aadegunwCopy.docx

aadegunw
Copy
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page
9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14

hstone1
copy right
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8
Forum on Public Policy
1
―Education Or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies And The
School To
Prison Pipeline”
Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Program
Director, Critical Studies of
Race/Ethnicity, St. Catherine University, St. Paul, MN
Abstract

In the past decade, there has been a growing convergence
between schools and legal systems. The school to prison
pipeline refers to this growing pattern of tracking students out
of educational institutions, primarily via ―zero
tolerance‖ policies, and , directly and/or indirectly, into the
juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. The school
to prison pipeline has emerged in the larger context of media
hysteria over youth violence and the mass
incarceration that characterize both the juvenile and adult legal
systems.
While the school to prison pipeline is facilitated by a
number of trends in education, it is most directly
attributable to the expansion of zero tolerance policies. These
policies have no measureable impact on school safety,
but are associated with a number of negative effects‖ racially
disproportionality, increased suspensions and
expulsions, elevated drop-out rates, and multiple legal issues
related to due process. A growing critique of these
policies has lead to calls for reform and alternatives.
The School to Prison Pipeline Defined
“In the last decade, the punitive and overzealous tools and
approaches of the modern criminal justice

system have seeped into our schools, serving to remove children
from mainstream educational
environments and funnel them onto a one-way path toward
prison….
The School-to-Prison Pipeline is one of the most urgent
challenges in education today.”
(NAACP 2005)
The promise of free and compulsory public education in the
United States is a promise of equal
opportunity and access to the ―American Dream‖. This ideal is
billed as the great democratic
leveler of the proverbial playing field, and proclaims
educational attainment as a source of
upward social mobility, expanded occupational horizons, and an
engaged, highly literate
citizenry. This promise has proven to be an illusionary one,
marred by a history of segregation-
de jure and de facto, by class and race disparities, and by gulfs
in both funding and quality.
Despite some fleeting hope in the early years of the post-Civil
Rights eras, the promise remains
elusive for many. Indeed, shifts in educational policy in the past
15 years have exacerbated the

inherent inequities in public education. Rather than creating an
atmosphere of learning,
engagement and opportunity, current educational practices have
increasingly blurred the
distinction between school and jail. The school to prison
pipeline refers to this growing pattern of
tracking students out of educational institutions, primarily via
―zero tolerance‖ policies, and
tracking them directly and/or indirectly into the juvenile and
adult criminal justice systems.
While schools have long been characterized by both formal and
informal tracks that route
students into various areas of the curriculum, tracking students
out of school and into jail is a
new phenomenon. Current policies have increased the risk of
students being suspended,
expelled, and/or arrested at school. Risk of entry into the school
to prison pipeline is not random.
The School to Prison Pipeline disproportionately impacts the
poor, students with disabilities, and
2

youth of color, especially African Americans, who are
suspended and expelled at the highest
rates, despite comparable rates of infraction (Witt 2007). Youth
of color in particular are at
increased risk for being ―pushed out‖ of schools—pushed out
into the streets, into the juvenile
justice system, and/or into adult prisons and jails. This pattern
has become so pronounced that
scholars, child advocates, and community activists now refer to
it as ―the school to prison
pipeline‖, the ―schoolhouse to jailhouse track‖ or as younger
and younger students are targeted,
―the cradle to prison track‖ ( Wald and Losen 2003; NAACP
2005; Advancement Project 2006;
Children‘s Defense Fund 2007 )
In part, the school to prison pipeline is a consequence of
schools which criminalize minor
disciplinary infractions via zero tolerance policies, have a
police presence at the school, and rely
on suspensions and expulsions for minor infractions. What were
once disciplinary issues for
school administrators are now called crimes, and students are
either arrested directly at school or
their infractions are reported to the police. Students are

criminalized via the juvenile and/or adult
criminal justice systems. The risk of later incarceration for
students who are suspended or
expelled and unarrested is also great. For many, going to school
has become literally and
figuratively synonymous with going to jail.
The school to prison pipeline is most immediately related to
zero tolerance policies and to
failing schools that are over-crowded, inadequately resourced
and highly segregated, but it is
also the result of larger social and political trends. The school
to prison pipeline is consistent
with media driven fears of crime and ―super-predators‖, an
increasingly harsh legal system for
both juveniles and adults, and the rise of the prison industrial
complex. What follows is a
discussion of the factors that contribute to the school to prison
pipeline, an in-depth analysis of
the flaws of zero tolerance policies, and recommendations for
the interruption of this growing
pattern of punishing rather than educating our nation‘s youth.
The School to Prison Pipeline: The Context

The school to prison pipeline does not exist in a vacuum. It is
deeply connected to a socio-
political climate that is increasingly fearful and punitive. The
tendency towards criminalization
and incarceration has seeped into the schools, and with each
year, this legal net ensnares younger
and younger children. School funding declines precipitously,
while funding for enhanced
security measures rises. Behavior that once resulted in a trip to
the principal‘s office now is
grounds for a trip to jail. The willingness of some officials to
have handcuffed 5 year olds
escorted from school by uniformed police officers cannot be
accounted for by educational policy
alone. How have some young children come to be viewed as so
dangerous? What factors account
for the policy shifts that shape the school to prison pipeline?
How has the line between school
and legal systems become so blurred? Who benefits when a
growing number of children pushed
out of education and into risk for incarceration? The answers in
part can be found by a closer
examination of the role of both media constructions and the on-
going push towards prisonization.

Media Construction of Crime and Criminals
3
A substantial body of research documents the role of media—
especially television – in
constructing perceptions of crime, public images of the
criminal, and subsequently shaping
attitudes, everyday interactions and public policy. Television
reaches almost every household,
and the average American consumes over 4 hours TV viewing
each day (Croteau and Hoynes
2001, 5). Television shapes what issues we think about and how
we think about them. This is
particularly true with regard to TV news coverage of crime;
―the public depends on the media for
its pictures of crime‖ (Dorfman and Schiraldi 2001, 3).
The TV world of crime and criminals, however, is an illusion.
TV news does not
accurately reflect reality, especially when it comes to reporting
on crime. As Walker, Spohn, and
Delone (2007, 25) observe,

―Our perceptions of crimes are shaped to a large extent by the
highly
publicized crimes featured on the nightly news and
sensationalized in news
papers. We read about young African American and Hispanic
males who
sexually assault, rob and murder whites, and we assume that
these crimes are
typical. We assume that the typical crime is a violent crime, that
the typical victim
is white, and that the typical offender is African American or
Hispanic.‖
These assumptions are false. TV news constructs a portrait of
crime, criminals and
victims that is not supported by any data. In general, the
research indicates that violent crime and
youth crime is dramatically over-represented, crime coverage
has increased in spite of falling
crime rates, African Americans and Latinos are over-
represented as offenders and under-
represented as victims, and inter-racial crime, especially crimes
involving white victims, is over-
reported (Dorfman and Schiraldi 2001, 5)

Beyond over-representation as ―criminals‖, African American
offenders are depicted in a
more negative way than their white counterparts. Blacks are
mostly likely to be seen on TV news
as criminals; they are four times more likely than whites to be
seen in a mug shot; twice as likely
to be shown in physical restraints; and 2 times less likely to be
identified by name. Black
suspects are also depicted as more poorly dressed and were
much less likely to speak than white
suspects, reinforcing the notion that they were indistinct from
non-criminal blacks (Entman and
Rojecki 2000).
The media‘s general misrepresentation of crime and criminals
certainly extends to youth;
some estimates indicate that as much as two-thirds of violent
crime coverage focused on youth
under age 25 ( Hancock 2001). The context for the current
climate of repressive youth policies
was set in the in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s. Media
generated hysteria inextricably
linked ―teen super-predators‖, gang-violence and the crack
cocaine ―epidemic‖, and all were
unmistakably characterized as issues of race. The coverage of

the youth gangs, which focused
almost exclusively on African American and Latino gangs,
exaggerated the extent of gang
membership and gang violence, contributing the creation of
―moral panic‖ ( McCorkle and
Miethe 2000). Headlines screamed dire warnings about the
legions of teen super-predators that
would come of age by 2010; of course, they were urban, they
were black and brown, and they
were relentlessly violent (Templeton 1998). Given apparent
legitimacy by conservative
4
academics such as Wilson (1995) and DiIuio (1995) this super-
predator script took off among
both media and policy-makers. Violence, gangs, crack and
youth of color became synonymous
(Sheldon, Tracy and Brown, 2001; Walker, Spohn and DeLone
2007).
These media representations have real consequences. TV news
coverage of crime reflects
and reinforces what Glassner (1999) calls ―the culture of fear‖.

This is supported by decades of
research. Study after study finds that heavy TV viewers (i.e.
those who watch more than 4 hours
a day) overestimate the crime rate, the likelihood of crime
victimization, and the extent of
stranger related violence. In general, heavy TV viewers are
nearly twice as likely as light viewers
to report crime as the most serious problem, believe crime rates
are rising, and indicate personal
fear of victimization (Gerber 1994; Braxton 1997; Farkas and
Duffet 1998). They have adopted
what Gerbner (1994) calls ―the mean-world syndrome‖; they
are overly fearful and mistrustful of
strangers.
And, according to TV news, these ―strangers‖ are young black
or Latino males. TV news
coverage of crime creates and reinforces the stereotype of the
young black male, in particular, as
the criminal.. As Perry (2001, 185) observes, ―black males
historically have been presented as
the ‗villain‘….The race-crime nexus is inescapable in a culture
that defines black males as
predators.‖ Several studies document the impact of TV news
coverage of crime on public

perceptions of black and Latinos. The images of black males as
criminals are so deeply
entrenched in the public‘s mind that 60% of people watching a
newscast without an image of the
offender falsely ―remembered‖ seeing one. 70% of these
viewers ―remembered‖ the perpetrator
as black (Gilliam and Iyengar 2000). In one experimental study,
brief exposures to mug shots of
blacks and Hispanic males increased levels of fear among
viewers, reinforced racial stereotypes,
and led viewers to recommend harsh penalties (Gilliam and
Iyengar 1998). Another study found
that black suspects were more likely than whites to be viewed as
guilty, more likely to commit
violence in the future, and less likeable (Peffley et al 1996).
Widespread acceptance of this stereotype by the general public
has implications for
everyday interactions that youth of color have in public places,
with employers, with teachers,
with public officials, and with the police (Walker, Spohn and
DeLone 2007). Certainly, TV-
driven notions of blacks and Hispanics as ―predators‖ provide
whites and others with

justification for pre-judgments and negative responses. Media-
based preconceptions may play a
role in the school to prison pipeline. Prejudice and stereotype
acceptance can lead to
miscommunications between black students and white teachers;
this is a possible contributor to
the racial disproportionality in suspension and expulsion. Some
of the highest rates of racially
disproportionate discipline are found in states with the lowest
minority populations, where the
disconnection between white teachers and black students is
potentially the greatest (Witt 2007).
Widespread acceptance of the stereotype of youth of color as
violent predators also has
implications for public policy. The media script of youth of
color as violent super-predators
provided the backdrop for a series of policy changes as well.
Juvenile justice systems across the
nation were rapidly transformed in a more punitive direction
with media accounts—rather than
statistical evidence—driving the agenda.

5
―Underlying this assault on juvenile justice is the
demonization of youth,
particularly young people of color, who are stereotypically
portrayed as roaming the
streets and destroying the fabric of society….The media's
imagery reflects confused
reporting of crime statistics, at best, and forsakes the reality of
crime rates in favor of
sensationalized accounts of youthful offenders, at worst.‖
(Stein 1997)
The policy shifts in juvenile justice are both consistent with and
in furtherance of
another significant phenomena related to the school to prison
pipeline – mass incarceration
and the emergence of the prison industrial complex.
The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex
During the past 40 years there has been a dramatic escalation
the U.S. prison population, a ten-
fold increase since 1970. The increased rate of incarceration can
be traced to the War on Drugs
and the rise of lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences for
drug crimes and other felonies.

These policies have proliferated, not in response to crime rate
nor any empirical data that
indicates their effectiveness, due to the aforementioned media
depictions of both crime and
criminals and new found sources of profit for prisons.(Davis
2003 )
The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate in
the world. Over 2.4
million persons are in state or federal prisons and jails—a rate
of 751 out of every 100,000. Over
3500 of these are awaiting execution; some for Federal crimes,
most for capital offenses in one
of the 36 states that still allows for capital punishment.
Another 5 million are under some sort of
correctional supervision such as probation or parole (PEW
2008).
A similarly repressive trend has emerged in the juvenile justice
system. The juvenile
justice system shifted sharply from its‘ original rehabilitative,
therapeutic and reform goals.
While the initial Supreme Court rulings of the 1960s—Kent, in
re Gault and Winship—sought to
offer juveniles some legal protections in what was in fact a
legal system, more recent changes

have turned the juvenile justice system into a ―second-class
criminal court that provides youth
with neither therapy or justice.‖ (Feld 2007) Throughout the
1990s, nearly all states and the
federal government enacted a series of legislation that
criminalized a host of ―gang-related
activities‖, made it easier (and in some cases mandatory) to try
juveniles as adults, lowered the
age at which juveniles could be referred to adult court, and
widened the net of juvenile justice
with blended sentencing options that included sentences in both
the juvenile and adult systems
(Griffin 2008; Heitzeg 2008; Podkopacz and Feld 2001;Walker,
Spohn and DeLone 2007). The
super-predator youth and rampant media coverage of youth
violence provided the alleged
justification for this legislation as well as for additional federal
legislation such as Consequences
for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2002 (first proposed in 1996) and
The Gun-Free Schools Act of
1994, which provides the impetus for zero tolerance policies in
schools and the school to prison
pipeline, the subject of later detailed discussion.

These harsh policies—mandatory minimums for drug violations,
―three strikes‖,
increased use of imprisonment as a sentencing option, lengthy
prison terms, adult certification
for juveniles, zero tolerance and the expanded use of the death
penalty- disproportionately affect
6
people of color. A brief glimpse into the statistics immediately
reveals both the magnitude of
these policy changes as well as their racial dynamic. Despite no
statistical differences in rates of
offending, the poor, the under-educated, and people of color,
particularly African Americans, are
over-represented in these statistics at every phase of the
criminal justice system. (Walker, Spohn
& DeLone 2007) While 1 in 35 adults is under correctional
supervision and 1 in every 100
adults is in prison, 1 in every 36 Latino adults , one in every
15 black men, 1 in every 100 black
women, and 1 in 9 black men ages 20 to 34 are incarceration
(Pew 2008) . ). Approximately 50%

of all prisoners are black, 30% are white and 1/6 Latino (Bureau
of Justice Statistics 2007).
The racial disparities are even greater for youth. African
Americans, while representing
17% of the youth population, account for 45% of all juvenile
arrests. (NAACP 2005) Black
youth are 2 times more likely than white youth to be arrested, to
be referred to juvenile court, to
be formally processed and adjudicated as delinquent or referred
to the adult criminal justice
system, and they are 3 times more likely than white youth to be
sentenced to out-of –home
residential placement (Panel on Justice 2001; Walker, Spohn
and Delone 2007). Nationally, 1 in
3 Black and 1 in 6 Latino boys born in 2001 are at risk of
imprisonment during their lifetime.
While boys are five times as likely to be incarcerated as girls,
girls are at increasing risk. This
rate of incarceration is endangering children at younger and
younger ages (Children‘s Defense
Fund 2007).
In addition, black youth at additional risk due to the high rates
of imprisonment for
African American adults. Black youth are increasingly likely to

have a parent in prison -- among
those born in 1990, one in four black children had a father in
prison by age 14. Risk is
concentrated among black children whose parents are high-
school dropouts; 50% of those
children had a father in prison (Wildeman 2009). African
American youth are at increasing risk
of out-of-home placement due the incarceration of parents.
While young black children represent
about 17 percent of the nation‘s youth, they now account for
more than 50% of the children in
foster care. This explosion in foster care has been fueled by the
destabilization of families and
the mass incarceration of Black men and women (Roberts 2004;
Brewer 2007; Bernstein 2005).
To complicate matters, punitive policies extend beyond prison
time served. . In addition
to the direct impact of mass criminalization and incarceration,
there is plethora of, what Mauer
and Chesney-Lind (2002) refer to as ―invisible punishments‖.
These additional collateral
consequences further decimate communities of color politically,
economically and socially. The
current expansion of criminalization and mass incarceration is

accompanied by legislation that
further limits the political and economic opportunities of
convicted felons and former inmates.
―Collateral consequences‖ are now attached to many felony
convictions and include voter
disenfranchisement, denial of Federal welfare, medical, housing
or educational benefits,
accelerated time-lines for loss of parental rights and exclusion
from any number of employment
opportunities. Collateral consequences are particularly harsh
for drug felons who represent the
bulk of the bulk of the recently incarcerated. Drug felons are
permanently barred from receiving
public assistance such as TANF, Medicaid, food stamps or SSI,
federal financial aid for
7
education, and federal housing assistance. These policies
dramatically reduce the successful re-
integration of former inmates, increases the likelihood of
recidivism and return to prison.
One of the most insidious aspects of this project in mass

incarceration is its‘ connection
to the profit motive (Davis 2003). Once solely a burden on tax
payers, the so-called ―prison–
industrial complex‖ is now a source of corporate profit,
governmental agency funding, cheap
neo-slave labor, and employment for economically depressed
regions. ―The prison industrial
complex is not a conspiracy, but a confluence of special
interests that include politicians who
exploit crime to win votes, private companies that make
millions by running or supplying prisons
and small town officials who have turned to prisons as a method
of economic development.‖
(Silverstein 2003) This complex now includes over 3,300 jails,
over 1,500 state prisons, and 100
Federal prisons in the US. Nearly 300 of these are private for-
profit prisons. Over 30 of these
institutions are super-maximum facilities, not including the
super-maximum units located in
most other prisons.
As Brewer and Heitzeg (2008, 637) observe: ―the prison
industrial complex is a self-
perpetuating machine where the vast profits and perceived
political benefits to policies that are

additionally designed to insure an endless supply of ―clients‖
for the criminal justice system‖.
Profits are generated via corporate contracts for cheap inmate
labor, private and public supply
and construction contracts, job creation for criminal justice
professionals, and continued media
profits from exaggerated crime reporting and the use of
crime/punishment as ratings grabbing
news and entertainment. The perceived political benefits
include reduced unemployment rates
due to both job creation and imprisonment of the poor and
unemployed, ―get tough on crime‖
and public safety rhetoric, funding increases for police as well
as criminal justice system
agencies and professionals.
And these policies—enhanced police presence in poor
neighborhoods and communities
of color; racial profiling; decreased funding for public
education combined with zero-tolerance
policies and increased rates of expulsion for students of color;
increased rates of adult
certification for juvenile offenders; mandatory minimum and
―three-strikes‖ sentencing;

draconian conditions of incarceration and a reduction of prison
services that contribute to the
likelihood of ―recidivism‖; and ―collateral consequences‖ that
nearly guarantee continued
participation in ―crime‖ and return to the prison industrial
complex following initial release—
have major implications for youth of color.
It is youth of color who are being tracked into the prison
pipeline via media stereotyping,
a punishment-oriented juvenile justice system, and educational
practices such as zero-tolerance.
All are designed, by intent or default, to insure an endless
stream of future bodies into the prison
industrial complex. As Donzinger (1996, 87) aptly notes,
―Companies that service the criminal justice system need
sufficient
quantities of raw materials to guarantee long term growth in the
criminal justice
field, the raw material is prisoners…The industry will do what
it must to
guarantee a steady supply. For the supply of prisoners to grow,
criminal justice
policies must insure a sufficient number of incarcerated
Americans whether crime

is rising or the incarceration is necessary.‖
8
While media coverage was instrumental in creating the climate
of fear, the policy shifts
that resulted were consistent with larger trends in criminal
justice. Critics of these policy changes
charge that this is no mere coincidence. The age of mass
incarceration and the prison industrial
complex calls for the continual replenishment of the ranks of
the imprisoned, and it is youth of
color that are most often selected to fill that onerous role.
The School to Prison Pipeline: Zero Tolerance Policies
While media and the rise of the prison industrial complex create
the context, shifts in educational
policy provide the immediate impetus for the flow of children
from school to legal systems. The
school to prison pipeline is facilitated by several trends in
education that most negatively impact
students of color. These include growing poverty rates and

declining school funding, re-
segregation of schools by race and class, under-representation
of students of color in advanced
placement courses and over-presentation in special education
tracks, No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) , high stakes testing, and rising drop-out/push -out
rates (NAACP 2005; Hammond
2007 ) . All these factors are correlated with the school to
prison pipeline, and each is the subject
of lengthy analysis elsewhere .The focus here is increased
reliance on zero tolerance policies,
which play an immediate and integral role in feeding the school
to prison pipeline. These
policies, in combination with the aforementioned factors,
provide the direct mechanism by which
students are removed from school by suspension/expulsion,
pushed toward dropping out,
charged in juvenile court, and routed into the prison pipeline.
While there is no official definition of the term zero tolerance,
generally the term means
that a harsh predefined mandatory consequence is applied to a
violation of school rules without
regard to the ―seriousness of the behavior, mitigating
circumstances, or the situational context

(APA 2006). Zero-tolerance policies are additionally associated
with an increased police and
security presence at school, metal detectors, security cameras,
locker and person searches and all
the accoutrements of formal legal control. Violators-
disproportionately Black and Latino-are
suspended, expelled, and increasingly arrested and charged in
juvenile court as a result. (ABA
2001)
Zero tolerance rhetoric, which was borrowed from the War on
Drugs, became widespread
as school officials and community leaders expressed outrage at
gang shootings and the
impending wave of ―super-predators‖. Despite school crime
rates that were stable or declining,
related policies were implemented by the mid- 1990s. Early on,
these policies primarily focused
on weapons and drugs at school ( Skiba 2001) National media
reports about school shootings,
especially Columbine, created a further impetus for states and
localities to add additional features
such as the increased use of security cameras, metal detectors
and a police presence at schools

(Birkland and Lawrence 2009; Frymer 2009)
The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) provided the initial
impetus for zero
tolerance policies. The GFSA mandates that all schools that
receive federal funding must 1) have
policies to expel for a calendar year any student who brings a
firearm to school or to school zone,
9
and 2) report that student to local law enforcement, thereby
blurring any distinction between
disciplinary infractions at school and the law. Subsequent
amendments to The GFSA and
changes in many state laws and local school district regulations
broadened the GFSA focus on
firearms to apply to many other kinds of weapons. (Skiba 2001;
Birkland and Lawrence 2009).
Most schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies for a variety
of behavioral issues-
largely directed towards weapons, alcohol/drugs, threatening
behavior, and fighting on school
premises, and as the name implies, indicate zero-tolerance for

any infractions. According to the
Centers for Disease Control (2006), in most cases 100% of
school districts had prohibitions
against weapons, and fighting, nearly 80% had bans on gang-
activity at school, and over 90%
had implemented zero tolerance policies for alcohol, tobacco
and other drugs. In addition, a
growing number of school districts also had an increased
security presence at school. It has
become routine for districts to assign staff/volunteers to
monitor halls and bathrooms, equip staff
with communication devices, use metal detectors and cameras,
and have uniformed security
guards or police present. It is less common, but also possible
now for some schools to employ
canine units, Tasers, and SWAT team raids for drug and
weapons searches (Birkland and
Lawrence 2009). Ironically, enhanced security measures were
largely inspired by the school-
shootings in largely white suburban schools, they have been
most readily adopted and enforced
in urban schools with low student-to teacher ratios, high
percentages of students of color and
lower test scores (Skiba 2001).

Zero tolerance policies have generally involved harsh
disciplinary consequences such as
long-term and/or permanent suspension or expulsion for
violations, and often arrest and referral
to juvenile or adult court. While the original intent of The
GFSA was to require these
punishments for serious violations involving weapons, they
have frequently been applied to
minor or non-violent violations of rules such as tardiness and
disorderly conduct. According to
the ABA (2001), zero-tolerance policies do not distinguish
between serious and non-serious
offenses, nor do they adequately separate intentional
troublemakers from those with behavioral
disorders. They cast a very wide net; students have been
suspended and or expelled for nail
clippers, Advil and mouthwash. Cases reported by The Justice
Policy Institute (2009) and The
Advancement Project (2005) outline incidents subject to zero-
tolerance policy:
-year-old junior shot a paper clip with a rubber
band at a
classmate, missed, and broke the skin of a cafeteria worker. The
student

was expelled from school.
-year-old on the way to school found a manicure kit
with a 1-inch
knife. The student was suspended for one day.
-year-old who had been
diagnosed with a
hyperactive disorder warned the kids in the lunch line not to eat
all the
potatoes, or "I'm going to get you." The student, turned in by
the lunch
monitor, was suspended for two days. He was then referred to
police by
the principal, and the police charged the boy with making
"terroristic
threats." He was incarcerated for two weeks while awaiting
trial.
-year-old boys from Arlington, Virginia were
suspended for three
days for putting soapy water in a teacher's drink. At the
teacher's urging,

10
police charged the boys with a felony that carried a maximum
sentence of
20 years. The children were formally processed through the
juvenile
justice system before the case was dismissed months later.
-year-old was asked to write a
"scary"
Halloween story for a class assignment. When the child wrote a
story
that talked about shooting up a school, he both received a
passing grade
by his teacher and was referred to the school principal's office.
The
school officials called the police, and the child spent six days in
jail
before the courts confirmed that no crime had been committed.
-year-old disabled student was
referred to the
principal's office for allegedly stealing $2 from another student.
The
principal referred the child to the police, where he was charged
with

strong-armed robbery, and held for six weeks in an adult jail for
this, his
first arrest. When the local media criticized the prosecutor's
decision to
file adult felony charges, he responded, "depicting this forcible
felony,
this strong-arm robbery, in terms as though it were no more
than a $2
shoplifting fosters and promotes violence in our schools."
Charges were
dropped by the prosecution when a 60 Minutes II crew showed
up at the
boy's hearing.
‖
5 year old boy in Queens NY was arrested,
handcuffed and taken to a
psychiatric hospital for having a tantrum and knocking papers
off the
principals desk.
arrested and

taken into custody for having a tantrum and disrupting a
classroom.
officer,
arrested and faces charges of battery on a security resource
officer,
disrupting a school function and resisting with violence. She
had pushed
another student.
underscores the
tensions between some communities and police. Two groups of
students,
totaling between three and five, broke into a scuffle, with other
students
looking on. School Resource Officers (SROs) broke up the fight
and
escorted the students to the office where they were to be picked
up by
their parents. When a family member of one of the students
confronted
some of the students, another small fight ensued and local
police were

called in to break up what an SRO termed a ―riot.‖ Nearly 60
police
officers arrived at the scene, some in riot gear, while students
were
changing classes. Students alleged that the officers brandished
their guns,
used their batons, and hit, pushed and kicked students. Several
students
were injured and arrested. Police contend that the students were
confrontational.
As the aforementioned examples indicate, zero tolerance
policies are target students for
minor infractions, increasingly focus on younger elementary and
pre-school students, and often
rely on force and arrest for relatively minor disciplinary issues.
Zero tolerance policies have proliferated without evidence that
they actually improve
school safety and security (Skiba 2001). In theory, zero-
tolerance policies are intended to have a
11

deterrent effect for intentionally troublesome students, i.e. the
mere presence of the policies is
intended to thwart disruptive behavior. But, as with harsh
penalties for juvenile and criminal
justice, zero tolerance was adopted and expanded in lieu of data
supporting either effectiveness
or need. There is, however, mounting evidence that these
policies do contribute to the school to
prison pipeline. According to the Advancement Project (2005)
―Zero tolerance has engendered a number of problems: denial
of education
through increased suspension and expulsion rates, referrals to
inadequate
alternative schools, lower test scores, higher dropout rates, and
racial profiling of
students…Once many of these youths are in ―the system,‖ they
never get back on
the academic track. Sometimes, schools refuse to readmit them;
and even if these
students do return to school, they are often labeled and targeted
for close
monitoring by school staff and police. Consequently, many
become demoralized,
drop out, and fall deeper and deeper into the juvenile or

criminal justice systems.
Those who do not drop out may find that their discipline and
juvenile or criminal
records haunt them when they apply to college or for a
scholarship or government
grant, or try to enlist in the military or find employment. In
some places, a
criminal record may prevent them or their families from
residing in publicly
subsidized housing. In this era of zero tolerance, the
consequences of child or
adolescent behaviors may long outlive students‘ teenage years.‖
Several specific problems with zero tolerance policies warrant
closer examination: racial
disproportionality, increased rates of expulsion, elevated drop-
put rates, and denial of due
process and equal protection for students.
Racial Disproportionality
On the surface, zero tolerance policies are facially neutral; they
are to apply equally to all
regardless of race, class and gender. A growing body of
research suggests that these policies are

anything but (ABA 2001; NAACP 005; Skiba 2002).
Gender and socioeconomic status are correlated with risk of
suspension and expulsion;
males and students on reduced or free lunch programs are more
likely than females or middle
class students to face suspension/expulsion. The strongest
predictor, however, is race/ethnicity
(Skiba 2001). Students of color, especially African Americans,
are much more likely than their
white counter-parts to be suspended or expelled from school for
disciplinary reasons. This trend
does not appear to be correlated with actual racial/ethnic
differences in disruptive classroom
behaviors.
Nationally, black students are being suspended in numbers
greater than would be
expected from their proportion of the student population. Rates
of suspension and expulsion for
Latino/as are somewhat higher than expected but black students
bear the brunt of these policies.
In 21 states that disproportionality is so pronounced that the
percentage of black suspensions is
more than double their percentage of the student body. In some

states, black students are
12
expelled at 6 times the rate of whites, with certain district
showing rates that are more than 10
times. On average across the nation, black students are
suspended and expelled at nearly three
times the rate of white students. While African American
students make up 17% of all school
age youth, they account for 37% of suspensions and 35% of all
expulsions (Witt 2007). Black
students receive more harsh punitive measures (suspension,
expulsion, corporal punishment) and
less mild discipline than their non-minority peers for the very
same conduct, even when
controlling for Socio-economic Status. (ABA 2005)
These racial disparities cannot be explained by differences in
behavior; they must be
explained by differential enforcement of zero tolerance policies.
Since research has found no
indication that African youth violate rules at higher rates than
other groups (Skiba 2002), the

persistence of stereotypes of young male males and ―cultural
miscommunication‖ between
students and teachers is oft cited as one key factor. 83 percent
of the nation's teaching ranks are
filled by whites, mostly women, and stereotypes can shape the
decision to suspend or expel.
―Some of the highest rates of racially disproportionate
discipline are
found in states with the lowest minority populations, where the
disconnect
between white teachers and black students is potentially the
greatest. White
teachers feel more threatened by boys of color. They are viewed
as disruptive."
(Witt 2007).
The matter is further complicated by the tendency of teachers
and school officials to
define disruptive white youth as in need of medical intervention
rather zero tolerance
consequences. One of the growth sectors of psychiatry is the
diagnosis and treatment of
Disorders of Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence (DICA),
particularly the Disruptive Behavior

Disorders of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,
Oppositional Defiant Disorder and
Conduct Disorder (Diller, 1998, Males 1996; APA 2000). These
psychiatric labels perfectly
overlap with potential educational and legal labels, and thus
offer an alternative mechanism for
parents, school officials and law enforcement to deal with
disciplinary infractions and drug use
by students. Indeed, research indicates that class, insurance
coverage, and race are key indicators
of who receives treatment (Safer and Malever 2000). These
factors play a significant role in the
labeling of youth in particular; study after study shows racial
disparities in the diagnosis and
treatment of ADHD as well as other Disruptive Behavior
Disorders, with the indication that
teachers were most likely to expect and define ADHD as an
issue for white boys. (Currie 2005;
Safer and Malever 2001).
his racial disproprtionality is cited as one of the key factors in
the school to prison
pipeline. Students that are already subject to what the Panel on
Juvenile Justice (2001) calls

compound and cumulative risk for legal processing have that
risk magnified by zero tolerance
policies that are unequally applied.
13
Increased Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions
Not surprisingly, zero tolerance policies have lead to a dramatic
increase in suspensions and
expulsions. Annually, there are approximately 3.3 million
suspensions and over 100,000
expulsions each year (NCES 2009). This number has nearly
doubled since 1974, with rates
escalating in the mid 1990s as zero tolerance policies began to
be widely adopted (NAACP
2005). These rates have risen even though school violence
generally has been stable or declining
(Skiba 2002).
In addition to increased rates of suspension/expulsion for
elementary and secondary

students, zero tolerance policies have seeped downward to
impact pre-school children. Nearly
seven of every thousand pre-schoolers are expelled from state-
funded pre-school programs—
over three times the rate of expulsions in grades K-12 (NAACP
2005).
This is not a climate conducive to education, not just for the
suspended certainly but for
all students. Turning schools into ―secure environments‖—
replete with drug-sniffing dogs,
searches and school-based police- lowers morale and makes
learning more difficult. It also
engenders a sense of mistrust between students and teachers,
and contributes negative attitudes
towards school in general (Advancement Project 2005).
For students who are suspended or expelled the stakes are even
higher. Students are
deprived of educational services and, at best referred to sub-
standard alternatives schools. Many
states fail to offer any access to alternative schools. Students
are left to fend for themselves, and
if they are re-instated are now further behind their peers and
more likely to be suspended again

(Polakow-Suransky 2000). In fact, rather than deterring
disruptive behavior, the most likely
consequence of suspension is additional suspension (NASP
2001). There has yet to be a research
study identifying a direct correlation between zero tolerance
policies and safe schools; a few
studies have indicated that the zero tolerance policies do not
result in fewer disciplinary
infractions or reductions in the number of repeat offenders. The
American Psychological
Association (2006) reported finding no evidence that zero
tolerance reduced are associated with
negative outcomes for youth, academically, socially,
emotionally, and behaviorally; this includes
a decreased commitment to education in light of perceptions of
unfair treatment (Arum & Preiss
2009).
Increasingly suspension and expulsion is simultaneously to
arrest. Many schools are
further expediting the flow of children out of the schools and
into the criminal justice system by
doling out a double dose of punishment for students who
misbehave. In addition to being
suspended or expelled, students are also increasingly finding

themselves arrested or referred to
law enforcement or juvenile court and prosecuted for behavior
at school. Students who are
suspended or expelled may also be referred to juvenile court by
school officials, but in a growing
number of schools, zero tolerance policies are directly enforced
by police or school resource
officers. There is no national data collected on juvenile arrests
that originate at school, but
reports on a variety of districts indicate that school-based
arrests have more than doubled. The
presence of police officers at school—most of them large urban
pre-dominantly minority
schools—adds as well to racial disparities as racial profiling
practices are transferred from the
14
streets to the hallways (Dohrn 2001; Advancement Project
2006). Additionally the majority of
these arrests are—not for weapons or drugs—but for minor
infractions such as disorderly
conduct or disruptions. This criminalization of what were once

issues of school discipline is a
direct conduit into the prison pipeline.
Elevated Dropout Rates
Zero tolerance policies contribute to the already high drop-out
rate for students of color. Students
from historically disadvantaged minority groups (American
Indian, Hispanic, and Black) have
little more than a fifty-fifty chance of finishing high school
with a diploma. By comparison,
graduation rates for Whites and Asians are 75 and 77 percent
nationally. Students in intensely
segregated (90-100%) minority schools are more than four times
as likely to be in predominantly
poor schools than their peers attending schools with less than
ten percent minority students (84%
compared to 18%)‖(Orfield and Lee 2007). And of course, these
are the schools that take the
most strident approaches to zero tolerance.
Increased drop-out rates are directly related to the repeated use
of suspension and
expulsion (NASP 2001). Critics have noted that zero tolerance
policies have been used to ―push

–out‖ low performing students in the era of No Child Left
Behind legislation. Since school
funding is directly tied to test scores, NCLB gives schools an
incentive to get rid of rather than
remediate students with low test scores. According to the
NAACP (2005)
―Ironically, some of the hallmarks of modern education
reform—including
demands for greater accountability, extensive testing regimes,
and harsh sanctions
imposed on schools and teachers—actually encourage schools to
funnel out those
students whom they believe are likely to drag down a school‘s
test scores. Rather
than address the systemic problems that lead to poor educational
performance,
harsh discipline policies provide schools with a convenient
method to remove
certain students and thereby mask educational deficiencies.”
Recent studies show how schools in a number of states have
raised test scores by "losing"
large numbers of low-scoring students; most of these students
are of color. In one Texas city,

scores soared while tens of thousands of students--mostly
African-American and Latino--
disappeared from school. Educators reported that exclusionary
policies were used to hold back,
suspend, expel or counsel out students in order to boost scores
(Hammond 2007).
Even when well-intended educators wish to help these students,
schools are often lacking
the guidance counselors, intervention programs and other
resources to address students with
special educational and behavioral needs. They may feel there is
no alternative to pushing them
out, even if the result may involve immediate or future
incarceration. Zero tolerance policies
create a venue for doing so.
15
Legal and Constitutional Questions
Zero tolerance policies raise a myriad of legal issues related to

statutory vagueness, inconsistent
application, and lack of due process for searches/seizures and
arrests that occur on school
property (ABA 2005). These policies present clear
constitutional questions with regard to both
definition and enforcement.
Zero tolerance mandates have come under attack for both
statutory vagueness and failure
to allow local school administrators discretion in determining
application of these policies. Many
state laws fail to clearly distinguish between serious and trivial
policy violations. For example,
many state laws do not define ―dangerous weapon‖, but then
require expulsion under the federal
Gun Free School Act. It is this lack of clarity that has allowed
for expulsion of students with
scissors and nail clippers. Similar vagueness pervades other
aspects of zero tolerance, including
the failure to define ―dangerous drugs‘, threatening behavior
and so on (Polakow-Suransky,
2000). Statutory vagueness makes it impossible for students to
know exactly what is being
prohibited, and lack of clearly defined school rules and
procedures allows officials tremendous

discretion to suspend and expel students for minor infractions.
This vagueness plagues due process expectations as well. Again,
many states have no
stated requirements or clearly published set of expectations for
students and parents. Not only is
there no clarity as to exactly what is prohibited, there are also
no identified procedure that
enumerates students rights, procedural expectations or processes
to allow for appeal or re-
instatement (Polakow-Suransky 2000). This is clear violation of
even the rudimentary due
process rights accorded to students under the Supreme Court
decision of Goss v. Lopez (419 U.S.
565 1975), which held that students may not be suspended
without a hearing. Under many state
laws, students may currently be suspend and/or expelled without
hearings or in fact, without any
written policy guidelines as to recourse, appeal or request for
re-instatement.
The due process concerns for students are magnified by the
shrinking boundaries between
school and legal systems. The requirement that school official
report certain infractions to law

enforcement and the increased presence of police at schools
may lead to arrest the due process
protections that students may expect outside school (Feld 2007).
Evidence used to legally
incriminate students may be obtained in violation of the Fourth
and Fifth Amendment
prohibitions against unreasonable search/seizure and self-
incrimination; student expectation of
school are different than their expectations of police encounters
on the street. And, zero tolerance
policies have led to increased student concerns over perceived
rights violations at school, with
African American students the most likely of any group to
report discrimination in disciplinary
procedures (Arum and Preiss 2008).
In the past decade, a growing number of legal challenges have
been raised to zero
tolerance policies. The bulk of their suits involve policies
related to drugs and weapons and raise
questions regarding vagueness, interrogations in lieu of
Miranda, and intrusive searches and
seizures. The bulk of these cases are brought by students from
wealthier, majority white schools
(Arum & Preiss 2008). Recently one of these cases made it to

the U.S. Supreme Court case. In
Safford Unified School District #1 et al. v. Redding, the Court
ruled that a strip search of a 13
16
year old Savana Redding (who was accused of bringing
prescriptive ibupropen to school) was, in
fact, unreasonable. The decision, which barred some school
strip searches for drugs, did not offer
school much guidance or students much hope for Fourth
Amendment protection. The narrow
ruling upheld the school‘s right to search Redding‘s backpack
and outer garments, and were told
only to take account of the extent of danger of the contraband in
question and whether there is
good reason to think it is hidden in an intimate place (Liptak
2009). For the foreseeable future,
students who are the most risk of being pushed out of school
and into the prison pipeline can
expect few legal protections or due process guarantees.
Interrupting the School to Prison Pipeline

”At issue are the values of a nation that writes off many of its
poorest children in deficient urban schools
starved of all the riches found in good suburban schools nearby,
criminalizes those it has short-changed
and cheated , and then willingly expends ten times as much to
punish them as it ever sent to teach them
when they were still innocent and clean.” (Kozol 2005)
The school to prison pipeline has already claimed tens of
thousands of young lives. Fueled by
poverty and segregation, an under-funded education system
pressured by high stakes testing and
zero tolerance policies, media misrepresentation of youth crime
and an increasingly draconian
justice system, this link between education and incarceration
continues to threaten the future of
untold more. Failure to address these contributing factors is
costly, certainly in terms of the funds
diverted from education towards incarceration, but also in lost
potential and lost lives.
―Many of these young people never reenter the mainstream
educational
system, and the loss to society is immeasurable. Not only do
communities lose the

potential talents that these students hold, but they also commit
themselves to
expending vast resources—far greater than the resources it
would take to
adequately fund public education—to deal with the problems
that these students
will likely pose when they grow into adults.‖(NAACP 2005)
For nearly a decade, scholars and activists have organized and
pushed for policy
changes- particularly an end to zero-tolerance policies in
school—to interrupt the school to
prison pipeline. Recommendations have come from scholars,
non-profit advocacy organizations
(such the Advancement Project, the NAACP, Southern Poverty
Law Center, the ACLU,
Consortium to Prevent School Violence and Children‘s Defense
Fund) and professional
associations (e.g. National Association of School Psychologists,
The American Psychological
Association, The American Bar Association.) The goal of all
these programs is to stymie the
steady flow of youth of color from out of school into legal
systems.

Since zero tolerance policies represent the most immediate and
direct conduit from
school to legal systems, they have been the target of reform
suggestions. Short of repealing zero
tolerance legislation, legislatures and school districts could take
steps to alleviate some of the
surrounding legal issues and disparities. Recommendations
include the following (Advancement
Project 2005; American Bar Association 2001; NAACP 2005):
referral of students to law
enforcement agencies.
17
and safeguard
against discriminatory practices that lead to disproportionate
expulsion of minority
students
for those under 16,
mandate and offer alternative educational services
early define and enforce

reinstatement procedures
in data collection of
arrest/summons data and should monitor referrals to law
enforcement to root out
subjective, unnecessary, and discriminatory referrals
communities of color have
had with law enforcement
circumstances the law
requires, or standard practice dictates, referral of students to
law enforcement agencies
and for what conduct.
or an adult advocate
for the student, be present for any questioning of children where
it is possible that
criminal charges may be filed.
where criminal
charges may be filed.
Similarly, school districts and school administrations could
revise their particular policies to
reduce suspensions and expulsions and offer meaningful

alternatives for disruptive students.
Suggestions—which have been established by experience and
data as effective alternatives—
include (CPSV 2008, APA 2006, NASP 2008):
ivial
behaviors that can be
handled by traditional, educationally-sound school disciplinary
measures.
consequences that do not
consider mitigating circumstances into school codes of conduct
for specific
violations, or remove these restrictions if already in place.
consequences in student
codes of conduct, and indicate that the use of these should be
tailored to the
specific circumstances of the student and the violation.
or undesirable
behaviors, and align them with categories of consequences—this
is a more
desirable than specifying punishments for each behavior.
punishments and
include an amnesty clause where non-violent students who

inadvertently bring
banned objects to school or find them can give them to a school
official without
fear of punishment.
—school
psychologists,
counselors and social workers—to research and develop
discipline policies and
positive behavior training strategies
ols should
involve families and
community resources include violence prevention, social skills
training, and early
intervention strategies.
18
Pilot projects in several school districts have achieved success
in reducing suspension
and expulsions by relying on alternatives to zero tolerance
policies. Successful programs have
utilized in school suspension and positive re-enforcement for
constructive student behavior, clear

codes of conduct and an emphasis on prevention rather than
reaction (APA 2006; Southern
Poverty Law Center 2008; NAACP 2005; NASP 2008)
But as the school to prison pipeline exists in a larger context,
so too must efforts to
dismantle it. The interruption of the school to prison pipeline
requires reforms of educational
policies such as zero tolerance, but it also requires a deep
examination of our lust for
punishment. Current racialized, fear—driven policies such as
zero tolerance, mass incarceration,
and mandatory minimum sentences are rooted in a socio-
political climate that emphasizes
punishment rather than prevention. Rather than invest in
education, policymakers have chosen
instead to subsidize incarceration—yes for corporate profit and
political gain, but at exorbitant
social costs. While impoverished schools struggle to expend
approximately $10,000 per pupil per
year, it costs over $50,000 annually to incarcerate that same
child (Kozol 2005). Different
choices might be made if the youth at risk were wealthy or
white, but they are not.

Ultimately, the school to prison pipeline can only be truly
interrupted by uprooting the
racist and classist under-pinning of juvenile and criminal
justice, by a return to a separate, less
punitive juvenile justice system, and by the re-envisioning of a
legal system guided by reparative
justice rather than retribution and mass imprisonment (Justice
Policy Institute 2008; Council on
Crime and Justice 2008). These repressive approaches of the
past decades have been failures of
both policy and spirit. The future of youth of color depends on
our ability to reject the endless
cycle of incarceration and recommit to the promise of
education.
References
Advancement Project. 2005. Education on Lockdown: The
School to Jailhouse Track,
Washington, D.C.
American Bar Association. 2001. Zero Tolerance Policy
Washington, D.C.
American Psychological Association. 2006. Are Zero Tolerance
Policies Effective in the
Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations.

Washington DC: APA.
Arum, Richard and Doreet Preiss 2008. ―From Brown to Bong
‗Hits‘: Assessing a Half Century
of Judicial Involvement in Education‖ American Enterprise
Institute for Policy Research.
October 15.
Birkland, Thomas A. and Regina Lawrence. 2009. ―Media
Framing After Columbine‖ American
Behavioral Scientist 2009; 52; 1387
Bernstein, Nell . 2005. All Alone in the World: Children of the
Incarcerated. NY: New Press
Braxton, G. 1997. ―Ratings vs. Crime Rates: Putting L.A.‘s
Changing Numbers into
Perspective.‖ Los Angeles Times. June 4.
Brewer, Rose M and Nancy A Heitzeg. 2008. ―The
Racialization of Crime and Punishment:
Criminal Justice, Color-Blind Racism and The Politial Economy
of the Prison Industrial
Complex‖ American Behavioral Scientist. 51:5 65
19

Brewer, Rose M. 2007. ―Imperiled Black Families and the
Growth of the Prison Industrial
Complex in the U.S.‖ in Justice Where Art Thou? Council on
Crime and justice.
Minneapolis MN
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2006. Sourcebook of criminal
justice statistics. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Children‘s Defense Fund. 2007. America’s Cradle to Prison
Pipeline. Washington DC: CDF
Conrad. Peter and Joseph W. Schneider. 1998. Deviance and
Medicalization: From Badness to
Sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Consortium to Prevent School Violence. 2008. Zero Tolerance.
Muncie, Indiana: CPSV.
Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. 2001. The Business of
Media: Corporate Media and the
Public Interest. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2007. Evaluating No Child Left
Behind. The Nation. May 21.
Davis, Angela. 2003. Are prisons obsolete? NY: Seven Stories
Press.

.Diller, Lawrence M, M.D. 1998 Running on Ritalin. NY:
Bantam.
Dohrn, Bernadine. 2000. ―‗Look Out Kid – It‘s Something
You Did‘: The Criminalizing of
Children.‖ In The Public Assault on America’s Children:
Poverty, Violence and Juvenile
Justice. edited by Valerie Polakow. 157-86. New York:
Teacher‘s College Columbia
University.
Donzinger, S. (1996). The Real War on Crime: Report of The
National Criminal Justice
Commission. NY: Perennial.
Dorfman, L. and V. Schiraldi. 2001. ―Off Balance: Youth,
Race and Crime in the News‖.
http:// buldingblocksforyouth.org/media/media.htlm
Dorfman, L., K. Woodruff, V. Chavez, and L. Wallack.1997.
―Youth and Violence on Local
Television News in California.‖American Journal of Public
Health 87:1311-1316.
DiIulio, Jiohn. 1995. "The Coming of the Super-Predators," The
Weekly Standard, 1:11
Entman, R.M. and A. Rojecki. 2000. The black image white
mind: media and race in America.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farkas, S. and A. Duffet. 1998. Crime, Fears and Videotape.
Washington DC: Public Agenda.
Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] and U.S. Department of
Justice 2006. Crime in the United
States 2006 Retreived December 20, 2007 from
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html
Feld, Barry C. 2007. ―Juvenile Justice in Minnesota:
Framework for the Future‖ in Justice Where
Art Thou? Council on Crime and justice. Minneapolis MN.
Frymer, Benjamin. 2009. ―The Media Spectacle of Columbine:
Alienated Youth as an Object of
Fear‖.American Behavioral Scientist 2009; 52; 1387
Gerbner, George. 1994. Reclaiming Our Cultural Mythology. In
Context Spring: 34
Gilliam, F. D. and S. Iyengar. 2000. ―Prime Suspects: The
Influence of Local Television News
on the Viewing Public.‖ American Journal of Political Science
44.3: 560-573.
Gilliam, F.D. and S. Iyengar. 1998. ―The Superpredator
Script.‖ Nieman Reports 52 Winter: 45-
52.

Gilliam, F.D., S. Iyengar, A. Simon and O. Wright. 1996.
―Crime in Black and White: The
Violent, Scary World of Local News.‖ Harvard International
Journal of Press-Politics.
1(1996): 23
Glassner, Barry. 1999. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are
Afraid of the Wrong Things.
New York: Basic Books.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html
20
Goss v. Lopez .1975 (419 U.S. 565)
Hancock, LynNell. 2001. ―Framing Children in the News: The
Face and Color of Youth Crime
in America‖. In The Public Assault on America’s Children:
Poverty, Violence and
Juvenile Justice. edited by Valerie Polakow. 78-100. New York:
Teacher‘s College
Columbia University.
Heitzeg, Nancy A. 2009. Race, Class and Legal Risk in the
United States: Youth of Color and

Colluding Systems of Social Control. Forum on Public Policy.
Winter.
Justice Policy Institute. 2008. Disparity by Design. Washington
DC.
Kozol, Jonathan. 2005. Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of
Apartheid Schooling in
America. New York: Crowe.
Liptak, Adam. 2009.‖ Supreme Court Says Child‘s Rights
Violated by Strip Search‖. New York
Tines. June 26.
Mauer, M. and M. Chesney-Lind. 2002. eds. Invisible
punishment: the collateral consequences
of mass imprisonment. NY: The New Press.
McCorkle, Richard C. and Terance D. Miethe. 1998. ‗‗The
Political and Organizational
Response to Gangs: An Examination of a Moral Panic in
Nevada.‘‘ Justice Quarterly
15:41–64.
NAACP. 2005. Interrupting the School to Prison Pipe-line.
Washington DC.
National Association of School Psychologists. 2006. Zero
Tolerance and Alternative Strategies:
A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers. Bethesda, MD:

NASP
PEW Center on the States. 2008. One in 100: Behind Bars in
America 2008. Washington DC.
Peffley, M., T. Shields and B. William. 1996. ―The
Intersection of Race and Crime In Television
News Stories: An Experimental Study.‖ Political
Communication 13: 309-327.
Perry, Barbara. 2001. In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate
Crime. NY: Routledge, 2001.
Orfield, Gary and Chungmei Lee. 2004. Historic Reversals,
Accelerating Resegregation, and the
Need for New Integration Strategies. Civil Rights Project
UCLA.
Podkopacz ,Marcy Rasmussen and Barry C. Feld, 2001. ―The
Back-Door to Prison: Waiver
Reform, Blended Sentencing, and the Law of Unintended
Consequences,‖ 91 Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 997
Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. 2001. ―America‘s Least Wanted:
Zero Tolerance Policies and the Fate
of Expelled Students‖. In The Public Assault on America’s
Children: Poverty, Violence
and Juvenile Justice. edited by Valerie Polakow. 101-39. New
York: Teacher‘s College

Columbia University.
Roberts, Dorothy. 2004. ―The Social and Moral Cost of Mass
Incarceration In African American
Communities. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 56:127, pp. 1271-
1305
Safer, Daniel and Michael Malever. 2000. ―Stimulant
Treatment in Maryland Public Schools‖.
Pediatrics 106:3 553
Safford Unified School District #1 Et Al. V. Redding. 2009.
Certiorari To The United States
Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit No. 08–479. Argued
April 21, 2009—Decided
June 25, 2009
Sheldon, R. G., Tracy, S. K., & Brown, W. B. 1997. Youth
gangs in American Society.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Skiba, Russell. 2001. Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An
Analysis of School Disciplinary
Practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center,
Indiana University

21
Southern Poverty Law Center. 2008. School to Prison Pipeline
Project
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/schoolhouse.jsp
Stein, N. 1997. ―The gang truce: A movement for social
justice.‖ Social Justice, 24:4.
Templeton, Robin, 1998. ―Superscapegoating: Teen
'superpredators' hype set stage for draconian
legislation. FAIR January/February.
Wald, Joanna and Daniel Losen. 2003. Defining and Re-
Directing a School to Prison Pipeline.
Cambridge MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project
Walker, S., C. Spohn, and M. DeLone. 2007. The Color of
Justice: Race, Ethnicity and Crime in
America. 4
th
Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wildeman, Christopher. 2009. ―Parental Imprisonment, the
Prison Boom, and the Concentration
of Childhood Disadvantage.‖ Demography 46:265-280
Wilson, James Q. 1995. Crime. San Francisco: Institute for
Contemporary Studies

Witt, Howard. 2007. ―School Discipline Tougher on African
Americans‖. Chicago Tribune.
September 5.
Published by the Forum on Public Policy
Copyright © The Forum on Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.
2009.
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/schoolhouse.jsp
Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons
School of Education: Faculty Publications and
Other Works
Faculty Publications
2007
Gay and Lesbian Students in Catholic High
Schools: A Qualitative Study of Alumni Narratives
Michael Maher Jr
[email protected]
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the
Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted
for inclusion in School of

Education: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an
authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more
information, please contact
[email protected]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 2007 University of Notre Dame
Recommended Citation
Maher, M.J. (2007). Gay and lesbian students in Catholic high
schools: A qualitative study of alumni narratives. Catholic
Education: A
Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 10(4), 449-472.
http://ecommons.luc.edu
http://ecommons.luc.edu/education_facpubs
http://ecommons.luc.edu/education_facpubs
http://ecommons.luc.edu/faculty
mailto:[email protected]
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Maher/GAY & LESBIAN STUDENTS IN CATHOLIC HIGH
SCHOOLS 449
GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTS IN CATHOLIC
HIGH SCHOOLS: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF
ALUMNI NARRATIVES
MICHAEL J. MAHER
Loyola University Chicago
The Catholic Magisterium has made a distinction between
homosexual orien-

tation (disordered but not sinful), homosexual activity (sinful,
but judged “with
prudence”), rights of gay and lesbian people, and the Church’s
pastoral
responsibilities to gay and lesbian people. Both the Vatican and
the American
bishops have clearly stated that the topic of homosexuality must
be addressed
in Catholic education, but the emphases on how it is addressed
differ between
the Vatican (emphasis on finding causes and cures) and the
American bishops
(providing pastoral care and inclusion). This article deals with
the experiences
of gay and lesbian youth in Catholic high schools. It is based on
in-depth inter-
views with 25 (12 female and 13 male) gay and lesbian alumni
who attended
Catholic high schools in the 1980s and 1990s. What emerged is
a theme of “dis-
integration.” Things simply did not fit together in their lives in
the areas of fam-
ily, peers, school, spirituality, and identity. This is in stark
contrast with
Catholic teaching, which proposes that the purpose of Catholic
education is the
integration of all these areas.
Both the American bishops and Vatican Congregations have
issued a num-ber of statements that address the topic of
homosexuality in recent
decades (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
1975, 1986,
1994; United States Catholic Conference [USCC], 1976). While
all docu-
ments touch on a number of issues, those from the American

bishops tend to
place greater emphasis on the pastoral care of gay and lesbian
people while
those from the Vatican tend to place greater emphasis on the
immorality of
homosexual sexual activity (Maher, 2003). A distinction is
made between
homosexual orientation and homosexual sexual activity.
Violence and dis-
crimination against gay and lesbian people is condemned, and
the Church is
called upon to minister to the needs of gay and lesbian people.
Since the Vatican Council II (1965), the Church has emphasized
that
children have a right to sex education. The theme that sexuality
is a gift of
God is present in all magisterial statements. Both the American
bishops and
Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, Vol. 10,
No. 4, June 2007, 449-472 ©
2007 University of Notre Dame.
450 Catholic Education/June 2007
Vatican congregations have also issued a number of statements
that address
the topic of homosexuality in Catholic education (Pontifical
Council for the
Family, 1996; Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education,
1983; USCC,
1979, 1981, 1991; USCC, NCCB Committee on Marriage and
Family,

1997). All emphasize that homosexuality must be addressed in
Catholic edu-
cation. In general, those from the American bishops tend to
place greater
emphasis on the pastoral care of gay and lesbian young people
while those
from the Vatican tend to place greater emphasis on finding
causes and cures
(or at least means of control) of homosexual behavior (Maher,
2003). The
most comprehensive statement from the American bishops
regarding the
topic of homosexuality and Catholic education was in the
document Human
Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong
Learning
(USCC, 1991). The final paragraph of the section reads:
Educationally, homosexuality cannot and ought not to be skirted
or ignored.
The topic must be faced in all objectivity by the pupil and the
educator when
the case presents itself. First and foremost, we support modeling
and teaching
respect for every human person, regardless of sexual
orientation. Second, a par-
ent or teacher must also present clearly and unambiguously
moral norms of the
Christian tradition regarding homosexual genital activity,
appropriately geared
to the age level and maturity of the learner. Finally, parents and
other educators
must remain open to the possibility that a particular person,
whether adolescent
or adult, may be struggling to accept his or her own homosexual
orientation.

The distinction between being homosexual and doing
homosexual genital
actions, while not always clear and convincing, is a helpful and
important one
when dealing with the complex issue of homosexuality,
particularly in the edu-
cational and pastoral arena. (p. 56)
In 1997, the USCC, NCCB Committee on Marriage and Family
issued
Always Our Children: Pastoral Message to Parents of
Homosexual Children
and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. Clear emphasis of this
document is
on acceptance of gay and lesbian sons and daughters and
acceptance of self
as parents of gay and lesbian children, but still acknowledging
that homosex-
ual sexual activity is unacceptable according to the Church. The
Committee
recommended that Church ministers accept gay and lesbian
children and
adults, welcome them in the faith community, provide pastoral
services for
them, and educate themselves on gay and lesbian issues.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Coleman (1995, 1997) has argued strongly that the teachings of
both the
Vatican and the American bishops compel Catholic high schools
to address
the topic of homosexuality. It is essential that school faculty
and staff must

SCHOOLS 451
know the Church’s teaching and be able to respond to students
who identify
as possibly being gay or lesbian, according to Coleman. A few
dioceses have
begun to actively address homosexuality in Catholic secondary
schools. The
Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis is one example that
has attract-
ed a good deal of attention. In 1995, the Schools Team of the
Archdiocese of
Saint Paul and Minneapolis created The Pastoral Care and
Sexual Identity
Study Group of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Through the work
of the study
group, students in Catholic high schools discussed
homosexuality in class
assignments and student newspapers and trainings were
provided to teachers
and other professional staff (Gevelinger & Zimmerman, 1997).
It is important to note that the issue of gay and lesbian youth
deals with
more than a political discussion. Researchers have found that
gay and lesbian
youth are at high risk for suicide, substance abuse, AIDS,
violence, and
harassment from peers in high schools and in colleges
(Bochenek & Brown,
2001; DeBorg, Wood, Sher, & Good, 1998; Gibson, 1989; Herdt
& Boxer,
1993).
FAMILY

Relationships with family are often difficult for gay and lesbian
youth.
Friend (1993) argues that gay and lesbian youth are a distinct
minority
because they are often oppressed by their own families.
Researchers found
that half or more of anti-gay violence is perpetrated by family
members
(Hunter, 1990). Mallon (1994) found that normal adolescent
distancing from
families becomes abnormally strong for gay and lesbian youth.
Fear of
expulsion from the home can cause a greater sense of hiding and
increased
risk for suicide. Knowlton (1992) found that gay men tend to
have less
mature relationships with their parents than heterosexual men.
Knowlton
argued that non-conformity to parental expectation of
heterosexuality made
mature relationships with parents difficult for gay men. Herdt
and Boxer
(1993) found that family members use death images when
describing the
coming out of their gay or lesbian child. Lesbian youth tended
to have more
negative reactions from their fathers than did gay males.
Coming out to par-
ents can disrupt the coming out process itself and can disrupt
the youth’s life
in total (such as being expelled from the home). Gay and
lesbian youth were
more likely to come out to their mothers than to their fathers.
Families from
strong ethnic or religious backgrounds sometimes have more

difficulty
accepting a gay or lesbian child.
Savin-Williams (1989) studied the relationship between self-
esteem and
family relationships for gays and lesbians. Acceptance by the
father for les-
bians, and by both the father and the mother for gay men had a
direct corre-
lation with a greater sense of self-esteem. Lesbians were more
likely to be
out to their families if they felt closer to them. Bernstein (1996)
found that
gay and lesbian youth and young adults were more likely to
have better
attachment with their parents if their parents were more
educated and
younger. Also, stronger attachment with the mother tended to
improve devel-
opment, but stronger attachment with the father tended to
hamper develop-
ment. Relationships with parents tended to decline initially after
parent
awareness, but then increase and return to pre-awareness levels
over time.
McConkey (1991) found that gay men who displayed the least
physical
aggression in boyhood also had the poorest relationships with
their fathers.
Gay men tended to have poorer relationships with their fathers
than hetero-

sexual men and also tended to be less physically aggressive in
boyhood than
heterosexual men.
T. Johnson (1992) found that families adjust to a gay or lesbian
son or
daughter and become less homophobic over time. Religious
concerns can
make the process more difficult for families. DeVine (1985)
found that fam-
ilies move through stages in accepting the homosexuality of a
child. In the
first stage, subliminal awareness, the gay or lesbian family
member feels iso-
lated, and the family avoids topics such as dating or
homosexuality. In the
second stage, impact, the family clearly knows that the child is
gay and
focuses on fear, guilt, and feelings of failure. In the third stage,
adjustment,
the family realizes that it is impossible to change the child’s
sexual orienta-
tion and concentrates on bargaining and maintaining social
image. In the
fourth stage, resolution, the family focuses on sense of loss.
The final stage,
integration, involves the family adjusting to the gay or lesbian
child and his
or her life.
SOCIAL
While probably all high school students experience difficulty
fitting in with
their peers, gay and lesbian students face especially difficult
challenges. D.

Johnson (1996) found that many gay and lesbian youth believe
that their
acceptance is based on their ability to hide their identities.
Town (1996)
found that gay male high school students had to work at
constructing
“acceptable” masculine identities in order to survive in their
homophobic
school environment. Friend (1993) argued that gay and lesbian
youth put a
great deal of psychological energy into hiding their sexuality,
and most do
“pass” as heterosexual in high school. The sense of hiding
causes a great deal
of stress in gay and lesbian youth, makes them question their
social ties, and
may result in heterosexual compensation. Mallon (1994) found
that the need
to hide distorts almost all relationships for gay and lesbian
youth and leads
to a sense of isolation. For some, especially males, anonymous
sex becomes
preferable to complete isolation. Herdt and Boxer (1993) found
that coming
SCHOOLS 453
out does improve youth’s self-esteem and their relationships
with their
friends. Gay and lesbian youth usually come out first to a
friend, usually of
the same sex and same age, often who is also gay or lesbian.
High school cul-

ture exerts a strong pressure on youth to heterosexually
conform. Gay and
lesbian youth usually feel more accepted by girls than by boys,
and typical-
ly do not see teachers as a source of assistance or protection.
Ginsberg
(1996) found that gay and lesbian high school students spend
much of their
time isolated, fearful, and confused. Gay and lesbian support
groups in their
schools were seen as vital to these students.
One movement that has developed in recent years is for high
schools to
provide support groups for gay and lesbian students. Herdt and
Boxer (1993)
found that support groups for gay and lesbian youth provide
them with alle-
viation from the feeling of hiding, people who understood their
experiences,
and “true friends” who know them for who they really were.
Greeley (1994)
found that support groups for gay and lesbian youth helped them
to over-
come their loneliness and develop their social skills. Schneider
(1989) found
that a support group helped adolescent lesbians develop greater
self-esteem.
Studies have also shown that the AIDS epidemic increased
homophobia
in the American public in the 1980s, and that homophobia is
related to atti-
tudes toward people with AIDS (Russell & Ellis, 1993).
CATHOLIC YOUTH AND CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

A few studies have been conducted in the area of attitudes of
Catholic youth
on the topic of homosexuality. Numbers are not completely in
agreement
with these studies. This may be due to regional differences in
the study sam-
ples and also changes in attitudes over time. In general, it
would seem that
most Catholic youth do not see homosexuality as an acceptable
lifestyle.
Despite this, many Catholic youth support the civil rights of gay
and lesbian
people. It also seems that tolerance of gay and lesbian people
has increased
over time among Catholic youth (McNamara, 1992). DiGiacomo
(1993)
found that males in Catholic high schools experienced peer
pressure to have
sex with girls in order to avoid being labeled as gay. This
writer’s own
research indicates that students who graduate from Catholic
high schools
tend to have more positive attitudes toward homosexuality than
those who
graduate from non-Catholic high schools (Maher, 2001, 2004).
In a review of studies into Catholic education over a 25-year
period,
Convey (1992) found that students in Catholic high schools
displayed values
that were less self-centered than values of students in public
high schools.
Students in Catholic high schools were found to support equal
opportunities
and rights for women. Researchers found that Catholic high

schools placed
greater emphasis on community as a part of their culture than
did public high
schools. Catholic high schools were more successful in
achieving communi-
ty for a number of reasons including their smaller enrollments,
their empha-
sis on shared religious identity and values, and through
intentional efforts. In
studies that compared the cultures of coeducational and single-
sex schools,
the role of “adolescent subculture,” which valued physical
beauty and hetero-
sexual popularity, was a key factor. Studies indicated that this
subculture was
strongest among boys in single-sex schools and lowest among
girls in single-
sex schools.
INSTITUTIONAL
When describing the response of schools to the topic of
homosexuality, the
strongest theme noted by researchers and other writers is
“silence.” Pitot
(1996) found that schools are silent on the topic of
homosexuality in the cur-
riculum, in the library holdings, and in providing adult role
models. Schools
cannot address these issues, however, until they address
homophobia. Segal
(1995) found that schools reinforce in both overt and subtle
ways the prefer-

ence of heterosexuality and silence on the topic of
homosexuality. Gay and les-
bian students are forced to adapt to school climates, but schools
do not adapt
to the presence of gay and lesbian students. Tellijohann (1995)
found that less
than half of high school health teachers covered the topic of
homosexuality,
and when they did so, it was for less than one class period.
Bucher (1984)
found that homosexuality was very often not included in the sex
education cur-
riculum in secondary schools. Keilwasser and Wolf (1992)
argued that silence
on the topic of homosexuality in schools represents a symbolic
“annihilation”
of gay and lesbian youth and creates a “spiral of silence.” The
Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup poll of U.S. citizens (Elam, Rose, & Gallup,
1996) found that
63% of Americans opposed teaching about homosexuality in the
secondary
school curriculum. Interestingly, Catholics were more likely to
support its
inclusion in the curriculum than non-Catholics. Catholics were
also more like-
ly than non-Catholics to think it should be presented as an
acceptable lifestyle.
While silence is the overall response to the topic of
homosexuality,
schools also reinforce in more subtle ways a preferential status
for heterosex-
uality. Reed (1994) has argued that high schools are highly
sexualized envi-
ronments which reward heterosexuality and punish

homosexuality. Gay and
lesbian students experience high school alone in a very distinct
and strong
way. Epstein (1997) has also argued that schools are highly
sexualized.
Homophobia, machismo, and misogyny define adolescent
versions of mas-
culinity in school culture. Friend (1993) argued that schools
engage in “sys-
tematic exclusion” of silence on the topic of homosexuality and
“systematic
inclusion” of only negative images of homosexuality. MacLeod
(1996) found
that lesbian students viewed their schools as unsafe and
unsupportive envi-
SCHOOLS 455
ronments. Students ridiculed homosexuality, and the curriculum
tied it to
disease. School libraries were absent of material.
Education, both formal and informal, does have the potential to
reduce
homophobia in students. Reinhardt (1997) found that college
students who
had friends and acquaintances who were gay and lesbian or who
had had pos-
itive interactions with gays and lesbians were less likely to have
homophobic
attitudes. Reinhardt also found that men were more homophobic

than
women, that all were more likely to be homophobic toward gay
men than
toward lesbian women, and that those who attended church
regularly were
more likely to be homophobic. Pirtle (1994) found that college
students had
less negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians after interacting
with a panel
of gay and lesbian people. A number of studies have shown that
homopho-
bia can be reduced through gay and lesbian speakers panels,
role-playing
exercises, and through knowing a gay or lesbian person (Aitken,
1993;
McClintock, 1992).
TEACHERS AND STAFF
Numerous studies have shown that many (especially male)
college students
majoring in education are uncomfortable with the topic of
homosexuality
and are reluctant to include it in the curriculum (Taylor, 2001).
Studies have
also shown that attitudes of college students majoring in
education can be
improved through workshops and classes (Bateman, 1995;
Lipkin, 1990,
Remafedi, 1993). Interestingly, Soloff (2001) also found that
education stu-
dents who were highly religious were also most able to change
their negative
attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. Hunt (1993) found that
students in
counselor education programs felt that they were not well

prepared to work
with gay and lesbian clients. Sears (1988) found that school
counselors
believed that they had not been prepared to work with gay and
lesbian
clients. Male counselors have been found to have discomfort
working with
people with AIDS related to their own homophobia (Hayes &
Gelso, 1993).
Pettinger (1995) found that most practicing school
psychologists had posi-
tive attitudes toward gay and lesbian youth.
Schools are not only difficult places for gay and lesbian
students, but
also for gay and lesbian teachers. Juul (1995) found that gay
and lesbian
teachers in rural and suburban settings were significantly less
open about
their sexuality, more fearful of exposure, and less accepting
themselves of
their own identities than urban gay and lesbian teachers. Smith
(1985) found
that gay and lesbian teachers often put extra time and effort into
being excep-
tional teachers in order to protect themselves and “compensate”
for being
gay and lesbian. Kissen (1993) found that gay and lesbian
teachers frequent-
ly experience physical and emotional symptoms that they
attribute to the

strain in their lives caused by hiding. They often regret not
being able to
reach out to gay and lesbian youth.
Litton (1999) had a number of interesting findings from a study
of gay
and lesbian teachers in Catholic elementary schools. The
teachers chose to
work at Catholic schools because of their religious beliefs, but
they also saw
conflicts between their religion and their sexuality. They
experienced oppres-
sion, feared coming out to students (despite believing there
would be some
benefits to it), and believed their administrators would not
support them
coming out. While most were very open about their sexual
identities with
only a limited number of colleagues, most also felt that many of
their col-
leagues knew. They worked to create schools that were more
inclusive and
more in keeping with their view of the Gospel, the call to love
one another.
They believed that they needed to work harder to be the best
teachers in order
to make it more difficult for their administrators to dismiss
them.
The National Catholic Educational Association has published
and sup-
ported some studies into the attitudes of Catholic school
teachers and prin-
cipals on a variety of topics, including homosexuality. In a
survey of
Catholic elementary school teachers, Kushner and Helbling

(1995) found
that 52.2% believed that a teacher in a Catholic elementary
school should not
be terminated if it is discovered that he or she is homosexual,
while 34.6%
indicated agreement that homosexuals should not be allowed to
teach in
Catholic schools. Harkins (1993) conducted a similar study of
Catholic ele-
mentary school principals. The majority (64%) of principals
agreed that
homosexuals should not be hired to teach in Catholic
elementary schools. In
a survey of Catholic secondary schoolteachers, Benson and
Guerra (1985)
found that a civil rights protection for homosexuals was
supported by 44%
of teachers. The majority (62%) of teachers believed that sexual
relationships
between two consenting adults of the same sex were morally
wrong. All three
studies found that the values these teachers and administrators
believed that
Catholic schools should emphasize for their students included
compassion,
tolerance, respect, and self-esteem.
In a study of Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles,
Campbell (1991) found that most believed that their seminary
training did
not prepare them to work with gay Catholics. Years of pastoral
experience
and also the experience of counseling gay and lesbian people
were seen as
most effective to prepare for this work. Other research has

shown similar
findings in Protestant pastors (Vaughn, 1998).
SPIRITUAL
While there have been only a few studies into the experiences of
gay and les-
bian Catholics, they tend to show a group of people who
overcome social and
SCHOOLS 457
ecclesial obstacles in order to come to happiness in their adult
lives, some-
times within the Church. In a study of gay and lesbian
Catholics, Harris
(2001) found lower internalized homophobia and higher levels
of sexual
identity development were related to an individual being able to
derive per-
sonal religious beliefs and make personal religious decisions
independently
from other authorities such as family, clergy, and religious
institutions.
Toman (1997) found that gay Catholic men who were more
religious during
their adolescence had greater difficulty with their coming out
process, but
that this did not prevent these same males from eventually
achieving an affir-
mative gay lifestyle later in adulthood. O’Brien (1991) found
that gay and
lesbian Catholics were comfortable in their sexual orientation

for the most
part, sought long-term relationships, and found Dignity, an
unsanctioned
Catholic gay organization, to be a source of spiritual growth.
Both Dignity
and New Ways Ministry are organizations for gay and lesbian
Catholics,
which have had difficult relationships with Church hierarchy
(Nugent &
Gramick, 1992; Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, 1986,
1999).
Other studies have shown a relationship of spirituality and
sexuality
identity development for gay and lesbian youth. Wilson (1996)
found that for
Native American gay and lesbian people, the experience of
sexuality was
inseparable from the experience of culture and community.
Ream (2001)
found that gay and lesbian youth who were raised in a religious
environment
were at a higher risk for internalized homophobia, but that their
religion also
acted as a “protector” for them in battling internalized
homophobia.
IDENTITY
The task of identity development, possibly the central task of
adolescence, is
particularly difficult for gay and lesbian youth. Jackson and
Sullivan (1994)
found that gay and lesbian youth are more prone to identity-
development

issues than other youth. Internalized homophobia can damage
their self-con-
cepts and self-esteem. They often compartmentalize their
sexuality as a cop-
ing mechanism. Durby (1994) found that gay and lesbian youth
put a great
deal of time and energy into hiding their sexuality, which gives
their sexual
orientation exaggerated significance; it affects the totality of
their lives.
Moskos (2000) found that gay and lesbian youth cope with the
stigma of
homosexuality in a number of unhealthy ways, such as
withdrawal and self-
hatred, family alienation, substance abuse, and suicidal
ideation. The result
is psychological, cognitive, and emotional developmental
deficits. Gay and
lesbian youth who are able to develop a positive identity
demonstrate better
psychological health and greater self-esteem. Herdt and Boxer
(1993) found
that many gay and lesbian youth do not view their “coming out”
as a free act;
they feel great pressure to be true to themselves. Gay youth
often engage in
“magical thinking” in which they believe they will begin to act
in stereotyp-
ical ways if they come out. Coming out is often described by
gay and lesbian
youth in death images.

Popular developmental theories for gay and lesbian youth
include those
of Plummer (1975), Ponse (1978), and Cass (1979, 1984). The
work of
Troiden (1988, 1989) best fits the descriptions of their life
development as
told by the subjects in this study. Troiden found that identity
development for
gay and lesbian youth involves a series of events over time
leading to accept-
ance of the term “homosexual” to describe oneself. It is a drama
set against
the backdrop of social stigma. It focuses on the meaning of
events rather than
the frequency of occurrence of behaviors. For males, it tends to
come out
through sexual experiences, while for females it tends to come
out more
through emotional attachments. Troiden proposed four stages
but acknowl-
edged that the stages are not neat and that an individual can
move up and
down between stages. Troiden’s first stage, sensitization, is pre-
pubescent. It
is marked by the child feeling strongly different from his or her
peers. Often,
this difference is seen as not clearly meeting the social
expectations based on
one’s gender. It does not have sexual significance at this stage.
This sense of
difference takes on sexual meaning in Troiden’s second stage,
identity con-
fusion, which usually takes place in early adolescence. The
child believes
that he or she “might be homosexual.” The third stage, identity

assumption,
usually occurs in late adolescence. The child or adult begins to
tolerate, but
not embrace, his or her homosexuality. It is at this stage that
“coming out”
usually begins. It is necessary for the individual to meet other
gay and les-
bian people to achieve this stage. The final stage, commitment,
usually
occurs in adulthood. It is at this stage that the individual sees
his or her
homosexuality as part of his or her total identity and would not
become het-
erosexual even if it were possible.
It is worth special note that two of the male subjects had
attended resi-
dential seminary high schools, and both reported that sex
between students
was common there. One unfortunate outcome of the recent
priest sex abuse
scandals has been a movement to eradicate gay seminary
students (Boisvert
& Goss, 2005; Nugent, 1989; Thavis, 2002). Several writers and
researchers
have argued that a large number of Catholic seminarians are
gay, and the per-
centage seems to be growing (Cozzens, 2000; Jordan, 2000;
Sipe, 1990,
Thomas, 2000; Wolf, 1989). The Vatican does officially teach
that gay men
should not be admitted to religious orders and/or seminaries
(Congregation
for Catholic Education, 2005; Rossini, 2002; Sacred
Congregation for the
Religious, 1961).

SCHOOLS 459
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study was to describe the experiences of gay
and lesbian
youth in Catholic high schools. In 1995 and 1996, in-depth
interviews were
conducted with 25 (12 female and 13 male) adult gay and
lesbian alumni
who attended Catholic high schools in the 1980s and 1990s. The
subjects
were recruited through the organization Dignity and through
advertisements
in gay and lesbian publications and Internet bulletin boards.
Also, many sub-
jects referred other potential subjects to the study. This was
under the direc-
tion of faculty in the Department of Education at Saint Louis
University and
the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Before the interview process began, subjects did an exercise
with their
old high school yearbooks. They were asked to go through their
yearbooks
and form two lists of 15 items each. One list was titled “safe”
and the other
“unsafe.” They were then to choose an adjective to describe
each item on the
list. Subjects without yearbooks were asked to do this from
memory. The
number of interviews conducted with each subject varied. The

average over-
all time spent in interviewing each subject was about 2 hours.
The first interview involved the subject explaining why he or
she chose
these items for each list. In the second interview, the subject
was presented
a typed page of the items he or she included in the “unsafe” list
along with
the adjectives. The subject was asked to describe what effect
these elements
had on his or her life in high school. Later interviews included
these ques-
tions if they were not answered through the initial exercises:
• What was your impression of what a gay person was like while
you were
in high school? What do you think was the impression of the
other stu-
dents in your school? The teachers? The staff and
administration?
• What were the sources of your information on homosexuality?
Were
you aware of resources that you did not use? If so, why did you
not use
these resources?
• How did your own experiences and feelings compare with
these impres-
sions/ this information? Did you perceive yourself to be gay?
How did
you perceive yourself at that time?
• What role did the Catholic aspect of the school have in
influencing

aadegunwCopy.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à aadegunwCopy.docx

Similaire à aadegunwCopy.docx (17)

Plus de bartholomeocoombs

Plus de bartholomeocoombs (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

aadegunwCopy.docx