A Rising Pride Lifts All Hopes: Gay-Straight Alliances’ Impact on Positive Outcome For All Youth (2023)

Introduction

As the mainstream visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities grows, it is increasingly possible for individuals with queer identities to imagine and create lives for themselves full of community, acceptance, and joy. However, this ability to live in comfort and freedom is largely dependent on two factors: where a person lives (as many areas of the United States still foster homophobia and other bigotry against queer people) and with whom a person lives (as a vocal minority of Americans still harbor anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice) (Pew Research, 2014). While adults can to a large extent choose where and with whom they live, this is not within the realm of control for children and adolescents, meaning the degree of acceptance faced by queer youth can be largely dependent on where their families live and their family’s attitude toward LGBTQ+ identities. Second only to home environments, schools are a primary location of support, or lack thereof, for adolescents. Because of this, schools have a meaningful opportunity here to support their queer youth and have a positive impact on the developing citizenship of all students, by nurturing Gay-Straight Alliances.

Gay-Straight Alliances are groups in schools that are open to both queer and non-queer students, and function as social groups, activist organizations, and educational programs relating to issues of LGBTQ+ justice (Poteat, 2016). There is consistent and robust evidence that Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) promote positive outcomes for the development of LGBTQ+ youth by giving them leadership opportunities, providing social support, and promoting resilience (Poteat et al., 2014). What is less understood is how promoting healthy and supportive environments for LGBTQ+ students and their deliberate allies through GSAs impacts the climate and effect on youth development for allstudents in a school, not just those who participate in the GSA.

Recently, a strong and well-organized reactionary backlash against strides made in LGBTQ+ justice movements has materialized, centering on public schools as sites of potential support for queer youth and their allies (Adelman & Byard, 2022). In this climate, GSAs are threatened, especially in the parts of the country where they have the potential to be the only affirming space in the lives of queer youth, meaning the geographic locations where their impact will be felt the most. With mainstream conservative politicians and news outlets framing the existence of GSAs as “grooming” and “indoctrination,” small minorities of parents are making very loud complaints, resulting in a climate of fear that causes many schools to ban or at least fail to support existing GSAs and prohibit the founding of new groups (Natanson, 2022). Though many of these bans have been rejected by courts, the court process is long, and adolescence is short, and the viciousness of opposition has a chilling effect on the climate as a whole (Sago, 2016). It is appropriate to take a close look at the positive impact of GSAs on all students, to combat the zero-sum attitude that imagines rights and protections for a marginalized group necessarily means a diminishing experience for the dominant group. While there may be no evidence that will convince true bigots of the validity of queer youth and their experiences, it is important that the body of literature examining the impact of GSAs on student well-being is comprehensive enough to give GSAs maximum support in these times of reactionary politics. By looking at the ways GSAs impact indicators of thriving in all youth in a school community, as well as how they promote resilience, one can contribute to the support for these organizations that are as necessary as ever.

Literature Review

The explosion of popular support for queer identities since the Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide means that GSAs have been more prevalent and widely accepted over the past decade than ever before. This increased ubiquity resulted in a great deal of literature on the topic of GSAs and their impact on positive youth development, providing an ample body of literature from which to form insight about the potential relationship between GSAs in schools and well-being among all students. Though most studies examine the impact of GSAs on queer youth specifically, conclusions can be drawn about their impact on the wider community through an understanding of the indicators of thriving in positive youth development.

Consequences of homophobia for youth and GSA impact on homophobic bullying

Living in an environment which socially or institutionally discriminates against a part of a person’s identity is a source of stress, and can lead to numerous negative outcomes (Diplacido, 1998. Homophobia in general, and in particular bullying related to real or perceived deviations from heteronormative sexuality and gender identities, is associated with decreased mental health and academic success, and an increase in substance use and other risk factors for adolescents (Day et al., 2019). The impact of the school climate regarding homophobia and social acceptance of homophobic bullying is particularly high, since it is the context in which youth spend most of their social time, and more absolute time than anywhere except for home (Day et al., 2019). School can be understood to operate as a proxy society for students, since it is the place where they are most exposed to interpersonal dynamics, social mores, and reactions to diversity as well as learning to adjust to social temperatures and expectations regarding issues of identity and justice. In a study examining the relationship between GSAs and the self-reported levels of social support and bullying experienced by LGBTQ+ students, Day et al. conducted a longitudinal study of LGBTQ+ youth in urban settings from different regions of the United States. The study included youth between the ages of 15-21 and ensured that the large sample (N=1,061) was racially diverse. The youth were not only from high schools, but also college groups. The study finds a strong moderating effect of two factors on the experience of homophobia: Schools with GSAs and schools with LGBTQ-focused policies significantly decrease the self-reported experience of homophobic bullying compared to schools without these interventions. These findings are supported by previous research from Marx and Kettrey in 2016 which finds a strong relationship between the self-reported well-being of queer youth and the existence of GSAs in their schools, strongly suggesting that GSAs’ existence has a moderating effect on the risks associated with sexual minority status.

How GSAs promote indicators of thriving

The Search Institute identifies six “indicators of adolescent thriving,” which are evident impacts of GSAs based on the existing literature, and the indicators extend beyond the students who are members of the GSA and into the wider school community (Arnold & Gagnon, 2019). Thriving is a distinct process characterized not only by the absence of negative outcomes, but the presence of positive ones. As a developmental process, thriving can be understood to be the method through which the context of a youth program (in this case GSAs) results in positive outcomes through the framework of Positive Youth Development (Arnold & Gagnon, 2019). Below are three of the six indicators which are particularly relevant to GSAs, with explorations of what the literature has to say about GSAs’ ability to promote each.

Pro-social orientation

When students feel there is a safe space in which to do so, they will more securely embody and express their sexual orientation and gender identities, making GSAs a strong support factor in youth feeling safe being “out” at school (Scheer & Poteat, 2016). Queer identities are less immutably visually recognizable than many racial identities, making knowing queer people without thinking one knows queer people a distinct possibility, especially when the queer individuals do not feel safe embodying their queer identities in recognizable ways. GSAs make students feel comfortable being “out” with their identities, which increases their peers’ conscious exposure to a variety of queer identities, improving their perception of identities other than their own. A student who has had positive experiences with a sexual orientation or gender identity that was previously mysterious to them is likely to approach new experiences with a positive attitude. In schools with GSAs and LGBTQ+ policies, students learn that discrimination based on actual or perceived diversity of sexuality and gender identity is not condoned by the culture or institution of school, which is a proxy for society as a whole, as experienced by youth (Day et al., 2019).

Hopeful Purpose

Members of GSAs at schools report greater feelings of self-efficacy and agency, due in part to their ability to influence the school climate regarding homophobic bullying (Poteat et al., 2018). When students see themselves as able to have a positive impact on issues that affect them and their peers, they are less likely to feel despair in response to current social and political conditions, understanding that these conditions can be changed and that it is within their power to help bring about that change. In 2015, Poteat et al. conducted a study examining the ways GSAs promote resilience in LGBTQ+ youth at high schools in Massachusetts. In this study, they found that the existence of a GSA at a school predicted an increase in reported well-being including an increased sense of purpose and mastery, which contribute to attitudes of hope and optimism.

Positive Emotionality

The most consistent takeaway from the body of literature about GSAs is that they improve the mental well-being of students. This, in turn, is likely to have a positive effect on academic performance and social engagement in non-GSA areas, creating a positive feedback loop of well-being that increases the likelihood of students being simply happy. In “Gay-Straight Alliances: Promoting Student Resilience and Safer School Climates,” V. Paul Poteat describes GSAs as promoting well-being through impacting the broader school climate, creating a culture of safety and tolerance that affects all students, not just those involved in the GSA itself.

GSA impact on non-members

In the article by V. Paul Poteat mentioned above, the author explores the positive impact GSAs at high schools can have on all students, even those who do not participate in the GSA. While members of GSAs self-report the most impact on self-efficacy and sense of purpose, even nonmembers report higher feelings of safety, lower levels of truancy, less drug use, and a “greater overall well-being” than students in schools without GSAs (Poteat, 2016). The caveat here, however, is that these positive impacts are largely erased when schools are not supportive of the GSA, such as when the administration requires excessive parental notification requirements for participation or is actively hostile to the existence of a GSA.

Theory

The Search Institute’s six indicators of youth thriving describe a set of positive qualities which are associated with positive youth outcomes. These include openness to challenge and discovery, hopeful purpose, transcendent awareness, pro-social orientation, positive emotionality, and intentional self-regulation, each of which is evident in the mission and activism of GSAs in general. Individuals in programs are evaluated for each of these indicators on a binary, meaning they either have the indicator or they do not, leaving room for study into the qualitative characteristics of these indicators, such as process, degree, or change over time (Arnold & Gagnon, 2019). The indicators of thriving are valuable tools for interpreting the impact of GSAs on both member and non-member students, because a GSAs purpose is twofold: they want to impact the climate and policy of the school as a social institution regarding its approach to LGBTQ+ issues, but they are also interested in the well-being of individual students, both in the short- and long-terms (Poteat, 2016). Thus, the evaluation of a successful GSA should not be limited to whether or not the school has LGBTQ+-friendly policies, but also whether students themselves are thriving as individuals, making the indicators of thriving an appropriate tool for evaluation.

In addition to the indicators of youth thriving, resilience theory is an appropriate framework through which to evaluate the effectiveness of GSAs in schools. By examining the ways mitigating factors promote resilience in the face of adversity, resilience theory allows a careful analysis of the specific ingredients of an effective GSA (Johns et al., 2019). Whereas principles of PYD are deemed to apply to all youth, regardless of risk, resilience is applicable to vulnerable youth populations who face adversity. Gender and sexual minority youth are at greater risk for adversity and challenges than heteronormative and cis-gender peers in developing identities in unsupportive family and community contexts. If the adversity is homophobia and general intolerance for diverse sexualities and gender expressions, the impactful characteristics of GSAs are the mitigating factors that promote resilience in the face of these adversities. One of the most important protective factors effective GSA programs provideis positive, engaged, and supportive adult advisors, satisfying the developmental need of supportive non-parental adults in the lives of youth (Poteat et al., 2014).

Synthesis

The literature is unanimous in understanding GSAs to have a positive impact on students who participate in them. Less immediately obvious, however, are the impacts of GSAs on students who do not directly participate. An understanding of the theoretical framework which supports the effectiveness of GSAs in general is helpful in extrapolating their effectiveness for increasing the well-being of all students, an effectiveness which is supported in the literature of V. Paul Poteat in 2016. GSAs are strongly associated with increased well-being by a number of measures for students who participate, and an evaluation of their ability to foster the six indicators of youth thriving reveals the potential of GSAs to have a long-term positive effect on youth well-being. By offering opportunities for leadership, safe spaces for exploring diverse ideas, advocacy opportunities, and social support, GSAs particularly increase pro-social engagement and hopeful purpose among their members.

But what of the students who do not directly participate in GSAs, but exist in school environments which are impacted by the existence of GSAs? Poteat tells us that these students also report greater well-being, and lower incidence of the risk factors of truancy and substance use than students at schools that do not have GSAs. GSAs contribute to assets and promote thriving, rather than just mediating the risk factors associated with being LGBTQ+. It is easy to imagine that schools where GSAs have a strong social presence and impact the climate of the school will also impact the well-being of students who do not participate, because these students will benefit from an environment saturated with the indicators of thriving. GSAs are likely to make homophobic and anti-queer bullying less socially acceptable at a school, and to encourage administration to respond strongly to such behaviors. This creates a safer school environment with less overt bigotry, which are positive factors for pro-social engagement by all students. If bullying is not tolerated by either one’s peers or the institutional power of the school, one is more likely to adopt pro-social atttitudes and behaviors and engage in intentional self-regulation, another indicator of youth thriving (Arnold & Gagnon, 2019).

Conclusion

GSAs have a positive effect on youth well-being in schools, but it would be incomplete to not make note of the relationship between the existence of GSAs and communities which are already inclined to be accepting of LGBTQ+ students. While GSAs are heavily associated with positive outcomes for both queer and straight students, and these outcomes can be traced to the ways GSAs encourage indicators of thriving and mitigate adversity to promote resilience, it is also important to recognize that GSAs are more likely to operate in schools located in regions which are already tolerant. This is relevant now as we experience a resurgence of homophobic attacks, both institutional and social, in regions which had previously enjoyed high levels of tolerance for LGBTQ+ people. When people seek to eliminate support for queer identities in schools, GSAs are the obvious target for their attacks, making the body of literature supporting their effectiveness at promoting positive youth outcomes more important than ever. GSAs are more likely to exist in already tolerant communities, but those inclined to object to their existence are highly motivated through mainstream conservative rhetoric to be as loud and disruptive as possible advocating for their bigotry, which often achieves the goal of very few conservative voices creating a climate of fear in even previously accepting communities (Donahue et al., 2021). The willingness of a minority of conservative parents to be as unpleasant as possible, encouraged by right-wing news outlets and politicians who benefit from stoking their fears, should not be allowed to stop schools from providing the proven benefits that GSAs can provide. GSAs should be preserved as sites of positive youth impact and beneficial outcomes, with the potential to help heal the trauma of resurgent homophobia once hopefully the reactionary ideological wave has subsided.

References

Adelman, M., & Byard, E. (2022). The authoritarian backlash against education justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth. Global Agenda for Social Justice 2, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2vzdgnz.10

Arnold, M. E., & Gagnon, R. J. (2019). Illuminating the Process of Youth Development: The Mediating Effect of Thriving on Youth Development Program Outcomes. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.54718/ghup2927

Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Gay‐Straight Alliances, Inclusive Policy, and School Climate: LGBTQ Youths’ Experiences of Social Support and Bullying. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12487

Diplacido, Joanne. “Minority Stress among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals: A Consequence of Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Stigmatization.” Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals, 1998, pp. 138–159, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243818.n7. Accessed 18 May 2021.

‌Donahue, A. R., June 26, M. A., & 2021. (2021, June 26). How a West Michigan student-led LGBTQ club became the latest culture war flashpoint ⋆ Michigan Advance. Michigan Advance. https://michiganadvance.com/2021/06/26/how-a-west-michigan-student-led-lgbtq-club-became-the-latest-culture-war-flashpoint/

Johns, M. M., Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Kosciw, J. (2019). Strengthening Our Schools to Promote Resilience and Health Among LGBTQ Youth: Emerging Evidence and Research Priorities from The State of LGBTQ Youth Health and Wellbeing Symposium. LGBT Health, 6(4), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109

Marx, R., & Kettrey, H. (2016). Gay-Straight alliances are associated with lower levels of school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 45(7), 1269–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7

Natanson, H. (2022, June 28). LGBTQ clubs were havens for students. Now they’re under attack. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/06/28/gay-straight-alliance-indoctrination-school-club/

Pew Research . (2014). Religious Landscape Study. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-homosexuality/by/state/

Poteat, V. P. (2016). Gay-Straight Alliances: Promoting Student Resilience and Safer School Climates. American Educator, 40(4), 10–14.

Poteat, V. P., Calzo, J. P., & Yoshikawa, H. (2018). Gay-Straight Alliance involvement and youths’ participation in civic engagement, advocacy, and awareness-raising. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.01.001

Poteat, V. P., Yoshikawa, H., Calzo, J. P., Gray, M. L., DiGiovanni, C. D., Lipkin, A., Mundy-Shephard, A., Perrotti, J., Scheer, J. R., & Shaw, M. P. (2014). Contextualizing Gay-Straight Alliances: Student, Advisor, and Structural Factors Related to Positive Youth Development Among Members. Child Development, 86(1), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12289

Sago, R. (2016, December 7). Federal Judge Overturns Lake County Middle School Ban on Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs. WMFE. https://www.wmfe.org/2016-12-07/federal-judge-overturns-lake-county-middle-school-ban-on-gay-straight-alliance-clubs

Scheer, J. R., & Poteat, V. P. (2016). Factors associated with straight allies’ current engagement levels within Gay–Straight Alliances. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.01.007

Worthen, M. G. F. (2014). The Interactive Impacts of High School Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) on College Student Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals: An Investigation of High School Characteristics. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(2), 217–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.839906