The Role of Schools in Ensuring the Welfare of LGBT Students

LGBT in Public Schools The past ten years have witnessed a vast progression in the compilation of information concerning the experiences of students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) in schools. A review by the United Nations, Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO), which analyzed data from approximately twenty nations worldwide show that transphobic and homophobic bullying and discrimination is universal across schools (UNESCO, 2012). Even though the LGBT people are more accepted in society and face less discrimination, the experience of LGBT students in a school environment is much worse and challenging. The United States has been at the center of the issue as most of the research originates from the country. Majority of the research have put more focus on the effects of LGBT victimization, which has been shown to include sexual risk behavior, substance abuse, and thoughts and attempts of suicide. In the context of a safer learning environment, researchers have also tried to explain the increased cases of bullying and victimization that have been experienced in these learning institutions, and more so, the negative attitude that other students have towards LGBT students (Horn, Kosciw, & Russell, 2009). The school environment is supposed to promote an inclusive, safer, and supportive system of learning. However, the LGBT students have been negatively affected by victimization, which has resulted in the system’s failure to offer a safe and inclusive environment. According to data by Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, and Greytak (2013), drawn from 5,730 LGBT youths, undertaking secondary education in the United States, a majority of the students faced victimization. Resultantly, the victimization affected the performance of these students. On the other hand, studies have also shown that school systems that support LGBT students can help establish a better learning climate for the students and lead to better academic outcomes as well (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). This shows that support systems are advantageous in promoting the academic success of the students. Despite the positive benefits of supporting LGBT students, schools remain unsupportive of these students, as there have been high cases of bullying and victimizations in schools worldwide. The schools have failed to address this issue properly. In light of this, the question remains as to whether schools are responsible for LGBT students. This essay seeks to discuss the role of schools in ensuring the welfare of LGBT students. The core point of argument concerning the issue of LGBT in schools is whether the schools are responsible for protecting the welfare of all students. Despite the difference in their sexual orientation, LGBT students are much similar to any other child in school. Moreover, schools are responsible for offering safe working environments for all children irrespective of their gender, race, sexual orientation or any other difference. Attention to safer learning environments for LGBT students rose after the previous cases of suicide and murder as a result of bullying and victimization. In 2008, Lawrence King, who was 15 years old then, was murdered by his schoolmate after offering him a valentine note (Russell, Kosciw, Horn, and Saewyo, 2010). The case received much media attention. Later, in 2009, 11-year-old Carl Walker committed suicide because of the constant bullying and taunts from his schoolmates, mainly because of his sexuality (Russell, Kosciw, Horn, and Saewyo, 2010). These cases act as the most tragic consequences of the unsafe school climate, which poses a risk for LGBT young people. As a result, there have been rising concerns over the issue of how schools are ensuring the welfare of LGBT students. The equality for LGBT’s has been a major human rights issue for the United States over the past decade, owing to the advance of same-sex marriage and the stories of bullying and suicide that aroused public sympathy. However, despite the efforts by the government to push for LGBT rights and equality, the progress has not been the same globally. Different countries and cultures hold varying opinions over the issue of LGBT rights. In Russia, gay propaganda has been criminalized in an effort by the government to clamp down on free speech, whereas in Uganda, there are laws that discourage gay sex and are coupled with harsh penalties. On a broad perspective, people’s opinions on the issue of LGBT has shifted to a more positive aspect. More individuals are open to the fact that human rights should apply to every individual regardless of their sexual orientation. Nonetheless, most of the nations across the Middle East and Africa agree that being a sexual minority should be illegal. Moreover, approximately one in five adults would be upset if their child would explain to them that they are attracted to a person of the same sex (Drake, 2013). This shows that the differences in opinions throughout the globe on LGBT are highly dependent on cultural differences as well as political environments. Nonetheless, despite the differences in opinions, a majority of individuals agree to enact laws that make it safer for LGBT individuals and allowing them to live freely without bullying and discrimination.          The government together with education policymakers are responsible for coming up with policies that create a school climate that is safer for LGBT students. The government and the education policymakers have had various discussions about making reforms to the school curricula by having sex education part of the education system. These efforts are meant to help students have a better understanding and hopefully appreciate the differences in gender orientation. However, there has been much opposition from political parties, religious leaders and parents over the introduction of sexuality education. These opponents claim that teaching sex education might encourage students to engage in homosexuality and eventually become lesbians, gay, bisexual, or transgender (Gegenfurtner, & Gebhardt, 2017). Furthermore, these individuals argue that sexual orientation is a choice and that the individuals are not born this way, but rather, decide to be lesbian or gay. This argument is true in the sense that sexual orientation and gender identity is a deliberate choice and not a trait that individuals are born with. According to a study by Alanko et al., (2010) on homosexuality of adult female and male individuals in Finland, genetic effects tend to be the key determinant of sexual orientation. The same also applies to transgender identity, meaning that aside from the sociological influences, our sexual orientation is also determined by genetic components. If so, then sexual education cannot influence a child into becoming or practicing homosexuality. Moreover, education can help LGBT students to understand the factors that lead to their sexual orientation.         The second opinion is on heteronormativity. These are the views, politics, and practices that privilege homosexuality in a certain community or group. Since the views prevail societies parents are comfortable in passing down these norms to generations. Heteronormative culture has devastating effects on a child’s learning outcomes, health, and motivation. According to a study by Bouris, Everett, Heath, Elsaesser, and Neilands, (2016), sexual minority students are at greater risk of falling victim to cyberbullying, and they are also more likely to be socially isolated or fail to attend school because of bullying, assault or abuse. Considering this, it would be unfair for the students if the schools fail to set policies and encourage sexual education simply because it would go against the heteronormative views in the society. Instead, children should be educated to help reduce the issue of bullying in schools and better the chances of LGBT students benefiting from education as well. Moreover, with sexual education, parents feel like they will lose control over what exactly their children are supposed to learn. Robinson, Smith and Davies (2016) state that the introduction of sexual education in schools is blocked by the controversies and tensions arising from the cultural discourses which proclaim that sexuality is irrelevant and risky for young minds. This means that sex education can force a certain view on children, which contradicts the views of parents and the entire community. This claim is in line with the view that being lesbian, gay, transgender, or bisexual is unnatural and immoral. Therefore, it is the responsibility of society to protect the children from the issue of LGBT. Apart from the government, several LGBT rights organizations advocate for equality and the protection of LGBT in all public settings. These organizations include the GLBT National Help Center, which is focused on meeting the necessities of LGBT people, the Family Equality Council, which advocates for social justice and helps change the views of individuals on LGBT, the Human Rights Campaign, which is also an advocacy organization that pushes for equality and provides public education, as well as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network, which comp...