Case Statement

One possible way that student safety can be promoted, in addition to education and training, is the adoption of a comprehensive non-discrimination policy. Having effective policy reinforces the efforts of other educational strategies in protecting students from discrimination and harassment.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Are Problems That Affect All Students, Gay or Straight
Specific Policies Are The Most Effective In Protecting Students
Mississippi is behind the curve with regard to affirming the basic rights of all students.
The Proposed Policy Helps Mississippi School Districts Comply With Their Constitutional Obligations to Protect All Students Equally

I. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Are Problems That Affect All Students, Gay or Straight

Study after study shows that discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity is the one of the most serious problems facing public high school students today.

Indeed, numerous studies show that schools are generally not safe for LGBT students, those students perceived to be LGBT, and gender non-conforming students. According to the 2007 GLSEN National School Climate Survey, 9 out of 10 LGBT students (86.2%) experienced harassment at school in the past year, three-fifths (60.8%) felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and about a third (32.7%) skipped a day of school in the past month because of feeling unsafe.²

Compared to other students who are not harassed, these students are:

More than three times as likely to carry a weapon to school
More than three times as likely to seriously consider suicide
More than three times as likely to miss at least one day of school in the last 30 days because they felt unsafe
More than twice as likely to report depression (feeling so sad and hopeless that they stopped normal activities for two weeks) ²

Moreover, of all bias-related comments made at schools, homophobic ones are the most common.³ Almost all students (91%) report hearing anti-gay slurs or negative statements by their peers on a daily basis, while 44% report hearing similar statements made by teachers.⁴

Many studies also document that anti-gay harassment is a “problem [that] affects all students, regardless of their actual sexual orientation.”⁵ A broad-based study in Seattle schools, for example, found that “80 percent of students harassed on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation were in fact heterosexual."⁶ Furthermore, “harassment on the basis of gender non-conformity perpetuates and reinforces gender stereotypes that hurt everyone."⁷

II. Specific Policies Are The Most Effective In Protecting Students

Our coalition of students, parents, and community members and organizations believe that all students, including those who identify LGBT, have the right to attend a school free of harassment and discrimination. Making clear that all forms of sexual orientation and gender discrimination are prohibited within MNPS is a necessary and significant first step in providing a safe environment in which all students can learn. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has declared that “enumeration [of protected categories] is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.”⁸ In studies done separately by GLSEN and the California Safe Schools Coalition (CSSC), both found that specific non-discrimination policies were more effective than generic safe schools policies. Compared to their peers at schools with generic policies, students at schools with comprehensive policies:

were 25% more likely to feel personally safer⁹
were 28% less likely to be harassed based on not being masculine or feminine enough¹⁴
were 16% less likely to be harassed based on actual or perceived sexual orientation¹¹
were less likely to hear homophobic remarks, with 68.8% frequently or often hearing these remarks,
compared to students in schools with generic, non-enumerated policies (74.3%) or no policy (75.0%);
reported that their school was safer for boys who aren’t as masculine as other boys (56% to 27%) and for girls who aren’t as feminine as other girls (71% to 42%)¹³

Furthermore, schools with comprehensive policies have been found to have a more positive overall school climate, given that students in those schools report “fewer incidents of harassment and bullying,” “fewer bias-related comments and less name-calling,” “greater feelings of safety,” and “improved connections to school, community, and supportive adults.”¹⁴

III. Mississippi does not favorably compare to many other states on ensuring students have a safe learning environment through non-discrimination policies

As of July 2007, there are 15 states that have laws or state-wide educational policies that specifically protect students from discrimination and/or bullying based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. An additional six states have proposed legislation offering these same protections. Over 1/3 of all states in the U.S. have either implemented or proposed policies that protect students from discrimination or bullying in schools based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.¹⁵

Even within states that do not currently protect their students from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there are many individual school districts that have policies that provide specific protections for gay and lesbian students. Listed below in alphabetical order are numerous school districts in the Southeast and Midwest whose non-discrimination or anti-bullying policies specifically include sexual orientation and/or gender identity as a protected characteristic. Note that none of these districts are in states which mandate such a policy; they have independently taken the initiative to protect their LGBT students:

Alexandria, VA; Ames, IA; Arlington, VA; Asheville, NC; Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Bloomington, IN; Charlotte, NC; Charlottesville, VA; Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Ft. Worth, TX; Gainesville, FL; Kansas City, MO; Knoxville, TN; Lincoln, NE; Little Rock, AR; Memphis, TN; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; Richmond, VA; St. Louis, MO; Tallahassee, FL; Toledo, OH.

IV. Comprehensive Non-Discrimination Policy will help Mississippi comply with constitutional obligations to protect all students equally

A comprehensive non-discrimination policy will not only make the schools feel safer for all students, but would also comply with the District’s constitutional obligations. Every student in America has “a federal constitutional right to equal protection under the law. This means that schools have a duty to protect LGBT students from harassment on an equal basis with all other students.”¹⁶ If schools fail to protect LGBT students from harassment, federal courts have ruled that they can be held liable. In April 2003, for example, a decision made by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held school officials liable “for failing to respond to incidents of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.”¹⁷ Federal money can also be withdrawn from school systems by the U.S. Department of Education upon discovering that the district is “not doing enough to prevent sexual harassment against [LGBT students].”¹⁸ The equal protection clause also protects the rights of transgender students and those students who do not conform to outdated sex stereotypes.¹⁹

In conclusion, adopting a proposed non-discrimination policy affirms Mississippi’s commitment to providing equal educational opportunities to all of its students. Not only will the proposed policy help communities fulfill their constitutional duty to protect the rights of all students, but it also provides guidance and support for school administrators. Further, students will feel safer in a school district with a more comprehensive non-discrimination policy. The enumeration of sexual orientation and gender identity, appearance, and expression shows LGBT students that they are in fact supported, which in turn will cause them to be more likely to remain in school, keep their grades up, and go on to college. The policy will also protect heterosexual students who are perceived by their peers to be LGBT. With fewer incidents of harassment, the learning environments of Mississippi State will become safer for students and more conducive to their educations.

Notes

^* Our coalition is not associated with any Mississippi Public School Districts.

¹ From the 2007 GLSEN National School Climate Survey. Available for download at http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1306-1.pdf

² Page 1 of the Summary Fact Sheet of Safe Place to Learn. Available for download at: http://ncflr.convio.net/site/DocServer/SafePlacetoLearnFactSheet.pdf?docID=1062

³ Page 4 of the Executive Summary of the 2005 National School Climate Survey. (Information not available from 2007 GLSEN report.)

⁴ Page 2 of the Summary Fact Sheet of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 2).

⁵ Page 4 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn. Available for download at: http://ncflr.convio.net/site/DocServer/SafePlacetoLearnLow.pdf?docID=1061

⁶ Page 4 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 5).

⁷ Page 2 of Frequently Asked Questions on Safe School Policies, published by the Office of Public Policy of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the National Center for Lesbian Rights; available for download at http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/224-1.pdf.

⁸ Page 2 of Frequently Asked Questions on Safe School Policies (see footnote 7).

⁹ Page 18 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 5).

¹⁰ Id.

¹¹ Page 18 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 5).

¹² Page 17 of the Executive Summary of the 2007 GLSEN National School Climate Survey. Available for download at http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1306-1.pdf.

¹³ Page 18 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 5).

¹⁴ Page 2 of the Summary Fact Sheet of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 2).

¹⁵ The states which have laws or educational policies protecting sexual orientation and/or gender identity are Arizona, Colorado, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The states which have proposed legislation protecting sexual orientation and/or gender identity are Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, and Oregon.

¹⁶ Page 1 of Frequently Asked Questions on Safe School Policies (see footnote 7).

¹⁷ Page 1 of the Full Report of Safe Place to Learn (see footnote 5). School districts have paid anywhere from $40,000 to over $1.1 million in settlements or judgments to LGBT students for failing to uphold their constitutional responsibilities. See “Fifteen Expensive Reasons Why Safe Schools Legislation Is In Your State’s Best Interest.” Available for download at: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/15reasons.pdf?docID=1621

¹⁸ Q & A: Adding Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity to Discrimination and Harassment Policies in Schools, published by the American Civil Liberties Union. Available for download at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/11861res20011019.html

¹⁹ Page 1 of Frequently Asked Questions on Safe School Policies (see footnote 7).