| II. Country Response Models |
|
United States: an Identity-Based ModelRelying on Research, Advocacy and Policy The changes we need to see in our schools will only happen if we all work for them. Improvements come because of the intentional acts by state legislators who enact comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying policies, by administrators who institute training for school staff, by teachers who include LGBT issues in their curriculum, by students who establish student clubs dealing with LGBT issues—all of which are shown in this survey to have a significant positive impact on the experience of LGBT students. - Kevin Jennings, Executive Director, GLSEN Introduction to the 2007 National School Climate Survey [8] IntroductionMinority identities and research on minority communities have become important characteristics of the United States. Efforts to ensure the rights of LGBT people follow in the steps of the civil rights, women’s rights and farm workers’ rights movements, to name just a few. Indeed, identity-based movements in the United States have altered legislative, health care, education and employment systems, redefined family structures recognized by the state, and created specialized community spaces for consumption, leisure, advocacy and support. Efforts to define and protect the rights of LGBT youth have been an important component of these battles. Simultaneously, conservative groups have not only worked to oppose these changes, but have also sought to enact new laws and practices that openly affirm heterosexual privilege. Existing legislation (such as the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy and the Defense of Marriage Act) and current health care practices (such as the psychological diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder [9]) reveal that LGBT experiences and identities in the United States remain under attack. There is, however, the beginning of a cultural shift afoot. Young people ages 18 to 29 make up one of the most progressive youth generations ever to exercise its political right to vote in the United States. The majority of this generation—known as the Millennials—support LGBT rights and mobilized in record numbers to vote in the 2008 presidential election and in state elections where anti-gay initiatives were on the ballot [10]. The neglect and abuse of LGBT youth in the United States became increasingly apparent in the 1980s via research that focused on LGBT youth health [11, 12, 13, 14] suicide [15, 16, 17] and homophobia in schools [18, 19, 20, 21]. This research was critical in efforts to acquire financial support, spur mobilization and advocacy, and improve program implementation. As the statistics from the introduction of this paper indicate, research continues to be a very essential component of U.S. efforts to address the needs of LGBT youth. Most recently, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – the leading research organization on the topic of harassment of LGBT youth in schools in the US – conducted a study with youth between the ages of 13 and 21, via an on-line survey. Results indicated that:
Civil Society MobilizationConcurrent to efforts to quantify the extent and impact of homophobia and school harassment on LGBT youth, civil society began to mount a campaign to help sexual minority youth feel safe at school. One of the earliest school-based LGBT youth organizations, the Gay, Straight Alliance (GSA), was established in Los Angeles in 1984 under the name Project 10 [23,24]. Later Project 10 East was created in Cambridge Ridge and Latin School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Both organizations were founded by teachers who recognized that the needs of LGBT students were going unmet. Project 10 focused on training school personnel in suicide prevention and conflict resolution, helping youth to participate in developing school protection policies, and providing student access to information on human sexuality [25]. Estimates indicate that today there are more than 4,000 GSA’s nationwide [26], although only slightly more than a third of students surveyed by GLSEN in 2007 reported having a GSA at school. Just like other school-based and school-funded organizations in the US, these groups – composed of LGBT youth and their student allies – meet on school grounds to discuss issues affecting LGBT youth. The focus of meetings may range from counseling, to social events, to organizing group-based or school-based educational events [27], to leadership development. Although groups typically have teacher advisors, GSAs are student initiated and student run, demonstrating the significance of youth empowerment in the US model. Additionally, several states have GSA Networks. These networks are privately funded, state-wide civil society organizations that provide resources for youth interested in creating and sustaining GSAs in their schools, and that often help develop GSA Networks in states where youth are not accessing services. An employee of the first GSA Network [28], located in California, explained that, while each GSA is unique, there are three stages of development common to all of them:
On a local level, civil society has also developed unique programs in schools, towns and cities across the country. For example, the Hetrick-Martin Institute in New York City, a civil society organization that developed in the early 1980’s in response to growing homelessness and drop-out rates among gay and lesbian youth in NYC [29], joined the NYC Department of Education to establish the first and only comprehensive school with services and referrals designed for LGBT youth who experience severe abuse and violence: The Harvey Milk School [30]. In addition, other non-governmental youth groups, counseling services, health services and support groups designed for LGBT youth exist in different areas throughout the country. YouthResource (www.youthresource.com), a project of Advocates for Youth, offers web-based access to lists of these services in each state [31]. Political Activism and Governmental Policy ResponsesWith a history of civil rights and identity based movements, and armed with statistical data regarding the extent and impact of homophobia on LGBT youth, civil society in the United States organized against conservative opposition to LGBT rights. Advocacy, mobilization and political activism have been central components of US efforts to address the needs of LGBT youth in schools. As a result, laws, policies and government supported programs have developed to redress interpersonal and systemic LGBT harassment in schools. For example, through efforts of organizations such as the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several court cases have established schools’ legal responsibilities to:
In addition, mobilization and advocacy efforts in 10 states [38] and Washington D.C. have led to the enactment of laws that prohibit discrimination, harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. An additional four [39] states have anti-discrimination laws based only on sexual orientation [40]. However, Massachusetts is the only state to have developed training materials for school providers of LGBT youth, and even there materials were never used due to funding problems [41]. Most recently, as a result of public awareness and advocacy, the House of Representatives approved the Safe Schools Improvement Act. This bill, if also passed by the Senate, would amend the existing Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include a federal mandate that schools must implement anti-bullying and harassment programs and adds explicit protection from violence based on sexual orientation and gender [42]. The US government has also prepared guides for schools to protect students from harassment and hate crimes in schools [43,44]. Additionally, sustained advocacy efforts to end federal funding of abstinence-only until marriage programs have been successful. From 1996 to 2009, conservative activists successfully worked to limit sex education in schools to only abstinence and to preclude discussion of homosexuality, among other topics. During the 12-year period, more that 1.5 billion dollars was spent in federal and state funds to support these programs. Further, these funds represented the only dedicated source of federal dollars for “sex education”. By law, abstinence-only programs had to teach young people that sex outside of marriage is likely to cause psychological and physical harm and that the only acceptable standard of human behavior is to abstain from having sex until marriage. Further, these programs limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples [45]. Research regarding the ineffectiveness of these programs along with their inability/unwillingness to address the needs of LGBT youth led to widespread, sustained mobilization and advocacy efforts against them. Government—both state and federal - responded. By 2009 more than 22 states had turned back federal funding for these abstinence-only programs and Barak Obama zeroed-out funding for the program in his first presidential budget. Several state governments have also created initiatives to help meet the needs of LGBT youth in schools. The Washington Education Association’s Safe Schools Anti-Violence Documentation Project, for example, provides incidence data specific to LGBT youth, strategies for preventing harassment and fostering climates of respect, harassment-prevention curricula, and strategies for responding to anti-gay harassment and ensuring the safety and well-being of LGBT youth [46, 47, 48]. The Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students – often considered the benchmark in state-initiated interventions – outlines methods that schools might use to make climates safer for LGB youth [49, 50].
Beyond the end of abstinence-only-until marriage funding in the federal budget, the recent election of President Obama signaled another significant turning point in federal support for LGBT youth. The appointment of Kevin Jennings – the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network – to the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools indicates that the federal government may be ready to take a more active role in protecting LGBT youth from harassment in schools. ChallengesEfforts to improve the life of LGBT youth in schools have progressed greatly in the United States, yet challenges remain. Funding for these efforts is still limited and school personnel are often unable or unwilling to follow through with recommendations and policies, even in states where school anti-discrimination policies exist. For example, the fourth recommendation of the Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students, to provide school-based counseling for family members of LGBT students – had not been actualized in any school in Massachusetts as of 2003 [51]. In addition, reliance on unique identity categories in the United States, and on specific “minority” experiences, poses certain problems for the construction of rights-based interventions. It is critical to remember that even the labels lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender are labels that have been constructed by society. Although these labels have been useful tools for promoting community development and advocacy, they exclude the identities and experiences of those who might use different identity categories. Even within the LGBT framework, certain communities, such as women, transgender people and people of color, are repeatedly marginalized in data collection, advocacy and support. These issues are particularly relevant to youth-based efforts given that many young people are still exploring their sexuality and gender, and therefore may not (yet or ever) identify with pre-existing categories. Moreover, in focusing on singular identity elements, the U.S. model risks neglecting the interaction of systems of oppression on LGBT youth. Indeed, queer scholars of color have criticized the mainstream LGBT community in the United States for assuming that issues of color could simply be added on to existing support and interventions for LGBT youth [52]. In addition, an educational focus on youth who identify as LGBT risks limiting the extent to which discussion of sexual diversity can reach other students. Lessons LearnedWhile there are many challenges yet to be faced in the United States to break the cycle of marginalization for LGBT youth, lessons can be gleaned from the U.S. model of intervention.
Germany: A Unity Based ModelFostering Integration and Accord A major strength of German efforts to address LGBT harassment in schools is that many programs try to incorporate other important concepts such as migration, integration and classism. - Ammo Recla, Project Manager, ABQueer e.V.[53] IntroductionGermany was home to one of the earliest known homosexual rights’ movements at the turn of the 20th century [54]. Following the destruction of that movement during the Nazi regime, post-war Germany has been reluctant to establish concepts of identity in public policy and debate [55]. In fact, genocide based on difference during the Holocaust made it largely taboo to inquire about identity among the general population. Following World War II, an overall focus on unity rather than differences in East German society (German Democratic Republic) – and to a lesser extent in West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) – helped to eliminate certain prejudiced policies, such as the anti-sodomy laws [56], but simultaneously restricted government and civil society’s ability to consider the specific experiences of LGBT youth. Although a new LGBT movement had gained strength in the west during the 70’s and 80’s [57], a general focus on unity was further reinforced following German reunification in 1990. Consequently, concrete policies addressing discrimination have only recently entered national debate, largely due to pressures from LGBT and migrant communities [58], as well as policies of the European Union (EU). Research: Limited but TellingThe first studies on gay and lesbian youth in Germany began in the 1990s and were qualitative, employing interviews with small samples of youth [59, 60, 61]. Even today quantitative data is limited, but what does exist indicates that LGBT youth in Germany suffer from discrimination at the hands of their peers:
When asked why so few research projects exist on this topic in Germany, people cited a general lack of funding along with the fear of ‘outing’ oneself within academia. However, it also became clear that there is limited resistance to LGBT activism in Germany compared with the United States, and as such, the need for focused research to spur mobilization is less critical there. Civil Society Spearheads Germany’s Response to LGBT Harassment in SchoolsWhile there is relatively little resistance to LGBT activism in Germany, homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity are still very much present in German society, and school harassment of LGBT youth still occurs throughout the country. As in the United States, civil society has taken on the responsibility of spearheading action to protect LGBT students. Lambda, an umbrella organization for most groups working on LGBT youth issues in Germany, has become the major resource on school harassment. The first Lambda chapter developed in 1990 in former East Germany where homophobia was less present than in the West, but where organizing around homosexuality was forbidden. Supported entirely with government funds, Lambda is a resource for local LGBT youth seeking counseling, political activism, and/or a place for socializing. On occasion, Lambda has also initiated independent research projects [65]. There are currently five Lambda chapters spread throughout the 16 German Bundesländer (states). To address homophobia and transphobia in schools, Lambda and other organizations offer Aufklärungsprojekte - 90-minute workshops for students about sexuality and gender. The idea for these projects originated in Sweden in the 1970s and arrived in West Berlin in 1981 [66]. One group leader estimated that there are now 30-40 groups offering Aufklärungsprojekte throughout Germany. Because peer education is strongly valued in these interventions, young people often serve as workshop leaders. These youth leaders are encouraged to respond to student questions with personal anecdotes. The “biographical quality” of the workshops is seen as both an advantage and a weakness of the intervention. Personal stories allow students to readily connect to the topic, but the diversity of stories presented is limited by the lack of diversity of the youth leaders. Further, while some project leaders place the experiences of LGBT youth as the primary point of discussion for these workshops, others focus on exploring sexuality more broadly, integrating information about sexual diversity only as it becomes relevant. Civil society has also taken responsibility for training educators on issues of sexual orientation. In 1999 Lambda Nord in Lübeck published the first collection of German teaching materials focused on sexual orientation and founded NaSowas, an organization charged with training teachers throughout the country on LGBT issues. However, representatives from Schwule Lehrer, a political and social organization for gay teachers in certain cities throughout Germany, noted that very few teachers take advantage of these trainings. In fact, even for those who have gone through training, few teachers feel equipped to address issues of homophobia and transphobia in schools. As discussed earlier, the emphasis of many civil society efforts on behalf of LGBT youth is to unify and seek accord. One noteworthy example of such an effort is a teaching tool developed by MILES [67] – the center for gay and lesbian migrants – and supported by a number of organizations in Berlin. The tool encourages discussion of stereotypes regarding gay and lesbians as well as Turkish people. Students are presented with a photo of five women in which two are lesbian – one with a Turkish name and one with a German name (image 1). The students are asked to think about how they decide who the two lesbian women are, and then are asked their opinions about the billboard as an anti-discrimination advertisement exercise. This resource and others like it are available in a teacher’s aid published by the city of Berlin [68]. Importantly, these materials are directed at educators who teach biology, German, English, ethics, history, Latin and psychology – a wide range of departments. Government Partners with Civil SocietyAs noted earlier, broad public discussion about discrimination remained relatively latent in Germany until the 1990s. Recently, however, opposition to LGBT activism has been limited and as such, civil society’s efforts to work towards LGBT safety are primarily funded by the Bundesländer or national government. In particular, two political forces pushed Germany to more fully examine discrimination and identity beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through the turn of the century. The first force demanding change included the newly empowered LGBT and migrant civil society organizations, which advocated for their rights in society and helped to elect the Social Democrats and Green party to control of the federal government in 1998. The second constituted pressure from the European Union, including the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999 and the Anti-Discrimination law of 2000. Together these forces promoted laws that acknowledged identity and began to redress identity-based discrimination. For example:
Aside from these legislative changes, the German government has worked to address discrimination of LGBT youth by setting educational standards. According to the Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA – the Federal Center for Health Education), courses on the body and sexuality are expected to address homosexuality, and teachers are trained to discuss issues of sexuality in creative ways [69, 70]. Sex education is presented to students either directly by teachers, or by non- governmental organizations trained in the content and pedagogy of sex education. One such organization is Pro Familia [71]. Another, is the Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe (German AIDS Association). Importantly, the BZgA encourages education about sex and gender to begin in early education [72], and promotes positive, personal and political reflection about sexuality in general as well as within a multicultural context [73]. While the BZgA sets expectations nationally, course requirements are defined by the Kulturministerium (Ministry of Culture) in each of the country’s 16 Bundesländer. The Kulturministerien also provide funding for most of the organizations working on LGBT issues. In 2002, the Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft [74] (German Education Union) collected data from the Kultusministerium from each Bundesland regarding the attention given to gay and lesbian youth in schools, as well as the statewide incorporation of homosexuality into sex education and other courses, such as history, foreign languages, religion, ethics and biology. Every state that responded identified a local policy requiring discussion of sexuality in schools, and certain states explicitly require that homosexuality be addressed in coursework. In addition, certain regional governments have created special departments that specifically address LGBT issues, such as the Fachbereich für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensweisen in Berlin. In summary, the German model of intervention is one in which through remarkable cooperation, governmental and civil society organizations - often in collaboration with the European Union - work together to promote the health and well being of LGBT youth. ChallengesEven as Germany has created progressive policies, programs and educational models to assist LGBT youth, some challenges remain. There continues to be a deficit of research regarding the experiences of LGBT youth in schools. Further, discussion with German educators and civil society indicates that not all schools are in compliance with sex education standards and recommendations. Concurrently, while teacher training is available, very few educators avail themselves of the opportunity. In addition, some of those interviewed expressed concern that many of the educational tools designed to promote understanding of sexuality in general and sexual orientation in particular have never been evaluated [75]. Similar to the United States, Germany continues to struggle in its efforts to adequately address the needs of trans youth and LGBT youth of color. In particular, because most of the youth Aufklärungsprojekte leaders are white and identify as gay, bisexual or lesbian, the biographical approach encouraged by the program has at times unintentionally excluded issues of trans youth and LGBT youth of color. Finally, there is the challenge of the changing make-up of German society and its reaction to diversity. Several scholars have expressed concern that migrant youth are often seen by society and the government as “homophobic”. As such, some argue that blame for homophobia is exclusively placed on migrant communities rather than on the broader German society and structural factors. Further, prejudice becomes directed at these migrant communities and the needs of non-migrant LGBT youth are often prioritized at the expense of migrants [76]. Lessons LearnedWhile challenges remain to improving the German model of intervention, there are lessons to glean.
Brazil: Making Change from the TopA Bold Response from Da Silva’s Administration I feel that the public policies and/or initiatives here in Brazil are still in the beginning stages, but I recognize the important role of the Lula in developing these policies. To the contrary, Brazilian society remains uncomfortable with the topic... in many places, this is a “prohibited topic.” Brazilian Youth - 22 years of age IntroductionUntil recently, policymakers have most often considered the Brazilian family to be white, heterosexual, and Christian [77]. Consequently, structural barriers inhibited the enjoyment of full citizenship by those Brazilians who did not fit this profile. These structural barriers were rooted in a widespread aversion to officially identifying social strata along identity-based lines. Instead, Brazilian society adopted a post-World War II European model of unity politics (such as the German model described above) in which the acknowledgement of disparities based on identities was viewed as more dangerous than beneficial to social cohesion. However, over the past several decades and particularly since the start of the 21st century, political and economic reform has begun to address the needs of excluded segments of Brazilian society. The human rights framework has helped inform the advocacy work of LGBT civil society and has given the executive branch of government legitimacy for bold action on behalf of LGBT people despite vocal opposition from powerful political and religious institutions. The Brazilian response to the widespread discrimination and harassment of LGBT people in Brazil and the harassment of LGBT youth in schools is part of this larger social and political shift towards the meaningful participation of all members of Brazilian society. Young people are viewed as uniquely crucial in the Brazilian response to generalized homophobia and transphobia because investments in changed attitudes and education about diversity could make significant social and political transformations within a generation [78]. Research: A Window into Diverse Generational ExperiencesAs in the case of the United States, research has been a crucial component in the development of the Brazilian national response to homophobia and discrimination. For decades, the violence and discrimination faced by LGBT people in Brazil went largely undocumented. More recently, however, civil society has begun to collect and disseminate data regarding their marginalization [79, 80]. According to George Lima, a specialist in the Brazil without Homophobia program, there is no national data on homophobic bullying in schools. What does exist is documentation of the extent of anti-gay sentiment within the school environment and a subtle change in LGBT experiences over the past number of decades. For example:
Surveys conducted at LGBT pride parades provide some of the most consistent data collected over the past decade. These surveys have included questions about school harassment. When the responses are disaggregated by age, reports of harassment in school decrease with age. It is unclear whether this can be attributed to fewer acts of violence in decades past and/or greater awareness and therefore reporting in more recent years. Nonetheless, the “older generation” of LGBT people in Brazil experienced school differently than their younger counterparts. This contradiction of experiences provides a potential entry point for LGBT youth to educate the broader LGBT advocacy community about the present-day challenges they face in the classroom. Researchers noted in the report on São Paulo’s pride parade that these findings on the high percentage of young people experiencing discrimination and aggression in the classroom “indicate the need for more in depth studies to describe those [in school] dynamics, revealing if we are dealing with “bullying” experiences (jokes, name-calling, etc.) or more violent types of exclusion [85]." Civil Society: Sustained Advocacy and Mobilization leads to Government Action and PartnershipThe contrasts in Brazilian views on sexual diversity are no secret to LGBT civil society or to policy makers [86]. Brazil’s modern civil rights movement for LGBT people began in the very late 1970s and developed significant traction with the end of the military dictatorship in 1985. Further, the HIV epidemic, which disproportionately affected gay men, acted as another catalyst to mobilize the movement. In the late 1980s, as the new national constitution was being written, civil society advocated strongly to include protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to the document. Although the battle for constitutional inclusion was lost at the national level, state-level inclusion of protection against discrimination was successful in Mato Grasso, Sergipe, and Pará [87, 88]. Throughout the 1990s, LGBT rights groups across the country worked to effect change, many times focusing on documenting what the state and general media would not. The Grupo Gay de Bahia [89, 90], Brazil’s oldest rights organization for LGBT people, is well known for documenting homophobic violence from bullying to murders. This documentation proved invaluable in identifying the very real existence of societal homophobia and helped prompt public discussion of the problem and, importantly, action among Brazilian policy makers. Moreover, the 2004 UNESCO Brazil study had a very significant impact on the perception of marginization of LGBT students in Brazilian schools by policy makers and the public, though some remain critical of the study’s methodology. The largest network of LGBT organizations in Latin America, the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites, and Transsexuals (ABGLT) led the effort to develop what is known as the Mixed Parliamentary Front for Free Sexual Expression in the national legislature. While their efforts were successful in increasing membership to about 38 percent of the total national Congress, the national Congress has remained reluctant to expend political capital on LGBT rights. One particular example of this inaction is a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 to criminalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This legislation has remained in the national Congress with no movement. At the same time, the group has successfully defeated attempts to codify discrimination [91]. Specifically regarding the experience of LGBT youth in schools, the Brazilian civil society response has been impressive, but at times paternalistic. Many civil society organizations support youth and work to combat harassment against LGBT young people in the classroom in a multitude of ways (see section on the “Schools without Homophobia” project). Some organizations train educators on how best to teach topics of sexual diversity and maintain safe spaces in their classroom, while others also assist LGBT youth to organize locally in conjunction with other general advocacy and mobilization activities. Others are conducting research on harassment against LGBT students in schools while others are advocating for improved curricula in classrooms. The leadership of adult-led organizations has been the driving force which pushed the government to take action and partner with civil society to improve the structures which create the experience that LBGT youth face in schools. At the same time, however, few of these organizations have prioritized empowering young people to lead their own movement. In some ways, the different experiences across generations of LGBT people noted in the surveys from Brazil’s pride parades also reflects what Deco Ribeiro, founder of the E-Jovem (E-Youth) network found to be a frustrating part of advocating for the needs of LGBT youth within the broader LGBT community. “We found in our practical experience here that in many LGBT groups, youth couldn’t speak, and when they did speak they were not listened to,” Ribeiro noted. “Even in LGBT groups where people are used to being oppressed, they didn’t listen to the young people, and that is the main reason we started a youth organization.” E-Jovem exemplifies the success that can be achieved when models of youth empowerment are “borrowed” and adapted across national borders to address homophobia in schools. E-Jovem has evolved into a national network with over 2,000 members and regional directors—almost all volunteers. According to Ribeiro, E-Joven translated the Homophobia Free Education document of the International Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth and Student Organization (IGLYO) to promote educational standard regarding a Brazil free from homophobia in schools. The organization then adapted the Gay-Straight Alliance model from the LGBT youth movement in the United States to form local and school chapters where young people can mobilize collectively. The result of these efforts is E-Jovem’s “Friendly Schools Program” - a campaign in which young people are trained to make their schools safer for LGBT youth and to evaluate their school’s efforts based on a six point scale of “LGBT friendliness”. Schools that meet the criteria, such as providing support for LGBT students and including LGBT materials in the school’s library are awarded a “Friendly School” certificate. (2009 was the first year of the program, so initial reports on success and failure of various schools from around the country were still forthcoming at the time of this report’s publication.) In December 2009, E-Jovem publicly announced that its founder, Deco Ribeiro, would be taking a position as the principal of the first school exclusively for LGBT students in Brazil. The school, set to open in March 2010, will be supported jointly through the state government of São Paulo and the Ministry of Culture. Its curriculum will focus on education that helps students to understand LGBT identity through cultural studies, including film, dance, and even drag performances. The creation of the specialized school and Ribeiro’s appointment as its principal is illustrative of civil society’s partnership with the Brazilian government to improve the lives of LGBT youth. Da Silva’s Bold and Visionary ResponseOf the three models of intervention presented in this report, Brazil’s may be most driven by bold political will. Brazil’s model is dominated by the Schools without Homophobia project, an initiative of the Ministry of Education’s work on the “Brasil Sem Homofobia” (Brazil without Homophobia) program, which was initiated in 2004 by President Lula da Silva’s government. In addition, the government has advocated at the international level for the recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights (Annex 1). On the other hand, at the time of this report, the Brazilian legislature has not moved to include rights for LGBT people in federal legislation. According to one interviewee in the Brazilian government, President Lula da Silva faced significant pressure not to take on the fight for LGBT human rights due to political risk, but he did so regardless, and his approval ratings remained high. The program itself has evolved considerably from an unfunded initiative to a funded department, now known as the General Coordination of the Promotion of LGBT Rights, which “consolidates LGBT policy in a state policy [92]." During the first several years of the program, conferences were sponsored throughout the country to bring the conversation about homophobia into the Brazilian mainstream and coordinate the dialogue between state and civil society actors. Several years of local, state, and regional conferences culminated in 2008 at the first national conference on LGBT rights, in which President Lula da Silva participated. At this conference, participants voted on terminology and decided that the population would be identified as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, and transsexual (LGBT) community [93]. More expansive terminology such as “queer” and “sexual minority” is not generally used in the Brazilian LGBT rights vernacular [94]. The main result of the 2008 Conference was the production of the National Plan on LGBT Citizenship, published in May 2009, which includes 51 policy directives and 180 actions across roughly 18 government agencies [95]. Perhaps the most tangible action to date has been the allowance of youth to choose the first name by which they will be addressed in the classroom regardless of whether or not they have undergone gender reassignment surgery or are actively taking hormones. Across the Ministries, the Brazil without Homophobia program has taken different shapes. In the Ministry of Education, a working group was formed that includes representatives from the Ministry’s departments and affiliated agencies in conjunction with experts and activists from the LGBT and HIV/AIDS movements [96]. This working group developed the implementation plan for the Ministry of Education which includes the Schools without Homophobia project, which is being implemented by a group of four civil society organizations [97]. The group developed the Schools without Homophobia program with specific target goals, including:
To achieve these goals, the Ministry has prioritized a number of steps: transform curricula to include sexual and gender diversity topics; train and empower educators to teach the new curricula and maintain safe spaces for LGBT students in classrooms; and commission research to provide the crucial data that is currently lacking. In 2006, to transform the curriculum, the Ministry issued Caderno SECAD 4: Gender and Sexual Diversity in School: Recognizing Differences and Overcoming Prejudices. The Cadernos of the Ministry of Education’s Secretary of Continuing Education, Literacy and Diversity outline and justify official policies of the Ministry. The document is clear on the Ministry’s position that the goal is to “situate questions related to gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality in the terrain of ethics and human rights, seen as part of an emancipating perspective [98]. Caderno SECAD 4 also justifies the Ministry’s direction citing related legislation and international agreements. It notes that the legitimacy with which Brazil’s executive government is acting regarding the adjustment of policies and implementation of the schools without homophobia program has a sound legal basis—citing predominantly international law as the source of that legitimacy, in the absence of laws passed by the Brazilian congress mandating such a program. (For an expanded explanation of the government’s use of international law to justify domestic action, see Annex 1) In addition, the Ministry has taken the initiative to unite teachers via a national organization focused on the elimination of homophobia in the school environment. This network offers teachers a resource for support and education. Meanwhile, the Ministry is emphasizing the need for education and empowerment training for teachers to learn how to teach sexual and gender diversity and ensure a safe school environment for LGBT students. Almost all of this training is provided to teachers via civil society organizations. Further, recognizing the need for national data on LGBT harassment in the classroom, the Ministry of Education commissioned the following two studies:
The full data from the Kaleidoscope research project should be released in March of 2010 to inform efforts moving forward, as the Schools without Homophobia program has an initial implementation plan running through 2012. Schools without Homophobia and Brazil without Homophobia have been developed from the start as partnerships between civil society and the government. As noted in Caderno SECAD 4, social movements for LGBT rights have prompted the government to act [100]. As such, the design, implementation, and monitoring of the Schools without Homophobia program is a collaborative endeavor between the Brazilian government and organizations and communities [101, 102]. In terms of implementation, civil society organizations are the leading arm of the government. At the state and local level, they are training teachers on how to both implement sexual and gender diversity education and maintain a safe environment for LGBT youth in their classrooms and schools. Other organizations, such as E-Jovem, are pushing the boundary further by empowering students to hold schools accountable for implementing the Schools without Homophobia program. Young people have participated in the development of both the Brazil without Homophobia and Schools without Homophobia initiatives by participating in the numerous local, regional, and national consultations that have been held to discuss how to create a Brazil (and a Brazilian school system) without homophobia. In addition, young people have participated as the focus of research projects on LGBT youth and prejudice, which will inform the development of long term metrics of success for the Schools without Homophobia program. ChallengesBrazil should be commended for its vision of a country without homophobia. While the initiative is a partnership between government and civil society, President da Silva has demonstrated bold leadership in promoting the initiative. Nonetheless, challenges remain. “Brazil is a very big country with a lot ofdifferences. A large portion ofthe implementation ofBrazil without Homophobia [including Schools without Homophobia] is done by non-governmental organizations in the LGBT movement. [But] the movement doesn’t have the same representation in all parts of the country. Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, and Sao Paulo are states where there is a strong political force, but the same does not occur everywhere [103]." - Marcos Nascimento of Instituto Promundo So while the State has collaborated with civil society, the reach of these organizations is not yet geographically adequate to meet the promise of the program in all areas of the country. Moreover, direct funding for the program did not become available until the end of 2009, leaving some skepticism as to the government’s commitment. [Those interviewed within the government claim that the bureaucratic structure of the program limited direct expenditures for programming, but now that the program has become a full department, funding will be more accessible for implementation. In addition, according to one estimate, the national government disbursed approximately $1.4 million Reais (approximately $785,000 USD) to organizations and local agencies for the implementation of programs through the 18 government agencies that were primarily responsible for its implementation in 2009 despite not having a clear funding stream [104]. In addition as Rogerio Diniz Junqueira argues in “Education policies for sexual diversity: school as a place of rights,” the Brazilian government can include discussion and mention of homosexuals in the fundamental curricula to be taught across Brazilian schools, but if the curriculum does not also actively work to upend the hegemony of heterosexuality as what is “normal,” then the discussion of sexual diversity remains as marginalized in the curriculum as LGBT students do in the classroom [105]. Moreover, the movement against harassment of LGBT youth in schools faces considerable opposition from Brazil’s conservative movement, predominantly led by the evangelical Christian community and this is reflected in the level of commitment to ending harassment of LGBT people across the government. One interviewer noted that “we are hostage to the religious groups and the Congress—you can see a big gap in the commitment between the Ministries of Health and Education [106]." In addition, as was evident in the United States and Germany, effectively engaging and training teachers to redress homophobia in the classroom can be challenging. Educators in Brazil often face opposition both in the classroom and from their own families. One teacher implementing sexual diversity curricula in Brazil reflected on her experience by noting that her students use degrading terms for LGBT peers frequently and that she “didn’t have the strength to continue the discussion” because she “didn’t feel safe to argue with them...[107]." She went on to say that “many of the things that they were saying are things that people hear all the time, [homophobia] is considered very common sense [108]." This same challenge is true for students as well, as the director of Pathfinder do Brasil notes, “What we want to do more than involving the [young people] alone is to go beyond the walls of the school and work with parents—we believe it is very important to do this because we can work towards making the school a safe environment but currently the home is not [109]." Finally, data regarding the extent of homophobia and LGBT harassment in school as well as the impact of the Schools without Homophobia project is essential for the initiative’s success. Lessons LearnedThe Brazilian model is a bold hybrid spearheaded by President da Silva and his administration in partnership with civil society. The Brazilian model clearly recognizes the interrelationship of government, civil society and research as interdependent strategies to improve the lives of LGBT youth. Brazil has gleaned lessons from other countries and has begun to implement some of the most promising approaches. Lessons learned from the Brazilian model include:
10. 8. Kosciw, J.G., Diaz, E.M., Greytak, E.A. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. |