets for young LGBTQ+ students. The Alabama law that regulates school activity states that, “in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.” 

As more and more states have mandated the implementation of LGBTQ+ inclusive history curriculum, these “No Pro-Homo” laws have come under fire for causing psychological harm to LGBTQ+ youth. GLSEN, the educational organization that focuses on ending gender and sexuality based discrimination in schools, finds that non-straight students in states with “No Pro-Homo” laws have less access to relevant health resources at school, are more likely to be bullied, are less likely to feel supported by teachers, and generally face more hostile learning conditions than LGBTQ+ students from other states. But even in areas where these laws don’t exist, it is important to create an unbiased education. California, the first state to implement the history curriculum regulations, did so following the suicides of four gay teenagers in 2010. For context, between 9.9% and 13.2% of straight students have considered suicide, compared to 15.1% to 34.3% of gay and lesbian students.

Some critics of  LGBTQ+-friendly laws and school policies criticize them for attempting to sexualize children and force them into “non-Christian” beliefs. However, federal law mandates that schools cannot prioritize religion over secular education. 

Some Christians believe that the Bible bans homosexuality in any form, and that view is often based on chapter 20, verse 13 of Leviticus: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” However, as with most aspects of the Bible, there is a wide variety of interpretations of this passage. Some argue that it actually referencing pedophelia. According to longtime LGBTQ+ advocate and Pastor Jimmy Creech of the United Methodist Church, every mention of same-gender relations in the Bible is negative due to the condemnation of “violence, idolatry, and exploitation,” and these same behaviors are condemned just as much in heterosexual relations. He also adds that the words homosexuality and homosexual were never a part of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic, because they were not invented until the end of the nineteenth century, so there is no way they could have appeared in the Bible. And yet, misconceptions surrounding sexuality continue to circulate.

Victoria Cobb is the president of the Family Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative lobbying group. She is quoted as saying, “Science has not found a genetic link to homosexuality. Even with the completed genome project, no evidence was found to suggest it is connected with one’s DNA. I think those that have stepped away from their lifestyle as a gay individual and are now married with children would tell you that they made a choice.”

This is an incorrect analysis of scientific data, and yet Cobb has had influence in Virginia political circles for years. There is no shortage of politicians and religious leaders that have beliefs mirroring those above, but that hasn’t stopped activists and education-based organizations from moving towards equality.

In response to the idea that new curriculum could somehow sexualize children, Bethy Leonari, co-founder of A Queer Endevour, says, “People aren’t inappropriate, and it’s possible to teach about the many ways LGBTQ people made history without getting into their sex lives, any more than one would when discussing straight people in history.” She claims, “There’s a sexual and moral component that shouldn’t be there. But that’s the way the narrative has been shaped for us over time.” 

In addition to the new laws and policies specifying history curriculum, there’s been an increasing debate over the inclusion of LGBTQ+ oriented discussion in health and sexual education classes. These courses are incredibly difficult to regulate federally, as they vary so greatly between states. However, sex education is one of the most useful classes offered at many schools. Studies show that around one third of high school students are sexually active, and this number hasn’t changed much since 1991. Additionally, more than 50% of American teenagers have had sex by age 18, so educating students on about safe sexual habits would seem important. The term “safe sex” has long referred to both the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STD’s and STI’s. Both of these aspects transcend sexuality and gender identity, so sex education should be tailored to cover all demographics of teenagers to promote the healthiest lifestyles possible. Yet changing sex ed curriculums is proving a much more difficult challenge than previously thought. 

Only 24 states (and the District of Columbia) require sex education to be taught in public schools at all, and among those, only 20 states require that the information taught be factually correct. Among all states, only 12% of LGBTQ+ high schoolers report having ever heard mention of non-straight or non-cisgendered people and relationships in their sex ed classes.

The law is moving forward with respect to LGBTQ+ students. A South Carolina law banning the mention of non-heterosexual relationships or issues in sexual education classes was recently ruled unconstitutional and repealed. In 2017, the Columbia Law Review published a study reviewing the ethics and legality of laws specifically banning the teaching of LGBT+-related subjects in sex education.

The author, Clifford Rosky, a professor at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law, found that, “Grounded in moral disapproval and anti-gay animus, these laws plainly violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees under the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor v. United States, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Yet federal and state officials will retain the legal authority to enforce these laws unless and until courts enjoin them from doing so. Challenging anti-gay curriculum laws is a necessary and important step toward establishing the legal equality of LGBT people and creating a safe environment for LGBT students in the nation’s public schools.”

What the article specifically outlines is that even in states without “No Pro Homo” laws, there are still many regulations that can lower the quality of education that LGBTQ+ youths receive, which can be detrimental to their development in a way that does not affect straight students. Additionally, Rosky explains that abstinence-only sex education has never been successful in lowering rates of STI’s or unwanted pregnancies, a result that has been found by multiple reports. 

Abstinence-only sex education reached its peak during the G.W. Bush administration (2001-2009), when over $50 million went into new school programs on the grounds that abstinence would be stressed as the only appropriate form of contraception. The Obama administration ended federally mandated abstinence-only sex education, but laws vary between states, which means millions of students learn unreliable information in their classes. A report by NPR reinforces the data that abstinence-only education doesn’t succeed in lowering rates of teen pregnancies or STD’s. Additionally, the report states that claiming “waiting until marriage” as the only viable option is becoming less realistic, as Americans are marrying later, on average, than ever before.

The common theme between the debate over incorporating LGBTQ+ history into standard curriculum and broadening sex education to cover non-straight and non-binary students is that any legislation about both of these topics is going to receive some backlash. 

It’s difficult to say how long this will continue to be a debate. Native American history is also still not federally mandated in public school history curricula. If certain races of people still get left out of our history books, there likely won’t be much of support for a group like the LGBTQ+ community, whose discrimination is often passed off as “religious freedom.” At the very least, these are the first steps to creating a more equal society, for those who have been fighting for it for over sixty years.

Featured image credit: Ludovic Berton.