Back from the Dead – Section 28

Chris Strafford and Rachel Brooks from the Anticapitalist Initiative discuss the need to defend and extend struggle for LGBT equality in our schools.

The revelation that at least 40 schools in Britain have introduced homophobic Section 28-like rules banning the “promotion of homosexuality” has to be met with a calls for them to be overturned. However, we must go further to ensure that LGBT equality is taught by all schools regardless of faith, status or funding. The schools that have so far been named are Stockport Academy, Radcliffe School (Milton Keynes), Grace Academy (Coventry), Swindon Academy, Bridge Academy (Hackney), Coston Girl’s School (Bristol) and William Hulmes Grammar School (Manchester).

 Section 28 was introduced as part of the 1988 Local Government Act during a moral panic stirred up by the tabloids. Margaret Thatcher legislated that local authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality”. Section 28 was a nightmare for LGBT students and teachers then, and its return to these schools will no doubt be just as much a nightmare for today’s students and teachers. These policies undermine attempts to fight homophobic bullying through constantly othering LGBT students. The revelations also come at a time when the world is looking at Russia’s recent legislative moves against LGBT people in the run-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics.

In 1988, a movement began organising protests, rallies and direct action to strike back at the homophobes. The labour movement reacted immediately with the establishment in January of Trade Unionists Against Section 28. That February in Manchester, over 25,000 people rallied in Albert Square at a protest organised by the North West Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Equality under the banner Never Going Underground. Then in April, over 30,000 took to the streets in London. It still took until 2003 for Section 28 to be repealed by a Labour government dragging its heels.

Facing such policies, students in these schools could be hard pressed to find the information and support that is so desperately needed; staff would need to risk their jobs and career to provide something as basic as details of LGBT support groups. LGBT suicide rates are shockingly high: one in five lesbians attempt suicide, which is “three times higher than for their heterosexual peers”, and “16% of gay and bisexual boys have attempted suicide and 57% have thought about taking their own life”. This is in a society where one in eight LGBT people suffer homophobic hate crime every year (that one in six “are physically assaulted or threatened with violence”) and where LGBT people are 50% more likely to suffer from depression. In the workplace things have improved, yet over a million people have witnessed physical homophobic bullying. Written in 1971, the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto stated that “[t]he adolescent recognising his or her homosexuality might feel totally alone in the world, or a pathologically sick wreck.”

These revelations must not be ignored and those schools found holding onto Section 28-like rules can’t be let off the hook. A commitment to LGBT equality in the classroom by these school boards can only be superficial if it takes a media frenzy for the lines to be deleted or amended. There is no guarantee that a quick deletion of homophobic policies on school websites will actually translate into ending the policy in practice. What effect have such policies had on homophobic and transphobic bullying in these schools prior to them being exposed? In many cases these schools are academies, which means they have been granted certain ‘freedoms’ from the local authority. This is an example of them abusing their freedoms; all organisations are required to respect certain ‘protected characteristics’, under equality legislation. There are some exemptions (religious schools) but it is still the responsibility of a school’s governing body (especially in academies where they are the ‘power’) to create a harmonious and safe learning environment for the students. LGBT students cannot possibly be safe in an environment where the governing body is making up policy.

It is the responsibility of schools, as institutions, to ensure their learners are safe and happy. Making a school safe for LGBT students (and teachers, too) makes it safer for all learners. Teachers have a responsibility to ensure that their students are capable of learning and must tackle discrimination that may obstruct their learning opportunities. How can this be done if LGBT students are not safe?

The academies in question did this because they thought they could get away with it. Under very little pressure, they have changed these policies, knowing that it was not in their powers to invent homophobic policy. Although, thanks to Tatchell and the BHA, they have now rescinded these policies, it reminds us of the danger of schools being effectively run in the interests of a governing body and not as part of a family of schools.

The Department for Education (DfE) grants schools wide scope in teaching LGBT issues, which often means that they will be ignored or even presented in a damaging way. Clearly the DfE has been looking the other way whilst schools hold on to or introduce these policies. There is also the slow erosion of protection for LGBT students, as shown by the recent removal of protection for trans students. Isn’t it about time that LGBT equality was made a mandatory part of the national curriculum and tightly enforced so that no school can get away with holding homophobic and transphobic policies and practices? Shouldn’t religious school have to teach LGBT equality in a positive way and not through the prism of this or that imaginary homophobe in the sky?

Writing in 2002 about sex education, or lack of, in schools, Peter Tatchell argued that “[t]he right to love a person of either sex, to engage in any mutually consensual sexual act, and to enjoy a happy, healthy sex life, is a fundamental human right. This right to sexual self-determination should be promoted in every school, to create a culture of sexual rights where every young person understands and asserts their right to determine what they, and others, do with their body. This ethos of ‘it’s my body, I’m in charge’ is the best possible protection against people who try to manipulate and pressure youngsters into having sex.” In response to the attempt to sneak Section 28 into some schools under the radar, we must organise campaigns to drive the homophobes out of our schools and give the youth the knowledge and power to fight bigotry and grow up without being shamed, abused and attacked for their sexual orientation or gender.

At times, the left has not taken LGBT liberation as seriously as it should and sometimes dumped it completely in order to placate homophobic allies. In Left Unity we have started off on the right path and despite differences, there is clearly a consensus that our new party will struggle against homophobia and transphobia. We have already recognised the need for liberation caucuses to be formed and many supporters are involved in supportive campaigns at work and in their unions and communities. A positive contribution we can make at the moment is to use these networks to make sure the unions fight these homophobic policies and build solidarity with the LGBT youth who are fighting back.