A growing number of states, are passing laws to prevent students from learning about the struggles and triumphs of LGBTQ Americans. In May, Tennessee became the first state to pass what queer-rights advocates have branded as “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which either forbid the teaching of LGBTQ history in K-12 schools outright or allow parents to choose whether their children participate in lessons that include it. Within days, Montana followed suit and yet another bill in Arkansas awaits the signature of the state’s Republican governor. Similar bills have been considered in West Virginia, Iowa, and Missouri, and even more proposals are percolating through red-state legislatures. Overall this increasing pattern of laws is being led by Republican state legislatures-hard at work trying to erase our visibility, and spot at the table.
Map and State-by-State Status
This allows a false representation of the past, one in which LGBTQ people are imagined never to have existed in our nations history. This hesitancy to open up questions about the failures of the past—of not living up to the goals of democracy—is less about the past than about not wanting to change the present, to hold in place the status quo and not allow for real moments of debate and change. Politically, the bills reflect the resurgence of culture-war politics at the state level now that Republicans are out of power in Congress and the White House, and the religious right’s expanding moral panic over the advancement of LGBTQ rights in recent years. The laws in Tennessee and Montana, as with the bill in Arkansas, are designed, it seems, to invite legal challenges at a time when an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court is inclined to grant religious exemptions. These bills are mirrored to religious exemptions allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBTQ patrons, and raise questions similar to those that the Supreme Court declined to address in Masterpiece Cakeshop: Namely, where does “religious liberty” end and nondiscrimination begin? Unable to stop our culture’s embrace of queer people, the right’s best chances now stand with exempting itself from the new social order-eyeing that six other states—California, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, and Nevada—have passed laws mandating the teaching of LGBTQ history. The Organization of American Historians, and the American Historical Association released a joint statement in May 2021, condemning the recent spate of “Don’t Say Gay” bills,
“These bills perpetuate homophobia, distort the historical record, and deprive students—queer and not—of a complete education...Among the many dangers of these laws is that they will create a two-tiered system. These bills would harm students by keeping them from learning about the complexity of our larger society and their place in it, depriving them of a fully rounded education.”
Opt-in bills may seem like a minor variation on exemption bills, but they come closer to bans than one might think. In the same way far fewer iPhone users opt in to ad-tracking when presented with the choice, requiring students to opt in to LGBTQ-inclusive education would mean a significant number would decline by default. And as with sex ed, having to opt in reinforces the idea that learning about queer people is inessential or even dangerous. In fact, limitations on the instruction of LGBTQ topics already exist in six states, remnants of another era of moral panic over sexual and gender politics: the AIDS crisis under Ronald Reagan.
David McCandless: Left VS Right World
In Alabama and Texas, students must be taught in sex ed that being gay is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” In South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, sex ed can’t talk about gay relationships outside the context of disease transmission. Continuing this notion of contagion and contamination and recruitment in sexual politics-Blah. We see examples with parents who don’t want their kids to see gay people in classroom contexts because they think the very exposure will encourage their children to transgress sexual and gender norms. Or the old argument that if you don’t have kids you can’t teach them- what about nuns? For example this bill in Tennessee sought to suppress any educational materials that “promote, normalize, support or address lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.”
In considering the threats and implications of censoring LGBTQ history, it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that teaching about queer oppression, misogyny, or racism is only to show America’s dark side, to expose the failures of our system of government. While the work of these movements remains unfinished, their successes are, in fact, a shimmer of democracy that provides hope and we should want the world to see. Sadly, mainstream America accepts pride the same way they accept the Civil Rights Movement- only on the condition that it be framed as a celebrations for a battle already won in which they were always blameless and not an ongoing struggle in which they are still very much the oppressors. LGBTQ equality is inextricably linked with other justice movements. When we talk about workers’ rights, women’s rights, and civil rights, we are having the same conversation about human rights – and the universal struggle to be understood and treated as equals.
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
In parallel these bans on the teaching of critical race theory laws seek to preserve the myth that the story of America is one of great progress and unblemished moral virtue, that we stand exceptional among nations as the gleaming embodiment of democracy, but they also imply that a great number of us don’t matter. In particular, legislation forbidding the teaching of queer history aims to harden what remains of society’s moral disapproval of LGBTQ people and endangers queer youth susceptible to suicide. Queer folks already grow up playing a version of ourselves that sacrifices authenticity to stop the humiliation and name calling, to gain the love of our loved ones. The role of our adult lives is to unpick which parts of ourselves are truly us and which we’ve created to protect us-sadly from the adults that were supposed to protect. I used to rebel by destroying myself, but realized that’s awfully convenient to the world- our best revolt is self-preservation.
Over the last 15 years, lawmakers and school administrators have increasingly recognized that LGBT youth are a vulnerable population in school settings, and many have implemented policies designed to ensure all students feel safe and welcome at school.Yet progress is uneven. In many states and school districts, LGBT students and teachers lack protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In others, protections that do exist are inadequate or unenforced. As transgender and gender non-conforming students have become more visible, too, many states and school districts have ignored their needs and failed to ensure they enjoy the same academic and extracurricular benefits as their non-transgender peers.
Sadly Trumps appointment to the Department of education, Betsy DeVos, led to her constant attacks on LGBTQ youth, particularly transgender kids. She rescinded legal guidance issued by the Obama administration that told schools they had to treat trans students equally, she tried to make it easier for schools to opt out of anti-discrimination laws in secret. She attempted to give federal money to schools that ban LGBTQ students, and she invited an anti-LGBTQ hate group to an official Department event. The Department of Education, under her direction jumped to join a lawsuit from a hate group trying to ban transgender students from participating in school sports. She also announced in 2018 that the Dept. of education would not investigate complaints from transgender students who were denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with their gender.
Blah, Fucking Anita
Teachers in public and private schools just can not win, they are still harassed at work, denied promotions, or dismissed on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Sadly only 21 states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws against this sort of job discrimination. Hidden behind the expectation that educators act as “exemplars,” for students led to intense public scrutiny of teachers’ personal lives and has restricted professional autonomy. Mainly because certain aspects of the teaching profession distinguish it from other types of public employment such as government work and military service, historically teachers have been especially vulnerable to homophobic persecution. There is also the fact that schoolteachers work with children, opening the door to homophobic fears—and always persistent—that gay and lesbian teachers would “recruit” students; this fear reinforced demands that teachers act in accordance with a narrow standard of “normative behavior.”
This battle has been going on for years with the same rhetoric in one form or another. Through the 1950’s and into the 60’s, a congressional legislative committee actively pursued gay and lesbian schoolteachers and professors, subjected them to interrogation without regard for due process, fired them from teaching positions, and revoked their professional credentials. A combination of factors led to the Committee’s demise in 1965, but, as long as laws criminalizing same sex behavior remained in effect, gay and lesbian teachers throughout the nation were summarily dismissed whenever their sexual identity became known. It made little difference whether or not they committed a criminal act, and exemplary teaching records were usually of no consequence.
By the 1970s more teachers were challenging their dismissals in court. Decisions often turned on morality and privacy assumptions that had long circumscribed all teachers’ autonomy and employment rights. It grew in parallel with the gay rights movement gaining ground in terms of local initiatives to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. In 1977, the Dade County Commission passed a gay-rights ordinance, The vote alarmed Anita Bryant, a former beauty queen, “singer,” and born again christian. She took time from her busy schedule of pitching ads for companies like Coke and Florida Orange Juice to actively campaign to repeal the ordinance. She formed an organization called Save Our Children, Inc., and based the campaign on the idea that "Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit." With this attention she waged a campaign against homosexuals in Dade County, Florida which spread throughout the nation.
Bryant's campaign won leading to a repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance, by focusing on the idea that gays and lesbians were somehow threatening to children and Bryant also created an incredibly powerful rhetorical focus for social conservatives. It way followed by a wave of repeals and gay-rights defeats in other states, including the passage of an Oklahoma law banning gay men and lesbians from teaching in the public schools. Jerry Falwell echoed her language, "Please remember, homosexuals don't reproduce! They recruit! And they are out after my children and your children." The campaign was based on conservative Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the imagined threat of homosexual recruitment of children and sexual abuse, most notably, Bryant often referred to gay people as "human garbage.” With it followed an upswing in violent attacks, including murder, against gay men and resulted in numerous cities denying or retracting gay and lesbian civil rights ordinances. It also marked the beginning of an organized opposition to gay rights that spread across the nation.
“What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before. As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children and If gays are granted rights, next we’ll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters.”
October 14, 1977: Anita Bryant Hit with a pie. Smile.
Bryant went on to led several more campaigns around the country to repeal local anti-discrimination ordinances, including campaigns in St. Paul, Minnesota; Wichita, Kansas; and Eugene, Oregon.
However, the success of Bryant's campaign galvanized her opponents, and the gay community. During a television appearance in Iowa on October 14, 1977, Bryant was struck by a pie thrown at her. While covered in pie, she began to pray to God to forgive the activist "for his deviant lifestyle." The unsung hero who threw the infamous pie was, Thom Higgins a founding member of several gay organizations. Also during this time, San Francisco appeared to be leading the country in gay rights legislation and activism. Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, becoming the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in the state. The next year, San Francisco passed the Human Rights Ordinance, which banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. At the time, the ordinance was considered the most extensive gay rights legislation of its kind.
However, piggybacking on Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” initiative, California State Senator John Briggs’s initiative , led with a ballot measure called Proposition 6, which would have prohibited gay men, lesbians, and any other educator who spoke in favor of gay rights from working in public schools. Local politicians and activists came together to oppose the Proposition 6 initiative through carefully crafted protests and media appearances. Advocates for gay and lesbian rights collaborated with women’s rights activists, organized labor, religious groups and community organizations to hold demonstrations against the proposition. Activists encouraged voter participation through canvassing, community presentations, fliers and marches. Both Harvey Milk and educator Sally Miller Gearhart debated Briggs on television, critiquing the logic behind Briggs’ proposition. They in particular dismantled the argument that gay educators would convert children to homosexuality. Harvey Milk and other activists called on national leaders and politicians to stand against Proposition 6.
The year of extensive campaigning against the proposition led to a decisive defeat on election day. San Francisco citizens rejected the bill by more than 1 million votes. The rejection of Proposition 6 did not, of course, mark an end to LGBTQ discrimination.This would be one of Milk’s final political successes. Twenty days after the vote, a former police officer and city official, Dan White, assassinated San Francisco Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk in city hall with a rifle.
“Rights are won only by those who make their voices heard.”
