A Critical Discourse Analysis of No Promo Homo Policies in US Schools

Abstract

This article presents a critical discourse analysis of no promo homo policies and their effects in US schools. No promo homo—short for “no promotion of homosexuality” (Eskridge, 2000, p. 1329)—polices have been adopted across nine states and several local school districts in the United States. They direct teachers and school officials to take a neutral position on the subject of sexual orientation and identity and often restrict or prohibit any school-based instruction, counseling, discussion, or activity that could be construed as being positive about or promoting homosexuality (Bonauto, n.d.; Cahill & Cianciotto, 2004; Eskridge 2000). Our analysis suggests that, despite their claim to neutrality, no promo homo policies are actively harmful both to students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT)

¹

as well as to the broader school community. In an effort to ultimately promote healthier, more equitable school environments and experiences for all students, this article aims to raise awareness about the problematic effects of no promo homo policy language and the assumptions that often underlie it.

Notes

¹

²Survey samples influence survey results. The racial composition (comprising 3.7% of the sample, African American or Black students are particularly underrepresented) and the percentage of students (45.7) who said their school had a Gay–Straight Alliance or similar club (see note 3) are perhaps especially noteworthy aspects of the sample.

³However, it should be noted that, although they are one of the fastest-growing student clubs in the country (GLSEN, n.d.), Gay–Straight Alliances currently exist in less than 10% of US public elementary and secondary schools (a figure that rises to roughly 16% if only secondary schools are considered). They often continue to face resistance and, contrary to the federal Equal Access Act, some schools have refused to allow Gay–Straight Alliances to form (Fetner & Kush, 2008). Gay–Straight Alliances are particularly underrepresented in small town and rural schools (Kosciw et al., 2008) and LGBT students of color in low-income urban communities have reported difficulties in starting and/or accessing Gay–Straight Alliances (Blackburn & McCready, 2009). Further, Gay–Straight Alliances are often overwhelmingly white and have been critiqued as ignoring race and failing to meet the needs of students of color (McCready, 2004). We are grateful here for the comments of anonymous reviewer who directed us towards this research.

⁴US Senator Jesse Helms believed that AIDS could be traced in origin to “sodomy” (Holmes, 2008).

⁵A number of initiatives aimed at denying rights to sexual minorities have been tied to electoral politics and election cycles. For example, in 2004, the Bush–Cheney ticket publicly supported the Federal Marriage Amendment aiming to define marriage as consisting solely of the union between a man and a woman. The ticket carried nine of the eleven states in which amendments to similarly define marriage were on the ballot (the amendments passed in all eleven states). Although Cheney subsequently reversed his position in 2009 (shortly after leaving office and, concordantly, facing diminished political vulnerability), the Federal Marriage Amendment was reintroduced by US Representative Tim Huelskamp, a Kansas Republican, following the Supreme Court's decision on the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor. In their own reaction to the Windsor decision, Tea Party senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced a bill to prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples' marriages in states that do not do the same, essentially aiming to deny certain federal protections to individuals when they cross state borders (Ford, 2014).

⁶We also looked closely at state law in Michigan, which emphasizes that pupils “are not taught in a way that condones the violation of the laws of this state pertaining to sexual activity” (Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1507b(2)(e) (2013)). Although Michigan continues to maintain a sodomy law, the policy mentioned previously does not explicitly mention the words homosexual or homosexuality. Therefore, we ultimately decided not to identify it as containing NPH language although we suggest that, in practice, the law may have similar effects.