Psychological Harms of Anti-Gay Politics on LGBTQIA Youth

June is Pride month for the LGBTQ community, and it is also the month when Supreme Court decisions are announced. This June 30, many Pride celebrations were also rallies and protests due to the Supreme Court decision in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, concerning a Colorado website designer. What might this new interpretation of free speech laws mean for youth and educators?

Impact on Youth

The concept of "minority stress" has long been established in the field of psychology. As it concerns LGBTQ youth, research shows that those who live in more socially conservative regions of the U.S. experience more negative impacts, such as higher rates of suicidal ideation, bullying, and harassment than youth who live in more politically progressive regions.

In a 2011 article published in Pediatrics, Hatzenbuehler reported that “Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were significantly more likely to attempt suicide in the previous 12 months, compared with heterosexuals (21.5% vs 4.2%). Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempting suicide was 20% greater in unsupportive environments compared to supportive environments.” This study compared 34 counties based on 4 criteria:

1. the proportion of same-sex couples
2. the proportion of registered Democrats
3. the presence of gay-straight alliances in schools
4. school policies (nondiscrimination and antibullying) that specifically protected lesbian, gay, and bisexual students

GLSEN’s National School Climate Surveys (2020, 2018, 2016) have also consistently demonstrated that youth in schools in the southeast and midwest of the U.S. experience higher rates of bullying and harassment and lower levels of school safety and belonging. These regions have few to no non-discrimination protections in schools or public accommodations. (Readers can see these policy maps by GLSEN and the Movement Advancement Project to learn more.)

Based on this research, it is easy to conclude that the public pedagogy of such a decision from the Supreme Court is likely to communicate to LGBTQ people that our lives are worth less and that discrimination based on religious viewpoints is sanctioned by the highest court in the land. This will very likely exacerbate the harm caused by minority stress. As research on the so-called "Trump effect" has illustrated (Rogers et al 2017, Sondel et al 2018, SPLC 2016), speech by the nation’s leaders floods into schools and communities and can cause direct harm to targeted and vulnerable groups.

Impacts on Teachers and Classrooms

It is important to clarify the limits of the "303 Creative" decision. It is narrowly written to only impact creative professionals and not all forms of public accommodation. As such, I want to offer guidance to public educators as they consider their lessons and curriculum for the coming school year.

I have written an earlier post that provides an overview of the foundational cases for free speech issues in public schools, but the central component to focus on here is this: When acting in their role as professional educators, teachers are considered “government actors” and their speech is “government speech.” Legal precedent establishes that teachers may not refuse to teach certain content if it is in state standards or district-approved texts. In states like California, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado, and others that require LGBTQ content to be taught in schools, all public educators must be ready and willing to teach these lessons in accurate and inclusive ways that reflect the spirit and language of state laws and the education code.

In all states and schools—except where specifically prohibited by district policy—research supports the value of educators and families displaying Pride flags, safe space stickers, and other signs of support for LGBTQ youth to help counter the harmful messages sent by this decision. Research demonstrates that when LGBTQ youth have 11 or more adults in the school that they know affirm their identities, they have improved academic and health outcomes over students who only have 5 or fewer supportive adults at school (GLSEN 2020). We also know about the protective impacts of an affirming family environment due to studies by the Family Acceptance Project. I have written another article about how to counteract arguments that try to limit the posting of such symbols at school.

What Can We Do?

To reduce the documented harms caused by minority stress related to current political shifts, I offer four ideas here for parents and educators to try out in their homes or classrooms:

1. Inclusive language: Always use inclusive and supportive language with your children and/or students to signal support for LGBTQ people whether you are aware of someone’s LGBTQ identity or not. Terms such as partner, sibling, parent, kiddo, parent, grown-up, young person, loved one, significant other, and use of they/them pronouns signal openness and support for all people, families, and relationships.
2. Teachable moments: Use teachable moments to signal support for LGBTQ people; point out Pride flags, discuss current events, and celebrate queer characters in TV, books, and movies.
3. Symbols of support: Post stickers, flags, or wear shirts that explicitly communicate love and appreciation for diversity in general and LGBTQ people in particular.
4. Model curiosity: Model ways to question stereotypes, norms, or discriminatory speech. Some ideas for questions might include: "I wonder why they portrayed that character in that light?" "Why are all the girls in this show wearing pink?" "That term feels hurtful, why do they choose to use that language?" "Where did you learn that term?" "What does that mean to you?" "Do you understand the history of that word?" "Why do you think some people don’t support LGBTQ people or families?"