Running head: lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy1

Advocating for an End to Bullying Targeting LGBTQ Public School Students

Joseph. A. Cerniglia
University of South Carolina

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 2

Abstract
This advocacy plan seeks to address the problem of bullying targeting LGBTQ public school
students through a comprehensive training program to build Safe Spaces for these students.
Utilizing the professional knowledge base to, first, understand the issue, then evidence-based
interventions to plan and advocate for the implementation of such a program within the Richland
County School District Ones elementary, middle, and high schools. The evidence-base shows
that teachers, staff, and administrators, when appropriately trained on bullying reduction
practices, are able to improve the educational outcomes of LGBTQ students and, by proxy,
overall school climate. Additionally, this paper will discuss the means by which the advocacy
efforts and intervention approach would be evaluated and how this author can self-evaluate
strengths and weaknesses of the authors conceptualization and professional development. The
implications for future development of this advocacy plan express that it is both a plausible and
realistic plan that could be implemented for the improvement of educational outcomes for
LGBTQ students.

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 3

Advocating for an End to Bullying Targeting LGBTQ Public School Students
Introduction
For lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ) students in
public school settings, harassment and bullying can negatively impact several key facets of
healthful functioning. This bullying can take the form of, but is not limited to, verbal harassment,
physical harassment, and even physical violence. As this analysis will show, the evidence
supports both the prevalence of this issue as well as the negative outcomes thereby resulting.
The dominant hegemony is represented in heterosexism, which (James Madison
University, n.d.) defines as the assumption that all people are heterosexual and that
heterosexuality is superior and more desirable than homosexuality or bisexuality. Heterosexism
is also the stigmatization, denial and/or denigration of anything non-heterosexual. As part of
adolescent identity development between the ages of 12 and 18 (middle school and high school),
and specifically ego identity versus role confusion (Erikson, 1963), youth who identify as
LGBTQ receive mixed messages, feel confused, and guilty for not understanding (Adams, et
al., 2013, p. 46)
The perpetuation within the public educational institution create policies and codes of
conduct that reinforce heterosexism and discrimination; these institutions, wielding significant
social power and control, formed enforcements based on the historic cultural heterosexism
perpetuated by evolutionary and religious development (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993).
Cultural Imperialism, as defined by Young (1990, pp. 58-61), is to experience how the
dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of ones own group invisible at
the same time as they stereotype ones group and mark it as Other and violence is marked by the
reality that members of some groups live with the knowledge that they must fear random,

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 4

unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to damage, humiliate,
or destroy the person.
Public policy is oriented towards rewarding heterosexuality and creating conformity to
heterosexist norms (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993). For example, marriage between same-sex
couples, up until 2014, was limited to less than half of American states. Additionally, television
and media portrayals normalize heterosexual relationships and disregard or misrepresent
homosexual relationships.
More specifically related to public educational policy affecting LGBTQ individuals, the
policy has been remanded to individual states and the political will, or lack thereof, to identify
and address LGBTQ issues. The two types of public policies are anti-bullying and/or antiharassment laws, for which only seventeen states and the District of Columbia (DC) have in
place, and anti-discrimination laws, for which only fourteen states and DC have instituted.
Furthermore, eight states have specific laws that expressly forbid teachers from discussing gay
issues in a positive light-if at all (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, n.d.).
Bullying and harassment represent the chief institutional structure of this cycle. These
enforcements can be implemented directly by students, teachers, and administrators, but also are
implicitly encouraged by an ignorance of student enforcement by inadequate institutional policy.
In fact, despite 74.1% of LGBT students experiencing verbal harassment, 39.3% experiencing
physical harassment, and 19% experiencing physical assault, 61.6% responded that staff did
nothing/took no action and/or told the student to ignore it (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen,
2013, pp. 22-34).

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 5

Recognizing the overwhelming service need:
only [50.3%] of students said their school had a Gay-Straight Allianceonly
18.5% of LGBT students were taught positive representations about LGBT people
[only 26.1%] had seen at least one Safe Space sticker or posterand only 10.1% of
students reported that their school had a comprehensive policy (Kosciw, Greytak,
Palmer, & Boesen, 2013, pp. xix-xxi).
These staggering statistics indicate rampant bullying and harassment and represent an
ethical imperative on the part of, especially, social workers, as demanded by the National
Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (2008) calling for commitment to clients, cultural
competence and social diversity and the core value of the dignity and worth of the person.
In a Human Rights Campaign/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll (2011, p. 2), 76%
of adult respondents would favor a law to prohibit bullying and harassment against minority
groups in schools, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and for individuals
who identified as Christian, the responses were similar with 74% in favor.
Overview
The most effective approach to addressing the issue of bullying targeting LGBTQ public
school students is to utilize the influence and power of teachers, staff and administration to
prevent bullying, intervene when bullying is occurring, and offer opportunities to rectify the
damages when bullying has occurred. The overwhelming literature supports advocacy for this
intervention approach (Byrd, 2014; Fredman, et al., 2015; Hatzenbuehler, et al., 2014; Hillard, et
al., 2014; Mayberry, et al., 2011; Poynter & Tubbs, 2008; Ratts, et al., 2013;). According to
Ratts, Kaloper, McReady, Tighe, Butler, Dempsey, and McCullough (2013, p. 388) Principals
can use their power to ensure school policies do not become unnecessary barriers for LGBTQ

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 6

youth. Teachers can integrate LGBTQ related topics into their curriculum. School counselors can
deliver guidance lessons on the harmful effects of bullying in classrooms. School psychologists
are advocates when they consider how an unsafe school environment influences testing results.
Therefore, a comprehensive safe schools training program would tap in to this power and
influence. This training program would follow the model established by Poynter and Tubbs
(2008, p.125) which:
may consist of a number of elements including: panels of LGBT students, staff,
and employees; referral guidelines for counseling and harassment reporting; role
plays; information about identity development; resources available on and off the
campus; and general LGBT information. At the conclusion of training,
participants are then asked to sign a contract or values statement affirming their
participation in the program.
Working with organizations vested in the planned outcomes for this advocacy effort
would meet with the National Association of Social Workers (2008) ethical demand of
empowerment. For example, South Carolina Equality, a statewide advocacy organization focused
on LGBTQ issues, the Harriet Hancock LGBT Center, a community center for LGBTQ
individuals, and LGBT Programs at the University of South Carolina, a campus awareness and
support organization, would be targeted for inclusion in the advocacy efforts. Specifically LGBT
Programs at the University of South Carolina has an established Safe Zone Ally Training
Program which could be instrumental in the development of a similar program more appropriate
for elementary, middle, and high schools (Office of Multicultural Student Affairs, n.d.).
The desired outcome of these efforts would be to implement a district-wide safe schools
program and reduce experiences of bullying in schools within Richland County School District

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 7

One. With the reduction in experiences of bullying, LGBTQ students would be relieved of at
least one barrier to educational achievement and, in terms of social justice, more full and more
equal participation in the educational institution.
Project Activities
Therefore, the project activities are as follows 1) seek cooperation and support from
allied organizations working with LGBTQ populations; 2) seek cooperation and support from
teachers, staff, and/or administrators 3) send a proposal of the planned training program to the
Richland County School District One Board; 4) attend a school board meeting to speak on
proposal; 5) develop a training program, with allied organizations, teachers, staff, and
administrators, that meets with the evidence base; 6) train trainers to conduct the trainings at the
schools within the district; and, finally, 7) conduct the trainings in phases beginning with high
schools, then middle schools, then elementary schools, 8) continue the advocacy efforts in other
districts.
Each of these processes would require advocacy through educationbringing a new
issue to the targetnegotiationpositions are stated to find one that everyone can accept[and]
persuasionframing a decision [to] make people more likely to act in a certain manner (Hoefer,
2012, pp. 105-111). For the purposes of this project, persuasion will be primarily focused on
school board members for approval; negotiation will take place at the school district level for
implementation of the project; and education will be oriented towards those staff members
receiving the training. There could be significant resistance on the part of board members,
district representatives, school staff, and even allied organizations. This resistance will require
careful and tactful education, negotiation, and persuasion.

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 8

Project Evaluation
The efficacy of this advocacy effort will be measured in two key ways: First, participants
in the training will be given a pre-test and a post-test to determine understanding and
appreciation of the training materials; and second, a survey will be distributed to students to
determine the prevalence of self-reported bullying experienced by students identifying as
LGBTQ at key points, before training, and each subsequent grading period. This evaluative
process would allow for a progression through time and may indicate other factors that could be
included in future trainings.
For future efforts of advocacy, and building on the success of these efforts, an inclusivecurriculum could be developed for proposed inclusion in district curricula. Additionally, the
training program could be extended to surrounding districts and, eventually, the entire state.
Other advocacy efforts in this arena could focus on the other educational barriers such as family
instability or rejection, and societal antagonism.
The primary ethical issue to this advocacy plan is the reality that sexuality is not a topic
integrated into many school curricula and some school staff may have religious objections to the
discussion of sexuality in any other terms than as fundamentally immoral. It will be vital,
therefore, to remain clear that the purposes of this training is not relevant to ones personal or
religious view of sexuality, rather the damaging effect of bullying targeting LGBTQ students and
the professional obligation to provide a safe space to these students. According to Fredman,
Schultz, and Hoffman (2015, p. 78):
By emphasizing the contributions that education about LGBTQ issues make to
student safety, advocates may be able to transcend the division surrounding the
immediate issue and appeal to a value (student safety) held by a wide range of

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 9

individuals on conflicting sides of the issue. Once opponents have accepted the
basic value of safety, it becomes more challenging for them to dispute the means
by which that safety could be accomplished.
Personal and Process Evaluation
In self-reflecting, I learned that mitigating the unconscionable damages perpetrated
against LGBTQ students, leading to poor educational outcomes, can be advocated for in a
constructive and effective way. This newfound knowledge represents the first steps in the Unified
Model of Advocacy (Hoefer, 2012): Getting Involved, Understanding the Issue, and Planning.
Furthermore, in any future practice with which I engage, I commit to being more responsive to
the areas of oppression perpetrated within agencies, for which I am involved, institutions, and
society at large, especially those areas of oppression perpetrated against LGBTQ individuals.
Overall, the lesson learned include an appreciation for the vital role advocacy plays in the
practice of social work, at a micro or a macro level. It is the responsibility of individuals,
especially social workers, to speak truth to power, call out injustice, and advocate on both a case
and a cause level. Further contributions to my professional development include a greater
appreciation for the process of advocacy and an ability to integrate advocacy into my practice
with any vulnerable and/or oppressed population.

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 10

References
Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W., Castaneda, C., Hackman, H., Peters, M., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.).
(2013). Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Blumenfeld, W., & Raymond, D. (1993). Looking at gay and lesbian life. Boston: Beacon Press.
Byrd, R. (2014). Evaluating Safe Space Training for School Counselors and Trainees Using a
Randomized Control Group Design. Professional School Counseling, 17(1), 20-31.
Erikson, E. H. (Ed.). (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. Basic books.
Fredman, A., Schultz, N., & Hoffman, M. (2015). Youre Moving a Frickin Big Ship: The
Challenges of Addressing LGBTQ Topics in Public Schools. Education and Urban
Society, 47(1), 56-85.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). State Maps. Retrieved February 11, 2015,
from Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network: http://glsen.org/article/state-maps
Hatzenbuehler, M., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. (2014). Protective School
Climates and Reduced Risk for Suicide Ideation in Sexual Minority Youths. American
Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 279-286.
Hillard, P., Love, L., Franks, H., Laris, B. & Coyle, K. (2014). They were only joking: Efforts
to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle Public Schools. Journal of
School Health, 84, 1-9.
Hoefer, R. (2012). Advocacy Practice for Social Justice. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Human Rights Campaign. (2011). Beyond the top lines: Studying the cross-tabs. Washington,
DC: Human Rights Campaign.

lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 11

James Madison University. (n.d.). Fact and information sheet about: Heterosexism. Retrieved
February 11, 2015, from Educate Yourself:
http://www.jmu.edu/safezone/wm_library/Heterosexism%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
Kosciw, J., Greytak, E., Palmer, N., & Boesen, M. (2013). The 2013 national school climate
survey. Washington, DC: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
Mayberry, M., Chenneville, T., & Currie, S. (2011). Challenging the Sounds of Silence: A
Qualitative Study of Gay-Straight Alliances and School Reform Efforts. Education and
Urban Society, 45(3), 307-339.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of
Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Office of Multicultural Student Affairs at the University of South Carolina. (n.d.). Safe Zone
Program. Retrieved from: http://www.sa.sc.edu/omsa/safezone/
Poynter, K. & Tubbs, N. (2008). Safe Zones. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 121-132.
Ratts, M., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S., Dempsey, K., & McCullough, J.
(2013). Safe Space Programs in K-12 Schools: Creating a Visible Presence of LGBTQ
Allies. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7:4, 387-404.
Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.