Sexual Orientation and Education Politics:
Gay and Lesbian Representation in American Schools
Kenneth D. Wald
Department of Political Science
P.O. Box 117325
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-7325
E-Mail: kenwald@polisci.ufl.edu
Barbara A. Rienzo
Department of Health Science Education
University of Florida
James W. Button
Department of Political Science
University of Florida
Prepared for delivery at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta
Marriott Marquis and Atlanta Hilton and Towers, September 2-5, 1999. Copyright by the American
Political Science Association.
ABSTRACT
Sexual Orientation and Educational Politics:
Gay and Lesbian Representation in American Schools
In what has sometimes provoked a "culture war" over America's schools, gays and lesbians have
sought an expanded voice in the making of educational policy. This paper explores the factors that
promote gay representation on school boards, how this variable in turn influences gay representation in
both administrative and teaching positions, and how all three forms of gay representation relate to school
board policies regarding sexual orientation education. Three of the four models drawn from the social
movement literature help to explain gay school board representation. In a manner similar to other
minority groups, gay representation on school boards directly or indirectly promotes both the
appointment of gays to other positions in the educational realm and the adoption of policies that address
the problems faced by gay and lesbian students in the public schools.
In recent years, the controversy over homosexuality and public education has generated "one of
the most publicly volatile and personally threatening debates in our national history" (Harbeck 1992, 1).
As a powerful symbol of the tension, the Chancellor of New York City's school system was forced from
office in 1993 largely over plans to implement a "rainbow curriculum" in the elementary grades (Dillon,
1993). In the name of fostering tolerance for unconventional families, its teacher's guide encouraged the
inclusion of information about gay and lesbian life. Opponents condemned the plan as an effort to
advance the "homosexual agenda" by indoctrinating children in decadent values (Myers, 1992). Even in
such a liberal jurisdiction as New York City, the School Board acceded to the protests and requested the
resignation of the respected Chancellor, Joseph Fernandez.
This incident laid bare the conflict between the historic function of American education and the
claims of a rising gay social movement. Traditionally American education has emphasized socializing
young people into traditional moral values with teachers serving as role models for developing youth. Far
from being a fit subject for teachers to discuss sympathetically, homosexuality was variously branded as
an abominable sin, a serious illness, and a crime (D'Emilio, 1983). Since the late 1960s, however, as
lesbians and gay men mobilized politically to assert their civil rights and gain greater personal freedom,
they sought an expanded social role. Within a few years, the American Psychiatric Association removed
homosexuality from its classification as a mental disorder, a number of states repealed their sodomy laws,
and the National Education Association amended its nondiscrimination policy to include protection for
gays. As the gay movement began to be perceived as a threat to the traditional cultural ideology
emphasized in schools, conservative political and religious groups organized to confront these challenges
to the status quo. What has emerged is a "culture war" in American schools (Button, Rienzo, and Wald,
1997).
This paper, an exploration of gay politics and public schools, was motivated by three major
concerns. First, it is an opportunity to expand our knowledge of educational policymaking at the local
level. The traditional assumption that politics had little to do with schooling in America has been
undermined by the rise of such highly divisive issues as school desegregation, book censorship, health and
sexuality education, vouchers, school choice, and school funding inequities among others. Despite the
important roles of courts and state legislatures in many of these debates, local decision-makers are
primarily responsible for making education policies (Spring, 1993; Stone, 1998). Second, this study was
motivated by the critical role that schools play in both generating and potentially mitigating the
problematic situation of young gays. The problems experienced by gay, lesbian and bisexual youths, such
as social isolation, rejection and physical as well as verbal abuse, have been well documented (American
Academy of Pediatrics, 1993; Gibson, 1989). Schools are typically hostile environments for gay and
lesbian youths (Thorne, 1993). This situation has resulted in increased vulnerability of gay youth to a
number of serious health problems, such as alcohol and substance abuse, AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases, depression and suicide. Thus, some medical and educational professionals have
called upon schools as primary socializing institutions to initiate policies and programs that address these
obstacles to gay students' educational achievement and personal success (Unks, 1994).
Finally, we were attracted to the study of this issue as political scientists interested in social and
political conflict. Along with abortion, needle exchanges, pornography and similarly charged issues, the
debate over gay issues in the schools represents an upsurge of culturally-based political conflict in urban
political systems (Sharp, 1999). These controversies, rooted in conflicting images of moral order, cannot
be accommodated easily within the political economy approach that dominates urban studies, and may
yield new and interesting ways to understand urban political conflict. Moreover, the political mobilization
of gays in education offers some important parallels with the experience of other minority groups that
1
have emerged as major players in urban political life. This enables us to extend to a new realm various
themes and approaches developed in the study of minority politics.
Research Questions
Utilizing a sample of American communities, we are interested in the factors that promote gay
representation on school boards, how this variable in turn influences gay representation in both
administrative and teaching positions, and how all three of these forces relate to school board policies
regarding sexual orientation. As such, this inquiry has elements of both a "first generation" study of
political representation as well as a concern with policy outputs that distinguishes more recent research.
The set of questions to be explored is represented graphically by Figure 1 below, our preliminary
statement of expectations.
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
The first task, represented by the left side of Figure 1, is to identify the forces that have promoted
openly lesbian and gay representation on school boards. To understand this process, we will draw on
several scholarly approaches used in prior research about gays and mass politics and in studies of how
other minority groups have achieved a modicum of representation on elective bodies. While the situation
of gays is not entirely analogous to that of other racial and ethnic minorities, the research about AfricanAmerican and Hispanic representation in schools may help us to understand the process by which lesbians
and gays have achieved a modest degree of political power in educational policy-making.
In the second part of the study, we transform gay electoral representation from a dependent to an
independent variable. Our concern is with the middle of Figure 1, how school board members influence
two other sets of elite actors, people who hold administrative offices and teaching positions. School
administrators at the highest levels are commonly selected by school boards, while those at lower levels
are hired by other administrators. School administrators hire almost all teachers. We are thus concerned
with the impact of gay school board representation on the selection of gay administrators and teachers.
The final question, represented by the right side of the figure, is the source of the sexual
orientation policies of school districts. We assume that the three groups--school board members,
administrators, and teachers--are the major determinants of policy involving questions of sexual
orientation. Each of these positions is potentially important in determining school district policy. School
boards typically establish general policies, administrators translate these policies into specific rules and
procedures, and teachers in turn use their own discretion in applying these rules to individual situations.
Prior research provides evidence that minority representation often has an impact on school policies that
affect minority interests (Meier, Stewart, and England, 1989; Meier and Stewart, 1991). On that basis,
we expect that gay representation among the decision-makers will strongly influence school district
policy. Let us now consider these theoretical connections in greater detail.
Gay Representation on School Boards
Although we are not familiar with any empirical research that predicts gay election to local school
boards, we can develop reasonable hypotheses from prior research on the adoption of gay rights
ordinances (Haeberle, 1996; Haider-Markel, 1996; and Meier; Wald, Button and Rienzo, 1996), the
election of gays to other public offices (Button, Wald and Rienzo, 1998), and the literature on minority
group representation.1
2
One line of research links gay political influence to urbanism and social diversity, the product of
social and economic modernization. Since World War II the demographic shift of African-Americans and
Latinos to major American cities has facilitated the increase in minority electoral power (Karnig and
Welch, 1980; Meier and Stewart, 1991). The urban setting has been conducive to the development of
social and political networks as minorities congregated in large numbers in particular neighborhoods.
Cities, more so than rural areas, proved to be relatively accepting and tolerant of different racial and
ethnic groups and thus provided fertile ground for the development of minority politics (Cole, 1976). This
pattern has clearly held for the emergence of the gay political movement as well. The social dislocation of
the World War II era found many lesbians and gay men migrating to American cities which were
markedly less hostile than the small towns and suburbs where gays had often been raised (D'Emilio,
1983). Indeed, larger cities provided the social diversity and permissiveness that allowed open
homosexuality (Bailey, 1998; Wilson, 1995). This atmosphere of acceptance was a necessary
precondition to the development of gay-identified politics. Community size and diversity have promoted
the passage of gay rights legislation and the election of gays to local legislative bodies (Haeberle, 1996;
Button, Wald, and Rienzo, 1998). With this precedent, we expect that urbanism and indicators of social
diversity will similarly facilitate gay political representation on school boards.
The resource mobilization approach, drawn from social movement theory, emphasizes the
political and organizational resources possessed by the groups who are trying to change social policy
(Mayer, 1991; McCarthy and Zald, 1973). In terms of minority political representation, population and
socioeconomic resources are particularly important. For both African-Americans and Latinos, for
example, the relative size of the minority population proved to be a key determinant of representation on
school boards (Meier and England, 1984; Robinson and England, 1981). Thus a minority population of
significant size is necessary for successful political mobilization. As a socioeconomic resource, the level
of African-American and Hispanic education was associated with each groups' election of members to
school boards (Meier, Stewart, and England, 1989; Meier and Stewart, 1991). Higher educational
attainment has long been linked to increased voter participation, and minority votes are important in
determining the racial and ethnic makeup of school boards. It seems that similar political resources are
necessary for the lesbian and gay community to achieve representation in schools. Most gays hide their
sexual identity for fear of the negative consequences of disclosure, and therefore gays face a disadvantage
in the development of a cohesive, mobilized constituency. Nevertheless, the size of the gay, lesbian and
bisexual community would seem to be a crucial resource. Wald, Button and Rienzo (1998) found that the
concentration of the gay population and the organizational density of the community were both
significant influences on the adoption of gay rights ordinances and the election of gays to local
commissions and councils. We anticipate similar positive relationships between gay resources and gay
representation on school boards.
Relatively powerless groups must depend on more than their own resources and capabilities to
succeed. Thus the responsiveness of the political system to new demands, a phenomenon known as
political opportunity structure, is also important to minority political advancement (Tarrow, 1991). In
terms of minority representation, much scholarly attention has focused on the nature of local government,
particularly election systems. Studies have shown that residentially segregated groups like blacks and
Hispanics increase their electoral opportunities in district, rather than at-large or other, election systems
(Engstrom and McDonald, 1981; Karnig and Welch, 1980; Welch, 1990). These findings are similar for
school board elections, although many school districts have adopted more politically neutral "reformed"
systems that include at-large elections (Meier, Stewart, and England, 1989). Appointment to school
boards, more so than at-large elections, often provides greater minority representation because mayors
3
try to achieve a greater racial balance through appointments (Robinson and England, 1981). Therefore we
hypothesize that district election systems and appointive school boards should be associated with gay
representation on local school boards (Button, Wald, and Rienzo, 1998). Yet gays are a relatively small
minority and, outside of large cities, often dispersed across residential neighborhoods (Sherrill, 1996).
Therefore gay voters must normally depend on local elites and institutions being relatively sympathetic,
and the support of political allies to gain representation (Adam, 1995). Based on this logic, we expect to
find that gay school board representation responds positively to the presence of sympathetic allies in the
community (Haider-Markel and Meier, 1996).
Finally, the phenomenon of minority representation is constrained by resistance and organized
opposition from specific groups. Lo's (1992) communal protest theory emphasizes the reactions of
organizations that perceive political change as threatening to tradition, security and community. The
African-American quest for political change in the South (and elsewhere), for example, was often
confronted by whites who were wedded to the racial status quo (Button, 1992; Colby, 1985). For gay
electoral activists, the most intense opposition has usually come from fundamentalist religious
organizations that condemn homosexuality as sinful and a threat to the traditional family and social norms
(Clark, Brown, and Hochstein, 1990). Religious conservatives have often mobilized to block attempts by
lesbians and gays to gain greater public power. The concentration of traditionalist religious groups
should thus diminish gay election to school boards.
Gay Representation in the School Bureaucracy
As Figure 1 suggests, we envision the appointment of gays to administrative and teaching
positions as a function of gay school board representation. Because we have located no published studies
that explicitly test for factors that promote gay appointment to bureaucratic positions, this expectation is
based on research about other minorities. Research on representative bureaucracy clearly documents the
relationship between local minority elected officials and the access of minorities to government
employment (Button, 1992; Eisinger, 1982; Dye and Renick, 1981; Meier and Smith 1994). Since almost
all administrators are appointed, election systems do not have any direct effect on the way African
American and Hispanic administrators are selected. However, the presence of minority school board
members does influence the access of those minorities to school administration positions (Meier, Stewart,
and England, 1989; Meier and Stewart, 1991). The school board typically appoints high-level
administrators who in turn hire other lower-level bureaucrats. School board members thus have numerous
opportunities to affect the race, ethnicity or sexual orientation of those in administrative positions. Gay
representatives on school boards will therefore be the primary predictor in our model of openly gay
administrators.
Studies of minority public employment indicate that minority managers tend to hire individuals
with the same racial or ethnic characteristics as their own (Saltzstein, 1983; Selden, 1997). Thus the
representation model for minority school administrators can be used in the analysis of black or Hispanic
teachers with one modification. Since administrators hire teachers, minority administrators are included in
the model for minority teachers. School board members may also have a direct impact on teacher
employment, especially in smaller school districts, or indirectly through administrators (Meier, Stewart,
and England, 1989; Meier and Stewart, 1991; Meier and Smith, 1994). Thus our analysis of openly gay
teachers will include both gay administrators and school board representatives, with the expectation that
administrators will be the more important factor.
4
Determinants of School Policy on Sexual Orientation
The ultimate issue for openly gay representatives is whether they can affect school policy or not.
The research, primarily on African American local elected officials, shows that such public officials can
influence certain policies that benefit African American constituents (Browning, Marshall, and Tabb,
1984; Button, 1992; Karnig and Welch, 1980). However, literature that attempts to link active
representation with actual policy decisions is relatively new and scarce in the area of education policy
(Selden, 1997). Meier, Stewart, and England (1989) reported that the factors that most influenced
policies related to equal access to education for black students were black teachers, black population with
ample resources, and non-Southern school districts. Not surprisingly, teachers had the greatest impact. In
this regard, teachers are similar to what Lipsky (1980) calls street-level bureaucrats. They apply
administrative rules to individual students. In doing so, teachers exercise their own discretion to a certain
extent in using discipline, encouraging or discouraging students, and monitoring the ways in which
students interact.
Policies related to the needs of gay and lesbian youths are not common in many school districts
(Button, Rienzo, and Wald, 1997). Nevertheless the 1990s have been a period of awakening to gay issues
throughout American society, including schools. Based on findings for African Americans, our
representation model, with the addition of gay teachers, should be useful in explaining school policies
addressing issues of sexual orientation. Furthermore, according to the work of Meier, Stewart, and
England (1989), we would anticipate a developmental sequence where the core linkages are gay school
board representation leading to administrative representation, which in turn leads to openly gay teachers,
with all forms of gay representation promoting sexual orientation policies.
Methodology
Design and Data
The data set for this study is a purposeful sample of 123 school districts located in the 101 U.S.
cities and 25 counties that had in place anti-discrimination legislation protective of gays in mid-1993
(Button, Rienzo, and Wald, 1997).2 By virtue of having given legal protection based on sexual orientation
through law or policy, the communities represented a mere 1% of American local governments. The
restriction of analysis to these communities is based on the simple reality that openly gay elected officials
were so rare at the time we collected data--estimated at just 120 in 1993 (Shapiro, 1993)--that a more
representative sample of American communities would yield too few cases for analysis.3 Faced with such
a skewed dependent variable, it makes sense to focus on communities that have demonstrated at least
some responsiveness to the perceived needs of gays and lesbians. Even among this purposeful group of
school districts, only ten reported openly gay school board candidates or elected members within the
previous five years.
Despite being somewhat larger and more socially diverse than American communities in general,
the cities and counties in which the 123 school districts are located vary appreciably from one another. A
topological analysis revealed four distinct clusters of communities: large industrial centers in the
Northeast and Midwest, university towns and small cities, cities in the South and Border states, and a
class of affluent coastal communities. Although there is a strong relationship between size and passage of
gay rights legislation, a majority of the sample consists of localities with populations of less than 200,000
(Button, Rienzo, and Wald, 1997). Thus we found considerable variation in the factors likely to promote
the representation of gays in public schools despite the use of a censored sample.
5
Dependent Variables
We obtained local school district information on lesbian and gay representation by mail and/or
telephone surveys of school officials reputed to be knowledgeable about gay issues and local politics in
1993.4 Based on prior work about the adoption of protective legislation, we had more confidence in data
gained from a systematic survey of knowledgeable local officials than from any of the lists of gay
candidates and officials compiled informally by gay advocacy groups (Button, Rienzo, and Wald, 1997;
DeBold, ed., 1994).
To measure gay representation among school board members, school administrators and teachers,
we asked our respondents to estimate the number of openly gay or lesbians individuals who had either
held those positions or been candidates for each of them. Three aspects of these measures are
noteworthy. First, we dichotomized each of them. The vast majority of localities with gay school board
representation or gay administrators reported only a single case, making use of the interval measure
inadvisable. We also had doubts about the capacity of respondents accurately to report the percentage of
gays and lesbians among teachers. Second, we included candidates for all of these positions as well as
people who actually held the posts. Although dictated partly by the scarcity of openly gay people in many
of these positions, the inclusion of candidates can be justified on substantive grounds because this method
of defining the dependent variable incorporates the phenomenon of office seeking (Stewart and Sheffield,
1987). The evidence indicates that the election of minority group officials to local office stimulates
members of their community to submit application for government employment (Button, 1992). A true
measure of the effectiveness of such minority representatives is thus not confined to those who actually
obtain positions but must also take account of those who are influenced by the elected officials to seek
employment. Third and finally, the question about gay representation in schools was couched in a time
frame of "within the past five years." This wording, like the candidate question, was intended to increase
the number of cases with gay officials, a relatively rare political phenomenon. By restricting this data to a
single time period, we are limited to conducting a cross-sectional analysis and may miss some important
feedback loops suggested by previous research on other minority groups (Meier and Smith 1994).
The survey also provided data to construct a composite measure of school district policy on
sexual orientation. We queried respondents on the presence of eight specific programs recommended by
experts as important ways to meet the special needs of gay and lesbian students (Unks 1994; Button,
Rienzo and Wald 1997).5 The additive scale was quite reliable with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85.
Independent Variables
The data set contained predictors associated with the four theoretical perspectives of gay school
board representation. To assess the impact of urbanism and social diversity on the representation of
openly gay school officials, we included indicators of population size, black population share, median
income, and the proportion of non-family households (as defined by the Census). The resource
mobilization approach was operationalized by a pair of variables. The first, gay-related services, was
based on a per capita count of gay bars and services listed in the Damron Address Book (1994), a popular
reference guide for gays and lesbians. As Kenneth Sherrill (1993) has argued, these businesses and
organizations often serve as the infrastructure of the gay community and may well become the base for
political mobilization. This variable has proven a powerful predictor of the passage of gay rights
ordinances (Wald, Button, and Rienzo, 1996). We also included a Census measure of the percentage of
6
households occupied by unmarried partners of the same sex. Though biased in favor of gay males and
falling short of a comprehensive indicator of gay population size, this variable seems to work well as an
indicator of gay concentration across communities and quite accurately predicted the adoption of gay
rights ordinances (Wald, Button, and Rienzo, 1996).
For the political opportunity structure, we incorporated several variables that should tap the
accessibility of the political system to gays and lesbians. These included the support given to a gaysponsored legislative initiative by the community's congressional representative, state political culture as
indexed by the number of institutions (if any) covered by a state gay rights law, and the number of
colleges and universities in the community. We also included a composite measure of political structure, a
dummy variable coded "1" if the district maintained either of two practices linked to minority
representation in other studies--district-based school board elections or an appointive school board. The
final measure of the political opportunity structure attempted to assess gay electoral influence in school
board contests. In separate questions, respondents were asked whether the gay rights supporters and
opponents had made an impact in previous school board elections. The item was coded from low (for
communities with no gay/lesbian impact but some reported impact by anti-gay forces) to high for
communities with gay-lesbian influence but no significant anti-gay impact. In communities that reported
influence by both groups or by neither, the variable assumed the intermediate value. The communal
protest model, an approach that focuses attention on the power of social traditionalism, was tested by the
inclusion of the level of religious adherence and the concentration of conservative Protestants in the
community.6
We estimated the four equations indicated by Figure 1 in a path model using OLS regression.7
Because of the wide variation in measurement scales among the independent variables, we will report the
standardized coefficients from the regression equations. Although we expected the forces on the left side
of Figure 1 to explain only the first dependent variable, school board representation, we included these
predictors in all four equations as a check on our logic. The equation for gay administrators included the
gay school board representation variable and the gay-lesbian teacher indicator was regressed on both gay
administrators and gay school board representation. The school district policy variable was tested in a
comprehensive equation with all the predictors.
The results of these equations, the path coefficients, are shown in Figure 2. We trimmed the
model by deleting variables failing to reach statistical significance at the .05 level and re-estimating each
equation with only the significant predictors. In the interests of space and readability, the figure does not
show variables that failed to attain significance in the second equation although these predictors were
included in the equations. The exception to this rule is the reporting of coefficients for the three gay
representation variables even when they failed to attain statistical significance.
Results
It is important first to look at the degree of openly gay representation in the schools. Table 1 lists
our survey results indicating the number of school districts reporting openly lesbian or gay candidates for
or holding positions on school boards, in administration, and in teaching positions for the period 19881993. As mentioned earlier, very few openly gay persons have been willing to compete in elections for
school boards. Only ten out of 123 (8 percent) school districts reported such candidates or school board
members. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund's informal compilation of openly gay elected officials shows
similar results, listing just five school board members nation-wide over this same time period (DeBold,
ed., 1994). Administrative posts are also important in terms of influencing and carrying out educational
7
policies. Here, too, we find few out-of-the-closet gays with twenty (16 percent) of the school districts in
our sample reporting gay administrative applicants or position-holders.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Self-identified gays are more commonly found among teachers. Forty-six, or almost 40 percent, of
school districts claimed to have openly gay applicants or actual teachers. While teachers work with
students directly and are often important role models, they do not have the public visibility or power to
determine policy of school board members and top-level administrators. There are, of course, many more
teaching positions than school board or administrative posts in every district, and therefore greater job
potential at this level for aspiring gay applicants. Thus it is not surprising to find many more school
districts reporting openly gay teachers than either school board members or administrators.
How well do the four theoretical perspectives explain openly lesbian and gay representation on
school boards? The findings in Figure 2 (below) lend support to three of the four models that guided the
analysis of the first dependent variable. The significance of population size suggests the importance of
urbanism/ social diversity in facilitating gay representation. Gay resources were even more important. The
proxy for gay population concentration, the proportion of households headed by same-sex partners, was
the most influential among the predictors. Political opportunity structure was also influential. The greater
the coverage of the state gay rights legislation, the higher the likelihood of openly gay school board
members and candidates. Only the communal protest model was a poor predictor of gay school board
representation. In short, these results indicate that openly gay school board representation is likely to be
found in larger cities with sizable lesbian and gay populations and located in states that have provided
legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
For the three remaining dependent variables, we utilized a model with both direct and indirect
effects. Table 2 indicates the total impact of each predictor. To explain gay representation among school
administrators, we employed the same theoretical approaches and predictor variables. In this model,
however, we added openly gay school board members and candidates. Only two variables, gay-related
electoral activity and gay school board representation, are significantly related to gay administrative
representation. Contrary to expectation, the measure of electoral influence diminishes the appointment of
gay administrators.8 If we consider school board representation to be a form of resource mobilization, this
theoretical perspective once again best explains gay representation. These findings also indicate, as we
anticipated, the importance of school board officials in the hiring of school administrators. The three
predictors of gay school board representation exert some modest impact on gay administrators by virtue
of their indirect paths.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Teachers are the final level of openly gay representation that we explored. Again, we utilized the
same models and indicators as we did for higher levels of school representation. In addition, because
administrators hire teachers and the hiring process may be influenced by school board policies, we
included gay representation among administrators and on school boards as predictor variables. Table 2
shows that the major predictors of gay teachers are gay administrators and the percent of non-family
households. Contrary to expectation, there is no direct significant influence of gay school board
representation on gay teacher appointment but it does promote gay teachers indirectly via its influence on
8
gay administrators. The relationship between gay teachers and the non-family household variable
probably reflects the influence of higher education. Communities with large public universities frequently
record the highest scores on the non-family household measure. It seems likely that a somewhat more
tolerant political climate translates into a greater willingness to hire gay teachers.
The final piece of the puzzle is to explain the adoption of school board policies that address the
specific needs of gay students. Figure 2 shows that sexual orientation policy was most directly enhanced
by gay representation on school boards and the presence of gay teachers. The presence of gay
administrators did not contribute directly to sexual orientation policy but the indirect effect was positive
and substantial. In addition, communities with policies that addressed gay student needs were more likely
to have a substantial proportion of non-family households and to have liberal state climates toward
homosexuality.
Conclusion
Lesbians and gay men who are open about their sexual identity are poorly represented, especially
at higher levels, in the school districts we surveyed. As a newly emergent political minority, gays have
only recently begun to challenge for public office. Moreover, most Americans believe homosexuality to
be immoral and a threat to traditional society (Yang, 1997). As a result, there is little sympathy or
support for most gay political goals. This is especially true in regard to beliefs about gay representation in
schools. Many heterosexuals harbor strong, although unsubstantiated, fears about gay recruitment and
abuse of children (Jenny et.al., 1994). In addition, gays holding positions in schools are often unprotected
legally from anti-gay discrimination, including loss of their jobs. Few school districts have adopted nondiscrimination policies inclusive of sexual orientation, and in cities and counties with gay rights
legislation, less than half (36 percent) included schools among the protected institutions (Button, Rienzo,
and Wald, 1997).
In terms of our four theoretical models, our findings indicate that three of these perspectives are
important in explaining openly gay representation in the schools. Population size, a key component of the
urbanism/social diversity model, predicts gay representation on school boards. Large cities have proven
to be relatively tolerant environments where gays have tended to congregate. Cities such as New York,
Boston, San Francisco, Phoenix, and St. Paul reported openly gay candidates or school board members.
The political opportunity structure, as indexed by a comprehensive state gay rights law, also served to
promote openly lesbian and gay representation on school boards. Surprisingly, non-reformed school
election systems that include district representation were not an important predictor of gay success. While
district elections have proved instrumental in promoting the election of African-Americans and Latinos,
gays are often less segregated residentially than other minorities and therefore less amenable to these
election systems. The resource mobilization model also helped explain gay school representation. The
relative proportion of gays in the community, as approximated by same-sex households, proved to be the
largest single influence in the election of gays to school boards. Of the four models, only the communal
protest model failed to influence gay school board representation. It could be that the relatively limited
variability on this measure among the sample masked its political influence.
In terms of the next set of linkages, we found patterns of gay representation in the schools that
bore a striking resemblance to the experience of other minority groups. Meier, Stewart and England
(1989) reported that election of African-Americans and Latinos to school boards increases administrative
representation, which in turn leads to greater numbers of teachers. In the same manner, we found that
increases in gay representation on school boards were strongly predictive of gays in administrative
9
positions and that variable, in turn, strongly promoted gay representation among teachers.
What about the payoff from gay political activism, the adoption of policies that address the
problems faced by gay and lesbian students in the public schools? We explored the factors that promote
the adoption of several programs and policies that are intended to reduce the isolation and hostility facing
gay students. As anticipated, these programs are responsive to the level of gay representation on school
boards and, to a lesser degree, to the gay presence among administrators and teachers. In addition, the
state context and the proportion of non-family households, usually an indicator of a large university
presence, promote adoption of school district policies favorable to gays.
While the magnitude of openly gay representation in the schools is well below that achieved by
other minorities, the politics of gay succession to power and influence on policy is strikingly similar to
that of African-Americans and Latinos. Indeed, the core linkages of minority representation and influence
have proved to be virtually the same. Given the right setting, gays open about their sexual orientation can
challenge for and attain positions of influence in American schools. While gays confront greater barriers
to school representation than other minorities, their path to power is not unlike that of other
disadvantaged groups. Moreover, we have affirmed that politics matter in the determination of
educational policy. When gays have been able to use the political system to gain access to policy-making
positions, they have been instrumental in developing school policies helpful to lesbian and gay youths.
10
REFERENCES
Adam, Barry D. 1995. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: Twayne.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Adolescence. (1993). "Homosexuality and
Adolescence," Pediatrics 92: 631-634.
Bailey, Robert W. 1998. Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting.
NY: Columbia University Press.
Bradley, Martin B., Norman M. Green, Jr., Dale E. Jones, Mac Lynn, and Lou McNeill. 1992. Churches
and Church Membership in the United States 1990. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Institute.
Browning, Rufus P., Marshall, Dale R., and David H. Tabb. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: The Struggle
of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Button, James W. 1992. Blacks and Social Change: Impact of the Civil Rights Movement in Southern
Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Button, James W., Barbara A. Rienzo, and Kenneth D. Wald. 1997. Private Lives, Public Conflicts:
Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly
Press.
Button, James W., Kenneth D. Wald, and Barbara A. Rienzo. 1998. "The Election of Openly-Gay Public
Officials in American Communities." Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Midwest
Political Science Association, April, Chicago, IL.
Clark, J. Michael, Joanne Carlson Brown, and Lorna M. Hochstein. 1989. "Institutional Religion and
Gay/Lesbian Oppression," Marriage and Family Review 14: 265-284.
Colby, David C. 1985. "Black Power, White Resistance, and Public Policy: Political Power and Poverty
Program Grants in Mississippi," Journal of Politics 47: 579-595.
Cole, Leonard A. 1976. Blacks in Power: A Comparative Study of Black and White Elected Officials.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Damron Company. 1994. Damron Address Book 1994. San Francisco: Damron Company.
D'Emilio, John. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in
the United States 1940-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
DeBold, Kathleen (ed). 1994. Out for Office: Campaigning in the Gay Nineties. Washington, D.C.: Gay
and Lesbian Victory Fund.
Dillman, Donald. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
11
Dillon, Sam. 1993. "Board Removes Fernandez as New York Schools Chief after Stormy 3-Year Term:
Social Issues Cited." New York Times. February 11: 1.
Dye, Thomas R., and James Renick. 1981. "Political Power and City Jobs: Determinants of Minority
Employment." Social Science Quarterly 62: 475-486.
Eisinger, Peter K. 1982. "Black Employment in Municipal Jobs: The Impact of Black Political Power,"
American Political Science Review 76: 380-392.
Engstrom, Richard L., and Michael D. McDonald. 1981. "The Election of Blacks to City Councils:
Clarifying the Impact of Electoral Arrangements on the Seats/Population Relationship." American
Political Science Review 75:344-354.
Gibson, James L. and Kent L. Tedin. 1988. "Etiology of Intolerance of Homosexual Politics." Social
Science Quarterly 69:587-604.
Gibson, Paul. 1989. In Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, volume 3: Prevention and
Intervention in Youth Suicide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(AM 89-1623).
Harbeck, Karen H. 1992. Introduction, In Coming Out of the Classroom Closet: Gay and Lesbian
Students, Teachers, and Curricula, ed Karen H. Harbeck. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Haeberle, Steven H. 1996. "Gay Men and Lesbians at City Hall." Social Science Quarterly 77:190-197.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1996. "The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights:
Expanding the Scope of the Conflict." Journal of Politics 58: 332-349.
Jenny, Carole, Thomas A. Rustler, and Kimberly L. Power. 1994. "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse
by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics 94: 41-44.
Karnig, Albert K., and Susan Welch. 1980. Black Representation and Urban Policy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lo, Clarence Y.H. 1992. "Communities of Challengers in Social Movement Theory." In Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory, ed Aldon D. Morris and Carol McCLurg Mueller. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
McCarthy, John D., and Mayer Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalism
and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Mayer, Margit. 1991. "Social Movement Research and Social Movement Practice: The U.S. Pattern." in
Research on Social Movements, ed. Dieter Rucht. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 1991. The Politics of Hispanic Education. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
12
Meier, Kenneth J., and Kevin B. Smith. 1994. "Representative Democracy and Representative
Bureaucracy: Examining the Top-Down and Bottom-Up Linkages." Social Science Quarterly 75:
790-803.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Robert E. England. 1984. "Black Representation and Educational Policy: Are
They Related?" American Political Science Review 78: 392-403.
Meier, Kenneth J., Joseph Stewart, and Robert E. England. 1989. Race, Class, and Education: The
Politics of Second-Generation Discrimination. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Myers, Steven L. 1992. "Values in Conflict: Schools Diversify the Golden Rule." New York Times.
October 6: B1,6.
Rienzo, Barbara A., James Button, and Kenneth D. Wald. 1996. "The Politics of School-Based Programs
Which Address Sexual Orientation," Journal of School Health 66: 33-40.
Riggle, Ellen D., and Alan L. Ellis. 1994. "Political Tolerance of Homosexuals: The Role of Group
Attitudes and Legal Principles." Journal of Homosexuality 26:135-147.
Robinson, Ted and Robert E. England. 1981. "Black Representation on Central City School Boards
Revisited," Social Science Quarterly 62: 495-502.
Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1983. "Personnel Directors and Female Employment Representation." Social
Science Quarterly 64: 734-746.
Seldon, Sally Coleman. 1997. The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Shapiro, Joseph P. 1993. "Straight Talk About Gays." U.S. News and World Report, July 5: 42-48.
Sharp, Elaine B. (ed.). 1999. Culture Wars and Local Politics. Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
Sherrill, Kenneth. 1996. "The Political Power of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals." PS: Political Science
and Politics 29:469-473.
Spring, Joel. 1993. Conflicts of Interest: The Politics of American Education. New York, NY: Longman
Publishing Group.
Stewart, Joseph, Jr., and James F. Sheffield, Jr. 1987. "Does Interest Group Litigation Matter? The Case
of Black Political Mobilization in Mississippi." Journal of Politics 49: 780-800.
Stone, Clarence N. 1998. "Introduction: Urban Education in Political Context." In Changing Urban
Education, eds Fred Woodward and Rebecca Giusti. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 120.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1991. "Comparing Social Movement Participation in Western Europe and the United
States: Problems, Uses, and a Proposal for Synthesis." In Research on Social Movements, ed. Dieter
13
Rucht. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
Thielemann, Gregory S., and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 1996. "A Demand-Side Perspective on the Importance
of Representational Bureaucracy: AIDS, Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexual Orientation," Public
Administration Review 56,2: 168-173.
Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Boys and Girls in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Unks, Gerald. 1994. "Thinking about the Homosexual Adolescent," High School Journal 77: 1-6.
Wald, Kenneth D., Button, James W., and Barbara A. Rienzo. 1996. "The Politics of Gay Rights in
American Communities: Explaining Anti-discrimination Ordinances and Policies." American Journal
of Political Science 40: 1152-1178.
Welch, Susan. 1990. "The Impact of At-Large Elections on the Representation of Blacks and Hispanics,"
Journal of Politics 52:1050-1076.
Wilson, Thomas C. 1995. "Urbanism and Unconventionality: The Case of Sexual Behavior." Social
Science Quarterly 76:346-363.
Yang, Alan S. 1997. "Trends: Attitudes toward Homosexuality." Public Opinion Quarterly 61:477-507.
14
NOTES
1. While several scholars have conducted experimental and survey-based investigations of support for gay-related
referenda and gay candidates (Gibson and Tedin, 1988; Riggle and Ellis, 1994; Thielemann and Stewart, 1996),
this individual-level research seldom identifies social factors that have analogs in aggregate data. For that reason,
we focus on studies that compare the level of gay representation across governmental jurisdictions.
2. In those cities and counties with more than one school district, we randomly selected up to five districts to be
surveyed. The total number of school districts surveyed was 170. Using Dillman’s (1978) method, we received
responses from 123 districts for a 72 percent response rate. In terms of the 126 communities with gay rights
legislation, we received at least one school district response in 102 of these communities, or an 81 percent return
rate.
3. Had we followed Haeberle’s (1996) approach and restricted analysis to the largest 60 American cities, we
would have missed the many communities with small populations that have nonetheless been hospitable to gay
political action. As Button, Rienzo and Wald (1997) discovered, a disproportionate share of communities with
gay rights ordinances are small cities, often university towns or state capitals, or relatively small suburbs adjacent
to politically liberal central cities.
4. To survey these communities, a telephone inquiry elicited the name of the school district official who was most
knowledgeable about gay/lesbian educational politics and policy. We typically were referred to a high level
official, most often the school health coordinator. Personal interviews with school officials in several cities that
had openly gay candidates or elected officials indicated that such phenomena were considered unique and
noteworthy events and were thus consistently and accurately reported by local officials (Button, Rienzo, and
Wald, 1997).
5. The level of sexual orientation programming in the school district included whether instruction about sexual
orientation was provided; if such sexual orientation instruction was offered before high school; and the number of
curriculum units which delivered sexual orientation instruction. Districts were also graded on whether schools
provided sexual orientation in-service education for staff; sexual orientation education for parents, school board
or the community; support groups for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students; counseling services for gay, lesbian,
and bisexual students; and an official policy prohibiting anti-gay language and behavior. Except for the variable
representing curriculum units, each of these items was dichotomized and assigned a “1" or “2.” The curriculum
unit measure was scored 0 (for no sexual orientation instruction), “1" if the district offered a single curriculum
unit, and “2" if it provided more than one curriculum unit. The mean value was 9.97 on a scale with a range from
7 through 16. Roughly one-third of the districts had none of these programs, another third had from 1 to 4
programs of sexual orientation education, and the remaining third offered five or more of the items included on
the scale.
6. The only available data on religious affiliation in the United States, the compilation provided by the Glenmary
Research Institute (Bradley et al., 1992), aggregates church membership and adherence data only at the county
level. Accordingly we assigned those data to the cities in our data set. While this undoubtedly introduces some
measurement error, it is quite likely that many city residents attend churches located outside municipal
boundaries and that patterns of religious affiliation follow regional boundaries. For the specifics of church
assignment, we followed Wald, Button and Rienzo’s (1996) classification of religious denominations as gayfriendly or not.
7. To insure that the use of OLS regression with dichotomous dependent variables did not influence the findings,
15
we replicated the analyses with logistic regression and found identical patterns.
8. Upon closer inspection of this anomaly, we discovered a curious pattern. The communities where gay activists
influenced school board elections were also more likely to report that opponents of gay rights had been active.
Communities where gay activists were reported to have made a difference were also places where our
respondents reported that community conflict over gay rights was most intense. Accordingly, what we intended
as a measure of gay influence may instead have reflected the level of countermoblization by the opponents of gay
rights. Under such a scenario, the negative impact on gay administrators would make more sense.
16
Table 1
Openly Gay Representation in Schools: Three Survey Measures1
Within the past five years, have there been any openly gay or lesbian citizens who have been candidates
for, or have held, school board office in your district?
YES
NO
Total
N
10
112
122
%
8
92
100
Within the past five years, have there been any openly gay or lesbian persons who were candidates for, or
have held, administrative positions in your district?
YES
NO
Total
N
20
102
122
%
16
84
100
Within the past five years, have there been any openly gay or lesbian persons who were candidates for, or
have held, teaching positions?
YES
NO
Total
N
46
74
120
%
38
62
100
17
Table 2
Effects Analysis
Dependent Variable and Predictor
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Gay School Board Representation
Gay Households
Population
State Gay Rights Protection
.320
.250
.183
----
.320
.250
.183
Gay Administrators
Gay School Board Representation
Gay Households
Population
State Gay Rights Protection
Gay Electoral Influence
.466
----.186
-.149
.117
.085
--
.466
.149
.117
.085
-.186
Gay Teachers
Gay Administrators
Non-Family Households
Gay School Board Representation
Gay Households
Population
State Gay Rights Protection
Gay Electoral Influence
.528
.213
-.154
-----
--.246
.033
.025
.019
-.098
.528
.213
.092
.033
.025
.019
-.098
Sexual Orientation Policy
Gay School Board Representation
State Gay Rights Protection
Non-Family Households
Gay Teachers
Gay Administrators
Gay Households
Population
Gay Electoral Influence
.246
.196
.183
.230
.073
----
.046
.044
.049
-.121
.097
.083
-.037
.292
.240
.232
.230
.194
.097
.083
-.037
18
Figure 1
Urbanism/
Social Diversity
Hypothesized Path Model
Gay
Administrators
Gay
Resources
Sexual Orientation
Policy
Gay School Board
Representation
Political
Opportunity
Gay
Teachers
Communal
Protest
Negative Relationship
Postitive Relationship
19
Figure 2: Trimmed Path Model
(Entries are Path Coefficients)
Population
Gay Influence in
School Board
Elections
-.186*
.250*
Gay
Households
Gay
Administrators
.320**
.466**
Gay School
Board
Representation
.073
.528**
.246*
Sexual Orientation
Policy
-.154
.183*
.196*
.230*
State Gay
Rights
Protection
Gay
Teachers
.183*
.213*
Non-significant
*p sig. at # .05
**p sig. at # .01
***p sig. at # .001
20
Non-Family
Households