Religious reactions to gender identity: a comparative analysis of select Canadian and Australian Catholic schools

ABSTRACT

Determining the depth of discrimination against gender and sexual minority groups in Catholic schools of selected western nations is best undertaken from an international-comparative perspective. In this article, we compare the Canadian case of Alberta’s ‘washroom wars’ and a ‘gender row’ over uniform changes in an Australian Catholic high school. In each case, practises inclusive of gender diversity in Catholic schools were framed as a departure from Catholic doctrine. To explore how oppressive structures exist and operate within schools, we examine media accounts of each case using Critical Discourse Analysis and contextualize this analysis by examining Canadian and Australian educational and legal settings. We find that despite differing legal frameworks, some Catholic schools continue to place Canonical law above the rights of transgender and gender-diverse students in both countries. We therefore argue that it is the Catholic system’s institutional stance on gender and sexual diversity that perpetuates discrimination.

KEYWORDS:

• Education policy
• LGBTQ + rights
• gender and sexually diverse
• comparative perspectives in education
• Catholic education
• human rights

Introduction

Recent news media accounts indicate a progression of positive educational policy regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) students in Canadian and Australian schools. Anti-discrimination laws in both countries appear, at first glance, to provide protections to LGBTI students in educational institutions. However, the resulting tension between progressive educational policy and Catholic canonical law demonstrates the reality of discrimination towards LBGTI students in Catholic schools. In Canada, this is through Catholic schools sidestepping progressive constitutional rights in favour of church policies. In Australia, which has no such constitutional protection, this is through legal exemptions for religious schools to the protections otherwise afforded by the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA 2014).

In this paper we take up Critical Discourse Analysis to examine two media accounts of religiously inspired transphobia occurring in publicly funded Catholic schools, exploring how media discourses exist and operate within Catholic schools, as well as locating them within current legal and educational contexts in both countries, in order to devise effective methods of addressing them. In Canada, we explore a situation we characterize as ‘Washroom Wars’, or opposition to a transgender student using the washroom of their choice in a Catholic school. In Australia, we explore moral panic surrounding a change to uniform policy at Santa Sabina, a Catholic girls’ school in New South Wales. We focus on Canada and Australia for comparison because the two countries share a framework of common values and goals that include the promotion of democracy, education, human rights, good governance and individual liberty, with similar legal and political systems. The Catholic Church has played a centuries-long role in education, and was the original provider of public education in the United Kingdom (McCormack 2011), from which the Canadian and Australian educational and legal systems developed through colonization. In both Canada and Australia up to 70% of Catholic schools’ funding comes from the public purse (McKinney 2008).

The instances discussed in this article are not intended to be generalized to the global Catholic Church, but to specifically address the conflict between Catholic Canonical law and specific rights protections in Canadian and Australian school settings. As such, we do not address internal debate within the Church regarding edicts on gender and sexual diversity. We also recognize some Catholic educators have expressed discomfort with the contradiction between church teachings and what they believe to be morally right in terms of respecting gender and sexually diverse individuals within their schools (French 2018b). Ultimately, this study suggests, the problems lie not within a country’s legal or policy protections for LGBTI students, but in the consistent prioritization of Catholic Canonical law through provision of religious exemptions.

Methodology and analysis

The purpose of this research is to explore how oppressive structures exist and operate within schools in order to devise effective methods of addressing them (Brown and Strega 2015). To do so, we used Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to provide both an analysis of the content of media accounts and the discourse surrounding it (Van Dijk 2011). Studies have established that clashes between religious edicts in publicly funded Catholic schools and secular state laws result in subtle but blatant forms of exclusion for gender and sexuality diverse¹ students and staff (Callaghan 2018; Young and Ryan 2014).

This research draws on: (1) media accounts that describe incidents of religiously inspired transphobia occurring in publicly funded Catholic schools; and (2) law and educational policy from state levels and Catholic school districts that impact LGBTI students.

Media articles were selected using a keyword search of three sources: (1) newspapers included in the full-text database of the Canadian Major Dailies Proquest (offering major Canadian national and regional newspapers from 1985 to current); (2) leading Australian newspapers included in the full-text database of ProQuest Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) Newsstand; and (3) Google Searches. Keyword combinations such as ‘Catholic Schools’ AND ‘transgender,’ ‘schoolgirl’ AND ‘transgender;’ and ‘school washroom/school uniform’ AND ‘transgender’ were used. We eliminated texts that were duplicates and which simply summarized information from larger publications.

The Canadian data set included 15 texts from eight different outlets, ranging from 14 May 2015–9 February 2018. Publishers represented a variety of types and audiences, from special interests, such as LifeSiteNews, which Media Bias/Fact Check rates as far right biased based on story selection that favours evangelical Christianity, to the Edmonton Journal, which reports local and regional news and Media Bias/Fact Check rates as right of center, to those with Canadian national reach such as The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The Australian data set included 15 newspaper articles and opinion pieces comprizing a combination of online and print from six different outlets and three broadcasts, dated between 4 March 2018 and 8 April 2018. Publishers of print and online news media represented a range of audiences; however, pieces reflecting moral panic in relation to the topic were published by News Corp² publications. Similarly, Outsiders was broadcast on Sky News, which is also owned by News Corp. The ‘Statement about Santa Sabina College'³ (Dominican Education Australia 2018) was also included.

To contextualize and provide analysis, the data were divided into distinctive meaning units, in an interpretive process respecting the original language and thesis of each media account. This was then set against a distillation of the two countries’ complex educational systems, school authorities, provincial or state and federal legislation and law pertaining to schools and human rights.

Context

In Canada and Australia education is a provincial/state matter and we situate this research in the context of the Canadian province of Alberta and the Australian state of NSW. The existence of publicly funded religious schools in both Canada and Australia is a contentious issue and has been challenged in both countries in their highest courts (Adler v. Ontario 1996; Attorney-General (Vic) (Ex rel Black) v Commonwealth 1981). Given religious schools attract significant government funding, the question of the extent to which they must comply with anti-discrimination legislation is an important public policy issue (Evans and Uvjari 2009).

Australian context

Educational context

Australia has three kinds of schools: government, independent and Catholic. Each receives differing levels of federal, state and private funding. Government schools account for 65.6% of Australian school students with the remaining 34.4% attending independent and Catholic schools (Department of Education, Skills and Employment 2020). Government schools, funded entirely by the public, are operated by state governments, providing free secular education. Parents’ organizations in Australia’s Catholic schools have proven a powerful lobby group and pressured governments to subsidize Catholic schooling (Furtado 2009). ‘State aid’ for schools – including non-government – was introduced in a bid for the Catholic vote (Connell 2013; McIntosh 1996). Education historian Furtado suggests the history of Australian school funding ‘has generally underestimated [Catholic school parent organizations’] powerful role in extracting concessions from both sides of politics to meet their political objectives’ (2009, p. 127). Since the 1960s, non-government schools have charged fees for attendance while also receiving government funding.

Historically, Catholic schools have served Catholic communities (Furtado 2009). Today, not all students who attend Catholic schools, or staff who teach in them, are Catholic. While government schools are entirely funded by and accountable to the state, Australian Catholic schools are supported on an administrative level by regional dioceses and are accountable to the relevant state’s bishops. On average approximately 75% of funding for Catholic schools is from public sources (Department of Education, Skills and Employment 2020). As Furtado (2009) observes, Catholic education has become the second largest provider of schooling in Australia without conceding autonomy.

Implementation of policy at the school level varies and some Catholic secondary schools operate under different religious orders. At the secondary level, many Australian Catholic schools remain sex-segregated even though the federal SDA has, since 1984, protected Australians from discrimination on the basis of gender. This is due to an exemption for religious schools included in the legislation, as detailed in the following section.

Legal context

Australia does not have a bill of rights. While the Australian Constitution contains five rights which in 1901 were deemed sufficiently important to enshrine – including section 116, which among other things restricts the Australian government from ‘prohibiting the free exercise of any religion’ – human rights are mostly protected through various statutes at both state and federal levels (The Commonwealth Parliament of Australia 1901). The lack of federal anti-discrimination legislation protecting GSD students means they are subject to the vagaries of state-specific laws when their rights are breached in schools (Jones and Hillier 2012). Although the SDA protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, an exemption exists concerning ‘educational institutions established for religious purposes’ (2014). Section 38(1) of the SDA allows educational institutions to discriminate against LGBTI students and staff ‘in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents to that religion or creed’ (43).

Canadian context

Educational context

Canada’s Constitution establishes education as a provincial responsibility (Constitution Act 1982). Alberta has seven kinds of school authority. Each is responsible for a series of school boards, which in turn are responsible for schools within the board’s geographic area. There are four school authorities which are entirely funded by the province: public, separate, charter and Francophone (Alberta Education 2019). ‘Public’ school boards were previously Protestant schools which served the majority of the province’s population, but have since evolved into the main, secular school boards within the province. The existence of publicly funded Catholic schools results from a legacy of a special constitutional protection for the two predominant religions at the founding of Canada, Catholicism and Protestantism. Alberta maintains a separate Catholic school board as Catholicism was the minority religion when Alberta was established. One in four students in Alberta attend publicly funded Catholic schools (Alberta Education 2019; Fletcher 2018).

All schools in Alberta must follow the same curriculum, with students writing the same provincial assessments and meeting the same graduation requirements (Alberta School Boards Association 2009). Catholic schools, though, may add religious requirements to students’ education. Edmonton Catholic School District (ECSD) emphasizes these differences from secular education, stating ‘students will learn together, work together and pray together in answering the call to a faith-filled life of service’ and that all subject areas and learning outcomes ‘contain a religious dimension’ (‘Permeation: Finding Grace Within Curriculum,’ 2013).

Legal context

There are federal and provincial human rights legislation protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Alberta had to provide specific protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the Alberta Human Rights Act (Vriend v. Alberta 1998). A decade later, Alberta updated its human rights legislation to do so (Bill 44: Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Amendment Act 2009, 44). Between 2015 and 2019, there was also a government effort to protect the rights of sexuality and gender diverse students in schools (Clancy 2018; Government of Alberta and Alberta Education 2016; Legislative Assembly of Alberta 2017).

At the federal level, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). Canadian Catholic schools operate within a legal framework where sexuality diverse identities are constitutionally protected. Canada’s Supreme Court has consistently recognized that some individual rights, such as religious freedoms, are not unlimited in instances where such individual rights exist in a manner which cannot be defended in a free and democratic society; freedom of religion can be subjected to ‘such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’ (B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto 1995, 81).

Case studies

Australian story

In 2018, Santa Sabina College, a Catholic school in NSW, modified its uniform policy, sparking a mediatized moral panic about the perceived introduction of gender fluidity concepts in the school. The episode began with affirming reports of changes to the uniform which would allow female students to wear shorts and long pants (Noyes 2018a, 2018b; Sullivan 2018). While most reporting focused on choice and comfort for female students, one journalist asked the principal of the college ‘whether growing awareness of issues around gender identity and expression’ had informed the uniform change (Noyes 2018b). It was reported that, in response, the principal stated:

We’ve always had a variety of gender expression in schools … what I think we’re recognizing is that there has always been a variety of ways of expressing your femininity or your masculinity. For students who might be questioning their gender, it’s also a way to make the journey a little bit more comfortable for them (Noyes 2018b, paras. 12–13).

The principal’s comments were soon seized upon by conservative media and linked to one of her earlier tweets promoting an academic book exploring new ideas in gender theory. The principal, described by conservative commentators as a ‘hardcore leftwing feminist extremist’ (‘Outsiders,’ 2018) and ‘the enemy within’ (Devine 2018c), was cast as the main ‘folk devil’.

All moral panics have folk devils (Cohen [1972] 2011), scapegoats ‘constructed as threats to the social/moral fabric requiring immediate regulatory intervention’ (Hier et al. 2011, 261). The principal was perceived and constructed as a threat to the students at the school. One media columnist accused the principal of ‘ramming down the throats of the thousand girls at that school doubt about their own gender – a radical extremist doctrine of fluidity’ (‘Outsiders,’ 2018). Another dedicated an entire article to concerns about the principal (Devine 2018b). The combination of the planned uniform change and tweet was also reported to focus parent attention on the principal. It was reported that some parents expressed at a meeting ‘fears that the principal was trying to ‘brainwash their daughters’’ (Dargie 2018, para. 4). Reports suggested parents were threatening to withdraw up to two hundred students from the school with the view that the principal should resign (Devine 2018f).

Recognition of gender fluidity was constructed in conservative-right media as anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. Kurti (2018), for instance, suggested the school had been taken to a ‘a new level’ of ‘being anti-Christian’ with attempts to subvert religious principles through the introduction of gender fluidity (paras. 5; 20–21). Devine (2018c, 2018d) included quotes from parent letters suggesting recognition of gender diversity as antithetical to Christian and Catholic teachings. One parent was reported stating ‘Catholics should not even consider gender theory because it is against our religion’ (Devine 2018c, para. 21). In a report letter to the school board, another parent stated that:

Teaching children about gender fluidity is against our religion, against evolution and against the teachings of Christ. [The principal] has no place in this school. She is entitled to her own personal opinion and beliefs, but not while holding up a Catholic flag (Devine 2018a, para. 20).

Militarized language was used to position the situation as part of an ideological war in which ‘ordinary people’ and Christianity were under threat. The situation was cast as a ‘battle for the soul of a Sydney girl’s school’ (Devine 2018d, para. 1), with attackers ‘wield[ing] the weapons of sexuality and gender fluidity’ (Kurti 2018, para. 5).

Activists, academics and the ‘left’ were cast as additional folk devils alongside others who were constructed as threatening society, Catholic teachings, religious freedom, parent rights and youth – through the promotion of ‘radical gender theory’ (Devine 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2018e, 2018f; Kurti 2018; Marcus 2018). Reference to the Safe Schools Coalition Australia was also evident within media reporting. Commonly referred to as ‘Safe Schools’, this programme, which was federally funded between 2014 and 2017, aimed to ‘support the positive inclusion of same-sex attracted, intersex and gender-diverse people and to challenge and reduce homophobia and transphobia in schools’ (Ward 2018, 48). Safe Schools became the focus of a targeted campaign by Newscorp, Christian lobby groups and conservative politicians in 2016, leading to censorship of some of the programme’s content and a decision by the government not to renew its funding (Law 2017; Thompson 2020; Ward 2018). As noted by Robinson and Davies (2018, 20), ‘the central controversy appeared to focus on the category of gender and the concept of gender fluidity underpinned by queer theory, with the latter concept increasing panic about children’s future sexual identities’. Reflecting the spectre of Safe Schools, the planned uniform change at Santa Sabina was positioned as an ‘infiltration’ of ‘radical gender theory’ within the school, with the concept of gender diversity declared as non-scientific and grounded in political correctness and ‘so-called’ cultural Marxist ideologies (Devine 2018d, 2018e, 2018f, 2018g; Marcus 2018) (see, e.g. Ward [2020] for a detailed analysis of such commentary in relation to Safe Schools).

During the furor, the School Board declared support for the principal in a letter to parents and claimed that the ‘ongoing media coverage’ and ‘campaign of misinformation’ was ‘obviously part of a broader agenda existing beyond our gates and our College community’ (Woods, as cited in Devine and McDougall 2018). In response to media suggestions there was an agenda to introduce concepts about gender fluidity by stealth and in contrast to Christian values, the letter clearly stated that the principal and the School Board remained.

100% committed to the Mission of the College, to its core values, to the ethos and the vision of those who have come before us in the Catholic Dominican tradition. There is no hidden agenda and no shift away from those values and that is never going to happen at this College (Dominican Education Australia 2018).

In other words, the board reasserted the Catholic traditions of the college. Focus groups with parents commissioned in response to the uproar resulted in reports of wide support for the uniform change (Dargie 2018; Sullivan 2018). However, the importance of supporting transgender students was not addressed beyond the initial reported comments of the principal which led, in part, to the moral panic. Dominican Education Australia, trustees for the College, issued a statement in response to parent and community concerns a number of weeks after the media furor unfolded:

A reference was made in a tweet posted by the principal … on her personal Twitter account which was seen by some as indicating support for ‘gender fluidity’ and a departure from church teaching. It is regrettable that subsequently, in the context of launching a new uniform, a connection was made between it and matters relating to gender. The … College Board and [principal] have acknowledged these legitimate concerns and have expressed sincere regret for the harm that has been caused by these communications (Dominican Education Australia 2018, para. 5).

The statement positions comments by the principal which support gender fluidity as a departure from church teachings, described as ‘regrettable’ and as causing ‘harm.’ There is a negative connotation as the trustees note these as ‘legitimate’ concerns. Similarly to the case in Alberta, discussed in the next section, the matter was framed as an issue of upholding Catholic doctrine, without concern for the protection of GSD students’ well-being or place within the school.

Canadian story

In early May of 2015, Edmonton Catholic School District (ECSD), the Catholic school board in Alberta’s provincial capital, prevented a transgender girl from using the girls’ washroom at school (Roth 2015; Sinnema 2016). On May 19th, the school agreed to let the girl use the girls’ washroom, however this came with the caveat that this concession would not be in place for future cases as the ECSD would create a policy in consultation with the Archdiocese of Edmonton and unnamed medical specialists (‘Transgender Child Wins Use of Girls Washroom in Catholic School,’ 2015).

The mother of the student ultimately pursued a human rights complaint against ECSD. Resolved in February, 2018, part of the agreement stipulated neither the school board nor the mother could disclose details of the deal, but the mother did describe the treatment of her and her family by ECSD as ‘a complete nightmare’ that she ‘would never wish on [her] worst enemy’ (French 2018a).

Ostensibly to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future, the Government of Alberta published Guidelines for Best Practices: Creating Learning Environments that Respect Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities and Gender Expressions (Government of Alberta and Alberta Education 2016; CBC News 2016). This document was intended to guide schools in developing policies to support GSD students. The Guidelines required schools to ‘explicitly’ protect LGBTI students, teachers and family members (Sinnema 2016). The Guidelines also outlined that all students have the right to be addressed by their chosen name and pronouns, even without these being legally changed; dress codes should not imply gender, such as skirts being worn only by females; students should have access to gender-segregated activities, like sports, which correspond with their gender identity; and students should be able to choose which washroom to use (Government of Alberta and Alberta Education 2016). Applied to all school boards in Alberta, including Catholic schools, these guidelines – particularly accommodations for transgender students – became a recurring source of controversy. We characterize the opposition to a transgender student using the washroom of their choice as the ‘washroom wars’.

In early January 2016, Calgary bishops sent an open letter asking parishioners to demand the Guidelines be rejected (Ferguson 2016; Wood 2016). The letter stated, ‘in His plan, men and women should respect and accept their sexual identity. God created both the body and sex as good’ (as cited in Wood 2016). The Archdiocese of Edmonton responded to the directive to create inclusive policies in a statement directed to parents that suggested ECSD would not be fully complying with the guidelines, saying that ‘the Minister has demonstrated an openness to diverse circumstances by presenting the Guidelines for Best Practices only as recommendations’ (Smith 2016, 2). Archbishop Richard Smith further expanded on the conflict between Catholic doctrine-informed policy and transgender identities in the passage, ‘the Catholic belief is that the human person is created ‘body and soul’ together, that God created human beings male and female (Mark 10:6) and that we are all called to care for and respect our bodies as they are created’ (Smith 2016, 1).

The above-noted statements from Catholic education leaders contribute to homophobic and transphobic school environments through delegitimizing and attempting to invalidate non-heterosexual and gender diverse individuals’ identities and experiences within those spaces where such doctrine is put into practice – the Catholic schools subject to the edicts of the Bishops. Following this guidance from Catholic Authorities, the ECSD caused a public uproar in attempting to create policy that would, in their arguments, comply with the guidelines. The ECSD argued the Guidelines only prohibited ‘unjust discrimination’ against transgender students and suggested discrimination against transgender students is ‘just’ within Catholic learning environments (Ostroff 2015).

This debate reached a peak with the release of a video on YouTube (Wiebe 2016). The video gained international attention through social media and online magazines, drawing reactions from across the political spectrum (Calgary Herald 2016; Bartko 2016; Weatherbe 2016). The video features ‘an Albertan mother’ rapping transphobic lyrics. The lyrics suggested that transgender students would, for insidious purposes, use access to their preferred washroom to prey upon their peers and implies the impetus for transgender identities is as a result of abuse or absentee fathers, pathologizing their gender expression as a state of confusion (Weibe 2016). The video was later paired with a news post characterizing the Guidelines as an attack on Catholic values (Weatherbe 2016).

Throughout 2016, the ECSD drafted several iterations of a transgender policy which consistently followed faith leaders’ statements on transgender identities and was criticized for failing to provide guidance on supporting transgender students in schools (French 2016; Robb 2015). When defending the ECSD’s reasons for refusing to accommodate transgender youth, the Archdiocese of Edmonton appealed to Catholic doctrine for justification (Smith 2016). By claiming that their reluctance to accept and affirm transgender student identities is a part of Catholic faith, the ECSD attempted to absolve themselves of any responsibility because they were following the word of Catholicism. This demonstrates the reality of discrimination in Catholic schools, particularly egregious in their disavowal of non-discrimination legislation and policies. The discourse surrounding the ‘washroom war’ highlights the extent to which Catholic canonical law continues to oppress LGBTI students.

Discussion

These media stories underscore the moral panics that can be constructed around Catholic schooling, while also illuminating the progress that has been made to support all students, regardless of attendance in secular or faith-based schools. Education sociologist Rasmussen (2010) questions the use of moral panic as a concept, suggesting that positioning schools as a battleground between religious and secular perspectives can curtail dialogue on important points of tension related to sexuality and education, expressing hope ‘researchers can develop new strategies for accounting for religious opposition’ (129). We consider moral panic to be one of the discourses that can be formulated through the meeting of media, parents and Catholic education and use this concept to critically analyse the politics it mobilizes. As Furtado notes,

few [researchers] have highlighted the continuing potential of such a constituency [parent groups] to exercise leverage, particularly before and during elections, and especially at the polls … and which continue to constitute a prominent feature of Australian politics, given the substantial size of the Australian Catholic community (2009, 127).

Backlash borne out of moral panics about gender and sexuality diversity are a common aspect of populist discourses, which often demonize marginalized LGBTI identities. Nicholas (2020, 236) argues that the ‘primary motivation behind such backlashes is an impulse to perpetuate notions of ‘normal’’, by ‘constructing an enemy who is deviant, unproductive, a threat to the family and the nation’. This idea is reflective of Cohen’s ([1972] 2011) conception of the folk devil. Within the Australian and Canadian stories discussed, posited enemies included LGBTI allies and advocates, concepts/theories of gender diversity and even trans students themselves. These enemies were constructed as significant threats to Christianity and to the safety and wellbeing of (non-LGBTI) students. Such ideas are common in conservative alt-right and anti-diversity discourses (Nicholas and Agius 2018), as they work to draw focus away from minority groups and redirect it towards the majority (Nicholas 2020). In this way, the majority are positioned as victims, creating space for policies and actions which discriminate against LGBTI students and limit their rights and freedoms.

The tension between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination is a central theme within Alberta and Australia’s current political discourse. Moral panics often result in repressive influences on policy (Cohen [1972] 2011). Many protections for LGBTI students were removed following Alberta’s (2019) provincial election of a conservative government (Abndpcaucus 2019; CBC News 2019). A new elementary school curriculum was also introduced and has been heavily criticized on a number of fronts, including its failure to even mention the words sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights (Kanygin 2021).

Responding to the aggravated fears of its conservative voter base after the achievement of marriage equality in 2017, the Australian Liberal/National coalition government of the day commissioned the Religious Freedom Review to ‘examine whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion’ (Ruddock et al. 2018, 8, item 1.2). This review was underway while the Santa Sabina media uproar unfolded in 2018. Recommendations from the review were leaked and published under what was referred to in other media outlets as a ‘shamefully misleading’ and ‘politically motivated’ headline referring to a ‘secret plan’ for religious schools to reject gay students (Editorial Board, The Australian 2018), without the realization that religious exemptions have been provided by the SDA of 1984 all along. This did lead to an increase in community discussion about the need to remove the exemptions from the SDA because of their potential to negatively impact LGBTI students and teachers employed in religious schools (Evans and Gaze 2010; Ferfolja and Hopkins 2013; Ferfolja and Stavrou 2015; Singleton et al. 2018). In February 2022, the government introduced the Religious Discrimination Bill into parliament, with five of its own moderate members joining the opposition to vote against the bill. That bill was put on indefinite hiatus (status ‘not proceeding’), with Labour’s electoral victory mere months later resulting in a change of government and a change in political discourse towards the relationships between religion, gender and sexual diversity in schools. At the time of writing, the Australian Law Reform Commission has been tasked by the current government to reform federal anti-discrimination laws to ensure religious educational institutions must not discriminate against students or staff ‘on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy’ and that they ‘can continue to build a community of faith by giving preference, in good faith, to persons of the same religion as the educational institution in the selection of staff’ (Australian Law Reform Commission 2022, para. 3). The report will be delivered in December 2023.

Conclusion

How religious schools act in relation to LGBTI students is less influenced by legislation than by perspectives of key figures within the schools and the communities in which they are situated (Evans and Gaze 2010; Rasmussen 2017). What must still be addressed, and is ultimately the issue at hand, is that some Catholic schools are still placing Canonical law above LGBTI human rights claims. This remains of concern in both countries and in the context of differing legal frameworks, which suggests the issue is not with the legal frameworks themselves or their provisions for rights protection, but with the Catholic system and its institutional stance on gender and sexuality diversity (GSD). This is particularly pronounced in Canada, which even with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ostensibly protects the rights of GSD young people, discrimination against those individuals, such as that discussed in the Washroom Wars case study above, is still happening. In the Canadian context, we call upon those who care about social justice in education to note that publicly funded Catholic schools are accountable to elected trustees in a secular system who must respect various levels of equality rights legislation.

Currently in Australia, religious schools, universities, colleges and other educational institutions are exempt from anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTI individuals in some jurisdictions. This means that LGBTI students, teachers, librarians, school counsellors and other educational professionals are vulnerable to expulsion, disregard, inappropriate administrative transfers, demotions, wrongful dismissals and other forms of exclusion simply because of who they are or whom they love. In the Australian example discussed above, we pointed to the moral panic that can be created by conservative media and moral entrepreneurs and we underscored how this could have provided an important moment where Catholic institutions may have shown support of GSD students, but their silence in this regard was deafening. We join other scholars mentioned above in calling upon all involved in Australian education and those who care about fairness in educational contexts to demand that Australian politicians remove outdated religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. Clearer Australian federal laws protecting GSD students and staff from discrimination is welcome, but we must remember that not all discrimination falls within its scope. That is, oppressive practices are often enacted in day to day operations of schools and surrounding discourses.

The fact Catholic doctrine is permitted and protected within publicly funded schools is another issue requiring further examination. That this continues to occur, especially in such disparate legal contexts, suggests the provision of religious exemptions to schools is an ongoing issue which must be addressed. Canada has stronger equality rights protections than those in Australia, but this has not solved the problem of religiously inspired homophobia and transphobia in Canadian Catholic schools. Further, law reform contexts can also provide impetus for much of this media and cultural discourse that we have examined by trying to exercise power over what is reflected in the law. This in itself can be damaging and harmful for those whose lives are up for public debate. While the Canadian and Australian contexts are varied and complex, the damage to and negating of students’ rights to GSD selves is consistent. We all deserve to study and work in educational settings that respect human rights and principles of equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant # 430-2017-00047.

Notes on contributors

Tonya Callaghan

Tonya Callaghan is an Associate Professor with the University of Calgary Werklund School of Education. She taught secondary English for over 10 years in Canadian and international schools, in rural and urban settings and in Catholic and non-Catholic systems. Her second single-authored monograph, Homophobia in the Hallways: Heterosexism and Transphobia in Canadian Catholic Schools was published in 2018 with the University of Toronto Press. The overarching goal of Tonya Callaghan's award-winning research is to integrate theory and practice so that educational stakeholders become motivated to free members of sexual and gender minority groups from religiously-inspired heterosexist oppression. She specializes in critical social justice theories, anti-oppression education and anti-homophobia education. Her research explores Catholic resistance to anti-homophobia/transphobia education in both curriculum and educational policy.

A. Esterhuizen

A. Esterhuizen, after completing her Master of Arts in Political Studies at Queen's University, specializing in political theory and Canadian politics, Alix completed her Bachelor of Education degree at the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary. She is currently a junior high humanities teacher in Alberta's largest public school board. In the classroom, she endeavours to support students in developing the critical thinking skills, sense of personal autonomy and connection to community required for citizenship – with the belief that citizenship is not simply engagement in a democratic process, but the process of determining how you choose to live and act in the world. In addition to her work as a teacher, Alix is a researcher with the Werklund School of Education, where her work focuses on morally polarizing issues and how we ought to legislate them in view of Charter rights and freedoms. Her most recent research focuses on educational policy, its implementation and how such policies can work towards supporting education for a liberal democracy.

L. Higham

L. Higham is a Lecturer in Education at La Trobe University. A former secondary Humanities teacher, Leanne has long-standing interest in the social, cultural and political aspects of schooling and education. She draws theoretically and empirically on the feminist new materialisms and critical posthumanities. Leanne is interested in ethics of nonviolence in schooling and education. Her MEd thesis, ‘Becoming boy: A/effecting identity in a Catholic boys' school is an autoethnographic account of subjectivities in a Melbourne Catholic boys' school. It was awarded the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Freda Cohen Prize for most meritorious thesis submitted for the Master of Education. Leanne’s Ph.D., Slow violence and schooling, is an empirical examination of everyday life and un/ethical practices in two Melbourne schools. Supervized by Dr Dianne Mulcahy and Prof Jane Kenway at the University of Melbourne, it will be completed in 2023.

M. Jeffries

M. Jeffries is a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Her predominant area of research is in the area of gender and sexuality diversity in education, drawing on a queer theoretical lens. Her current research explores the experiences of gender and sexuality diverse (GSD) teachers in regional, rural and remote Australia. Michelle's doctoral study explored the enablements and constraints experienced by GSD parents within the context of their child/ren's primary school/s. She received a Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Executive Dean's Commendation for Outstanding Doctoral Thesis for this work. Her research interests also include exploring public discourses about queer-related issues across traditional and social media. She is passionate about education and ensuring schools are welcoming spaces of belonging for everyone.

Notes

1 The phrase ‘gender and sexuality diverse’ (GSD) and the acronym LGBTI are used in this study to denote individuals who do not identify or conform with norms of sex and gender as they relate to sexual orientation, relationship status, gender identity and intersex status.

2 News Corp dominates print news media in Australia with 59% of the market share, as well as cross-platform markets (Brevini and Ward, 2021). Controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who advocates his conservative values and beliefs via media ownership (McKnight, 2013), News Corp regularly articulates a Right-leaning political stance.

3 Dominican Education Australia (DEA) oversees Santa Sabina College, among several other education ministries within Australia. DEA collaborates with the Boards of each of these education sites to ensure their "Catholicity, fidelity to the Dominican charism, formation of Board members, excellence in teaching and learning, and financial stability" (Santa Sabina, 2023, para 3). The Statement about Santa Sabina College was issued by Dominican Education Australia more than two months after initial reporting of the uniform change. It provides a response to media reporting and associated backlash about the uniform change and is the only statement issued by DEA about the matter. The statement makes comment on the media furor discussed in this paper, as well as the related community response. It articulates a sense of disappointment that links were made between the school's uniform change and gender identity and affirms the College's "commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church" (Dominican Education Australia, 2018, para 6).