You are on page 1of 11

Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Diversity, Social Justice and Learning 102083

Assignment 1

Essay question 2: Do Australian schools deal well with diversity and differences? In your

discussion make sure you refer to educational policies and real life referenced examples to

support your point of view

In any given school, as in any society, for which the former reflects the latter, as such, a micro

society, there will be found difference and diversity. This is increasingly so, as

multiculturalism and globalisation saturate communities world-wide. Yet, where there is

difference, where there is diversity, there is often strife. Homosexuality is one such division

that is often misunderstood and disrespected with homophobia and discrimination. In this

essay I will discuss the social injustice of homophobia and discrimination towards gay,

lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender (GLBT) occurring in Australian schools. This is a social

justice issue because the reproduction of heteronormativity in Western society ensures the

continued proliferation of homophobia and other gender/sexuality discrimination.

Heteronormativity represents an institutionalised dominant discourse that creates and

recreates inequality between heterosexual and non-heterosexual persons, through the

supposed social deviancy of non-heterosexual individuals. These individuals are thus

marginalised on the pretence of said deviancy. I will use Judith Butler's theory of gender

performativity to explain why homosexuality is perceived as deviant within the dominant

discourse. Then I will use Pierre Bourdieus theories on social reproduction to discuss how

these attitudes continue to proliferate. Furthermore, I will argue that despite the good

intentions of relevant educational policies, Australian schools do not deal well with diversity

1
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

and differences, particularly homosexuality and GLBT. This is because individual schools,

and the educational system as a whole, operate as breeding grounds for the reproduction of

dominant discourses, such as heteronormativity.

I will begin by defining difference and diversity in sociological terms. Difference is the

division between various social groupings (Scott, J. & Marshall, G., 2009), including

ethnicity, class, gender and sexuality. Diversity is the concept that a society is shared by

these various social divisions, on the premise of mutual respect, understanding and

acknowledgement of said differences (Definition for Diversity, n.d.). Theoretically, diversity

allow individuals to coexist and share in their differences. It is, however, fragile, and

realistically problematic in its practical applications. Homosexuality is one social division

where there are stark differences between the theoretical and the practical. The machines and

mouth organs of political correctness wax lyrical about anti-discrimination, anti-homophobia

and gay rights. As someone who was raised in a liberal community, with parents who were

strongly pro-gay rights and gay marriage, it was my assumption that everyone except

conservative Christians like my grandparents shared these beliefs. Yet the reality of Western

society is that homosexuality is still often seen as deviant. Deviance is defined as behaviour

or conduct that violates the norms of a given society, and is thus subject to social policing or

sanction (Turner, S., 2006, p. 135). Theories of gender performativity can aid in an

understanding of societys view of homosexuality as deviant.

Homosexuality may be viewed as deviant in Western society, for it is the other to normative

heterosexuality. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people are seen as the other

because their gender performance defies the homogeneity of the dominant discourse,

heteronormativity. Butler (1999) argues that gender is performed through particular actions,

2
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

mannerisms and wants. This is produced on the outside of the body, yet creates the illusion

that it emanates from within. These enactments are performative in the way that the interior

identities that they seek to express are fabricated through exterior means. The fabrication of

this internal essence suggests that that interiority itself is both "an effect and function of a

decidedly public and social discourse, the public regulation of fantasy through the surface

politics of the body", which is maintained for the purposes of the regulation of sexuality

within the obligatory frame of reproductive heterosexuality" (p.173). The wants, desires, and

other exterior signifiers used to perform gender, of GLBT people clearly lie outside the

obligatory frame of reproductive heterosexuality, and for that they may be marginalised as

deviants. For example, 16 year old Jimmy Yan was putting up posters in his school library in

support of gay marriage, when a nearby teacher saw the material and said: You dont know

what marriage is, faggot boy (Tomazin, 2011). It is unknown whether Jimmy himself

identified as homosexual, but as the example illustrates, merely his support of gender

performance that is not homogenous with the heteronormative ideals of the teacher elicited

discrimination. As such, GLBT are often seen by conservative heterosexual individuals as not

normal, as the other defined in opposition to the self, as deviants; are thus marginalised and

discriminated against. Butlers theory aids an understanding of how these attitudes are born;

social reproduction theory, however, will inform the re-creation of such ideologies.

Heteronormativity endures as a dominant discourse in Western society through social

reproduction. Social reproduction occurs, argues Bourdieu (1977), through the habitus, which

is simultaneously a symptom, product and condition for the conception of dominant

ideologies. The habitus is defined as a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which,

integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions,

appreciations, and actions" (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 83, italics in original). In other words, the

3
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

habitus is everything occurring in society that influences both the individual and the

collective to particular beliefs, ideals, attitudes, behaviours and reactions. Furthermore,

Bourdieu argues that any interaction or relationship between individuals does not contain the

total truth of the interaction; that the interaction in question is pregnant with, and influenced

by, the habitus and history of all similar interactions that preceded it (1977, p. 79). The

habitus is produced, and reproduces, for it tends to recreate the conditions that created it

initially. All forms of discrimination are born and reborn this way. We display these actions

and beliefs without thought, sometimes without knowledge even. Dominant discourse, such

as heteronormativity, is dominant in part because of the way it reproduces effortlessly in the

individual and collective subconscious, and for the extreme difficulty in eroding it. This can

be seen in the differences between official school policy and school yard reality.

The NSW Department of Education's official policy regarding homophobia states that there is

no place in government schools for discrimination or harassment in accordance with the

NSW Anti-Discrimination Act (1997) (Boston, 1997). The document lists ambiguous

procedures for dealing with discrimination, and its only recommendations for educating

students on homophobia and GLBT is within a HIV/AIDS framework. It is important, also, to

note that this memorandum was authored and distributed in the same year as the Anti-

Discrimination Act; the NSW Department of Education's official policy on homophobia has

not been updated in eighteen years. In fact, despite the existence of these policies, a national

survey, on the sexual health and wellbeing of young GLBT people, found that 75% of those

surveyed did not feel protected by relevant policies in the school environment (Hillier et al.,

2010, p. 82). This suggests that any existing homophobia in government schools is not being

taken seriously or being properly addressed. Catholic and Independent schools, however,

write their own policies. The 'Countering Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy'

4
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

document, from the Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, claims that Catholic schools

"aim to be free from discrimination" in accordance with State and Commonwealth legislation

(2012, p. 1). Furthermore, the document lists various forms of discrimination, such as race,

sex and age, yet they omit discrimination based on sexual orientation. A perusal of several

independent schools websites local to my area, the Blue Mountains, found no policies

relating to discrimination or homophobia, and most specified a personal request to see

policies. While independent schools are subject to the same anti-discrimination legislation as

government schools, they may be more prone to institutionalised discrimination, as in the

case of 16 year old Hannah Williams. When her school, Ivanhoe Girls Grammar, an

independent school in Melbourne, held a dance for the students, Hannah informed her

teachers that she intended on bringing her girlfriend (Cook, 2010). She was told that she

would not be allowed to attend unless she brought a male. This discrimination clearly defies

Victorias Equal Opportunity Act (1995) which explicitly protects individuals from

discrimination based on sexual orientation from educational authorities, who may not

discriminate against a student by denying or limiting access to any benefit provided by the

authority (Equal Opportunity Act, 1995, p. 39). Within this example there is a stark

difference between policy and practice.

While policies are made with the best of intentions, the practice of policies is only as

effective as the policy-makers endorsement, or the educational authorities implementation.

When policies, and programs aimed at implementing policies, are not carried out in an

informed and wholehearted manner, they become redundant. In 2012 the "Proud Schools"

pilot program, addressing homophobia and heterosexism in schools, was implemented in

twelve schools across Sydney and the Hunter region. It was endorsed by the NSW Education

Minister Adrian Piccoli, who claimed that the government was committed to eradicating

5
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

homophobia in schools. His department, however, refused to "approve teaching material

aimed at stamping out 'heterosexism'" on the premise that that teaching students that

heterosexual relations are not the norm would only confuse them, particularly when

homosexuals comprise a small percentage of the population (Devine, 2012). The very notion

that heterosexuality is the norm is the root of the problem of homophobia and discrimination

based on sexual identity; "heterosexism feeds homophobia" (The Proud Schools Consultation

Report, cited in Devine 2012). Minister Piccoli's commitment to the program illustrates the

best of intentions, yet is negated by his fellow liberal MPs ignorance or unwillingness to fulfil

the requirements of the "Proud Schools" program to be effective.

At the school level, teachers play a significant role in reproducing dominant discourse.

Teachers will inadvertently promote heteronormative ideology, regardless of political stance,

of whether one is a conservative homophobe, a gay rights advocate, or somewhere in

between. Daily interactions of a personal nature with students or fellow staff, such as

discussions of marital status, are rife with heteronormative discourse. Take for example this

teacher, Maggie, whom inadvertently positioned herself as heterosexual and coupled

(Evans, 2009, p. 8) in the admission that she and her fianc chaperoned the school dance and

sat for photographs like the rest of the couples (Evans, 2009, p. 7). Statements such as

hers effectively normalise heterosexuality, thus positioning homosexuality as the abnormal

'other'. Students and fellow staff will pose the question: are you married? Like Maggie, many

teachers responses may only serve to affirm heteronormative discourse, such as my own (I

am a female, married to a man, with two children, and am thus an embodiment as such of

heteronormativity). I am aware that, despite my personal gay-rights and anti-homophobia

beliefs, I may inadvertently reaffirm the norms. I am also aware that my wholehearted beliefs

may actually blind me to homophobic bullying because I simply cannot conceive of

6
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

discriminating against another on the basis of something so inconsequential to myself as their

sexual preferences. A teachers silence in addressing heterosexism and homophobia,

regardless of whether the cause is ignorance, reluctance, or a lack of support, only

communicates to the school community that homophobia is acceptable (Vega, Crawford &

Van Pelt, 2012, p. 255). Sex education in schools provides the perfect arena for teachers to

address these issues. Studies show correlations in schools between policy-based protections

for GLBT students, inclusive sexuality education and positive social outcomes for GLBT

students (Hillier et al., 2010). Inclusive sexuality education can greatly improve the school

environment by lowering instances of homophobia for GLBT students, however less than

20% of GLBT school students report that their sexuality education classes communicated

anti-homophobia messages (Hillier et al., 2010, p. 83).

A fact sheet about sexual diversity on the NSW Department of Education and Communities

website, under the sub-section 'Teaching Sexual Health', lists a number of common-sense

ways of aiding GLBT students towards a better schooling experience, including teaching and

learning activities for education on sexuality and how to cater for sexual diversity within

schools. This is a step towards embracing sexual diversity in the education system; however,

one particular phrase in the text proves problematic: "We can assist this process [building

resilience to homophobia] by providing them with more effective options for explaining their

world" (Sexual Diversity, n.d., italics added for emphasis). There are two problems with the

wording of this sentence. Firstly, 'them' are placed in opposition to 'we', which essentially

'others' the GLBT students whom this document aims to serve. Secondly, 'explaining their

world' implies that 'we' and 'them' are so different that we share no commonalities, not even

the world we all inhabit, which further places GLBT students in opposition to non-GLBT.

This resource aims to be inclusive by educating the ignorant, yet it merely reinforces to the

7
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

ignorant that GLBT are the deviant other. These examples illustrate how very difficult it is to

affect change in ideology, in both the schooling environment and broader communities. This

can all be put down to social reproduction, the difficulty in changing something that has been

socially reproduced to the point that it seems natural or innate. In fact, Bourdieu and Passeron

(1990) argue that schools, themselves, are major stages of social reproduction: breeding

grounds for the reproduction of dominant discourse (p. 54). The various examples discussed

in this essay support this very notion, and allows me to argue that Australian schools, in

general, do not deal well with diversity and difference, for without concerted, pro-active

effort and dedication of the majority, rather than the minority, schooling systems will only

continue to replicate dominant discourses that promote homogeneity, of which there is no

room for difference or diversity.

In conclusion, the policies are in place to promote anti-discrimination and anti-homophobia

in schools, and in the broader communities. Yet without social revolution, on both the

individual and collective level, all the policies in existence are for naught, for what occurs at

policy level and what occurs at the school level are worlds apart. While true change may be

occurring in some schools, others remain the same. Social reproduction theory explains the

reluctance of social reform in schools despite whatever happens at the top. We must work

individually as well as collectively, pro-actively and determinedly, to revolutionise the

dominant discourse, to overhaul heteronormative ideology, to affect change in all our beliefs

and attitudes towards those whom we would consider the other (other classes, ethnicities,

etcetera, as well as other sexualities). Failing that, we will only continue to reproduce the

dominant discourse, in ignorance, and marginalise the other.

8
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

References

Boston, K. (1997, October 20). Memorandum to principals of central and

secondary schools; Homophobia in schools. NSW Department of School

Education. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/student_welfare/homoph_sch/homop

hobia_sch.pdf.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Great Britain: Cambridge

University Press.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction: In education, society and

culture. Great Britain: SAGE Publications.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity.

New York and London: Routledge.

Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta. (October, 1, 2012). Countering

Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy. Retrieved March 14, 2015,

from

http://www.parra.catholic.edu.au/SiteData/SharedFolder/Modules/SystemPolicy/Counte

ring%20Discrimination,%20Harassment%20and%20Bullying%20-%20Policy.pdf.

Cook, H. (2010, November 10). No room for girlfriends at Ivanhoe Girls' Dance. The Age.

Retrieved on March 12, 2015, from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no-room-for-

girlfriends-at-ivanhoe-girls-dance-20101109-17m4g.html.

Definition for Diversity. (n.d.) Queensborough Community College. Retrieved March

11, 2015, from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/diversity/definition.html.

9
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Devine, M. (2012, October 17). Being straight no longer normal, students taught. The Daily

Telegraph. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/being-straight-no-longer-normal-students-

taught/story-e6freuzi-1226497360980.

Equal Opportunity Act (1995). Version No. 059. Victoria. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt

2.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/B0C98922C32E73A2CA257761001

FB804/$FILE/95-42a059.pdf.

Evans, K. (2009). Are you married?: Examining heteronormativity in schools.

Multicultural Perspectives 1(3), 7-13. doi:10.1080/15210969909539908

Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A.

(2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national study on the sexual

health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning

young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society,

La Trobe University. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from

http://www.glhv.org.au/files/wti3_web_sml.pdf.

Scott, J., & Marshall, G. (2009). A dictionary of sociology. Oxford University Press.

Retrieved Mar 11, 2015, from

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-

9780199533008.

Sexual Diversity. (n.d.). NSW Department of Education and Communities. Retrieved

March 10, 2015, from

http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/sexual_health/inclusive/diversity.h

tm.

10
Zoe-Lee Fuller 16343229

Tomazin, F. (2011, February 8). Gay times, bad times. The Sydney Morning Herald.

Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/gay-

times-bad-times-20110207-1ak6b.html.

Turner, S. (2006). The cambridge dictionary of sociology. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press. eBook collection (EBSCOhost). Retrieved March 11,

2015, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?

sid=e0b97b39-c26c-49cf-b4ef-

17e5ddf051c7%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl

2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=nlebk&AN=217997.

Vega, S. Crawford, H.G., & Van Pelt, J. (2012) Safe schools for LGBTQI students: how do

teachers view their role in promoting safe schools?. Equity & Excellence in

Education, 45(2), 250-260. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.671095

11

You might also like