|Type of paper:
|Policy Discrimination Students School
Over the recent past, there have been many varied facets of social harassment, among other unethical treatments of LGBT students (Mayo, 2014). Precisely, ranging from incredible cyber-harassments to unbearable physical violence, which in turn manifests bullying in various learning institutions devoid of a global fight against the menace, specifically on LGBT individuals. In the most recent sociological research in multiple schools across the U.S. and the globe in general, in a lot of learning institutions, people often target this category of students in particular, and such assaults are often assumed, ignored, and intentionally mishandled by the respective school staffs (Kris Gowen, 2017). However, teachers have put significant energy and focus on remedying this disgusting societal menace; it is still found that the staff is never well conversant with interventions linked to sexual orientation.
Most teachers despise LGTB-related issues and, instead, tend to act positively in solving bullying and mistreatments related to race, individual ability, and religious disparity (Eliason, 2010). According to sociologists and psychological professionals, approximately 80% of school educators proposed the enhancement of conducive environments that would amicably address and solve LGBTQ issues- by improvising useful visible symbols of universal aid and support. Besides, despite the teachers’ efforts to implement disciplinary setups as a corrective measure to correct assaultive students who, for instance, attack the LGBTs with homophobic language, only less than half of them had reinforced support for such a constructive motive in accordance with the GLSEN - Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network (Eliason, 2010). The GLSEN organization is a total manifestation of social equity among students in that it aids K-12 learning institutions to create safe socio-environmental surroundings for LGBTQ students.
The Extent of Bullying and Discrimination on LGBTQ Students
Ideally, the incredible challenge relating to the lack of continual social support for LGBTQ students emanates from a plethora of causes. For instance, some educators reported a sense of unsafety and uncomfortable feelings addressing their learners about sexuality owing to their diversified beliefs and cultural perceptions regarding what they implicitly consider appropriate and relevant (Kristopher, 2013) The complexity emerges amid crisscrossing contemplations about LGBTQs, where one society possess divergent conflating perceptions about sexual structural orientations and sex in general. At the same time, others are victims of systematic administrative pressure and tensions to enhance and maintain tight-lipped standards.
Furthermore, there is anomalous inadequacy of professional developments across the United States and the entire globe in general, on better mitigative measures to utterly solve LGBTQ issues amicably. Discriminative bullying in schools has left educators ill-equipped to establish and promote culturally inclusive policies that would mutually catalyze anti-LGBTQ habitual practices and harassment (Mayo, 2014). Owing to the exponential speedy emergence of sensitively politicized issues such as recognizing and accepting transgender students to cordially share universal facilities like washrooms with others, LGBTQ students' profile identity has significantly been praised both nationally and internationally. In so doing, unfortunately, the majority have identified this amicable, constructive dialogue process as a little bit complicated and explicitly harder.
Although most teachers are willing to help solve LGBTQ problems, they unanimously raise the alarm to the U.S. education sector that no training criterion has been put in place to aid the process (Kristopher, 2013). Schoolteachers are more than ready to make every education setup more conducive and discrimination-free. Still, there is no universal guidance developed by school administrators to handle and address students transitioning amicably. Generally, teachers are confused about how to handle this complicated menace because they do not know what step to take nor what to do due to the weak education system that despises LGBTQ matters. Consequently, some training institutions have ultimately incorporated courses and units that encompass inherent bias and universal sociocultural equity and inclusion. Still, it is uncertain that these pieces of training do not embrace LGBTQ problems in a nutshell (Paul, 2013). Unfortunately, most of the systems of learning institutions do not request such vital transformative establishments, according to teaching, non-teaching staff, and advocacy groups.
Surprisingly, several reports collected across the U.S. affirm that, whenever teachers request for implementation of anti-LGBTQ policies, the opposing face massive rejection and incredible reluctance from the related school administrators. Instead, these administrators advise and compel schoolteachers to divert their focus on other essential priorities, hence disregarding the severe gendered and sexually-oriented harassment and discrimination among students.
Generally, schoolteachers still possess a tremendous amount of anxiety, worry, and fear around the implementation of LGBTQ inclusion. Numerous reports show that they immensely fear the parental and societal pushback and opposition, as this would be both geopolitically and socioeconomically uncertain to the supporters and founders i.e., schools or district leaderships if ideally, they partook most immediate relevant practical and corrective actions (Mayo, 2014). Precisely, students need to identify and comprehend visible symptoms of safe space with optimal reinforcement and aid from school, teachers, and society in general in mutually suppressing and normalizing community members having a massive spirit of anti-LGBTQ views and complaints.
When a section of students has unequal opportunities and feels inadequate staff support at school, the consequential impacts and demerits can be substantial with numerous psychologically and sociologically fatal outcomes. This is because lesbian, gay, and transgender students, also called bisexuals, are susceptible to bullying and harassment in almost double or triple the percentage of ordinary people (Steven Aragon, 2014). They are also most likely to drop out of school and terminate their studies. They are almost six times as likely to undergo severe depression and breed suicidal thoughts, among other unethical social verdicts.
Profound Causative Factors Behind LGTBQ Issues
Recently, social stories and conversations connecting suicide to bullying and discrimination, specifically among young bisexual, lesbian, and gay (LGB) young nation, have been a severe topic of proper scrutiny (Joy Whitman, 2007). Sexual minority youths are prone to suicidal practices owing to the emotional distress they face as a result of continual rejection, ignorance, and opposition on social media, for example.
However, according to these tragic losses (Paul Poteat, 2013), social media campaigns have enhanced probable solutions and advised that suicide is not the ultimate solution to the menace through the establishment of slogans like, ‘It Gets Better Project.’ Such projects are of significant vitality since these youths are generally at maximum risk of suicidal behavioral practices compared to their heterosexual fellows and peers.
Regardless of whether sexual minorities contemplate self-identification as same-sex attractions, lesbians, gays, and bisexual youths manifest incredibly higher odds of depicting plans, thoughts, and deeds that are utterly suicidal. Such a saddening atmosphere arises from the fact that most societies, across the United States and the world in general, consider heterosexuality as normative catalyzing massive stains of stigma on sexual minorities (Kris Gowen, 2017). A plethora of research findings have attested and postulated that when LGB youths attend schools with norms and beliefs that are most likely to stimulate and enhance stigmatization, the consequential anticipatory results are often worse and fatal.
In the U.S., lesbians, bisexuals, and gays frequently report experiences related to unbearable peer victimization, which has potentially grave consequences for their universal well-being (Kris Gowen, 2017). Bearing this, it is eventually realized that educational policymakers, researchers, and profound school personnel are drastically unconversant with victimization-related implications on sexual minorities that reflect the limitedness and unavailability of nationally representative informational data.
Most importantly, American National surveys regarding adolescent health i.e., YRBS, should amicably embrace recognition of the importance of including sexual orientation, gender, race, and attraction in communal activities as this is the most effective prevention program against suicidal and bullying practices among the sexual minority youths (Steven, 2014).
The Existing Policies Designed to Address LGBTQ Issues
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning has been a severe issue in the U.S. currency, as accompanied by the killing of the 15-year-old boy, worsened the menace (Russell, 2010). This drew the attention of public media worldwide, which forced the federal government to impart more effort into the events that protect LGBTQ youths in public institutes. The federal government came up with two laws or policies, which include; HR2262, which means the Safe School Improvement Act, and HR4530, which stands for Student Non-discriminative Act (Russell, 2010). These laws were put in place to establish a non-discrimination and bullying-free environment for LGBT students in all public schools, and the provision of equitable education opportunities for all.
The anticipated SSIA laws comprise requirements that give both state and district schools mandate in the execution of strategies comprised of preclusion and intrusion techniques, skillful improvement for school staff, learners, and parents to provide instant notices concerning rights and nitpick methods, duties of airing out any occurrences that promote victimization and annoying to parents then proceed to public authorities and lastly to local establishments.
Non-discriminative law, on the other hand, protects LGBTQ student rights and offers them authorized assets most to those who have experienced victimization based on a ferocity that results from peculiar traits. All the state governments have the mandate to ensure that the laws applied to people promote a discrimination-free environment based on erotic alignment, sex distinctiveness, and any other authorized outlines that provide sufficient fortification against discriminative facets in public schools (Russell, 2010). Schools are also mandated to introduce curricula and resources that openly embrace LGBTQ students, and the school surroundings should be very supportive of the specific desires of lesbian adolescents.
Defects of the Prevailing Policies
Implementation of the enumerated LGBTQ policies has encountered a series of challenges that alter its functionality. In contrast to the federal act, there is no federal law that prevents an individual from being excited or removed from work based on sensual alignments, making teachers with the same traits have difficult situations risking losing or not even getting jobs.
Cite this page
Addressing LGBTQ Issues in Schools: Policies, Challenges, and Solutions - Paper Sample. (2023, Nov 06). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/addressing-lgbtq-issues-in-schools-policies-challenges-and-solutions-paper-sample
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- Essay Sample on Incarceration Rate and Black Lives Matter Movement
- My College Experience and High School Experience Essay Example
- Free Essay on Gun Violence on College Campuses
- Free Essay Dedicated to the Impact of Campaign Chlamydia on Sexual Health
- Education Essay Sample: Foreign Classes for High School Students
- Free Essay on Chinese Modern Women
- Essay Sample on Two Sports Governing Organizations in Two Areas of Policy