Intimately Bound to Numbers: On the Rhetorics of GLBTQ School Climate Research

Intimately Bound to Numbers: On theRhetorics of GLBTQ School Climate ResearchJustin N. Thorpe and Adam J. Greteman

ABSTRACT

The GLBTQ research community has become, in some ways, bound to usingquantification within their arguments about the changes that are beingrecommended for schools and the lives of GLBTQ youth. This article considers therhetorical nature of quantification when arguing for such changes. This articledraws from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network’s 2009 NationalSchool Climate Survey report, a report that has become central to the discoursesconcerning GLBTQ youth, including use in television, news media, and academicresearch. This article begins by considering the nature of rhetoric and howquantification has come to play such an important part in social science writingand argumentation. The article then critiques how quantificational rhetoric isdeployed as a tool of fear, guilt, safety and accountability as evidenced in theNational School Climate report.

We need individual stories. Without individuals we see only numbers: a thousanddead, a hundred thousand dead, “casualties may rise to a million.” With individualstories, the statistics become people—but even that is a lie, for the people continue tosuffer in numbers that themselves are numbing and meaningless.

—Neil Gaiman1

Educational research, in part, considers the effects of schooling on childrenand youth, whether those effects come from the teachers, the curriculum, or theorganizational setting.We argue that one of the purposes of educational research

Copyright © 2015 Michigan State University. Justin N. Thorpe and Adam J. Greteman, “IntimatelyBound to Numbers: On the Rhetorics of GLBTQ School Climate Research,” QED: A Journal in GLBTQWorldmaking 2.1 (2015): 73–99. ISSN 2327-1574. All rights reserved.

)))

73

is to inform the climate of schooling, in particular as it relates to marginalizedyouth. This article draws from a specific condition of school climate—that of thesafety found in the schools of GLBTQ youth. However, this is not the only waythat climate is studied and related to schools. School climate concerns the“environmental quality within the organization.”2 School climate has become anumbrella term for research ranging from school size to antisocial behavior.3

Research on school climate draws from the work on climate in organizations;for example, it is not uncommon to hear reports about the conditions ofworkplaces comparing men to women (e.g., comparing salaries or workingenvironments). Education has been influenced by organizational studies, and, inparticular, education has become enamored with the concepts of the “bestpractices” for teaching and learning, creating a space for the integration of schoolclimate in such research. One such use of studying the school climate is seen inthe study of gender performance in schools and the classroom. The 1992 reportfrom the American Association of University Women (AAUW)4 considered thecondition of girls and women in public education. The report concluded thatgirls were “not adequately represented or addressed in the wide-ranging discus-sions and debates. . . . Girls, in fact, were nearly invisible.”5

Women are not the only peoplemarginalized. This article focuses on the studyof the climate and condition of sexuality and gender identity in the educationalsetting. For example, Hatred in the Hallways, the 2001 report by Human RightsWatch, highlights the hatred that GLBT youth and teachers have faced in theUnited States. The report offers recommendations for legislatures and othergovernmental entities, supported by evidence provided in the stories about thelives of marginalized youth and adults. Consider the epigraph from the fourthchapter: “‘I don’t feel like adolescents should have to go to school in survivalmode.’—Leon C., Long Beach, California, October 21, 1999.”6 This epigraphbegins a discussion about the verbal, physical, and emotional abuse that can comeas part of the educational experience, suggesting that the “attacks on lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender students creates a hostile climate that can be unbearablefor them.”7

Climate research provides a way to measure the current conditions ofeducation and those who participate in it. The difficulty in writing abouteducational climate is that such studies attempt to measure the quality of asocial experience. In describing the climates in which GLBTQ youth findthemselves, there is the potential to describe the youth through objectivesummaries that rely on numbers or statistical data. Cris Mayo, in LGBTQYouth and Education, suggests:

74 ( Justin N. Thorpe and Adam J. Greteman

When essays . . . discussing the intersecting forms of bias related to homophobiaand transphobia defensively cite statistics on harassment or provide a panel ofGLBTQ people to describe their difficulties with homophobia, they miss theopportunity to examine the positive aspects of LGBTQ communities andcultures and the abilities of sexual minority people to live lives beyondinstitutional constraints.8

Mayo shows us that it is a challenge to try to examine positive aspects of queerlives in the midst of violence and trauma. The defensive citation and re-citationof statistics or description of difficulties holds particular rhetorical and politicalsway. In this article, we look to examine the rhetorical deployment of quantifi-cation in order to open up space for scholarship to grapple with not only theviolence of homophobia exposed by statistics but also the lived experiences ofGLBTQ persons that are covered up by a “safety in numbers” that exists in ourdefensive numerical citations.

) ) ) Measuring and Quantifying School Climates

In the preface toTrust in Numbers, Theodore Porter considers “numbers, graphs,and formulas first of all as strategies of communication.”9 These strategies ofcommunication are “intimately bound up with forms of community, and hencealso with the social identity of the researchers.”10 Likewise, Peter Taubmanillustrates the growing hegemony of numbers from testing in framing howteachers, policy makers, students, parents, and the public view education andwhat constitutes an appropriate educational community. Taubman writes:

The drive to test does more than simply split the world into the losers andwinners. It also leaves us alienated and isolated. It abstracts us from the specificityof our situations, turning us into a portable number, and locates us within amuch greater universe of numerical numbers: we are one number among many.In quantifying our existence we, as flesh and blood creatures, disappear into anether world. . . . 11

Gert Biesta takes up the trend of using numbers to communicate issues ofeducational quality in order to reframe or intervene in the conversation regarding“measurement” to return to questions of “goodness.” Biesta’s turn—or moreappropriately “re-turn”—to “good education” and the normative conversationregarding the “purposes” of education allows him to disrupt the incessant focusonmeasurement and what it (mis)communicates.12This opens space and time to

Intimately Bound to Numbers ) 75

contemplate what good education looks like and how our reliance on variousforms of measurement needs rethought.And although education professionals have learned and continue to learn from the

rise of large-scale quantitative studies, the continued focus on evidence-based re-search and measurement in order to engage in technical and/or managerial conver-sations about education has taken us away from the normative and value-basedconversations regarding the “good” of education or what is education good for in thetwenty-first century. To be able to measure and quantify various components ofeducation (e.g., student learning, teacher effectiveness, school climate) has come todominate how and what we can ask about education. Yet, in engaging the issue ofmeasurement, Biesta notes that “this has to do with the question of whether we areindeedmeasuringwhatwe value, orwhetherwe are justmeasuringwhatwe can easilymeasure and thus end up valuing what we (can) measure.”13

Quantification continues to be a trope in educational texts, especially con-cerning issues related to educational reform.14 The research on quantificationand education has asked important questions regarding the acts of education. Inan age of measurement, educational perceptions are influenced by the argumentsof educational texts, and shaped by stylings and ornamentations such as rhetor-ical quantification.Howmight quantification be used within arguments to shapea layperson’s views and perceptions of educational conditions for GLBTQyouth? Or, in particular, how has quantification, as seen in the National SchoolClimate Survey (NSCS), sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight EducationNetwork (GLSEN), shaped perceptions about GLBTQ students in contempo-rary American public school classrooms?

) ) ) Rhetorical Quantifications

We do not suggest that using quantification is wrong or unethical in all cases.Instead, we suggest that quantification is a type of trope used in arguments.In understanding this as a type of trope, we hope to encourage the question-ing of the rhetorical practice of using these numbers to report conditions,and, in this case, reporting conditions of GLBTQ youth and students. Howhave these numbers come to speak for GLBTQ youth in ways that preventstudents from speaking of their own unique and diverse experiences as sexualsubjects?It is not beneficial to separate context from rhetorical deployment. “Rhetoric

functions within a culture,” Sacvan Bercovitch suggests. “It reflects and affects aset of particular psychic, social, and historical needs.”15 The functioning of


GLBTQ educational reform rhetoric also functions within a particular culture,one of comparison and change. Within GLBTQ educational reform, there arecomplex rhetorical interactions of what it means to be safe, how that safety isdemonstrated, and the historical influences of what those interaction and dem-onstrations mean. In writing about gay and lesbian educational rhetoric, we donot diminish these psychological, social, and historical needs; instead, we recog-nize their influences in the rhetorical stylings of this culture of change andreform.

Rhetorical Expertise through Quantification

Quantification is viewed in current policy debates as a form of expertisebecause quantification can be viewed as unbiased and positive, as arguedthrough Porter’s Trust in Numbers. We consider the importance of expertisein making decisions regarding GLBTQ youth and the argumentative author-ity for making those decisions. Although speaking about technical decisionsin the public domain, H. M. Collins and Robert Evans ask if questions in thepublic domain should be democratically decided or based on the “best expertadvice.”16 This article does not address technical decisions in the public realm;however, we question whether public decisions should rely on democraticdecisions or the words of experts to be fruitful in discussions about the issuesregarding GLBTQ youth, especially in reports such as those published by groupslike GLSEN.ZoltanMajdik andWilliam Keith suggest that expertise is a form of argument

used as one perspective among many in making public decisions. For them, ademocratic life is built upon the supported claims with evidence. Yet, in demo-cratic life, expertise “becomes both enacted and problematized.”17 Expertiseprovides rhetorical involvement in solving problems because the experts contrib-ute to the resolution of particular problems. “Experts are people who can makearguments about things that best respond to a particular problem, and whopossess an expertise consisting in their ability to make a case for a particulardefinition of problem or solution.”18Drawing on the work of Majdik and Keith,we suggest that the expert, with her expertise, is a vital part of the enactment andproblematization of solving social problems, such as those engaged by GLSENand Human Rights Watch. Of particular interest is how GLSEN, with its largeamount of data and its significant presence, has become an expert, providingimportant definitions of what counts as problems and providing solutions forGLBTQ youth.


There is a relationship between supporting claims with evidence, using exper-tise in argument, and how to respond “best” to the problems of GLBTQ youth.In some ways, this is an excepted definition of research. The problem is whenthere only is one dominant voice authoritatively defining problems and solu-tions. One of the ways that GLSEN has become a dominate voice in arguingabout the conditions of GLBTQ youth has come through the collection ofquantifications in efforts to narrate general conditions instead of individualstories. Numbers suggest authority because of the rigor and objectivity theyespouse. Discussing the relationship of quantification and the law,Wendy Esplinand Berit Vannebo suggest:

We tend to see numbers as more objective than other forms of information,perhaps because of their association with the rigors of mathematics and science.We believe that rules for deriving numbers are more constraining, less easy tomanipulate, than are rules for other forms of expression. Organizational scholarsknow that, as information circulates, the assumptions, biases, and uncertaintiesthat inevitably inform its production are obscured; the further that informationtravels from those who make it, the more certain and robust it appears.19

Esplin and Vannebo suggest that quantification is less likely to be changed ordistorted, which suggests a limit of the amount of bias presented in argu-ments. This suggests that quantification offers a type of expertise in argu-ment.20 For, “at its core, expertise is about delimiting and defining availablechoices, lest an overabundance of choices render decision-making impossible.”21

Quantification rhetorically plays a part in presenting claims that are supported by“unbiased” evidence. Thus, quantification provides reports like those fromGLSEN to be seen as coming from experts, which supports their recommenda-tions. Quantification has become a way to rhetorically argue the whole insummarized data.Although not the only strategy of communication found within queer schol-

arship, numbers have become a strong part of the communicative communityabout GLBTQ students in pre-K—16 settings. The use of numbers have become“intimately bound” to discussions about GLBTQ students, particularly as arhetorical tool in persuading teachers, parents, school officials, and policymakersto make changes concerning the safety and learning in the lives of GLBTQstudents and the children of GLBTQ adults. In a way, the rhetorical use ofnumbers creates evidence of what deficiencies exist and provides ways to measureimprovement and change.In some ways, the numbers are telling similar stories of other narratives of

harassment and bullying, seen most terrifyingly in Lee Hirsch’s documentary


Bully.22However, the use of numbers in the reports demonstrates a different typeof rhetorical authority, one of “rigor and impartiality.”23 The numbers tell of thenegative aspects of GLBTQ life with the stories of uncaring teachers, bullyingclassmates, GLBTQ students turning to alcohol and drugs, thoughts of suicide,and lack of support from school districts and administrators in a way that arguesfor improving the climate and condition of GLBTQ students through a “sup-pression of moral feeling” for those youth who are involved in such hostileclimates.24

To understand how the stories of GLBTQ youth have become intimatelybound, we draw from the historical uses of quantification as outlined by Porter.Historically, one of the purposes of quantification of humans was to identify theoutcasts of society, promoting a way for the philanthropic to identify ways thatothers might be helped. Porter suggests:

Much, probably most, statistical study of human populations has aimed toimprove the condition of working people, children, beggars, criminals, women,or racial and ethnic minorities. The writings, especially private ones, of earlysocial statisticians and pioneers of the social survey exuded benevolence andgoodwill. In print, though, they generally adopted the hardheaded rhetoricactuality, which permitted women as well as men to assume the role of thescientific social investigator, and not merely of an agent of charity.25

We interpret Porter’s statement as a way that quantification has been used toargue for change in human conditions, especially the conditions of those whowould be viewed as “nonnormal.” Part of this philanthropic work of quantifyingthose who would be seen as nonnormal convert human qualities into nonindi-vidualistic quantities, all in the name of arguing for social change. In describingthese qualities, descriptive statistics also provide a sense of actuality and objec-tivity that is perceived as authoritative. Descriptive statistics also allow for adismissal of moral closeness in favor of impartial distances. Porter suggests thatdescriptive statistics were used to describe and investigate members of society“whom [the philanthropists] did not know, and often did not care to know, aspersons.”26 The use of descriptive statistics, such as averages or percentages,seemed to gain favor as a vehicle for describing populations that lacked “strongand interesting personalities.”27

Quantification, therefore, became a way to write about GLBTQ youth froman impartial distance that removes the humanness of the stories in favor ofgeneralizing and making recommendations based on the general trends of thosegroups. Historically, quantification allowed philanthropists to argue for changefor marginalized groups.


) ) ) GLSEN and the Document of Consideration

Founded in 1990 as the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Networkand becoming the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network in 1995, GLSEN’smission has been one that “strives to assure that each member of every schoolcommunity is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or genderidentity/expression.”28 This is done to make it safe for teachers to be out as wellas making sure that students to have a school space that is safe and free fromhomophobic violence. Alongside other gay-rights organizations such as theHuman Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force(NGLTF), and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG),GLSEN has arguably changed the terrain of American politics regarding gay,lesbian, and sometimes bisexual and transgender concerns and the necessity torecognize and engage with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.Although there have been significant changes in GLBTQ politics over the lastfew decades, there have been trenchant critiques of these political organizationsand their contribution to the normalizing and assimilative project of neoliberal-ism that has come to operate as “common sense.”29

Initiated in 1999, the NSCS was developed because of the “need for nationaldata on the experiences of GLBTQ students” because “at the time, the schoolexperiences of GLBTQ youth were undocumented and nearly absent fromnational studies on adolescents.”30 The key findings of the research is expertlydefines “Problems” and “Solutions,” which allows the research and reports toexpose the problems, broadly defined as hostile school climate, absenteeism,lower educational aspirations, and poorer psychological well-being while alsoexploring solutions, broadly conceived as gay—straight alliances, inclusive cur-riculum, supportive educators, and comprehensive bullying/harassment policiesand laws. Each of these components is questioned and explored so that GLSENcan offer a look over time at the changing or unchanging terrain of GLBTQstudent experiences.We see from GLSEN’s biannual NSCS (and other national attempts to

understand the state and climate of GLBTQ youth) a focus on victimization andlegal policies (e.g., anti-bullying laws, anti-discrimination clauses that enumeratesexual orientation and gender identity) to protect LGB and sometimes T youth.Although such a focus is understandable and the quest for legal rights thedominant goal of mainstream GLBTQ political and educational organizations,there are limits to such approaches. Dean Spade notes in Normal Life there arelimits to law: it cannot do everything that it is asked to do. The rise of thenonprofit in the political terrain of the United States has done less to foment a


critical social movement that addresses the intersections of injustice than to anemphasis on “single-issue politics.”31 The arguments for this come not from thevibrant and creative ways in which queer youth interact in the world but byillustrating the homophobic violence and adults’ lack of intervention that con-tribute to the sad state of affairs of queer youth.

NSCS 2009

This article focuses on the 2009 NSCS reported by GLSEN. Although werecognize that there is a more recent survey (reported in 2011), we draw from the2009 survey, as it is GLSEN’s tenth anniversary climate survey. There are manyauthors in queer educational studies and the mainstream media who draw fromthis report to establish the current conditions of GLBTQ students and thebullying experiences reported by GLBTQ youth and students. If we were to trustthe citations record found in a search using Google Scholar, one would findhundreds of citations that draw from one of the biannual reports. Although wecould have chosen any of the reports, we rely on this tenth anniversary reportbecause it provides an often cited and influential look back over the past ten yearsof such research on the climate of schools towards GLBTQ students and theresponses of schools to these issues.The 2009 NSCS is a mixed report, drawing from a large-scale survey (with a

sample size of 7,261 students between the ages of 13 and 21) and as well asindividual stories. The report drew participants from community outreachgroups as well as through social media sites like Facebook and MySpace. We areinterested in the report’s rhetorical use of quantification, which ultimately comesfrom the large-scale data collection. How does (and has) this report rhetoricallyuse (and used) quantification in various ways and for various purposes? And whatmight be covered up by the foci of the research?The full GLSEN report is divided into two documents, the executive sum-

mary and a more detailed report considering the indicators of school climate,comparisons by demographics and school characteristics, school climate overtime, and discussion and recommendations. Within the indicators of schoolclimate, the report highlights exposure to biased language, the feeling of safety inthe schools, the experiences of harassment (including verbal and physical), andthe reporting of school-based harassment and assault. This section also includesdiscussions about the “effects of a hostile climate” in education. The report alsoreports on the support and resources available in schools. Within each section onmajor indicators, the report provides a section on “key findings,” which offers asummary of the findings in each section. Following the key findings, the report


presents lists of quantified data with graphics that suggest general trends in theindicators of the educational climate. We chose to work with the rhetoric of thefull report instead of just the findings within the executive summary, particularlythe sections from the indicators of school climate.

) ) ) GLSEN’s Expertise and Presence

The emergence of GLSEN’s NSCS in 1999 joined the trend of measuring andquantifying the climate of schools by asking students questions about theirexperiences in schools. This national survey is less about the curriculum (i.e.,what students know), and instead focuses on the climate of schools (i.e., whatstudents experience), rhetorically using the collected data to expose the ho-mophobic and transphobic spaces of education. The narrative emphasizes thatschool spaces have become an evenmore politicized space that must grapple withthe “numbers” that speak of extensive violence against GLBTQ students andinaction on the part of teachers and administrators. What these numbers speak,of course, is significant and has helped contribute to any number of policyreforms and interventions in schools.32

The numbers that emerge year after year through GLSEN’s biannual surveyspeak a particular truth and provide rhetorical strength and expertise to argu-ments about the need to change the climate of GLBTQ youth in Americanpublic schools. These numbers quantify the student experience and have come torhetorically operate in particular ways due, in part, to the underlying pathetic (orpathos) appeals. Such appeals have come to operate as “common sense” ineducational rhetoric. Although not the only voice speaking about and forGLBTQ youth, we suggest that in distributing this “common sense” GLSENhasbecome amajor narrator in stating what problems and solutions exist concerningGLBTQ youth. Cited in study after study, the NSCS has become the source fornumbers on the experiences of GLBTQ students.33 Yet, as Biesta reminds us, “weshouldn’t forget, of course, that what appears or presents itself as ‘common sense’often serves the interests of a particular group much better than the interests ofother groups.”34 So, although it has become common knowledge that schools arehomophobic, transphobic, and heteronormative spaces, it has become necessaryto investigate the quantification that has occurred to establish—with politicaland rhetorical force—this view.We assume GLSEN seeks justice for GLBTQ youth. In the preface to the

2009 NSCS, Dr. Eliza Byard mentions a moment when watching an episode ofDr. Phil that revealed the growing ubiquity of GLSEN’s work. In this moment,


Dr. Phil is talking about the then recent murder of eighth-grader Larry King andin doing so draws upon the statistics of the harassment of gay and lesbian youth.Taking a moment for her to realize that the statistics being used were from theNSCS, Byard notes it is “fine by me!” that Dr. Phil is drawing up her organiza-tion’s work that “has changed the advocacy landscape, transformed publicunderstanding, and guided the development of targeted and effective program-ming at GLSEN and in school districts across the country.”35 This story suggestsacceptance and “making it” in the discussions of—and implications for—GLBTQ youth. GLSEN is now seen not only in academic citations, but it hasbecome viable in the popular media as an expert able to describe and definecertain problems that GLBTQ youth face.The NSCS has become, as Byard notes, a common rhetorical tool in market-

ing and arguing for changing the conditions found in schools faced by Gay,Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer youth and students. These reportsspeak volumes of the perceived rhetorical authority. Now, the rhetorical influ-ence of the GLSEN reports is beyond simply being cited in articles by educa-tional scholars and queer theorists. Byard suggests herself that

GLSEN’s research has helped to transform public perceptions of our issues andfueled countless advocacy efforts directed at improving school climate. . . . Nexttime you hear a television report refer to rates of bullying and harassment ofLGBT students; next time an article raises the issue of higher rates of absenteeismand lower grades among young people facing this harassment; or next time youhear about the school-wide benefits of having a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA);know that you are hearing findings generated by ten years of GLSEN’s NationalSchool Climate Survey and the voices of the young people whose experiences weseek to understand and improve.36

Questing and questioning the common sense that Byard attributes to GLSEN’swork, we argue and join an already growing set of voices, that the use of numbershas become a key trope in writing about the conditions of schools. Specificallyaround conversations about what makes quality (often stated as “good”) educa-tion and how to improve the climate of schools toward GLBTQ students. Ourpurpose becomes one of writing about how measured quantifications havebecome a rhetorical tool in persuading others to consider changing currentconditions surrounding the daily experiences of GLBTQ students.However, because GLSEN is a expertly perceived producer of discourse on

school climate and GLBTQ youth—seen in its use in research, journalism, andthe mainstream media (as highlighted in endnote 32)—we seek to open adiscussion regarding some of the rhetoric GLSEN utilizes to make their case and


what thatmeans for issues included and excluded in their work.We call attentionto GLSEN’s rhetorical strategies, strategies that, we will discuss, embrace a moreassimilative politics. Such politics offer material benefits; however, as Quinn andMeiners argued, “strategies that turn on assimilative politics or that deny thefullness of queer expression and lives do little to make our communities—all ofthem—more just.”37

This is not meant to negate the importance of GLSEN’s work and thecontributions they havemade in putting GLBTQ youth on the radar of political,legal, and educational institutions. The work of GLSEN illustrates a genuineconcern for the lives of GLBTQ youth and the importance of youth sexualities asa topic for public education and policy makers to grapple with in their work. Weare not suggesting that GLSEN does not want to know the individual or to makethe community more just. Instead, this article is concerned with how the use ofquantification has become a way of removing the personal nature of GLBTQlives by creating distance from the telling of the harassments of GLBTQ youth infavor of summarizing the trends. In this way, quantification has become acherished tool because it creates a (paradoxical) moral distance from the personalhatred.We suggest that GLSEN uses quantifications as a way to define and present

solutions to the problemsGLBTQ youth face in their school environments. Thisexpertise allows for the problems facingGLBTQyouth to be defined in ways thatalign with the purposes of GLSEN, allowing for solutions to be constructed inthe terms that GLSEN considers appropriate. We limit our discussion ofGLSEN’s expertise to situations involving education. We will discuss the rela-tionships to expertise and GLSEN more as we discuss the problem/solutionbinary presented in NSCS.Although serving the purpose of presenting a generalized picture, this article

considers the parts of the rhetoric that are omitted because of the emphasis onquestions and data that illustrate the rate of victimization. We attempt torecognize the rhetorical use of such numbers and perhaps imagine alternativequestions that allow for a measurement of different issues. It is true that thequantification of GLBTQ lives is done through questions that emphasize vic-timization and violence for important and legitimate reasons of safety andsurvival. Yet, such a focus on the victimization of queer subjects and related issueshas come under recent scrutiny.38 The numbers obscure our ability to thinkabout the richness of queer youth cultures and foreclose our ability to see suchyouth as members of a vibrant and active community.39

What follows will be a consideration of the rhetorical deployments of quan-tification in the full report. We consider the problem/solution binaries that are


created through the recommendations of the executive summary. We alsoconsider two different rhetorical deployments of quantification in the completereport, focusing on the rhetoric of fear and the rhetoric of guilt toward safety.Weconclude with a discussion about how quantification rhetorically argues forsafety in schools.

Problem/Solution Binary

The report begins with a summary of key findings posed as a set of problems andpotential solutions. This problem and solution set is a rhetorical space whereGLSEN gains credibility and exercises rhetorical authority in its arguments thatas a group, it is trying to not maintain the status quo for GLBTQ youth andstudents, but offers constructive suggestions of how to improve not only theschool environment but also the schooling experience.The key findings make use of the survey data that was collected, using the

common quantitative deployment of percentages, to argue for the recommendedchanges and conditions. In these opening pages, we notice that numbers are usedto drive negativity and fear, as tools of accountability, and as a space to suggestwhat it means to be safe in schools. The report concludes with the section of keyfindings with an urgent call for reform, suggesting that

It is clear that there is an urgent need for action to create safe and affirmingschools for LGBT students. Results from the 2009 National School ClimateSurvey demonstrate the ways in which school-based supports, such as supportivestaff, school harassment/assault policies, and GSAs can positively affect LGBTstudents’ school experiences. Furthermore, results show how comprehensive anti-bullying/harassment state laws can positively affect school climate for thesestudents.40

The document then proposes solutions to the defined problems. First, theremustbe anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies enacted in the states to protect theyouth. Second, local school districts and schools should enact policies thatspecifically address bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, genderidentity, or gender expression. Third, there must be support for clubs andalliance groups. Finally, greater awareness could be gained by including GLBTQinformation in the curricula.Here the document takes an important stand on the rhetorical purposes of the

numbers used throughout the remainder of the document. We suggest that therhetorical purposes of the quantified are to serve the ultimate purpose ofsupplying (measured and calibrated) evidence of these recommendations and


suggested changes. The numbers become part of the argument suggesting that adeficiency exists in school safety.Quantification in this section is used as a common rhetorical tool to create a

space for a problem, collecting and deploying quantified evidence as a way ofsuggesting that a change is warranted. The rhetorical deployment of quantifica-tion becomes one of making the audience aware that changes are needed and thatthe authors have proposed the changes necessary to resolve the problem. The textinitially highlights this problem/solution binary through consideration of thefollowing problems:

● Hostile school climate (supported quantitatively through statements such asthe “88.9% of students heard ‘gay’ used in a negative way [e.g., ‘that’s so gay’]frequently or often at school, and 86.5% reported that they felt distressed tosome degree by this”)41;

● Absenteeism (quantitatively argued by the statistical summaries including how29.1 percent of students have missed a class in the past month and how 30.0percent missed an entire day due to not feeling safe in the schools)42;

● Lowered educational aspirations and academic achievement (considering thatGLBTQ students considered further education by a lower percentage, 9.9percent vs. 6.6 percent)43;

● Poorer psychological well-being (arguing that the solutions might comethrough GSAs, suggesting that students who had a GSA felt less unsafecompared to those who did not have such an organization, by 54.3 percentversus 66.5 percent).

These problems are supported by statistical figures/findings elaborated in thetext. The problems are addressed as conditions for improving the educationalclimate, particularly through the listed suggestions, which include having GSAsin schools, an inclusive curriculum, supportive educators, and comprehensivebullying policies and laws. We highlight that this is not a new phenomenon inany field, particularly in educational writing and research. Educational researchfollows the traditions of generalizing recommendations based on quantifica-tion.44

GLSEN, through its expertise, has defined the problems and created thearguments for the solutions. The suggestions offered by GLSEN become toolsfor arguing about the condition of every gay or lesbian youth and the recom-mendations that will help all. Not only does GLSEN offer compelling statisticson this and general thoughts on what needs to be done, but they provideready-made tool kits to address these statistics—from their “Safe Space Kit” totheir elementary school kit “Ready, Set, Respect.” In creating a problem/solution


binary, GLSEN eliminates the opportunities for the uniqueness of the individualto come to presence. Drawing on the work ofGert Biesta, we suggest that comingto presence involves individuals who speak outside of their communities that arebound by commonalities.45 The development of kits, although efficient, main-tains the need for commonality and overlooks the need for dissenting from suchcommonalities. Generalization assigns what voices are heard by those who havesome commonality. We suggest that it is in this problem/recommendationbinary that the voices of GLBTQ youth and students become no longer uniquebut are replaced by a single voice, the expert voice of GLSEN.

Focusing on Fear

One of the purposes of the GLSEN reports is to make the information regardingthe safety in schools widely available. Looking at the tenth anniversary report, weengage the way the numbers are used in this report to argue for change in theseyouth’s lives. We consider this through what is (intentionally) portrayed in thedocument as the conditions of GLBTQ youth and students. To illustrate this,we turn to one section of the report, “Exposure to Biased Language,” because ofthe nature of bullying in schools.We recognize that bullying does not always takethe form of physical abuse. In writing about the rhetoric of the GLSEN reports,we highlight a small section of the report that represents a common desiredchange among GLBTQ activists—the desire for a change in the way GLBTQyouth are addressed.The rhetoric of this section suggests a need for change among GLBTQ youth,

changes that must be enacted or else these youth will continue to feel not safe inschools. The report continues the fight for changing perceptions through rhe-torical deployments of quantifications for the benefit of highlighting the nega-tives in the lives of GLBTQ youth. We notice that in this rhetoric is a sense offear.In talking about the rhetoric of monstrous, Edward J. Ingebretsen suggests

that “[t]he theater of fear, then, is pedagogical, teaching by preemptive example.It is also participatory and interactive, intended to be habit-forming. . . . Rather,ceremonies of fear, like other social theatrics, adopt their own ends conventions,motifs, and images pilfered from many sources.”46 Fear-filled rhetoric stillinforms arguments, although through its own accepted conventions and norms.These norms have filled the deployment of quantification through fears of whatis to come. This rhetorical deployment has become almost standard in educa-tional texts, particularly in texts that address policy concerns in education. Thisrhetoric is attached to the future and the conventions of this rhetoric depend on


appealing to the view that education is a public good necessary for maintaining astrong economic presence and development.For example, starting on page 15 of the report, the report focuses on the climate

in the language of schools. The section highlights the use of homophobic andracial comments often found in schools today—comments that we should fearfor their consequences. According to the text, “keeping classrooms and hallwaysfree of homophobic, sexist, and other types of biased language is one aspect ofcreating a more positive school climate for students.”47The rhetorical purpose ofthis section is to argue for less biased language in order for schools to have apositive climate, i.e., one not grounded in fear. We note that to accomplish thistask, the document argues through the negative instead of the positive.Consider the following found in “Key Findings”: “Nearly 9 out of 10 students

heard the word ‘gay’ used in a negative way often or frequently at school.”48 Inthis statement, the numbers serve as evidence of the general presence of thenegative connotations of the term “gay.” Recalling that the purpose of the reportis to help create a more positive environment for students, the documenthighlights the general condition of students hearing the term “gay” as a deroga-tory expression. Thus, the nearly general condition amongGLBTQ youth is thatin schools the term “gay” is used frequently as a pejorative. The document notesthat the negative use of the term “gay” is felt by nine out of ten youth. Statementslike this become common fodder for recirculation when talking about theclimates of GLBTQ youth and children during the bullying crisis.49

So, instead of highlighting the positive stories and experiences, as Mayosuggests, such as suggesting that one out of ten youth have not experiencedhearing the term “gay” as a derogatory or insulting slur, GLSEN relies on thenegative—the victimization. This may seem a small point, perhaps insignificant.If the intentions of GLSEN are to highlight both problems and solutions, the“unspoken” side of their quantified findings could have offered insights. Whatwas the environment where one out of ten youth did not experience derogatorylanguage? If 10 percent of GLBTQ youth do not experience such derogatorylanguage, are their lessons (i.e., the lessons of thriving GLBTQ youth) alreadypresent in the data? And what does it mean to minimize this data by focusingonly on the negative reading of it? It becomes, as we hope to make clear, an issueof framing.The rhetorical use of the positively quantified might suggest that there are

successes in the changes of language being used by youth in schools. This use ofthe quantified recognizes that there are still deficiencies, but there is hope thatthere are GLBTQ youth who are not hearing the term “gay” despairingly.However, the report does not argue through the pathos of successes, instead


arguing through the fear-filled negative that creates a problem so that changesmust be made. The GLBTQ student still must be framed as victim whoseexperiences of violence are used for the maintenance of the nonprofits’ continualneed to “reform,” further illustrating Laurie Essig’s insight that “[w]e prefer ourqueers as victims. They’re easier to support and much less scary that way.”50

From this key finding, the changes that are necessary are not immediatelyapparent, but the changes espoused in the document are that there is need forreeducating youth to not use or view “gay” as a derogatory term. The rhetoricaluse of quantification in this instance supports the claim made later in thedocument that youth “did not view these expressions as innocuous—86.5%reported that hearing ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ used in a negative manner caused them tofeel bothered or distressed in some degree.”51

The rhetorical outcome of focusing on the negative condition instead of thepositive accentuates that there is a desired change, specifically, in changing the almostubiquitous (90 percent) biased use of the term “gay” in the halls and classrooms.Wesuggest that the rhetorical effect highlights the fears and lack of hope that have beenhistorically associatedwithGLBTQyouth and adults.Thus, in order tomake theuseof the term “gay” a positive, GLSEN rhetorically resorts to emphasizing that there isan almost general homophobic bias in the lives of GLBTQ youth.Another example might help clarify this concept. The report also suggests “less

than a fifth of students reported that school personnel frequently intervened whenhearing homophobic remarks or negative remarks about gender expression.”52 Inanalyzing this rhetoric, the comment focuses again on the negative, suggestingthat even those who are often viewed as having authority in schools are notstepping up to GLBTQ students’ defense and challenging the use of homopho-bic slurs. The use of the “one-fifth” becomes a remark about the absence of alliesin school systems. The rhetoric confronts the lack of intervention from others inthe schools who, from the standpoint of the report, should be defending youth.If we were to compare these two examples, the first would suggest almost a

universal condition in schools, where teens and young adults are consistently facedwith the use of queer terms as negative, whereas the second suggests that help andalliances are diminished almost to a point where there is no intervention in schools.

Rhetoric of Guilt

Along with fear-filled rhetoric, we can also see the emergence of rhetorically deploy-ing feelings of guilt.GLSENframes the issues ofGLBTQyouth in away that invokesguilt in the reader and it is likely to bring attention to this framework.This is not onlybecause of the way GLSEN’s work limns the field of vision as a physical frame does


a photograph but also because one is framed (i.e., set up as guilty) in thewayGLSENlimns the educational landscape of queer youth.With staggering statistics telling thestories of the horrifying experiences of GLBTQ youth, readers feel guilty becausethey have not questioned the work but feel an urgent need to do something for theseyouth. We next consider the report’s section, “Experiences of Harassment andAssault at School,” in order to engage with this rhetorical use of quantification as atool to guilt the public into action of safety.Beginning on page 25, the report narrates the experiences of harassment and

abuse in the lives of GLBTQyouth and students. The report suggests that “sexualorientation and gender expression were the most common reasons GLBTQstudents were harassed or assaulted at school.”53 It is in this section that we noticerhetorical shifts of guilt used in order to argue for changes in the currentconditions of youth who are being bullied based on sexual orientation or genderexpression. We provide examples of this rhetorical guilt.In a textbox over a lightened picture of a youth with his head bowed on his

knees sitting on the floor against a row of lockers, the report presents key findingsfrom data collection on assaults at school. This section is framed by the visualrhetoric of the photograph and space. In this picture, the youth appears to bealone—a victim. There is no one in the halls. The lights are brightly reflecting offthe polished floor. Rows of doors and lockers line the halls. This could be anyschool in the United States. Yet, in the forefront of the picture there is a youth,sitting alone. The visual rhetoric suggests that there is a need for intervention inthe life of this youth, a youth who has possibly been harassed or even assaulted inthe supposed safe spaces of the school.The text suggests “[n]early 90% of students reported being verbally harassed at

school because of their sexual orientation; nearly two-thirds were verbally harassedbecause of their gender expression.”54 Although these statements come across assummaries of the findings, we suggest that they serve a deeper rhetorical purpose.The students depicted in this text are in need of help and change. Consider theethical implications of harassment and assault. Harassment and assault aremethods for continuing division and marginalization, creating a supposed senseof superiority or self-worth among those doing the harassing and/or assaulting.Those harassing or assaulting create a social division because of a perceiveddifference. In terms of ethics, one would desire to change the circumstances andthe situations. The rhetoric of guilt becomes a tool attempting to aid this ethicalmission.The report describes different types of assault and harassment, including

reporting the numbers of students who had been physically assaulted (e.g., beingpunched, kicked, or injured by weapons) to those who have been sexually


assaulted or are victims of cyberbullying. The numbers rhetorically serve toposition the reader to respond to this victimization of GLBTQ youth. Therhetorical use of these numbers suggests a need for interventions and changes.The numbers are used to highlight generalized instances of the unethical treat-ment of youth and students.Of course, there is a need for interventions; however, interventions built on

guilt have their own pitfalls. Bruckner begins The Tyranny of Guilt challengingthe dominant workings and thinking of critical thought and how as “an eternalmovement[,] critical thought, at first subversive, turns against itself and becomesa new conformism, but one that is sanctified by the memory of its formerrebellion.”55 Although in 1999 it was necessary, perhaps even subversive, toengage with the issues of GLBTQ students, it has now become a normativetechnology that is rarely questioned but often cited. Bruckner challenges the“tyranny of guilt” propagated by the Left to break through the malaise andparanoia of critical thought because “we should be working on enlarging thehuman family . . . not on sanctifying past sufferings, which is always degradingfor those who complain about them.”56 To do this, to enlarge the human family,he contends that “goodwill is not enough.We need a whole politics of friendshipof benevolent sympathy. . . . [W]e need a miracle.”57 And this miracle may notinvolve the turn to legal policies (e.g., anti-discrimination and/or hate-crimeslegislation) that place offending students into homophobic or transphobic insti-tutions (e.g., juvenile detention or prison).Bruckner wants to be a part of a miracle in his attempt to break through the

Left’s guilt-ridden consciousness to move toward a different politics. His is not areturn to the past but an emphasis on the present. “The first duty of a democracyis not to ruminate on old evils” he contends, “it is to relentlessly denounce itspresent crimes and failures.”58 Such a duty is difficult given the stronghold ofcritical thought and its emphasis on the past and the failures of the West.Bruckner argues that “all the ambiguities of multiculturalism proceeds from thefact that with the best of intentions it imprisons men, women, and children in away of life and in traditions from which they often aspire to free themselves.”59

The challenge of multiculturalism regarding inclusion and diversity is that theoriginal radicalness associated with a “minority” position has become the choiceof the majority.60GLSEN has achieved a certain level of majority appeal, as seenwhen Dr. Phil on national daytime television cites statistics from GLSEN. Thisappeal provides GLSENwith a steady supply of donations and funds to continuetheir work. Yet, their work continues to frame and reframe the debate in waysthat seem unable to break through the fear and guilt-laden rhetoric that maintainthe GLBTQ student as victim.


The victim position has become the position sought after because “to calloneself a victim is to make oneself a candidate for exception.”61 To not feel likea victim is also to feel guilty. To not be a part of the statistics that GLSEN reportsand researchers reiterate is to become unintelligible.What does it meanwhen onehas not suffered such violence? And is the statement that one was “lucky” afurther move tomake GLBTQpersons feel guilty for not being spoken for by the“numbers?” With a focus on minority positions and the need to redeem themfrom the forgotten past (a positive thing), we have simultaneously made itimpossible to create our own lives; instead, “we repeat the injuries of formertimes.” As Bruckner argued, “what victimist thought resuscitates is the oldreligious category of the curse.” He asks “how then can we avoid transformingourselves into lobbies of professional sufferers, competing with others for marketshare and themartyr’s crown?”62Whatmust be done, according to his argument,is to “wage a double battle: protecting minorities from discrimination (favoring,for example, teaching regional languages and cultures, adapting the schoolcalendar to religious holidays), and protecting private individuals from theintimidation that their birth communities may practice on them.”63

This rhetoric of guilt toward safety, as argued through quantification, alludesto the philanthropic work of the nineteenth century, suggesting an authoritativeway to help those who are seen as being on the edges of society. And at the end ofthe twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries this “safety in numbers”is taken up byGLSEN to argue for the possibilities that emerge with the existenceand formation of GSAs.64 The concept of a safe space for GLBTQ youth isubiquitous in arguments that seek to think about ways of shifting the climate inschools. If schools writ large are shown to be homo- and transphobic—as thenumbers say in GLSEN’s reports—then the most touted solution is to create asafe space in schools, i.e., the GSA.65 And GSAs are becoming more common inschools, speaking to environmental shifts in what types of groups are possiblefor students to form and be a part of as students as well as the benefits being a partof such groups have for students.66However, as GSAs become “common,” theytoo put at risk those that emerge outside of the gay—straight alliance and dissentfrom the consensus created by the GSA.67

) ) ) Conclusion

This article considered the current rhetorical trend of using quantification as arhetorical trope—a trope deployed in attempts to create “unbiased” and “rigor-ous” evidence that creates a sense of expertise in those deploying the quantifica-


tion—in writing about educational climates of GLBTQ youth. We recognizethat there is benefit to using quantification in educational reform writing.However, with benefits also come hindrances. This article has considered howthe rhetorical use of quantification might be seen in the arguments of change asdeployments of expertise. It is not our intent to make statements of how writingshould be done; instead, we leave the reader with questions to consider asnumbers are becoming (or have become) intimate bedfellows in GLBTQ re-search.Research reporting on school climate, particularly the school climates of

GLBTQ youth, have relied on the expertise of quantification to define theproblems and create justified solutions. This creates a space where those whohave the data define what decisions need to be made and what solutions shouldbe offered instead of those involved in the day-to-day life. Biesta argues that

If we fail to engage with the question of good education head-on . . . there is areal risk that data, statistics, and league tables will do the decision making for us.This is why it is important to give the question of good education a prominentplace in our educational endeavors. This is as important for the everyday practiceof schooling as it is for the highest levels of policy making.68

Although this article has been about the rhetorical expertise and deployments ofquantification in GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey, this article is ulti-mately about the individual lives of GLBTQ youth and the individual storiesbeing experienced. Inmaking decisions about these lives, we cannot simply allowto let narratives of data make the decisions for us, generalizing what has beendeemed the best.We need these individual stories or we are numbing ourselves tocurrent conditions and climates.Some would want us to conclude our analysis by reviewing what has been

stated throughout the article, providing summary points of what to grab fromour analysis. In doing so, we run a risk of becoming what we have been writingagainst, proving a summary of expertise generalization instead of allowing theindividual to develop a personal response. As such, we conclude by asking morequestions. How have the rhetorical moves of GLSEN—moves that use fear,guilt, and safety and accountability—framed the ways we see and think aboutGLBTQ students? How have they sought—using quantification—to move us,like other trends in education, away from contemplating good education tothinking about “safe” education? How has the quantification of hostility con-tributed to education’s aversion to risk even as there is recognition about the roleof risk in education?69GLBTQ students through GLSEN’s work become a “riskpopulation,” objectified “for their own good” and “protection” even as we


remember the ways queers, particularly gay men, were and are defined as anat-risk population in AIDS discourses and have since engaged such risk incompelling ways.70 Is safety only about numbers or must safety be understood inother ways that engage the pleasures of risk?Again, this is not to argue entirely against the use of quantitative work for

exposing issues and compelling a particular form of politics. Nor is this anembrace of risk for risk’s sake. However, it is a call to remain vigilant against theemergence of “common sense” approaches and the growing reality that GLSENand its approach is now going “global.”71 The victim trope that continues todominate thinking about GLBTQ issues in education needs to be reevaluated inorder to frame the changes in the student body. This is because there are GLBTQyouth that live each day in their school communities and make possible ways ofnot only surviving but thriving in a world that has seen changes in how GLBTQissues are viewed by the public. These stories make the nightly news every once ina while, e.g., youth contesting school policies on allowing a same-sex date toprom. They might even be highlighted by GLSEN or other national gay rightsorganizations. However, the voices of queer youth thriving are drowned out bythe call for numbers and the safety we feel with numbers. The resistance theseyouth show towards their “hostile” environment is again reduced to theirvictimization—as opposed to their agency in becoming politically engaged. Thenumbers that get recited fromGLSEN come to bind our social and political waysof seeing queer youth and education. Lives that contest such numbers are viewedas “exceptions.” They cannot compete with the reiterated victimization and thusbecome victimized themselves by the need to see such youth as always victimizedin the hostile environment.And so, we might end where we began, quoting Mayo, who called our

attention to the defensive citation of statistics.When we cite statistics and rely onsuch citations, do we also need to explore the ways such statistics operate on usand our politics rhetorically? AlthoughGLBTQ issues are becomingmainstreamin some ways, there is a need to refuse the move to bureaucratization andglobalization because such moves “deaden people’s moral imaginations.”72

Quantification’s rhetorical moves frame out thinking through alternative waysGLTBQ youth are living and ways such youth already thrive in the world.Mightwe loosen the binds of numbers?

NOTES

Acknowledgement: We are grateful for the editors and anonymous reviewers who haveprovided feedback for the development of this piece. We also thank the insights ofSusan Talburt and others who have helped us along the way.


1. Neil Gaiman, American Gods, 10th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperCollins,2011), 285.

2. Carolyn S. Anderson, “The Search for School Climate: A Review of the Research,”Review of Educational Research 52, no. 3 (1982): 369.

3. See, Kathleen Cotton, “School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,” inSchool Improvement Research Series: Research You Can Use (Portland, OR:Education Northwest, 1996), http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/513; AlanMcEvoy and Robert Welker, “Antisocial Behavior, Academic Failure, and SchoolClimate: A Critical Review,” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 8, no. 3

(2000): 130–40; H. Jerome Freiberg, “Measuring School Climate: Let Me Countthe Ways,” Educational Leadership 56, no. 2 (September 2008): 22–26.

4. American Association of University Women, How Schools Shortchange Girls (NewYork: Marlowe and Company, 1995).

5. Ibid., ix.6. Human Rights Watch, Hatred in the Hallways: Violence and Discrimination against

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students in U. S. Schools (New York:Human Rights Watch, 2001), 31.

7. Ibid., 35 (emphasis added).8. Cris Mayo, LGBTQ Youth and Education: Policies and Practices (New York:Teachers College Press, 2014), 42.

9. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1995), vii.

10. Ibid., vii.11. Peter Taubman, Teaching by Numbers: Deconstructing the Discourse of Standards

and Accountability (New York: Routledge, 2009), 53.12. Gert J. J. Biesta, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics,

Democracy (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2010).13. Ibid., 13.14. Justin N. Thorpe, “The Rhetorical Deployments and Theoretical Assumptions ofQuantification in Educational Layperson Texts (PhD diss., Michigan StateUniversity, 2013).

15. Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of WisconsinPress, 1980), xi.

16. H. M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies ofExpertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science 32, no. 2 (2002): 235–6.

17. Zoltan P. Majdik and William M. Keith, “Expertise as Argument: Authority,Democracy, and Problem-Solving,” Argumentation 25 (2011): 373.

18. Ibid, 374.19. Wendy Esplin and Berit Vannebo, “Accountability, Quantification, and Law,”

Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (2007): 31.20. See, Christopher Eisenhart, “The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert,” Written

Communication 23 (2006): 150–72.


21. Majdik and Keith, “Expertise as Argument,” 382.22. Bully, DVD, directed by Lee Hirsch (2011; New York: The Weinstein Company,

2013).23. Porter, Trust in Numbers, 77.24. Ibid.25. Ibid.26. Ibid.27. Ibid.28. GLSEN, “Values Statements: Our Mission.” Accessed November 10, 2014. http://www.glsen.org/values.

29. See, Pat Califia, Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism (Berkeley, CA: CleisPress, 1997); Nancy D. Polikoff, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing AllFamilies Under the Law (Boston: Beacon Press, 2009); Dean Spade, Normal Life:Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics and the Limits of Law (Cambridge,MA: South End Press, 2012); Urvashi Vaid, Irresistible Revolution: ConfrontingRace, Class, and the Assumptions of LGBT Politics (New York: Magnus Press, 2012);Michael Warner, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of QueerLife (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

30. GLSEN, Safety in Schools, xv.31. Spade, Normal Life, 66.32. See, Cris Mayo, LGBTQ Youth and Education.33. See, Jennifer K. McGuire, Charles R. Anderson, Russell B. Toomey, and StephenT. Russell, “School Climate for Transgendered Youth: A Mixed MethodInvestigation of Student Experiences and School Responses,” Journal of Youth andAdolescence 39 (2010): 1175–88; Susan M. Swearer Napolitano, Dorothy L. Espelage,Tracy Vaillancourt, and Shelley Hymel, “What Can Be Done About SchoolBullying? Linking Research to Educational Practice,” Educational Researcher 39, no.1 (2010): 38–47; Elizabeth J. Meyer, Gender, Bullying, and Harassment: Strategies toEnd Sexism and Homophobia in Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009);Daniel Chesir-Teran and Diane Hughes, “Heterosexism in High School andVictimization among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Questioning Students,” Journalof Youth and Adolescence 38 (2009): 963–75; Catherine Taylor, Tracey Peter, KevinSchachter, Sarah Paquin, Stacey Beldom, Zoe Gross, and T. L. McMinn, YouthSpeak Up about Homophobia and Transphobia: The First National Climate Survey onHomophobia in Canadian Schools. Phase One Report (Toronto, Canada: EgaleCanada Human Rights Trust, 2008).

34. Biesta, Good Education, 15.35. Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), The 2009 National

School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and TransgenderYouth in Our Nation’s Schools (New York: GLSEN, 2009), ix.

36. Ibid., ix.


37. Therese Quinn and Erica Meiners, Flaunt It: Queers Organizing for PublicEducation and Justice (New York: Peter Lang), 7.

38. See, Deborah P. Britzman and Jen Gilbert, “What Will Have Been Said aboutGayness in Teacher Education?” Teaching Education 15, no. 1 (2004): 81–96; DanielMarshall, “Popular Culture, the ‘Victim’ Trope and Queer Youth Analytics,”International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 23 (2010): 65–85; SusanTalburt and Mary Lou Rasmussen, “‘After-Queer’ Tendencies in Queer Research,”International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 23, no. 1 (2010): 1–14.

39. See, Mary Gray, Out in the Country: Youth, Media, and Queer Visibility in RuralAmerica (New York: New York University Press, 2009); Adam J. Greteman,“Country Queers: Queer Youth and the Politics of Rural America,” Journal ofLGBT Youth 9, (2010): 63–66.

40. GLSEN, Safety in Schools, xx.41. Ibid., xvi.42. Ibid., xvi–xvii.43. Ibid., xvii.44. See, Lynn Fendler, “Why Generalisability is not Generalisable,” Journal of

Philosophy of Education 40, no. 4 (2006): 437–49.45. Biesta, Good Education, 80–90.46. Edward J. Ingebretsen, At Stake: Monsters and the Rhetoric of Fear in Public Culture(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 21.

47. GLSEN, Safety in Schools, 16.48. Ibid., 15.49. See, Emily Bazelon, Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and

Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy (New York: Random House,2013); Jessie Klein, The Bully Society: School Shootings and the Crisis of Bullying inAmerica’s Schools (New York: New York University Press, 2012); Elizabeth J.Meyer, Gender, Bullying, and Harassment: Strategies to End Sexism and Homophobiain Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2009); N. Jawitz, M. Wager, andB. A. Burnell, “Sexual and Gender Identity Development and School Climate:What Do Professional Educators Need to Know?” in Best Practices for EducationalProfessionals, ed. H. L. Schnackenburg, and B. A. Burnell (Oakville, ON: AppleAcademic Press, 2013).

50. Laurie Essig, “Queer Youth Not a Tragedy,” Chronicle of Higher Education,October 3, 2010, http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/queer-youth-not-a-tragedy/27380.

51. GLSEN, Safety in Schools, 16.52. Ibid., 15.53. Ibid., 25.54. Ibid.55. Pascal Bruckner, The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism (Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 2.


56. GLSEN, 163.57. Ibid.58. Ibid., 220.59. Ibid., 148.60. Ibid., 59.61. Ibid., 142.62. Ibid., 141.63. Ibid., 152.64. Adam J. Greteman and Justin N. Thorpe, “Safety in Numbers: On the Queernessof Quantification,” in Queer Landscapes: Mapping Space(s) of Praxis and Pedagogy,ed. James E. Wermers, Elizabeth McNeil, and J. Oakleaf Lunn (New York:Palgrave, in press).

65. GLSEN, Safety in Schools, 54.66. See, Pat Griffin, Camille Lee, Jeffery Waugh, and Chad Beyer, “Describing Rolesthat Gay-Straight Alliances Play in Schools: From Individual Support to SchoolChange,” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education 1, no. 3 (2003): 7–22;Stephen T. Russell, Anna Muraco, Aarti Subramaniam, and Carolyn Laub, “YouthEmpowerment and High School Gay-Straight Alliances,” Journal of Youth andAdolescence 38 (2009): 891–903.

67. Adam J. Greteman, “Dissenting with Queer Theory: On Reading RancièreQueerly,” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 35, no. 3 (2014):419–432.

68. Biesta, Good Education, 27.69. See, Gert J. J. Biesta, The Beautiful Risk of Education (Boulder, CO: ParadigmPress, 2013); Adam J. Greteman, “Fashioning a Bareback Pedagogy: Towards aTheory of Risky (Sex) Education,” Sex Education 13 (2013): 20–31.

70. See, Cindy Patton, Sex and Germs: The Politics of AIDS (Montréal, Canada: BlackRose Books, 1986); Leo Bersani and Adam Phillips, Intimacies (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 2008); Tim Dean, Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on theSubculture of Barebacking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); David M.Halperin, What Do Gay Men Want? An Essay on Sex, Risk, and Subjectivity (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007).

71. J. Kosciw and O. Pizmony-Levy, “Fostering a Global Dialogue about LGBTYouth and Schools: Proceedings from a Meeting of the Global Network forCombating Homophobia and Transphobic Prejudice and Violence in SchoolsSponsored by GLSEN and UNESCO” (New York: GLSEN, 2013).

72. Martha C. Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 54.

)))

Justin N. Thorpe, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of educational research atIdaho State University. His research interests include rhetorical studies, ethical


considerations of quantification in education, and postmodern educationalresearch.

Adam J. Greteman, PhD, is an instructor of art education at the School of theArt Institute of Chicago. His primary research interests are sexuality, queerstudies, and the philosophy of education.


Intimately Bound to Numbers: On the Rhetorics of GLBTQ School Climate Research

Documents

Transcript of Intimately Bound to Numbers: On the Rhetorics of GLBTQ School Climate Research