Ethical, economic and legal imperatives demand that park and recreation practitioners offer programming that supports and celebrates people with diverse sexual identities. Public park and recreation programs are charged with offering services to all community members, regardless of sexual identity. Most recreation agencies that provide youth programming already serve individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) because as many as 13 percent of youth in the U.S. identify as LGBT (Savin-Williams, 2006). Practitioners who create inclusive recreation programs therefore avail themselves of a sizeable target market. Additionally, like public schools, public park and recreation agencies may have a legal obligation to ensure they accommodate LGBT populations and provide programs that are free from discrimination (Russell, Kosciw, Horn and Saewyc, 2010). The purpose of this article is to provide practitioners with some information about the experiences of LGBT youth and some practical ways to ensure programs are inclusive of all young people.

Know Your Demo

“LGBT” and “queer” are used synonymously to refer to individuals who do not identify as heterosexual. Although queer has often been used as a derogatory slur, it has recently been reclaimed and used as an umbrella term to refer to the entire LGBT community. It is important to note that sexual identity is not synonymous with sexual activity. Sexual identity describes a range of feelings and behaviors including emotional attraction and membership in a community, of which sexual activity may be a small and infrequent part (Georgia Safe Schools Coalition, 2013).

Young people who identify as LGBT encounter sexual identity discrimination on the path to adulthood. Sexual identity discrimination describes constraints on opportunities for people to live their lives normally, based on prejudices of their actual or perceived sexuality. For example, bullying and harassment can limit the opportunities of young people who are queer to learn and have positive academic experiences. A national study of students between the ages of 13 and 20 indicated that 81.9 percent of students who are LGBT experienced verbal harassment, 38.3 percent experienced physical harassment and 63 percent felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation. The effect of discrimination is staggering: high rates of absenteeism, lower educational aspirations, decreased academic achievement and poorer psychological well-being (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2011). 

LGBT Youth: Part of the Team

Recreation is not immune to the effects of discrimination, particularly in youth sport programs. Research shows that youth who are LGBT often encounter public humiliation and social isolation in sport (Barron and Bradford, 2007). Young people who identify as LGBT sometimes respond to bullying by avoiding leisure activities with heterosexual youth altogether or participating while hiding their sexual identities (Kivel and Kleiber, 2000). Although these strategies may protect young people from harassment, participating while hiding one’s sexual identity also denies the participant opportunities for self-expression and belonging. 

Discrimination also limits the opportunities of youth who identify as LGBT to engage in leisure. There are thousands of chapters of middle- and high-school gay-straight alliance (GSA) clubs in which LGBTQ youth and their heterosexual allies come together to support one another and advocate for more inclusive campus communities (GSA Network, 2009). Many of these clubs have met with considerable resistance from school officials. Applications for club formation have been denied on the basis of not being related to the curriculum or accepted with significant limitations, such as asking for a list of all group members, effectively asking students to out themselves and exposing them to atypical treatment and harassment. However, students in several states have taken their school boards to court and the students’ lawsuits have largely been successful to date (DeMitchell and Fossey, 2008). As such, park and recreation agencies may have a legal obligation to provide services inclusive of LGBT youth, regardless of local viewpoints toward providing space for those individuals.

Leisure can also be a space in which young people of diverse sexual identities are supported and celebrated. Jones and McCarthy (2010) described a gay football team in the United Kingdom in which members created a welcoming environment by rejecting stereotypes about gay men not being proficient at team sports. Further, GSA membership is related to individual empowerment (Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam and Laub, 2009) and the presence of a GSA on school campuses is linked with less truancy, smoking and drinking alcohol among youth who identify as LGBT and their heterosexual peers (Poteat, Sinclair, DiGiovanni, Koenig and Russell, 2013). Therefore, welcoming youth who are LGBT may support the missions of many local park and recreation agencies related to promoting positive youth development. 

Practitioners wishing to promote identity-affirming experiences have a number of options:

1) Create welcoming policies. Practitioners should ensure that sexual orientation, gender identity and “any other identifying characteristic” are included in antidiscrimination statements so that current participants who identify as LGBT are aware of their rights, and future attendees can see that your program is welcoming to all people. Research has shown that students in schools with welcoming policies perceive their school to be more supportive of diversity (Szalacha, 2003). Practitioners interested in creating welcoming policies might consult one of the 14 states with proposed antibullying legislation for students who are LGBT (e.g., Illinois, Virginia and New York).

2) Educate staff members. Staff training time should be devoted to discussing key ideas within queer culture, such as the meaning of the word “gay,” so that staff members are better prepared to provide welcoming leisure experiences. There are a variety of excellent, free resources available on the Internet to assist with designing an LGBT training program, such as the presentations created by the Georgia Safe Schools Coalition (2013). Vetting sources with a local expert to ensure the accuracy of the source used is strongly recommended.

3) Discuss ways to limit discrimination with youth and staff. Staff should also reflect on how program practices might reinforce or challenge existing sexuality stereotypes (Johnson, 2003). For example, a discussion with diverse youth and staff might be held to identify potential areas of discrimination such as group norms (e.g., competitiveness) or language (e.g., “that’s gay!”). The results of such reflections must be acted upon, for example by implementing a zero-tolerance policy for the use of harmful language. 

4) Consider starting or partnering with a GSA club in your area. Partnering with a local gay-straight alliance chapter or similar organization can enhance the capacity of a program to serve youth who identify as queer. For example, GSAs can assist with the design of the LGBT portion of staff training or serve as a resource during tough situations (e.g., as a source of advice for what to do if a young person acknowledges their sexual identity to you). Furthermore, the partnership may also serve as a base to educate the local community, bring people together and raise awareness of LGBT issues. As is the case when beginning any new program, practitioners should scan their local community and gauge the need and local response to its presence (GSA Network, 2009). 

5) Implement bullying and harassment training. The GLSEN (2011) school climate survey showed that 36.7 percent of discrimination incidents reported to teachers were not acted upon. Nonintervention sends the message to youth and staff that such behavior is tolerated, even appropriate. Training staff so that they understand what bullying is and how to intervene effectively may better prepare adult leaders to create a safer diversity climate. 

Daniel Theriault, Ph.D., is a Visiting Researcher at North Carolina State University. Michael Edwards, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at North Carolina State University.

References

DeMitchell, T.A., & Fossey, R. (2008). Student speech: School Boards, Gay/Straight alliances, and the Equal Access Act. Brigham Young University Education and Law Review, 1, 89-124. 

 

Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network. (2011). The 2011 national school climate survey: Key findings on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools (executive summary). Retrieved November 25, 2011, from: www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/2897.html?state=research&type=research. 

 

Georgia Safe Schools Coalition. (2013). Resources. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from www.georgiasafeschoolscoalition.org/resources. 

 

GSA Network. (2009). Resources. Retrieved from: www.gsanetwork.org/resources. 

 

Johnson, C.W. (2003). Speaking the unspeakable. Parks and Recreation, 38(3), 21-28.

 

Jones, L., & McCarthy, M. (2010). Mapping the landscape of gay men’s football. Leisure Studies, 29(2), 161-173. 

 

Kivel, B. D., & Kleiber, D. A. (2000). Leisure in the identity formation of lesbian/gay youth: Personal, but not social. Leisure Sciences, 22, 215-232.

 

Poteat, P.V., Sinclair, K., DiGiovanni, C.D., Koenig, B.W., & Russell, S.T. (2013). Gay-straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison of LBGTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence 23(2), 319-330. 

 

Russell, S.T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LBGTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1-17. 

 

Russell, S.T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 891-903. 

 

Savin-Williams, R.C. (2006). Who’s gay? Does it matter? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(1), 40-44.  

 

Szalacha, L.A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. American Journal of Education, 110, 58-88.