A Critical Discourse Analysis of No Promo Homo Policies in US Schools |
| |
| Authors: | Brian Barrett Arron M Bound |
| |
| Institution: | State University of New York College, Cortland |
| |
| Abstract: | This article presents a critical discourse analysis of no promo homo policies and their effects in US schools. No promo homo—short for “no promotion of homosexuality” (Eskridge, 2000 Eskridge, W.N. (2000). No promo homo: The sedimentation of antigay discourse and the channeling effect of judicial review. New York Law Review, 75, 1327–1411.Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar], p. 1329)—polices have been adopted across nine states and several local school districts in the United States. They direct teachers and school officials to take a neutral position on the subject of sexual orientation and identity and often restrict or prohibit any school-based instruction, counseling, discussion, or activity that could be construed as being positive about or promoting homosexuality (Bonauto, n.d.; Cahill &; Cianciotto, 2004 Cahill, S., &; Cianciotto, J. (2004). US policy interventions that can make schools safer. Journal of Gay &; Lesbian Issues in Education, 2, 3–17.Taylor &; Francis Online] , Google Scholar]; Eskridge 2000 Eskridge, W.N. (2000). No promo homo: The sedimentation of antigay discourse and the channeling effect of judicial review. New York Law Review, 75, 1327–1411.Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]). Our analysis suggests that, despite their claim to neutrality, no promo homo policies are actively harmful both to students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) as well as to the broader school community. In an effort to ultimately promote healthier, more equitable school environments and experiences for all students, this article aims to raise awareness about the problematic effects of no promo homo policy language and the assumptions that often underlie it. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
