Arizona law currently bans any instruction in its HIV/AIDS health curriculum that “Promotes a homosexual life-style,” “Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style,” or “Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.” Several LGBTQ advocacy organizations are suing to change the harmful, archaic, and potentially deadly law.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, along with law professor Clifford Rosky and pro bono counsel Perkins Coie LLP, yesterday filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Equality Arizona, which includes members who are public school students. The suit challenges what they call the Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law, which was enacted in 1991. “Arizona schools are not safe for most LGBTQ students,” states the complaint. “Nearly 80% of LGBTQ students surveyed in Arizona regularly heard homophobic remarks, and 71% experienced verbal harassment in the past year due to their sexual orientation.” Bans on “the expression of positive views about ‘homosexuality’ in public schools,” research shows, “harm LGBTQ students by fostering school climates that stigmatize and isolate LGBTQ youth, putting them at heightened risk of bullying and harassment,” it says. “In addition, the rate of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in Arizona increased significantly from 2011 to 2017, particularly among young people.” It also notes that the law “has been interpreted by some educators to prohibit discussion of transgender people.”
The complaint shares the stories of several Equality Arizona members. One, identified as A.A., is a 15-year-old gay student in ninth grade at a public high school. He has experienced bullying and harassment because of his sexual orientation since middle school, before he even came out. Now, “when he uses the locker room to change clothes for physical education class, other boys frequently taunt him for being gay, and A.A. has had clothes and other objects thrown at him.” The same boys who do this are also in his health course, where “A.A. is afraid to ask questions relevant to LGBTQ people for fear that his questions will lead to further harassment and bullying from his peers.” He “is worried that he will not be able to learn medically accurate information in school, including in his health class, that will keep him safe and healthy.”
Another student named in the suit is S.C., a 12-year-old student in seventh grade who identifies as queer. When in fourth grade, S.C. learned from an older brother that they were not allowed to talk about “homosexuality” in the “family life” class. S.C. was then beginning to understand their sexual orientation, and “learning about the law made them feel less accepted by their school.” In sixth grade, at a public middle school, “they experienced bullying from classmates because of their perceived sexual orientation.” To make things worse, “S.C. was not supported by teachers or administrators when they shared what had been happening to them, and did not feel safe at the school as an LGBTQ person. S.C. frequently went to the school nurse’s office because they were so upset from the harassment and bullying.” S.C. and their brother therefore transferred to a public charter middle school. For ninth grade, S.C. will attend a public high school where they will be required to take a health education course to graduate. “Because they will take curriculum subject to the Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law in high school, S.C. will face further stigma and will be denied equal educational opportunities because of the Law,” the complaint asserts.
The suit is filed against Kathy Hoffman, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction, but the complaint notes that Hoffman herself has said that students “in the LGBTQ community” are “more likely to experience bullying and harassment,” and that “[a] simple step we can take to help reduce discrimination and bullying for these students is to repeal the ‘no promo homo’ law — legislation that only contributes to an unsafe school environment. This policy is not just outdated, it has always been harmful and wrong.” That bodes well for the success of the suit, although these days, I’m not sure anything is certain.
Meanwhile, over in the U.K., some parents in Birmingham and Manchester are up in arms over an LGBTQ-inclusive primary school program designed to encourage understanding and inclusion. Cue the usual panicked remarks claiming this teaches age-inappropriate things about sex. It doesn’t.
Once more for the people in the back: Not talking about LGBTQ people in school will not “shelter” children from LGBTQ people. It will only make them less prepared to live in the world today. For some children, it may even generate fear, self-doubt, and self-hate, and ill equip them to care for themselves, their friends, and their families. That’s not an education.