Journal of Homosexuality, 62:186–206, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.969057

A Queer Day in Canada: Examining Canadian High School Students’ Experiences With School-Based Homophobia in Two Large-Scale Studies TRACEY PETER, PhD Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

CATHERINE TAYLOR, PhD Department of Education, Rhetoric, Writing, and Communications, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

LINE CHAMBERLAND, PhD Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

The goal of the study is to examine how location (nationally, compared to Canadian regions) is related to indicators of a hostile school environment for sexual minority youth, particularly when physical abuse is used as the outcome variable. Data representing 5,766 Canadian students were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate techniques. Results from the multivariate analyses showed that non-physical abuse was the most significant predictor of homophobically based physical abuse, for both LGBQ and non-LGBQ students. Findings reiterate the importance of considering the progression of harmful events as an escalation of violence as well as the need to view homophobic bullying as having a significant impact on all students. Finally, while the presence of homophobia is prevalent across all Canadian regions, there are, nevertheless, many regional differences, which could be used to inform region-specific action plans. KEYWORDS LGBQ youth, sexual minority youth, school climate, bullying, abuse, victimization, Canada

Address correspondence to Tracey Peter, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba, 309 Isbister Building, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 186

A Queer Day in Canada

187

In recent years, a growing body of work has focused on the school experiences of sexual minority youth (hereafter also referred to as LGBQ, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and questioning), most of which demonstrates that educational environments are unsafe for a large portion of these adolescents. Young people who identify as LGBQ or who are perceived to be LGBQ by their peers report higher rates of harassment, victimization, and other negative outcomes (Berlan et al., 2010; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Research has also shown that sexual minority youth are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes in a variety of social, psychological, and health domains, no doubt in large part due to experiences with non-physical and physical abuse (Saewyc, 2011). However, given the importance of the connection between school experiences and adverse social, psychological, and health outcomes (Eccles et al., 1993), little research has explored, via a multivariate analysis with Canadian youth, the experiences of students in relation to LGBQ-targeted abuse. Such limitations make it difficult to aid concerned educators, administrators, activists, parents, policy makers, and academics in empirically assessing the magnitude of school-based problems for LGBQ youth or young people who are perceived to be LGBQ. In this study, we merged data from two secondary data sources to form a Canadian sample of middle- and high-school students to achieve two objectives: (1) provide regional comparisons according to measures of hostile discourse as well as non-physical and physical abuse; and (2) to provide a multivariate analysis to make predictions on the likelihood of physical abuse according to incidences of hostile discourse, various forms of non-physical abuse, and LGBQ status. In other words, our aim is to inferentially provide a snapshot of a day in the life of LGBQ students in Canada.

LITERATURE REVIEW Previous research suggests that, regardless of their sexual identity, students are educated in an environment fraught with homophobia, conveyed primarily, but not completely, through adolescent discourse. Surveys conducted in the United States and the UK have found that the vast majority of LGBQ youth report hearing homophobic comments such as “fag,” “dyke,” and “that’s so gay” in their school “frequently” or “often.” For instance, 84.9% of LGBTQ1 students in GLSEN’s 2011 sample of 8,584 American students reported hearing homophobic comments on a regular basis (Kosciw et al., 2012), as did 89% of students in Stonewall UK’s in-school sample of 1,614 British students (Statham, 2012). Several large-scale studies have also found that LGBQ youth experience direct verbal harassment more frequently than heterosexual youth. For instance, Saewyc and colleagues (2007) reported in the McCreary study of British Columbian youth that 61% of gay students and 66% of lesbian students between grades 7 and 12 were verbally harassed, compared to 29%

188

T. Peter et al.

and 37% of heterosexual students (boys and girls, respectively). Kosciw and colleagues (2012) also found that 33.8% of LGBTQ students were verbally harassed in the last year (17.3% frequently/daily and 16.5% often/weekly). Moreover, a 2008 survey conducted by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health found that one third of boys (grades 9 through 11) reported being the targets of homophobic verbal harassment (Wolfe & Chiodo, 2008). Finally, Kosciw et al. (2012) found that LGBTQ students experienced high rates of homophobically based harassment in the previous year: target of mean lies/rumors (84.0%); electronic harassment/cyber-bullying (55.2%); and property theft or damage at school (47.7%). Similar findings have been reported for physical abuse (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Robin et al., 2002). A study of 1,598 students from five Ontario high schools found that sexual minority youth reported significantly higher rates of physical victimization than their heterosexual peers (Williams et al., 2005). In a larger study of 17 high schools across Ontario and Québec, using MANOVA statistical techniques, researchers found that there was a significant difference between sexual minority/questioning and heterosexual students when reports of bullying, sexual harassment, and physical peer victimization were used as dependent variables (Williams et al., 2003). In an American study, scholars found that sexual minority youth were significantly more likely to have been in a fight that resulted in medical treatment being required (Russell, Franz, & Driscoll, 2001). Finally, Shields and colleagues (2012) found that 12% of LGB students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon in the past year at school, compared to 6% of heterosexual participants. The adverse outcomes of physical and non-physical abuse are profound and often devastating. Many studies have found that LGBQ students engage in higher rates of suicidal behavior (i.e., suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) than heterosexual students (e.g., Almeida et al., 2009; Saewyc, 2007; Poteat & Koenig, 2011; Wichstrom & Hegna, 2003; Zhao et al., 2010). Moreover, research indicates that LGBQ students who are targeted by homophobic bullying are significantly more likely to have lower grades, less success in terms of postsecondary education, higher rates of skipping school because of safety concerns, higher rates of risky behavior, and higher rates of depression compared to their heterosexual peers (Chamberland, Richard, & Bernier, 2013; Garcia et al., 2002; Illingworth & Murphy, 2004; Kosciw, 2004; Lugg, 2003; Massachusetts Department of Education, 2002; Murdock & Bolch, 2005; Oswalt & Wyatt, 2011; Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007; Russell & Joyner, 2001).

Hypotheses A brief overview of the literature reveals that experiences of homophobic bullying are prevalent in schools across Canada, the UK, and the United States. What these studies have not thoroughly addressed, however, is the

A Queer Day in Canada

189

relationship between exposure to homophobic discourse and experiences of various forms of non-physical abuse with experiences of physical abuse, which is important given the long-term social impact of such victimization for students who are LGBQ or perceived to be LGBQ. Moreover, in the last several decades there has been a noteworthy increase in both the quality and quantity of empirical data collected on LGBQ youth; however, the majority of these studies have been based on nonprobability samples of self-identified LGBQ youth (Savins-Williams, 2001). These young people have been recruited mostly due to their participation in targeted organizations (e.g., LGBQ community centers) or via social networking Web sites (e.g., Facebook). As such, there is a gap in scholarly research focusing on LGBQ youth using inferential statistical techniques to make generalizations to larger populations. Finally, although in Canada there have been two independent studies undertaken to examine school climates in reference to homophobia, until now they have represented fragmented regions of the country (i.e., Taylor and Peter did not sample in Québec, and Chamberland et al. sampled Québec students only). Given the above limitations, this study seeks to use a truly Canadian probability sample of students to better explore the mechanisms that influence sexual identity–based physical abuse, both nationally and across the Canadian regions of British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, the Maritimes, and the Northern Territories/Labrador. To this end, based on the existing literature, our research question is: What is the association between homophobic discourse and non-physical abuse on rates of physical abuse, and are there significant regional differences among these key measures? This research question gave rise to two hypotheses. The first is that, given that the administration of education is a provincial/territorial jurisdiction, there will be significant regional differences in the incidence of homophobic discourse as well as physical and non-physical abuse, both for LGBQ and for students perceived to be LGBQ. The second is that both homophobic discourse and non-physical abuse will be significant predictors of physical abuse, and this relationship will hold across all Canadian regions.

METHODS Data Data were collected from two independent samples representing two studies: a Canadian, non-Québec sample, funded primarily by Egale Canada (Taylor & Peter et al., 2011c) and a Québec-wide study (FQRSC; Chamberland et al., 2010). Both questionnaires were translated and answered by Anglo-speaking and French-speaking respondents in each respective study.2 Data from the Québec study included responses from 2,749 students coming from 30 secondary schools across the province. The Québec sample

190

T. Peter et al.

had a response rate of over 90% and utilized a multi-cluster sampling strategy to maximize the representativeness of the province. (See Chamberland et al. [2010] for more specific information on data collection and sampling.) In the Egale Canada study, data were collected through two methods: individual participation in an open-access online survey and in-class participation in a controlled-access online (or paper and pen, by request) implemented in schools. For the purpose of the current study, only respondents who participated in the controlled-access portion of the survey, or who completed the survey through the open-access portion and attended one of the participating school districts/divisions, have been retained for analysis (n = 3017), because of the probability sampling techniques used on that particular cohort. Due to the parallels between the two studies, researchers from the Egale Canada study did not attempt to collect data in Québec; instead, preliminary plans were made to combine the data at a future date and report on a truly national sample. In-class participation, much like the Québec sample, enabled researchers to canvas a general population of students across selected school divisions/districts in every region in Canada. (See Taylor & Peter et al., 2011c for more specific information about data collection and sampling.) The two datasets were merged and analyzed using IBM SPSS (v. 20) for a total usable sample of 5,766 students. Identical questions from both survey questionnaires were extracted. In total, 14 questions were retained for statistical analysis. See Table 1 for a description of demographic variables by Canadian regions. As is the case with many national or international-based surveys, samples tend to vary by stratum. Thus, survey weights are required to increase

TABLE 1 Demographic breakdowns by region (percentages, unless otherwise noted) Canada Unweighted region distributions Weighted region distributions Respondent sex Female Male Mean age Ethnic identity White First Nation/Métis/Inuit Other racialized groups Religious identity Christian Other religions No religion Sexual identity LGBQ Heterosexual

BC Prairie Ontario Québec Maritimes North

− −

14.1 12.8

13.3 18.3

16.8 39.3

43.7 22.5

8.7 6.4

3.4 0.8

40 60 16.8

48.3 51.7 16.4

39.5 60.5 17.2

30.5 69.5 17.0

52.4 47.6 15.9

47.2 52.8 17.2

39.8 60.2 15.5

72.5 4.3 23.2

33.6 3.6 62.8

62.2 8.4 29.3

83.1 3.8 13.0

81.0 1.6 17.4

93.0 1.5 5.5

66.8 23.8 9.3

54.2 8.8 37.0

34.1 21.6 44.3

55.6 10.1 34.2

49.3 4.5 46.2

65.4 10.3 24.3

87.4 2.0 10.6

79.6 4.4 16.0

27.7 72.3

25.9 74.1

32.6 67.4

37.1 62.9

8.3 91.7

14 86

16.8 83.2

A Queer Day in Canada

191

the precision of population parameters. To conduct statistical analyses on a Canadian sample that conforms to the larger population, data were weighted (via calibration estimates) according to known regional estimates. More specifically, population parameters were calculated for youth between the ages of 15 and 19 across the 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada using 2009 census data (to correspond to the time when both studies collected the majority of the data; Statistics Canada, 2012).

MEASURES The variables used to empirically test the listed hypotheses are described below.

Physical Abuse Incidences of physical abuse was measured using the following questions: for Egale Canada—“In the past year, have you been physically harassed or assaulted (shoved, pushed, punched, kicked, or injured) at your school because of your: (a) sexual orientation; (b) your perceived sexual orientation?”; and for the Québec sample—“Since the beginning of the current school year, how often have you personally experienced being pushed, hit, spat on, or had something thrown at you because you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual or because it was thought that you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual?” For the purposes of data analysis and to provide continuity across samples, “yes” to either question was coded 1 and “no” was coded to the value of 0.

Homophobic Discourse Two questions were retained to measure both homonegative language (i.e., “That’s so gay” or “c’est gai” in French) and homophobic slurs (i.e., “faggot,” “dyke,” “lezbo,” etc. or their French equivalents such as fif, tapette, lesbo, etc.) used in a derogatory manner. Response categories were frequently/often (i.e., daily); sometimes/occasionally (i.e., weekly); rarely (i.e., monthly); and never—where higher values represent greater frequency. To simplify multivariate analyses, the two homophobic discourse variables were recoded into dummy variables to indicate “daily/weekly” (code of 1) usage versus “rarely/never.”

192

T. Peter et al.

Non-Physical Abuse Four variables were selected to measure non-physical abuse. One variable addressed in-person verbal abuse. Three variables specifically addressed other forms of non-physical abuse and were measured by the following questions: “In the past year: (a) Have students spread mean rumors or lies about you at school because of your sexual orientation or your perceived sexual orientation?; (b) Have students at your school spread mean rumors or lies about you on the Internet or through text-messaging because of your sexual orientation or your perceived sexual orientation?; and (c) Have you had your property stolen or deliberately damaged at school because of your sexual orientation or your perceived sexual orientation?” Incidences of inperson verbal abuse were measured using two questions: “In the past year, have you been verbally harassed (name-calling, intimidation, threats) at your school because of your (a) sexual orientation or (b) your perceived sexual orientation?” Response categories for all four questions were dummy coded where “yes” signifies 1 and “no” is coded as 0. An overall non-physical abuse dummy variable was computed where any respondent who answered “yes” to one or more of the four questions received a code of 1.

Sexual Identity In the Québec survey, sexual identity was recorded through a single response question by asking participants: “How would you define yourself personally?” Response options included: (1) I consider myself heterosexual; (2) I consider myself gay or lesbian; (3) I consider myself bisexual; (4) I consider myself queer; and (5) I’m questioning. By comparison, the Egale Canada survey computed sexual identity through the following yes/no, “check all that apply” questions: bisexual, gay, lesbian, heterosexual (straight), transgender/transsexual, two-spirit, queer, and questioning. To create a consistent merged data set, students who selected bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, or questioning were given a code of 0, while participants who answered only heterosexual were coded 1. Respondents who answered only transgender/transsexual or two-spirit in the Egale Canada study were excluded from the analysis.

ANALYTIC PROCEDURES The purpose of the statistical analysis is to determine whether there are substantive differences between students across various regions in Canada. First, regional differences are examined at a bivariate level. More specifically, to examine regional variations, cross-tabulations with chi-square (X 2 )

193

A Queer Day in Canada

estimations were conducted. With large sample sizes such as ours, most relationships are statistically significant but may not necessarily be of practical significance (Ferguson, 2009). Effect sizes were therefore calculated for all X 2 (i.e., Cramér’s V) tests of significance in order to indicate the relative strength of association between key variables and region. Multivariate models were then estimated to provide more precise differences for a Canada-wide model as well as among the various regions across several key covariates. In particular, logistic regression (via the block enter method) was used because the physical abuse outcome variable is dichotomous (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Logistic regression constructs a strength estimate of several measures as a way to determine whether the odds of success (no physical abuse) or failure (physical abuse) can be significantly predicted.

RESULTS Table 2 presents regional comparisons with questions pertaining to homophobic language and various types of abuse. TABLE 2 Regional breakdowns by homophobic incidences BC

Prairie Ontario Québec Maritimes North

Homophobic discourse: “That’s so gay” Daily 49.9% Weekly 31.1% Monthly 14.2% Never 4.8%

69.9% 24.8% 4.5% 0.8%

81.8% 15% 2.7% 0.6%

62.9% 23.6% 9.3% 4.2%

68.3% 21.7% 6.9% 3.1%

75% 15.9% 6.8% 2.3%

Daily Weekly Monthly Never

37.6% 29.7% 20.6% 12.2%

37% 38.2% 19.9% 4.9%

54.2% 30.3% 12.8% 2.7%

34.2% 33.1% 24.3% 8.4%

50.7% 32.2% 14% 3%

67.4% 20.9% 4.7% 7%

Yes

10.7%

11.5%

19%

23.2%

10.9%

14%

Yes

9.1%

7.1%

11.8%

10.9%

7%

11.6%

Yes

6.1%

3.8%

6%

5.6%

4.2%

7%

Yes

16.4%

16.5%

26%

24%

15.2%

14%

Yes

21.1%

19.9%

31.1%

34.7%

20.4%

22.7%

Yes

14.1%

8.2%

12.8%

8.5%

5.7%

20.9%

Homophobic discourse: “Faggot, Dyke, etc.”

Non-physical abuse: Rumors or lies at school Non-physical abuse: Rumors or lies on the Internet/texts Non-physical abuse: Property damaged or stolen at school Verbal Abuse Overall Non-Physical Abuse Physical Abuse

194

T. Peter et al.

Homophobic Discourse Our studies distinguished between undirected homophobic comments (discourse) and directed homophobic comments (abuse). Across Canada, the use of homophobic discourse is extremely prevalent. We found that 70.4% of Canadian students routinely hear (i.e., daily) homophobic comments such as “that’s so gay” at school, while another 21.2% indicated hearing such comments on a weekly basis. Important differences emerged across regions. Students from Ontario schools reported hearing “that’s so gay” (i.e., daily) the most frequently (81.8%), while BC students recorded hearing such language the least (49.9%; X 2 (15, n = 5702) = 408.9 p < .001, Cramér’s V = .16). Over two in five (44.3%) students across all regions indicated that they frequently (i.e., daily) hear remarks such as “faggot,” “queer,” “lezbo,” and “dyke” (or their French equivalents) used in a negative manner at school. Another 32.4% reported hearing such comments on a weekly basis. These comments were most often heard by students in the Northern Territories/Labrador (67.4% “daily”) and were least heard in Québec (34.2% “daily”); nevertheless, only 8.3% of students from Québec reported “never” hearing such negative comments at school (X 2 (15, n = 5701) = 312.8, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .14).

Non-Physical Abuse Non-physical abuse of LGBQ students and heterosexual students who are perceived to be LGBQ can involve in-person verbal abuse, rumors spread at school, rumors spread on the Internet (i.e., social networking websites such as Facebook), or damaged or stolen property at school. Overall, 27.8% of all students reported being abused on some level of frequency due to being LGBQ, being perceived to be LGBQ, or having a LGBQ parent(s). The highest incidence of non-physical abuse was in Québec (34.7%) and Ontario (31.1%). The lowest incidence of abuse was in the Prairies (19.9%) and the Maritimes (20.4%) (X 2 (5, n = 5,757) =103.1, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .13). On a national level, the highest incidence among the three nonverbal, non-physical forms of abuse was recorded for rumors or lies spread about the respondent at school (17%), followed by rumors or lies spread via the Internet or text messaging (10.1%), and then by having one’s property damaged or stolen at school (5.4%). Percentage breakdowns from each region are reported in Table 2. Finally, 21.9% of all students reported experiencing in-person verbal abuse from their peers on the basis of sexual orientation (perceived or real). The highest incidence of verbal abuse was reported in Ontario (26%) and Québec (24%), while the lowest was in the Northern Territories/Labrador (14%) and the Maritimes (15.2%) (X 2 (5, n = 5538) = 65.5, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .11).

195

A Queer Day in Canada

Physical Abuse Across all regions, 10.7% of students revealed experiencing physical abuse, which they attributed to their sexual orientation or their perceived sexual identity. The Northern Territories/Labrador had the highest incidence of physical abuse (20.9%), while the Maritimes recorded the lowest frequency (5.7%) (X 2 (5, n = 5538) = 45.7, p < .001, Cramér’s V = .09). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine which factors were significantly related to the likelihood of students having reported experiences with homophobic physical abuse. In particular, the models permit an assessment of the predictive value of homophobic physical abuse for each support measure while holding the other factors constant. Odds ratios are presented to facilitate comparisons of the relative effects for individual covariates in each model, and robust standard errors have been calculated for resistance to potential problems with error term distributions. Table 3 displays the parameter estimates for the national model, which is discussed below. Table 4 presents the same measures, but across Canadian regions (excluding the Northern Territories/Labrador and the Maritimes, which had to be suppressed due to low subsamples). A test of the full model against a constant only model was statistically significant, indicating that the predictors, as a set, reliably distinguished between students who experienced homophobic physical abuse and those who did not (X 2 (7, n = 5478) = 821.8, p < .001). The independent variables of primary interest are homonegative and homophobic discourse, homophobic non-physical abuse (i.e., rumor/lies spread at school, rumors/lies spread on the Internet/text messaging, property damaged/stolen at school, and verbal abuse), and self-reported sexual identity status. With the exception of the rumors/lies spread at school variable, the odds ratios

TABLE 3 Logistic regression results for physical abuse (full model) Variables Constant Sexual identity Homonegative discourse Homophobic discourse Rumors/lies spread at school Rumors/lies via Internet/texts Property damaged/stolen at school Verbal abuse Pseudo R 2 Cox & Snell R 2 Nagelkerke R 2 Total ∗p

< .05;

∗∗ p

< .01;

b

Odds ratio

95% CI

−3.07 (.186)∗∗∗ .41 (.10)∗∗∗ .001 (.20) .18 (.13) .087 (.13) .61 (.13)∗∗∗ 1.34 (.13)∗∗∗ 1.21 (.11)∗∗∗

1.51 1.00 1.20 1.09 1.85 3.81 3.35

1.24−1.83 .68−1.47 .93−1.53 .85−1.39 1.45−2.36 2.94−4.94 2.70−4.15

.13 .24 n = 5478 ∗∗∗ p

< .001.

196

T. Peter et al.

TABLE 4 Logistic regression results for physical abuse by Canadian regions (full model) BC Variables Sexual identity Homonegative discourse Homophobic discourse Rumors school Rumors Internet Property damage Verbal abuse Total

OR

95% CI

1.3 .7−2.1 .90 .5−1.7 1.2 .7−2.2 1.4 .6−3.1 1.0 .4−2.4 3.0∗∗ 1.3−7 1.9∗ 1.1−3.3 n = 737

Prairies OR

95% CI

3.1∗∗∗ 1.9−4.9 .97 .3−2.7 2.0∗ 1.1−3.6 .94 .5−1.8 3.4∗∗∗ 1.9−6.2 2.7∗∗ 1.5−5.1 1.8∗ 1.1−3.2 n = 722

Ontario OR

95% CI

Québec OR

1.3 .9−1.7 1.2 1.4 .6−3.6 .77 .9 .6−1.4 1.2 1.1 .8−1.6 1.3 1.7∗∗ 1.2−2.5 1.9∗ 3.7∗∗∗ 2.5−5.4 6.7∗∗∗ 3.2∗∗∗ 2.3−4.5 18.8∗∗∗ n = 942 n=

95% CI .6−2.3 .3−1.8 .6−2.4 .7−2.3 1.1−3.4 3.5−13 9.5−37 2,546

∗p

< .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001. Note. Regional statistics are not provided for the Northern Territories/Labrador and the Maritimes due to small sample sizes.

for the non-physical abuse measures were the highest, relative to the other correlates in the model. In particular, students who reported having their property stolen or damaged at school were nearly 4 times (Exp(B) = 3.8, p < .001) more likely to experience homophobic-based physical abuse than participants who had not experienced such targeted abuse. Similarly, respondents who were verbally abused in the last year at school were 3.4 times more likely to experience physical abuse compared to students who were not verbally abused. Participants who experienced having rumors/lies spread about them on the Internet/text messaging, compared to those who were not, were 1.9 times more likely to be physically abused at school. The calculated odds ratio for the final statistically significant covariate was 1.5 for sexual minority status (LGBQ, compared to heterosexual). Similar to OLS regression models, by plugging in unstandardized coefficients (“b”) along with the constant (“a”), researchers can predict the likelihood of victimization according to certain attributes of the independent variables (x1 , x2 , etc.). To simplify calculation estimates, additional logistic regression models were run (national as well as by regions) with the four non-physical abuse variables computed into a single dummy measure, where 1 represents the presence of non-physical abuse (see Tables 5 and 6). Results show that the probability that an LGBQ student who experienced nonphysical abuse will personally experience physical abuse is 25.3%. In other words, one quarter of LGBQ students who are non-physically abused are statistically expected to be the target of physical abuse. By comparison, non-LGBQ students who experience non-physical abuse will personally experience physical abuse 14.4% of the time, which means that heterosexual students are also the targets of physical abuse based on their perceived sexual minority status. Recall that overall across Canada, 10.7% of all respondents (LGBQ and non-LGBQ combined) reported experiencing physical abuse at school due to the actual or perceived sexual orientation.

197

A Queer Day in Canada

TABLE 5 Logistic regression results for physical abuse (with computed non-physical abuse) Variables Constant Sexual identity Homonegative discourse Homophobic discourse Non-physical abuse Total ∗p

< .05;

∗∗ p

< .01;

∗∗∗ p

b

Odds ratio

95% CI

−3.16 (.18)∗∗∗ .70 (.09)∗∗∗ .03 (.19) .31 (.12)∗∗ 1.38 (.09)∗∗∗ n = 5,478

2.02 1.04 1.36 3.96

1.69−2.40 .72−1.50 1.07−1.72 3.29−4.75

< .001.

TABLE 6 Logistic regression results for physical abuse by Canadian regions (with computed non-physical abuse) BC b

Prairies b

Ontario b

Québec b

−2.2 (.29)∗∗∗ .45 (.24) −.11 (.33) .27 (.28) .71 (.24)∗∗

−3.8 (.54)∗∗∗ 1.3 (.21)∗∗∗ .12 (.52) .67 (.29)∗ 1.2 (.21)∗∗∗

−3.4 (.48)∗∗∗ .62 (.14)∗∗∗ .61 (.48) .17 (.19) 1.2 (.15)∗∗∗

−5.1 (.54)∗∗∗ .33 (.29) −.18 (.40) .27 (.30) 3.8 (.46)∗∗∗

Variables Constant Sexual identity Homonegative discourse Homophobic discourse Non-physical abuse ∗p

< .05;

∗∗ p

< .01;

∗∗∗ p

< .001.

When non-physical abuse is combined with exposure to homophobic discourse for LGBQ students, the probability that such youth will be physically assaulted increases to 31.5%. For non-LGBQ peers who hear derogatory remarks such as “faggot” and “dyke” at least once a week at school and who have personally experienced non-physical abuse, the probability of being the recipient of homophobic physical abuse is 18.5%. Taken together, 7.9% of LGBQ students who do not go to a school with constant usage of derogatory homophobic comments and who have not experienced non-physical abuse are expected to experience a physical assault due to their sexual minority status. By contrast, heterosexual students under the same conditions have a 4.1% chance of experiencing physical abuse due to their perceived sexual minority status.

DISCUSSION Experiences of physical abuse for sexual minority students, as well as heterosexual peers who are perceived to be LGBQ, is a serious issue for those who are concerned about the safety of all young people. The goal of the current study was to provide a national dataset of Canadian students to assess the prevalence of homonegative/homophobic discourse and physical and non-physical abuse as well as the effects of the above-mentioned covariates

198

T. Peter et al.

on physical abuse, which have been identified in the literature as being particularly salient predictors of victimization. The results have lead to the following important findings: (1) there are some differences between Canadian provinces/territories in regard to homophobia in schools; (2) LGBQ students experience high rates of homophobia in schools; (3) heterosexual students are also affected by homophobic-motivated discourse and abuse; and (4) verbal abuse is often a precursor to physical abuse. Each will be discussed in turn.

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES First, not only are the rates of homophobic discourse and abuse similar to those reported by other studies of secondary school students across the UK and the United States (Kosciw et al., 2012; Statham, 2012), but there are some significant geographical differences as well. In particular, BC consistently had lower rates of homophobic language, while the northern region had higher rates of both homophobic language and physical abuse. Several interpretations can be made in regard to these regional differences. First and foremost, educational funding in Canada falls under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, which means there is variation in legislation throughout the country. To complicate matters more, policy development that does not stem from provincial/territorial legislation is done at the school district level. For example, the lower rates of homophobic language in BC may be attributed to the higher proportion of students who were from the Vancouver School Board, which has (and had at the time of survey was administered) an extensive anti-homophobia policy. In addition to differences in legislation and policy development, there are also significant cultural differences throughout Canada. For example, compared to national rates, the northern territories and the Prairie Provinces have higher proportions of First Nation/Métis/Inuit populations, while BC has more racialized individuals. The higher rates of homophobic language and physical abuse in the north may be compounded by the added impact of colonialism and the racist ideology to which many Canadian youth are socialized in. In this regard, further analysis is needed to address not only the intersections of race/colonialism but also that of socioeconomic status, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

LGBQ STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES WITH HOMOPHOBIA Even though the usage and meaning of various homonegative and homophobic remarks varies, the result is that LGBQ students are hearing

A Queer Day in Canada

199

terms that signify a core aspect of their identities used as insults. Such language draws on and reinforces homophobia. Usages such as “that’s so gay” to mean “that’s so stupid” pejoratize LGBQ identities and, by implication, valorize heterosexual ones. Ultimately, students get the measure that “gay” is not what one wants to be in school culture (Peter & Taylor, 2012; Taylor, Peter, & Paquin, 2011a, 2011b; Taylor & Peter, 2011a, 2011b). Regardless of the intended meaning behind homonegative and/or homophobic discourse, the widespread usage of anti-gay language in schools sends a symbolic message that school settings are unsupportive of LGBQ students, which, as our research suggests, can lead to an increased likelihood of non-physical abuse and physical violence. As one study respondent remarked: I have been called a dyke, a lezbo, a woman who doesn’t know what a woman is . . . I get threatened by people who say they will gay bash me, people who push me into lockers, people who whisper about me, knowing I can hear them. Overall, it’s like hell everyday I go through those doors. (Taylor & Peter, 2011c, p. 57)

Thus, the ostracism of LGBQ students should not be downplayed or ignored because, as Smith (1998, p. 309) stated: “The heterosexism of the [school] regime makes ‘fag’ the stigmatized other and, reflexively, ‘fag’ as stigmatized other feeds into the regime’s heterosexism.” Put another way, being complacent about the “relatively innocent and harmless” acts of cruelty directed toward students who are, or who are perceived to be, LGBQ not only increases the likelihood for more serious forms of abuse but also reinforces the hegemonic heteronormativity of the whole school community.

IMPACT ON HETEROSEXUAL STUDENTS As noted, results from our analyses indicate that, overall, students who identified as LGBQ were significantly more likely to report being the victim of a homophobic assault (OR = 1.5). Interestingly, however, with the exception of the Prairie Provinces (OR = 3.1), when the data are split by geographical locale, the significant connection between sexual minority status and physical abuse disappears. These findings can be interpreted in many important ways. On the one hand, nationally, one can infer that the gap is quite large in terms of homophobically motivated physical abuse experiences for LGBQ students compared to their non-LGBQ peers. This finding by itself is not particularly surprising, but it does lend support to the claim that LGBQ kids are not safe at school (Berlan et al., 2010). On the other hand, however, our findings show that heterosexual students are also not immune to

200

T. Peter et al.

homophobic-based physical abuse, which is encapsulated in the following narrative from a project participant: My friend and I both got sent to the hospital—and he’s straight but was just trying to help me. I feel bad that he got hurt, and we don’t talk anymore cuz afterwards he had to leave the school as well for being labeled a fag for being known as my friend. (Taylor & Peter, 2011c, p. 63)

Our analyses reveal that sizeable portions of heterosexual students across Canada are experiencing abuse due to their perceived sexual identity. When we select out only heterosexual students from the sample, 8.2%, nationally, reported being physically abused due to their perceived sexual identity, and 24.4% reported experiencing non-physical abuse. In a school of 1,000 students, where up to 90% are heterosexual, this translates to approximately 82 straight youth who are physically assaulted and 244 who are nonphysically abused because they do not live up to the dominant discourses of heteronormativity within a school culture. Homophobic violence and abuse is not simply a “gay issue” to be discussed among “gay people.” Our results show that far too many heterosexual students, in addition to their queer peers, are the victims of such degradation. Instead of a “gay issue,” a more accurate framing is as a “safety issue,” in which all students have a vested interest.

PRECURSORS TO PHYSICAL ABUSE In the multivariate models, nationally, as well as across all of the regions, non-physical abuse was the most significant predictor of physical abuse. The prevalence of homophobic non-physical abuse for LGBQ and non-LGBQ students is highlighted by several students from Taylor and Peter’s (2011c) study: During Phys. Ed in grade 9, we could hear the guys in the boys change room making fun of the other boys who weren’t as ‘manly’ or as muscular as they were. They would call them pansies, fags, butt pirates, queers, anything homophobic. (p. 79) I’ve had rumors started about myself as being a lesbian just because I had a friend who was bisexual and not afraid to admit it. I’m straight. (p. 68)

Our results indicate that acts of non-physical abuse are often the steppingstone for physical assault and are thus doubly consequential acts. They can, and do, lead to more serious forms of bullying. We should also remember

A Queer Day in Canada

201

the powerful impact that verbal abuse itself has on individuals, particularly young people (Taylor & Peter, 2011c). Of course, it is possible that both verbal and physical abuse is co-occurring, which our data are unable to differentiate. Nevertheless, whether co-occurring or as a precursor, LGBQbased verbal victimization should not be tolerated in school environments, just as other forms of verbal bullying are often no longer accepted.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Despite the many important findings, the study is not without its limitations. Some specific limitations of the data are worthy of mention. First, a common limitation of empirical research on sexual minority youth is the operationalization of sexual identity, which is often critiqued by queer theorists as being ontologically problematic (Diamond, 1998; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001) due, in part, to the fluidity of sexual orientation, particularly among young people (Baumeister, 2000; Minton, 1997; Riley, 1988). Stemming from these operationalizational arguments, Igartua and colleagues (2009) found that there is variability among nonexclusive heterosexual students in high school. More specifically, they analyzed data from the Québec Youth Risk Behaviour Survey, which assessed sexual orientation by analyzing questions pertaining to sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sexual behavior. They found that no one question successfully classified most sexual minority participants and argued that measurement on sexual minority youth should include all three categories. Our project includes only measures of sexual identity because we did not have data from both surveys (only Québec) about sexual attraction or behavior. By not including more comprehensive measures, our research can speak to only one dimension of sexual orientation—that of sexual identity. One suggestion for future research would be to use more sophisticated ways to empirically measure sexual orientation. For example, the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985) is a more robust measure because it demarcates the complexities of human sexual attitudes, emotions, and behavior. The KSOG is composed of seven variables that are dimensions of sexual identity and has been validated through psychometric testing (Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). Second, the findings are based solely on self-reported information and, therefore, may be affected by both respondent bias and social desirability, which are common when dealing with sensitive topics such as bullying and abuse (Paulhus, 1984, 1991). One of the most commonly used scales to test for social desirability is the Crowne-Marlowe (CM) Social Desirability, or Need for Approval, Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, 1964). The CM scale, however, consists of 33 true/false items that describe both acceptable but improbable, and unacceptable but probable, behaviors. Even though the CM has been empirically validated and seen as a reliable index (Johnson &

202

T. Peter et al.

Fendrich, 2002, 2005), its length made it unfeasible to include in the current surveys. Nevertheless, future research would benefit from the CM scale being included in a national, probability-based sample.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This study’s examination of students’ experiences with sexual minority issues has revealed some important findings, both nationally and across Canadian regions, regarding the likelihood of physical abuse. As a contribution to the growing literature, the results point to a number of key areas where further research will prove valuable. Moreover, our results could facilitate future policy recommendations pertaining to LGBQ students by encouraging the enactment of specific anti-homophobia school policies to ensure that the human rights of all students are protected. In particular, given the regional variation found in our study, policy development should take regulatory and sociohistorical contexts into account. Our finding that LGBQ students experience elevated rates of harassment bolsters the case for developing LGBQ-specific safe schools policies and programming. Our results also point to the need to develop policy and programming to address the homophobic victimization of heterosexual students. Our finding that non-physical harassment is a precursor to physical harassment lends added importance to developing policy and programming aimed at reducing the incidence of homophobic discourse and homophobic harassment. Finally, the study reinforces the usefulness of and need for robust multivariate statistical models when examining and attempting to understand homophobic-based abuse among young people.

FUNDING The studies from which data were collected for this article were funded primarily by Egale Canada and by Québec Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) et le Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture.

NOTES 1. Kosciw et al.’s (2012) GLSEN study includes transgender participants, which is signified by the T in LGBTQ. 2. Analysis of the merged data set has been made possible by a small grant from Sexual and Gender Diversity: Vulnerability, Resilience, a Canadian research team financed by the Institute of Gender and Health (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) from 2006 to 2011.

A Queer Day in Canada

203

REFERENCES Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M, Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1001–1014. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374. Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., & Austin, S. B. (2010). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the Growing Up Today Study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 366–371. Chamberland, L., Richard, G., & Bernier, M. (2013). Les violences homophobes et leurs impacts sur la perseverance scolaire des adolescents au Québec. Recherches & Educations, 8, 81–96. Chamberland, L., Émond, G., Julien, D., Otis, J., & Ryan, B. (2010). L’impact de l’homophobie et de la violence homophobe sur la persévérance et la réussite scholaires. Rapport de Recherche: Québec Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS) et le Fonds Québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC). Retrieved from http://www.fqrsc.gouv.qc.ca/fr/rechercheexpertise/projets/rapports-recherche.php#PRS2006 Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 963–975. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York, NY: Wiley. Diamond, L. M. (1998). Development of sexual orientation among adolescent and young adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1085–1095. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, D., & MacIver, C. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stageenvironment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology, 40, 532–538. Garcia, J., Adams, J., Friedman, L., & East, P. (2002). Links between past abuse, suicide ideation, and sexual orientation among San Diego college students. Journal of American College Health, 51(1), 9–13. Igartua, K., Thombs, B. D., Burgos, G., & Montoro, R. (2009). Concordance and discrepancy in sexual identity, attraction, and behavior among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 602–608. Illingworth, P., & Murphy, T. (2004). In our best interest: Meeting moral duties to lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescent students. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35, 198–210. Johnson, T., & Fendrich, M. (2002). A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. American Statistical Association 2002 Proceedings of the

204

T. Peter et al.

Section of Survey Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.srl.uic.edu/ publist/Conference/crownemarlowe.pdf Johnson, T., & Fendrich, M. (2005). Modeling sources of self-report bias in a survey of drug use epidemiology. Annuals of Epidemiology, 15, 381–389. Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 35–49. Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 National School Climate Survey: The school-related experiences of our nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. New York, NY: GLSEN. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN. Lugg, C. (2003). Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: Gender, sexual orientation, and a new politics of education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 95–134. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002). 2001 Massachusetts youth risk behavior survey results. Malden, MA: Author. Minton, H. L. (1997). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7, 337–353. Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172. Oswalt, S. B., & Wyatt, T. J. (2011). Sexual orientation and differences in mental health, stress, and academic performance in a national sample of U.S. college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 1255–1280. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component social desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148–157. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54, 523–542. Peter, T., & Taylor, C. (2012). Sexual and gender minority youth and the discourses of ‘homophobia high’: The first national climate survey on homophobia and transphobia in Canadian schools. In L. Samuelson & W. Antony (Eds.), Power & resistance: Critical thinking about Canadian social issues (pp. 72–97). Winnipeg: Fernwood. Poteat, V. P., & Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents’ psychological and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 597–609. Riley, D. (1988). ‘Am I that name?’ Feminism and the category of ‘women’ in history. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Robin, L., Brener, N. D., Donahue, S. F., Hack, T., Hale, K., & Goodenow, C. (2002). Associations between health risk behaviors and opposite-, same-, and both-sex

A Queer Day in Canada

205

sexual partners in representative samples of Vermont and Massachusetts high school students. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 349–355. Russell, S. T., Franz, B. T., & Driscoll, A. K. (2001). Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 903–906. Russell, S. T., & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1276–1281. Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111–127. Saewyc, E. M. (2011). Research on adolescent sexual orientation: Development, health disparities, stigma, and resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 256–272. Saewyc, E., Poon, C., Wang, N., Homma, Y., Smith, A., & the McCreary Centre Society. (2007). Not yet equal: The health of lesbian, gay, & bisexual youth in BC. Vancouver: McCreary Centre Society. Retrieved from http://www.mcs.bc. ca/pdf/not_yet_equal_web.pdf Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 5–13. Shields, J. P., Whitaker, K., Glassman, J., Franks, H. M., & Howards, K. (2012). Impact of victimization on risk of suicide among lesbian, gay, and bisexual high school students in San Francisco. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 418–420. Smith, G. W. (1998). The ideology of “fag”: The school experience of gay students. Sociological Quarterly, 39, 309–335. Statham, A. (2012). The experiences of gay young people in Britain’s schools in 2012. Cambridge, UK: Stonewall. Statistics Canada. Table 051-0001 – Estimates of population, by age group and sex for July 1, Canada, provinces and territories, annual (persons unless otherwise noted), CANSIM (database). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo31a-eng.htm Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Taylor, C., & Peter, T. (2011a). Canadian human rights discourse and high school climate for LGBTQ students: “We are not aliens, we’re people and we have rights.” Canadian Review of Sociology, 48, 631–668. Taylor, C., & Peter, T. (2011b). Left behind: Sexual and gender minority students in Canadian high schools in the new millennium. In T. Morrison, M. Morrison, D. T. McDermott, & A. Carrigan (Eds.), Sexual minority research in the new millennium (pp. 127–157). Hauppauge: Nova Science. Taylor, C., & Peter, T., with McMinn, T. L., Elliott, T., Beldom, S., Ferry, A., Gross, Z., Paquin, S., & Schacter, K. (2011c). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Toronto, ON: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. Taylor, C., Peter, T., & Paquin, S. (2011a). School is not a safe place for anyone like me: The first national climate survey on homophobia in Canadian schools. In

206

T. Peter et al.

W. Craig, D. Pepler, & J. Cummings (Eds.), Creating a world without bullying (pp. 67–85). Toronto, ON: PrevNet. Taylor, C., Peter, T., & Paquin, S. (2011b). Homophobia research as discourse intervention: Ecological factors in the success of the first national climate survey on homophobia in Canadian schools. In L. Sokal & K. McCluskey (Eds.), Community connections: Reaching out of the ivory tower (pp. 130–139). Ulm: International Centre for Innovation in Education. Wichstrom, L., & Hegna, K. (2003). Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 144–151. Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2003). Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: High school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and physical abuse. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22(2), 47–58. Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 471–482. Wolfe, D. A., & Chiodo, D. (2008). Sexual harassment and related behaviours reported among youth from grade 9 to grade 11. Toronto, ON: CAMH Centre for Prevention Science. Retrieved from https://ozone.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/ 1873/9750/1/279283.pdf Zhao, Y., Montoro, R., Igartua, K., & Thombs, B. D. (2010). Suicidal ideation and attempt among adolescents reporting “unsure” sexual identity or heterosexual identity plus same-sex attraction or behavior: Forgotten groups? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 104–113.

Copyright of Journal of Homosexuality is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.