A Study Exploring the Narratives of Gay and Lesbian School Principals in Ontario

Hubert Brard

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

Hubert Brard

Doctor of Education

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto

2020 Abstract

I investigate the narratives of gay and lesbian Ontario school principals. No research has been conducted specifically on school principals navigating their gay or lesbian identity in Ontario,

Canada. Queer Theory, coupled with the conceptual framework of coming out of the closet, are used to understand the Ontario principals who identify as gay or lesbian and who grapple with coming out at work. Analyzed by a qualitative thematic approach, eleven principals from non- denominational, public school districts were interviewed. This research shows that there needs to be continual and purposeful systemic work towards in support of gay and lesbian principals by school districts and the Ontario Principals’ Council. The research also invites the formation of

Queer Employee Resource Groups in each school district together with specific language in district and provincial policies explicitly supporting principals to come out at work. Lastly, there needs to be purposeful actions led by the Ontario Ministry of Education specifically empowering gay and lesbian principals to be out with all educational stakeholders identified in my research is one of the recommended next steps. Silence is seldom the answer, yet some of these school principals find themselves in perpetual silence.

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of Dr. Joseph Flessa, Dr. Ruth Childs, Dr. James Ryan and Dr. Laura Pinto.

Throughout my years of study, these professors have inspired and supported me on my educational journey. Dr. Joseph Flessa has been instrumental as I set off on my trajectory of learning, and he supported my ideas without judgment. His kindness and understanding have been essential in my doctoral work. I met Dr. Laura Pinto, of Ontario Tech University, in 2009 as my professor in the OISE Master of Education program, and she continues to provide me with rich opportunities to explore the vast world of education research. I thank you both for your support as it has inspired me to do this work, my doctoral research and thesis.

Also, I would like to give special acknowledgment to my longtime friend Robert Melo of RBC Royal Bank. His professional knowledge, personal experiences, and our discussions regarding our gay narratives at work continue to be invaluable.

I would like to thank my partner Vincent Smith for his patience with the many hours of my talking, reading, and editing that he endured for many years. It is a privilege to have such a supportive partner and I thank you for all your love, support and encouragement throughout my journey.

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the Queer administrators in all Ontario public schools.

In most troubling times, silence is seldom the answer.

iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Gay and Lesbian in this Study ...... 3

1.2 Purpose of the Study ...... 3

1.3 Coming Out in Canada...... 5

1.4 Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement ...... 7

1.5 Gay and Lesbian Liberation in Canada ...... 9

1.5.1 Gay and Lesbian Liberation in Ontario ...... 10

1.6 Coming Out at School ...... 11

1.7 Research Questions ...... 12

1.8 Overview of the Chapters ...... 12

2 Literature Review ...... 14

2.1 Construction of Professional Identity as Principals ...... 14

2.2 The Ontario Leadership Framework ...... 15

2.3 Teachers Coming Out at Work ...... 16

2.4 Gay and Lesbian Teacher Voices ...... 18

3 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks...... 21

3.1 Theoretical Framework: Queer Theory ...... 21

3.2 Conceptual Framework ...... 26

3.2.1 Coming Out of the Closet ...... 26

3.2.2 Coming Out in the 1970s and 1980s ...... 27

3.2.3 Coming Out of the Closet and Homophobia...... 31

4 Research Methodology...... 34

4.1 Justification of a Qualitative Research Approach ...... 34

4.2 Participant Selection ...... 34 iv

4.3 Data Collection ...... 37

4.4 Field Testing the Interview Questions ...... 37

4.4.1 The Interviews ...... 37

4.5 Data Analysis ...... 38

4.6 Limitations of the Study...... 40

4.7 Delimitations of the Study ...... 40

5 Findings ...... 41

5.1 Positions as Principals...... 41

5.2 Direct Encouragement from Supervisors ...... 42

5.3 Principal as Community Builder ...... 43

5.4 Principal as Equity Programmer ...... 48

5.5 Coming Out of the Closet ...... 52

5.6 Coming Out as a Continual Process...... 52

5.7 Coming Out at Work ...... 55

5.8 Coming Out to Supervisors and Colleagues ...... 56

5.9 Coming Out to Staff ...... 58

5.10 Coming Out to Families ...... 62

5.11 School as a Workplace ...... 68

5.11.1 Positionality and Professionalism ...... 69

5.12 Resistance ...... 71

5.13 Pro-Gay and Lesbian Advocacy ...... 74

5.14 School Policies and Ontario Laws ...... 77

5.15 School District Pro-Gay and Lesbian Policies ...... 78

5.16 Ontario Pro-Gay and Lesbian Laws ...... 81

5.17 Professional Principal Community ...... 82

5.18 The Gay Agenda ...... 84 v

5.19 Summary of the Findings ...... 86

5.20 Principalship ...... 86

5.21 Coming Out at Work ...... 87

5.22 School as the Workplace ...... 88

5.23 Ontario Policies and Laws ...... 89

5.24 Additional Comments ...... 90

6 Discussion ...... 91

6.1 Review of the Study ...... 91

6.2 Answering the Research Questions ...... 91

6.2.1 Question one: How do lesbian and gay principals understand the coming out process? ...... 91

6.2.2 Question two: why do they come out at work?...... 95

6.2.3 Question three: what strategies do they employ to come out at work? ...... 100

6.2.4 Question four: what are the challenges in coming out at work? ...... 104

6.2.5 Question five: what are the consequences of coming out at work? ...... 108

6.3 Implications and Future Directions ...... 114

6.4 Research ...... 115

6.4.1 Vice Principal...... 115

6.4.2 Minoritized Identities and Intersectionality of Identities ...... 115

6.4.3 Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sexual Orientation ...... 115

6.4.4 Geography ...... 116

6.5 Policy ...... 116

6.5.1 Action ...... 116

6.6 Practice ...... 116

6.6.1 Principal Qualification Program (PQP) ...... 116

6.7 Summary ...... 117

6.8 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 118

Appendix A: Participant Interview Protocol...... 120

Appendix B: Participant Letter to Participate ...... 136

Appendix C: Request to Participate from Ontario Principals Council ...... 139

Appendix D: Participant Consent Form ...... 140

vii

1 Introduction

As a school administrator, I have always carefully chosen my words so as to not disclose my gay identity. At times, however, I have shared my gay identity to help students struggling with their own homosexuality, knowing that this secret—my secret—would be safe. Recently, I heard a voice call my name as I walked into a coffee shop. As I turned around, I saw the face of a student from my previous secondary school, where I had also worked as an administrator. This student was very excited to see me; she was one of those students who was shy but driven by her sense of right and wrong, her sense of doing the right thing, and her ability to observe people before asking questions. As we caught up about our time since her graduation, she paused and looked at me with a smile. “Why didn't you tell anyone about your partner?” she asked. I was taken aback, but she was persistent as I attempted to avoid her question. It was at that point, my heart pounding, that I realized she was no longer my student but a young woman simply asking a question out of curiosity and concern. I smiled, and explained that I did not speak about my husband at work because I did not want the climate of our school to be affected by me openly disclosing my gay identity. I noticed her smile turn to an expression of shock as she shared that her clique of friends would never have outed me, but I reminded her that it only takes one student, one parent, to bring to light the dreaded gay agenda—in the minds of certain conservatives, the agenda of promoting, of coercing, and of transforming students from being straight (“normal”) to gay. The spectre of this “agenda” kept me from being my true self at school and work, and kept me silenced and invisible. She reassured me that she would never have told her parents and she was certain that others would have kept my secret. I told her that, despite her conviction, I could not have relied on that at the time, and that the positive work we, including staff, students and administration, had created was too important to risk being derailed by my gay identity. Specifically, as we were inviting conversations with staff regarding gayness in schooling, parents were questioning why we would start such conversations, and questioning the age appropriateness of the conversations we were starting in our programs—including their unaccepting reaction when we started a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA).

At this point in the conversation, she teared up and apologized for not having considered the ramifications of the situation. She then said that it must have been terrible for me to keep this a secret for the sake of school culture. I attempted to assuage her guilt by sharing that my

1 2 colleagues knew about this aspect of my life and respected my decision to not disclose to my students, which would allow me to continue to work with staff and students alike toward what we needed and built regarding the visibility of gay and lesbian people and, gay and lesbian equity ventures in our shared space. She smiled and was relieved that I was not really alone, and asked if I had come out at my present position. I replied that it was a complicated situation, and that coming out is something I decide based on the situation. She continued to tell me that she and her friends still talk about me, my impact, and the school culture I helped create, which she said they will always remember with fondness. As we came to the end of our conversation, she smiled as we hugged and said goodbye, and she thanked me for trusting her and for giving her such a positive secondary school experience. She thought that I was a very selfless person for hiding my gay identity for the sake of her peers, for the school, and for the community, and for ensuring that the school community would continue to be a good place for everyone, except me. I reassured her that it was my decision to make.

I continue to be an administrator in a public secondary school. The recent interaction I described made me reconsider how and when I ought to disclose my sexual identity: What if I chose to be open as a gay man at work? What supports does my school district offer? How would the community react? Will I be treated differently? How do I actually come out? Does the community know and simply not care, as it was possible that a staff member may have outed me already? As an administrator, I struggle with the reality of disclosing my sexual identity at work to colleagues, staff, students, parents, and community members while maintaining my professional identity. In the professional world, I am an educator, a curriculum leader, a life-long learner, a role model, and an administrator. In my personal world, I am a son, a nephew, an uncle, and a husband. I am also a gay man; I realized this integral and important aspect of my being 26 years ago. When I am at work as an administrator, I often ask myself, what and who am I? It is important to note that these questions have led me to my study, my scholarly inquiry. As a result, both my narrative and my study are deeply entwined. It is important for me to realize the implications of coming out as gay at work. At that time, it meant delving into the unknown, but also my reluctance to combat what I had always witnessed and experienced in public education as a student, later as a teacher, and subsequently as a principal. Coming out at that school would have opened up the discussion of gayness regarding the broader issues of, for example, institutionalized homophobia and community-based moral panic.

1.1 Gay and Lesbian in this Study

Despite explicit work in the education sector to shift and evolve pedagogy, we remain, fundamentally, in a defensive position. With the increased presence of gay rights, the word queer has come to be used differently, sometimes as an umbrella term for a coalition of culturally marginal sexual self-identifications and, at other times, to describe a theoretical model which has developed out of more traditional lesbian and gay studies (see Jagose, 1996). Moreover, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, inter-sexed, questioning+ (LGBTTIQ+) communities are vast, experience many differing social encounters within many organizational settings – including public education (see DeWitt, 2012; Doan, 2015). Further, I should note that I use this LGBTTIQ+ acronym specifically as this is the one used in the Ministry of Education – Safe and Accepting Schools Act (2012).

With regard to the word “queer,” Kneght (2011) refers to all “non-heterosexual people where in most cases queer is shorthand for lesbian and gay people; however, this word [queer] is intentionally more inclusive and ambiguous where gays and lesbians are not alone in experiencing the two overarching and inter-connected problems of homophobia and heterosexism” (p. 7). Further, as Jagose (1996) states, “queer is sensitive to an open-ended construction of politics, since it represents itself as unfixed, and as holding open a space whose potential can never be known in the present” (p.107). Understandably, queer is a term that encompasses diverse aspects of the LGBTTIQ+ identity spectrum. Nevertheless, the scope of my study directly looks at the gay and lesbian identities from this LGBTTIQ+ diverse community. Gay and lesbian are used as cultural and political terms giving title to non-normative sexual identities (specifically to those who have same-sex attraction); they are multi-faceted terms used to categorize people who do not identify with the hetero-norm (see Blasius, 1994; Chauncey, 2008; Connell, 2015; Cronin & McNinch, 2004; de Leon & Brunner, 2009). Having said this, in Chapter 6, I propose further study pertaining to other identities from the LGBTTIQ+ community.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

My research explores this social phenomenon specifically in the context of elementary and secondary nondenominational (public) schools in the province of Ontario, Canada. Being an Ontario principal is demanding in terms of the pressures of leading a school while balancing daily interactions with many stakeholders (including supervisors, colleagues, staff, community

4 families/students) with the mission, vision and values of the school district served. I am specifically investigating school principals because Ontario principals are a unique collection of professionals who balance the social and political aspects of schooling while navigating our leadership ideals and systemic educational ideologies.

There are additional pressures for the gay and lesbian principal as we navigate our gay and lesbian identities. Our straight counterparts have never had to maneuver their straight (accepted) identities, whereas gay and lesbian principals do this daily. As such, the purpose of this research is to understand why and how principals disclose their non-heterosexual identities, or come out, at work.

Many studies have focussed on the experiences of gay and lesbian students and teachers when navigating their gay and lesbian identities at school and at work, respectively. My dissertation is the first to present an in-depth look at gay and lesbian principals in Ontario, Canada. This study is important as it addresses the visibility of otherwise invisible professionals at work—namely, the invisibility of gay and lesbian principals at schools.

I used semi-structured interviews to explore how school principals come out at work—at school. There is currently no research literature that addresses school principals’ experiences coming out at work in Ontario, Canada; there is also no data to illustrate how gay and lesbian principals navigate their coming out, how coming out is precipitated by understandings of the ongoing coming out process, the reasons why they come out, the strategies they used when coming out, or the challenges and consequences that result from coming out.

For the remainder of this chapter I will offer the legal precedence set in Canada which started the plight of coming out for Canadians, followed by an overview of Canadian Gay Liberation Movement(s). It is important to get a full picture of the historical landscape regarding coming out in Ontario and in Canada as this study focuses on the public school system—a system that is directly affected by both federal and provincial laws.

1.3 Coming Out in Canada “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” (McCaskell, 2016, p. 16).

“In 1968 the world was changing. Rebellion was in the air. So was Trudeaumania…As minister of justice he introduced a bill to reform the Criminal Code to liberalize laws on divorce and abortion, and to decriminalize homosexuality. He said the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. It was the decriminalization of homosexuality that drew the most heat” (McCaskell, 2016, p. 16). The Canadian reformation of pro-gay and lesbian laws happened largely in three stages. First, the decriminalization of homosexual acts in the late 1960s. Second, involving human rights protection enacted to prevent and undo discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in areas of employment and housing. Third, relationship regulation, which introduced and enacted laws giving and honouring equal treatment to same-sex relationships—namely, common-law rights and legal marriage status (see Auger & Krug, 2013; Rayside, 2008; Walcott & Rayside, 2009; Warner, 2010). From 1985 onwards, “courts began to apply the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to queer-related cases and profound changes began to take place in legal reform” (Knegt, 2001, p. 39).

A Statistics Canada report (2015) stated that there are 72,880 same-sex coupled families— comprised of 24,370 same-sex married couples and 48,510 same-sex common-law couples—and that 45% of gay and lesbian people live in either Toronto (Ontario), Montréal (Québec) or Vancouver (British Columbia). Additionally, Statistics Canada (2015) shows that 35% of gay and lesbian adults experienced discrimination; in 2016, police reported that 69% of crimes targeting sexual orientation were violent (see Janoff, 2005; Kinsman & Gentile, 2010; Knegt, 2011).

It was in acknowledgement of the role of the Canadian government in anti-gay and lesbian actions that the sitting Prime Minister apologized to Canadians. The anti-gay and anti-lesbian campaign known as The Purge involved workers being fired, discharged, or intimidated into resigning. From the 1950s to the early 1990s, the Canadian government undertook a systematic campaign of oppression against employees who were members, or suspected members, of gay and lesbian peoples. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s apology stated in part,

It is our collective shame that Canadians who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or two-spirit were unjustly treated—fired from jobs, denied promotions, surveilled, arrested, convicted, and vindictively shamed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. People lost their livelihoods, their families, and, some, their lives. Today, we offer a long overdue apology to all those whom we, the Government of Canada, wronged. We are sorry. We hope by acknowledging our failings we can make the crucial progress LGBTQ2 people in Canada deserve. We will continue to support each other in our fight for equality because we know that Canada gets stronger every single day that we choose to embrace diversity. We were wrong. We are sorry. And we will never let this happen again. (2017, p.1)

Moreover, Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council, stated, “It is important for us to understand that the federal legislation, programs, policies, and practices are key tools used to advance and reinforce equality” (2016, p.1). In recent years, the federal government of Canada has been active in establishing and updating human rights for gay and lesbian people across Canada. In 2016, a Special Advisor was named to support the Prime Minister, whose mandate is to advise the Prime Minister on the Government of Canada’s efforts to promote gay and lesbian inclusion. This includes working with pro-gay and lesbian organizations from across Canada to promote equality and equity for gay and lesbian communities across the nation and gay and lesbian Canadians abroad. The LGBTQ Secretariat was created in 2017 and given a three-year mandate within the Privy Council Office. Specifically, the Secretariat supports the Special Advisor in delivering the government mandate, while working with other federal departments on issues related to sexual orientation. Basically, they collaborate with public servants in governmental departments and agencies to apply and enact intersectional approaches in the development and review of federal policies and programs. As such, the Secretariat holds the Advisor accountable, assists in connecting the federal government to LGBTTIQ+ stakeholders and acquires relevant funding opportunities within the Government of Canada. In addition, Bill C-66, the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act, was introduced to expunge the records of those who were persecuted for acts of homosexuality, including buggery, gross indecency and anal intercourse.

1.4 Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement “Resistance and astonishing perseverance, textured with the exuberance of outlaw sexuality [mark this struggle]” (Warner, 2002, p. 7).

In the scope of my research, I think it important to understand the course of gay rights in Canada and in Ontario through a gay and lesbian lens (see Engel, 2001; McLeod, 1996; Nash, 2006; Walcott & Rayside, 2009; Warner, 2010). Progressive legal strides have led scholars to question who is represented, why they are represented, how they are represented and how society cognitively interprets such legal representations in our schools (see Kumashiro, 2000).

Engel (2001, p.138) refers to the gay and lesbian liberation movement as a unified phenomenon, a collection of smaller movements differing in ideology and political aims. Such aims spearheaded the equalization of laws and policies supporting and acknowledging gay and lesbian peoples which led to “opportunities to the internal promotion of subculture through ritual and collective identity formation” (2001, p. 139). In the mid-1970s, the goal of the gay and lesbian liberation movement was to transform the social system seen as the cause of oppression (see Connell, 2015; Engel, 2001; Knegt, 2011; McCaskell, 2005). In light of what Knegt (2011) states, “having legislation against discrimination is one thing, but stopping discrimination in the first place is another” (p. 59). Gay and lesbian liberation research includes questioning when and where this liberation movement(s) actually happened, where it all started, and who it actually liberated. Furthermore, research has been conducted on the post-gay liberation movement(s) as well as the aftermath of the liberation, which has paved the way for gay and lesbian rights in North America, specifically in Canada (see Adam, 1995; Blasius, 1994; Clendenin & Nagourney, 1999; Cruikshank, 1992).

Kinsman (2010) observes that the gay and lesbian liberation movement was birthed in the early 1970s (in the United States, see references to Stonewall Riots) and suggests that these riots stemmed from equal rights not granted to gay and lesbian peoples. This was a militant movement that spearheaded the fight for the rights of gay and lesbian people. Warner (2002) describes this liberation movement as the product of decades of anger and outrage against the established hetero-status quo and was fundamentally concerned with changing those systems—political, social and psychiatric—that were used to embed hetero-normative views onto a community that differed from their norm (Faderman, 2015, p.72). Warner continues, “At the risk [of]

oversimplification, lesbian and gay liberation may be summed up as a revolutionary struggle that seeks the eradication of heterosexism and the overthrow of the dictatorship of compulsory heterosexuality” (p. 13).

Knegt (2011) offers, “liberation activism was gradually surpassed by a more conservative, assimilationist advocacy fighting for legal recognition of same-sex relationships” (p. 7). The balance between achieving equal rights and equitable rights is interesting, illustrating a different but equal stance to the recognition of gay and lesbian peoples as a distinct group. Queer theorists have supported anti-assimilation actions that fight to keep gay and lesbian peoples separate (distinct) from straight culture, while the liberation movement also originally intended to form a distinct gay and lesbian peoples (see Warner, 2016).

However, with the present level of equalization in Canadian law, Signorile (2015, p.5) claims that this fight is not over. He argues that there is a sense of full acceptance of gay and lesbian peoples in larger urban settings across North America in systems such as health care, social welfare, and education; however, the reality remains that not all places are accepting—and therefore safe—for gay and lesbian people. As long as gay and lesbian people need to mind our speech, mind our public displays of affection, and worry about housing or employment, then we are not in a society (in North America) that fully accepts the gay and lesbian people. Although Signorile refers to the United States, Knegt (2011) refers specifically to gay and lesbian history in Canada. He continues, “one of the defining features of Canada's gay and lesbian community is also one of the principal characteristics of Canada itself: remarkable diversity is found under this umbrella” (p. 7). He also states that, “amongst the vast identities that make up Canadian society, Canada's gay and lesbian community is not easily generalized and is not particularly equal” (p. 7). While a movement to extend the rights and privileges of marriage to all is a good thing, it is still met with contention within those sub-cultures and sub-populations that want marriage to follow antiquated (usually, dogmatic) traditions.

The gay and lesbian-utopian myth that is gay marriage in Canada has made us what Signorelli (2015) refers to as “queer-complacent: the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples was supposed to be the ultimate social—and legal—battle leading to the sociological legitimization of same-sex coupling” (p. 5).

1.5 Gay and Lesbian Liberation in Canada

Although the gay and lesbian liberation movement in North America started in the late 1960s in the USA, Canada continued this movement in the early 1970s. It is important to note that gay and lesbian Canadian people existed long before the rise of the gay and lesbian liberation movement; gay and lesbian people have been around since before Confederation in 1867. Prior to Confederation, and before colonization of Turtle Island, First Nations referenced gay and lesbian people as Two-Spirited (see Depelteau & Giroux, 2015).

Canada is often regarded as a country that is “highly evolved in acknowledging the rights of queer people” (Knegt, 2011, p. 5), including the legalization and recognition of same-sex marriage. However, history reveals a troubled past for gay and lesbian people. Knegt refers to the 1965 arrest of a Northwest Territories man that triggered partial decriminalization of homosexuality a few years later, and the 1981 the bath house raids in Ontario that resulted in one of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history and prompted the beginning of what we now know as the Pride parade. This parade (as it is now called), which started as a march against the raids, would eventually prompt changes to the law that would reflect the equal standing of gay and lesbian people in Canada. Kinsman (1996) writes that “examining the historical experience and practices can help us understand from where lesbian and gay oppression and, more generally, oppressive sexual regulation has come, where it may be going and the possibilities for transformation” (p. 3). Gay and lesbian activism, legal reforms and gay and lesbian equality have, in a fairly short period of time, achieved extraordinary, globally aware goals. However, “its effect[s] have done little to alleviate the oppression of homosexual men and women in Canada. In our daily lives we are still confronted with discrimination, harassment, exploitation and pressures to conform, which deny our sexuality” (Kinsman, 1996, p. 4; also see Bower, 1997; McCaskell, 2016).

According to McLeod (1996), Canadians often do not know about the gay liberation movement in Ontario (specifically in Toronto), nor are they aware that an organized homophile movement existed in Canada before the infamous situation (riot) known as Stonewall, adding that “they have never heard of some of the major figures or events prominent during the early 1970s, when visible and vibrant lesbian and gay community groups began to form in cities across Canada” (p. vii). But in 2012, “we were told that Pride was about celebrating sex in all of its outrageous

manifestations. It was political speech that was unacceptable” (p. 1). Those who pioneered the Canadian gay liberation movement envisioned “the overthrow of the dictatorship of compulsory heterosexuality” (Knegt, 2011, p. 9). However, “as a social movement, gay rights had been successful beyond its early strategists’ wildest dreams” (McCaskell, 2016, p. 1).

The gay liberation movement that originated in the 1970s was specifically created to increase gay visibility and to fight for explicit human rights for gay and lesbian peoples. While the first Canadian homophile organizations emerged in the mid-1960s, it was the influence of the Stonewall riots in New York City that gave rise to the bathhouse riots in Toronto, Ontario. Despite societal similarities between Canada and the United States, it is prudent to be aware of the ever changing legal and human rights landscape that each country (and the regions within each country) has regarding the protection and visibility of gay and lesbian rights (see Rayside, 2008).

The gay rights movement in Canada was (and continues to be) largely about educating the public about a greater acceptance of, advocacy for, and need for the visibility of gay and lesbian peoples. In the decades since the appearance of homophile organizations, the political results of the gay liberation movement (see Peterson, Wahlström & Wennerhag, 2018; Stevenson, 2016), from the legalization of same-sex marriage to what is now seen as the socio-acceptance of gay and lesbian people at work suggest that the visibility of gay and lesbian people has had a promising trajectory.

1.5.1 Gay and Lesbian Liberation in Ontario

Much of Ontario’s gay liberation movement is documented in Toronto, Ontario; however, this does not dismiss the actions of organizations and movements from across the province. The cities of London, Waterloo and Guelph started their gay empowerment movements in association with their local universities. In fact, in 1974, London was the home of the Homophile Association of London, the largest gay community centre in Ontario. In 1971, Ottawa formed an organization to lobby the provincial and federal governments, adopting the name Gays of Ottawa/Gays d’Ottawa (GO) and, according to Knegt, worked “as a community organization for gays and lesbians” (p. 17). This group, “one of the important lesbian and gay activist organizations in the early days of the movement”, (p. 17) launched a public campaign in 1975 to

press for the protection of gay and lesbian people under the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Bill C-72.

In Toronto, the organization partnered with the University of Toronto in 1969, calling itself the University of Toronto Homophile Association. Shortly thereafter, due to high demand, the Community Homophile Association of Toronto (CHAT) was formed in 1970. In 1971, the group organized the first gay picnic to celebrate, recognize and make visible gay and lesbian peoples. The event, which attracted over 300 attendees and was held on Toronto Island, soon became known as Gay Pride Week, despite Mayor William Dennison’s refusal to declare it officially (see Knegt, 2011; Nash, 2015). From 1972 to 1980, CHAT co-existed with the Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE), which was started by Toronto-based writers who published their magazine called Body Politic between the years 1971-1987 (see McLeod, 1996). This group proved to be a major force for gay and lesbian liberation.

In 1981, Toronto faced a “massive, violent raid on four bathhouses resulting in the arrest of 304 men” (McCaskell, 2016, p. 20), a campaign led by police to end homosexuality by exposing these men and their personal lives to the public. By the next night, activists had organized a demonstration against Toronto Police Service District 52, where an unprecedented 3,000 people marched to protest the raids. In an interview with Tim McCaskell, a gay liberation historian and author, he said, “we were generally pretty isolated. The kinds of people that went out to bars and baths kind of thought we were off the wall. And I think there was a kind of arrogance that we were ‘the enlightened, liberated ones’, and then these were people living kind of half in, half out of the closet. But what the bathhouse raids did was to bring those groups together. They were such an attack on mainstream, ordinary gay men and produced such visceral anger” (2010, p.21). He continued, “What resulted from the raids was the ordinary gay men, people who owned small businesses in the community and many ordinary lesbians, all outraged by what was occurring, began to take part in action. Suddenly, everyone was on the same page” (2010, p. 22).

1.6 Coming Out at School

As there is no federal educational body in Canada, public education is overseen by the individual provinces and territories. Consequently, the gay liberation movement is in part still active at the school district level in Ontario. The gay liberation movement has made its way into public school districts and educational systems across Ontario. Canada has also changed from the liberal

welfare state that lesbian and gay liberation was born into to the neoliberal capitalist nation that it is largely today. Homophobia and heterosexism remain dominant, both officially—such as in the Canadian education system—and even more so unofficially. Canada is still “very much an inherently homophobic and heterosexist society, as exemplified in everything from social conservative groups to violent queer bashers. Hate remains directed toward all queer people: urban and rural, Black and White, rich and poor, young and old” (Knegt, 2011, p. 127-128).

1.7 Research Questions

This study explored the narratives of gay and lesbian principals coming out at work. The proposed research was guided by the main research question: How do gay and lesbian principals navigate coming out at school? From this main question, I focused the research questions to better allow for the sharing of experiences, the sharing of coming out at work, and to further understand the social phenomenon of coming out privately coupled with coming out at work. This phenomenon will be explored through the following sub-questions, which are grounded in the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of this study:

1. How do lesbian and gay principals understand the coming out process? 2. Why do they come out? 3. What strategies do they employ to come out? 4. What are the challenges in coming out? 5. What are the consequences of coming out?

As a result, these questions form the framework for Chapter 6 (Discussion), where I further study the implication, experiences, and events that these principals live through daily as they navigate their gay and lesbian professional identities.

1.8 Overview of the Chapters

Chapter 2 reviews the existing literature on coming out, first outlining the construction of the professional identity of principal and summarizing the Ontario Leadership Framework. This is followed by teachers coming out in public schools and, gay and lesbian teacher voices. This section discusses some of the challenges and barriers faced by teachers when coming out at school.

Chapter 3 discusses queer theory and uses Coleman’s (1982) concept of coming out of the closet to guide my study. Using different facets of queer theory, it offers a framework to connect schooling with gay and lesbian identities. Coming out aligns with queer theory as an emancipatory act, and this section explores that connection.

Chapter 4 describes the qualitative thematic approach, which is the methodology employed for this study. This strategy effectively provides the principals participating in this study a voice with which to share their insights and experiences.

Chapter 5 outlines the findings of the study as laid out in qualitative themes. These themes include coming out of the closet as an ongoing act, the positionality of principal with the interpretation and use of policies when navigating coming out, and additional information shared by the participants.

Chapter 6 reviews the study, offers interpretations of the chapter 5 findings and suggests implications, including further studies, related to research, policy, and practice.

2 Literature Review

In this chapter, I examine the literature that has informed my research questions. I find it necessary to understand the construction of the professional identities of principals as part of this study to further understand the context of Ontario principalship. I conclude this chapter by looking at works pertaining to coming out in the public school sector; namely, I look at coming out at school, teachers coming out at work and, gay and lesbian teacher voices.

2.1 Construction of Professional Identity as Principals

Each principal’s roles and responsibilities at their respective schools differ in their context, as each and every principal has a different background and has travelled a different road. Although the Ontario Leadership Framework guides the work of principals, the work itself relies on relationships, school vision, and the efficacy of the principal as a professional leader of the school.

Professional identity is one’s professional self-concept based on attributes, beliefs, values, motives, and experiences (see Beijard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Ibarra, 1999; Sachs, 2001; Slay & Smith, 2011; Volkmann & Anderson, 1998). These authors take into account the many facets of identity that result in professionalism. Although most of the research on professional identity centers on teachers’ professional identities (see Beijard, Meijer & Verloop, 2004; Sachs, 2001; Slay & Smith, 2011; Volkmann & Anderson, 1998), it is important to apply this research to the role of the principal. Clarke and Newman (1997) suggest that “professionalism operates as an occupational strategy, defining entry and negotiating the power and rewards due to expertise” (p. 7). The authors referred to the expertise of the principals as a factor when negotiating— crafting—their professional identity. It is important to understand the fundamental relationship between the individual’s sense of self and the development of a professional identity as a school principal (see Samuel & Stevens, 2000) when negotiating and fully understanding one’s role as a principal and the creation of a professional identity.

Stronge (2013) outlines “the standards for principal performance as: instructional leader, school climate leader, human resources leadership, organizational manager, communication and community relations leadership and professionalism” (p. 63). Daresh (2006, p. 15) outlines the role of the principal as (a) technical and managerial, (b) socialization and (c) self-awareness,

14 15

where “technical and managerial” refers to the day-to-day work maintenance of school functioning, with managing staff, adhering to the demands of paperwork, daily scheduled routines including start and end times and student attendance records. Socialization concerns the social implications and actions taken by the principal to connect with, and to get along with, staff, students and parents alike. This, I claim, aligns with the self-awareness of principalship (see Chenoweth & Theokes, 2013; Sparrowe, 2005).

Stronge explains that the effectiveness of a principal is based on successes via behaviour where “results (of a successful principal) are achieved through principals’ knowledge, skills, disposition, and behaviours” (p. 63). This principalship is challenged by the need to balance relationships and personal values within a professional work setting. Consequently, self- awareness is not discovered in the absence of others, but is constituted in relation to others (see Sparrow, 2005). This lens of principalship supports Stronge’s claim that effective principals depend on their disposition and behaviours. Having said this, principals shall adhere to the Ontario Leadership Framework when developing their work as professionals.

2.2 The Ontario Leadership Framework

When I embarked on this study, it was important for me to understand the role of the Ontario principal. Having said that, the role of the principal reflects the tendrils of the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) regarding what is expected from an Ontario principal when leading a school. The Ontario Ministry of Education outlined these expectations in a set of core leadership competencies to be used as a template for new and experienced school principals and vice principals. This framework is a staple of the Ontario Principals Council when developing professional development models, inspiring administrators towards equitable projects in their schools, engaging teachers who are seeking promotion to school administration, and is the tool used when administrators engage in the Principal Performance Appraisal (PPA) evaluation.

The Ontario Leadership Framework (2013) defines leadership as the “exercise of influence on organizational members and diverse stakeholders toward the identification and achievement of the organization’s vision and goals” (p. 3). The OLF outlines the Ministry of Education’s expectations for principals when working with staff, representing school district improvement plans, and taking action based on School Improvement Plans. As such, principals are required to follow the OLF’s guidelines around: (a) setting directions, (b) building relationships and

developing people, (c) developing the organization to support desired practices, (d) improving the instructional program, and (e) securing accountability (p. 6).

It is important to note the designed purpose of The Ontario Leadership Framework’s tendrils. This framework outlines the following requirements for school principals: (a) facilitate a shared vision of leadership in schools and districts; (b) promote a common language that fosters an understanding of leadership and what it means to be a school or system leader; (c) identify the practices, actions and traits or personal characteristics that describe effective leadership; (d) guide the design and implementation of professional learning and development for school and system leaders; (e) identify the characteristics of highly performing schools and systems; and (f) aid in the recruitment, development, selection, and retention of school and system leaders (see Ontario. Ministry of Education, 2013). The leadership framework provides aspiring school and system leaders with important insights about what they need to learn to be successful. For those already in leadership positions, it serves as a valuable tool for self-reflection and self-assessment.

2.3 Teachers Coming Out at Work

“Each of us have hidden facts about ourselves, debating the revealing of which leads to inner tension. However, few of these hidden facts carry with them social penalties as extreme as those imposed for being gay, and few affect as many dimensions of one’s personal life.” (Monteflores et al., 1978, p. 63)

Progress has been made in public school districts regarding the presence of gay and lesbian people. Many school districts across Canada have been receptive to advocating for gay and lesbian issues, drafting gay and lesbian-positive curricula, enacting policies on homophobia and/or forming and supporting Gay-Straight Alliances (sometimes called Gender-Sexuality Alliances, which broadens the membership). Nevertheless, combating homophobia in schools via extra-curricular groups, guest speaker series, and visual aids such as pro-gay and lesbian posters are only one aspect of schooling. School remains an incredibly heterosexist form of socialization. “Combating homophobia is one thing, but making them places in which heterosexuality is not taught as the norm is another” (Knegt, 2011, p. 74). While increasing numbers of young people are generally less prejudiced toward gay and lesbian people, educational systems continually perpetuate heteronormative expectations and assumptions where heterosexism remains indoctrinated into the socialization of the Ontario education system.

This also affects gay and lesbian teachers and the daily processes of navigating their gay and lesbian identities at work. According to Rocco and Gallagher (2006), “an important issue for LGTBQ people is which people at work to disclose to. The process of coming out to others at work adds stress to the LGBTQ person’s work experience because this process requires weighing the risks against the benefits and making hard choices” (p. 36). Gay and lesbian people have to discover who is safe to come out to, and whether that person will tell people at work who may or may not be homophobic. This decision- making process occurs daily, and involves everyone with whom a gay and lesbian person comes into contact. It is a process that consumes mental and emotional energy and detracts from workplace performance.

In 2000, a grade four teacher in an Ontario suburban school district brought her female partner to a school social event. When her students asked who she was, she was clear—authentic—in sharing with them that they were married to each other. Some of the parents were subsequently outraged, prompting the school principal to send a letter home stating that the manner in which the discussion unfolded was not consistent with the board protocol. A spokesperson from this school district added that the teacher’s action was an error in judgment; the school Trustee appeased the parents by saying, in clear reference to this teacher’s admittance that she was married to another woman, that there was no educational value in what she did. After many years of this school district learning from their errors in both communication and their own moral judgment, and with the increasing visibility of gay and lesbian teachers in schools, a recent debate held in the same district centered on whether or not to hoist the Pride flag at all school district locations.

Moreover, I was present at a School Board meeting in the spring of 2018, the school district Board of Trustees refused to hoist the flag during an in-camera meeting. When exposed to social media, the anti-gay and lesbian perspective started to falter as teachers (and employees) of the school district began a campaign to question and expose the Board of Trustees. This battle for visible representation of gay and lesbian peoples in the district was waged a few days before June first—June is recognized as Pride Month across Canada. Gay and lesbian people and their allies wanted the Pride flag hoisted in June 2018 and put pressure on the Board of Trustees. Throughout this debate, delegates

18 to the board presented many points of view. Some cited policies, doctrine, laws; most cited personal narratives that were both opposed to and in favour of the Pride flag being hoisted. On June 1, 2018, the Pride flag was hoisted at all school district-owned locations without a unanimous vote by the Board of Trustees, as two members abstained. Of all the anti-gay and lesbian protestors, these two members voiced their moral objections loudest throughout the entire ordeal. In this case, it was the collective voice of gay and lesbian teachers and employees that galvanized a visible representation of gay and lesbian people in schools across this suburban (tri-city) area.

2.4 Gay and Lesbian Teacher Voices

Gay and lesbian teachers navigate heterosexism as they contemplate coming out, or even when navigating their homosexuality as teachers. Heterosexism, as defined by Berrill and Herek (1990), is “an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes all non-heterosexual [all gay and lesbian] forms of behavior, relationships, and communities” (p. 321). Coming out has many different outcomes, depends on many factors, and can have vast consequences. Ideally, after coming out, the workplace (the school, the classroom) should present less of an obstacle when navigating one’s gay and lesbian-self and become a more inviting place to be (see Nicholls, 2013).

Jackson (2009) examined how nine teachers who self-identified as gay or lesbian connected their classroom practice to their sexual identities. The end result was that they taught by putting their gay and lesbian pedagogy into practice; basically, “we teach who we are” (Palmer, 1998, p. 1). Jackson also adds that depending on the culture of the school, or the school district, to teach who we are could mean getting fired. Her study (2009) examined the participants’ relationships with the term queer and how they enacted queerness as teachers (p. 52). All but one participant saw a relationship between their teaching and their experience of being either gay or lesbian, where openly gay or lesbian participants explicitly used their queerness to add to their teaching. Another study by Jackson (2006) questioned the contextual factors that either promote or hinder the construction of teachers’ gay or lesbian identities as such factors “interact with each other in complex ways to inform classroom practice” (p. 27). She employed the metaphor of wearing a mask to hide one’s identity in order to survive. Some gay and lesbian teachers have established dual identities: gay at home, straight at work. The participants reported that, as a means of

survival, they deliberately lived a dual existence; however, a few participants did come out during the research, and for those participants, “merging these two identities signified a shift in thinking about their own gayness and teaching” (p. 33). In her study, “all [who] disclosed their sexuality in the context of their curriculum suggest[ed] that subject matter can provide a gateway for coming out” (p.42).

From a teacher’s perspective, it is important to investigate coming out to students; moreover, Mayo (2008) conducted a study that examined the relationships between gay and lesbian teachers and their straight colleagues. This study reinforced the idea that “gay teachers must negotiate each faculty interaction” and that all faculty members take responsibility for the wellbeing of all who identify as gay or lesbian. Moreover, Connell (2015) claims that “gay and lesbian teachers must contend with the fundamental incompatibility between [the] professional demands of teaching and the political demands of contemporary gay and lesbian citizenship” (p. 17). The pressure on teachers is always present: to either feel the need to protect child welfare by making invisible their same-sex sexuality, or to become visible in the name of pro-gay and lesbian rights and promoting gay and lesbian equity. Once again, because of the proximity of educators and children, a moral panic sets in. In Connell’s research, “the gay and lesbian teachers I spoke with repeatedly referenced this tension between invisibility and visibility, professionalism and pride” (p. 57). However, many pro-gay and lesbian scholars and activists claim that gay and lesbian teachers need to come out to their students.

Rick Mercer (2011) ranted, “Adults, we don’t need role models, kids do. So if you are gay and you are in public life, I’m sorry—you don’t have to run around with the Pride flag and bore the hell out of everyone, but you can’t be invisible… not anymore” (Mercer Report, July 20, 2018). One aspect for educators is the act of being a role model. Consequently, gay and lesbian educators are deeply affected by the imperative to act as role models for their gay and lesbian students. Moreover, “role modeling is integral to the rhetoric of gay pride. Coming out of the closet, the quintessential act of gay pride, is predicated on the importance of role modeling” (Connell, 2015, p. 71). She also asks, what are the role-modeling implications of not asserting oneself in the classroom as an out and proud educator? The reality is that there is no clear-cut answer; as such, the answer depends on several mitigating circumstances with which each individual educator must grapple. Good teaching requires coming out, good teaching prohibits coming out; it is a balancing act that gay and lesbian teachers face as they navigate the

profession. All teachers, regardless of sexual identity, engage in an ongoing negotiation of self-disclosure with their students, who are inevitably curious about our personal lives. For gay and lesbian teachers, coming out is a powerful biographical tool that can be used to teach students about Pride, heterosexism and homophobia. Lastly, with an understanding as to how teachers make decisions about disclosing their sexual identities and lives, we can also understand how institutional contexts produce visible gay and lesbian selves, which in turn produce discourses of gay and lesbian subjectivity.

Gay and lesbian principals’ identities vis-à-vis sexual identity (see Sedgwick, 1993; Butler, 2010) are interdependent; they are neither static nor standalone identities (see Volkmann & Anderson, 1998). Not only must principals deal with societal homophobia and institutional homophobia, but daily negotiations of the maze of sharing gay and lesbian identities (see Khayatt, 1997). Gay and lesbian principals struggle with gay identity and continually question whether or not to disclose gay identity with straight-identified colleagues and staff—the struggle to find a connection. Similarly, Mayo (2008) interprets the connections and communications between gay teachers and their students and straight teacher-colleagues. Interestingly, in her study of gay and lesbian teachers, Jackson (2006) asked, “How do contextual factors promote or prohibit the construction of identities as gay teachers?” (p. 27). Palmer (1998) says that, “we teach who we are” (p.1).

3 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

In this chapter, I offer Queer Theory as the theoretical framework fueling my dissertation. Giffney (2004) claims that “many queer theorists have sought to limit the discourse to examination of gay males and lesbian genders and sexualities alone” (p. 73). Nevertheless, “queer has many centres. Just as no one discipline can lay claim to the pastiche that is queer theory, so too can no one theoretical discourse or mode of enquiry broadcast its ownership” (Giffney, 2004, p. 74). Consequently, the scope of my study directly looks specifically at the gay and lesbian identities since Giffney states that, “queer theory’s task lies in visibility, critiquing, and separating the normal (statistically determined) from the normative (morally determined)” (p. 75). Further, I use Coming Out of the Closet as my conceptual framework when I refer to coming out of the closet, the initial studies (1970s and 1980s) regarding coming out, and coming out of the closet and homophobia.

3.1 Theoretical Framework: Queer Theory

“How can our queerness act as an agency of social change, and our theory construct another discursive horizon, another way of living the sexual?”

(de Lauretis, 1991, p. x-xi)

Halerpin (1997) warns that defining queer theory depends on the idea of resistance, since “the more it verges on becoming a normative academic discipline, the less queer 'queer theory' can plausibly claim to be” (p. 113). Queer theory emerges from gay and lesbian studies' attention to the social construction of categories of normative and deviant sexual behaviour. However, while gay and lesbian studies focus largely on questions of homosexuality, Queer theory expands its realm of investigation to include a political critique of anything categorized as normative and deviant, particularly sexual activities and identities, and including those normative behaviours and identities that are its binary opposites. Queer theory expands the scope of its analysis to all kinds of behaviours, including those which are gender-bending and those which involve non- normative forms of sexuality. Queer theory insists that all sexual behaviours, all concepts linking sexual behaviours to sexual identities, and all categories of normative and deviant sexualities, are social constructs, sets of signifiers that create certain types of social meaning. For queer

21 22

theorists, sexuality is a complex array of social codes and forces, forms of individual activity and institutional power, which interact to shape the ideas of what is normative and what is deviant at any particular moment, and which then operate under the rubric of what is natural or God-given (see de Lauretis, 1991). Moreover, Queer theory (which emerged in the late 1980s out of the fields of gay and lesbian studies and women's studies) is a post-structural critical theory and can therefore include many interpretations of an event or events (see Halerpin, 2003; Hennessy, 1993; Spargo, 2000; Turner, 2000).

With gay and lesbian scholars continuing to redefine and openly define queer as a state of being, a state of self-truth, a state perhaps deliberately opposing the norm (in this case, the hetero- norm), Jagose (1996) states that Queer theory is the “debunking of stable sexes, genders and sexualities [that have developed] out of a specifically lesbian and gay reworking of the post- structuralism figuring of identity as a constellation of multiple and unstable positions” (p. 3). As queer is redeploying itself, attempting to be defined and to be noticed in social, political and private identity locales, Jagose (1996) continues to state that, “although queer theory's institutional growth is commonly associated with academic developments in the early 1990s, the tendency to date its moment of origin increasingly earlier suggests an ambivalent figuring of queer” (p. 4). I have come to understand that queer theory involves not only embracing a radically new conceptual model, but also one connected with, revisiting, and informing our existing knowledge of sexuality.

Defining queer goes against the strides of anti-labelling insofar as we must never define queer, but simply experience it contextually, in the moment and without definition. Altman (2013) defines queer as either essentialist or constructivist in social scopes (p. 71). Moreover, Weeks (1977) writes that “homosexuality has existed throughout history, in all types of society, among all social classes and peoples, and it has survived qualified approval, indifference and the most vicious persecution” (p. 2). In the twentieth century, in Western cultures, homosexuality had begun to demand equal rights, expecting to be heard, and the right to be recognized as a valid state of being. Weeks continues, “but what have varied enormously are the ways in which various societies have regarded homosexuality, the meanings they have attached to it, and how those who were engaged in homosexual activity viewed themselves” (p. 2). Specifically, in Canada, the legal rights of the homosexual have evolved to reflect the fact that queer people have always existed, and it is in this milieu of social evolution that queer people has established a

presence in the Canadian multicultural fabric. It has been argued that the less-evident heterosexual category of populations is more natural or stable in its sexual-social construction, and that homosexuality is a derivative or less evolved form of heterosexuality (see Auger & Krug, 2013; Cohen, 1991; Jagose, 1996). Interestingly, Katz (1996) argues that “the formation of heterosexuality stems from the identification of homosexuality and concludes that heterosexuality is a derivative of homosexuality” (p. 35).

Nonetheless, the definition of queer as either a state of being, a comparison to the hegemonic heterosexuality, or an act of social evolution, it remains that defining the term queer is in constant flux and that seeking or agreeing upon a static definition is elusive. Perhaps queer is a dynamic representation that is defined by individuals reflecting their queer-selves at any given moment as placed in society. Jagose (1996) posits that it is difficult to denaturalize or define something like queer sexuality, “whose very claim naturalizes as intimately connected with an individual sense of self, with the way in which each of us imagines our own sexuality to be primary” (p. 17). However, in light of the growth of queer rights, Sedgwick (2008, p. 14) warns of the “minoritization of queer peoples, where universalizing versus minoritizing conceptions of homosexuality can be seen in struggles across medical, legal, corporate, educational and psychological discourses” (see Faderman, 2015).

This universality of queer peoples compels the hegemonic hetero-society to recognize the existence of queer peoples. Therefore, if “queer culture has reclaimed queer as an adjective that contrasts with the relative respectability of gay and lesbian, then queer theory could be seen as mobilizing queer as a verb that unsettles assumptions about sexed and sexual being and doing” (Spargo, 2000, p. 40). Jagose explains, “In the formation of homosexuality, it is to imply that heterosexuality... is somehow the more self-evident, natural or stable construction. This assumption is naturalized in a culture that commonly understands homosexuality to be a derivative or less evolved form of heterosexuality” (1996, p. 16). This is evidenced in several research discourses, including psychological discourses, where homosexuality in adolescence is seen as a way of experimenting through one’s second growth spurt—a way of confirming one’s heterosexuality by dismissing these homosexual acts as simply a stage of psychological development.

In terms of defining family through a solely heterosexual lens, there are legal and religious connotations to being the lesser homosexual. Homosexuals do not and cannot define family in the truest legal and religious terms, as only heterosexuals can define family in its most correct sense. Ironically, it is with the discovery, naming and study of homosexuality as a deviant behaviour that opposes the common views of hetero-normalcy that heterosexuality begins to gain discursive ground. Cohen adds, “Although heterosexuality is too often represented as unremarkable, it is significant that what distinguishes the emergence of the homosexual is the fact that it is inseparable from and literally incomprehensible without its normal twin, the heterosexual” (1993, p 211).

What is remarkable is the emergence of the heterosexual identity that has resulted from recognition of the deviant homosexual identity. Interestingly, many attempts to explain homosexuality are grounded in heterosexuality, where heterosexuality is common and is given to normalcy; heterosexuality has long claimed its stake to be natural, pure and without aberration, widely assumed to be acceptable. The social construction of family demonstrates the normalization of heterosexuality vis-á-vis the deviance of homosexuality, as seen in the definition of family provided by both constitutional and canon law. Sociologically and psychologically, families having children are presumed to be heterosexual pairings. Morris (1994) writes, “my definition of queerness, then, contains three ingredients: (a) Queerness as a subject position digressed from normalized, rigid identities that adhere to the sex = gender paradigm; (b) Queerness as a politic challenges the status quo, does not simply tolerate it, and does not stand for assimilation into the mainstream; (c) Queerness as an aesthetic or sensibility reads and interprets texts as potentially politically radical. A radical politic moves to the left, challenging norms” (p. 27).

According to Jagose (1995), “there is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers and it is an identity without an essence.” Warner (1992) refers to the term queer as ambiguous, marking a flexible space for the expression of all aspects of non-straight cultural production and reception. Queer as a vernacular term calls into question the conventional understanding of non- heterosexual identity by deconstructing just what queer signifies, includes or refers to with regard to a set of non-heteronormative people (see Halerpin, Abelove & Barale, 1993; Hennessy, 1993). According to Judith Sedgwick (1993), queer scholar and author regarding performativity of queer identities, argues in an interview that people who call themselves queer need to live

25 with the socio-knowledge of what they call themselves and what they are called by other people. There is a sense in which queer can only be used in the first person.

Moreover, queer can only be an auto-descriptive adjective emphasizing the extent to which the term refers to self-identification as opposed to empirical observations of other peoples' characteristics. Altman (2013) adds that queer is either essentialist or constructivist. In other words, queer people are queer due to their biology—they are born that way—and must, by default, refer to their queer natures as constructed via their own formation of identity. However, he adds that queer identity is also viewed as a constructed identity by the society in which queer people exist. Essentially, Altman says that one is only gay or lesbian because the greater society labels one as such. Jagose suggests that queer evades programmatic description because it is shorthand for the more ponderous “gay and lesbian”, but queer may also be used to signify a different kind of narrative which is consistent and self-identical, as in the case of some of the mobilizations of gay nationalism (see Faderman, 2015; McCaskell, 2016; Rayside 2015).

Queer can also signify the existence of an open-ended identity that shares characteristics with other anti-normative positions regarding sexuality—a more resistant position against what is considered normal. Jagose and Sedgwick argue that queer maintains a position of resistance in relation to whatever constitutes the normal. Nonetheless, the term queer has been adopted by the larger queer community as a reclamation of non-hetero identities as a whole. Those who reclaim queer as a positive self-descriptor argue for redeployment of the term—queer as a notion of pride is a powerful action of cultural reclamation, a strategy to place the word back into the pro-queer vernacular while stripping it of its homophobic connotations (see McCaskell, 2016; Rayside, 2008;). Jagose offers that perhaps “the most controversial deployment of queer is as an umbrella term for dissimilar subjects, whose collectivity is underwritten by a mutual engagement in non- normative sexual practices or identities” (p. 111-112). Nevertheless, de Lauretis (1991) expects the term queer to be critically disruptive, as it is her intention that “queer” should denote a certain critical distance from its hetero-normative and derogatory definition. According to Jagose, “queer, then, is an identity that has no interest in consolidating or even stabilizing itself” (p. 131). Halerpin (1995) argues that “queer does not designate a class of already objectified pathologies or pro versions” (p. 62), and Edelman (2013) adds that “queer is always an identity under construction, a site of permanent becoming” (p. 346).

Queer is not a neutral term, even though it wants to be a term of coalition between lesbian women and gay men. Pinar (2003) suggests that “queer may need the queer position from which to speak” (p.3). As such, queer has become the chosen term for many who have come to be dissatisfied with what they perceive to be the assimilationist politics associated with the terms gay and lesbian. In any event, I suggest that a coalition of gay men and lesbian women would best serve this study as I look at gay and lesbian Ontario principals.

3.2 Conceptual Framework 3.2.1 Coming Out of the Closet

“To display, or not to display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on;

To lie or not lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when, and where”

(Goffman, 1963, p 42).

A common phrase often used by gay and lesbian individuals who are open, or want to be open, about their gay and lesbian identity is that of coming out of the closet, often shortened to coming out. According to Chauncey (2008, p 13), the term “coming out” first made its appearance in the underground gay establishments of 1920s New York City, where it signified acknowledgment of one's public gay and lesbian identity. Further, reference to the “closet” was “an invention of the 1940s and 1950s, when awareness—and fear—of homosexuality became more widespread. The closet started to be referenced in the 1970s” (Connell, 2015, p. 96/97). Seidman (2002) adds that gay and lesbian people “described not a lifelong effort to disguise their homosexuality but rather episodic patterns of concealment to avoid socially uncomfortable or risky situations” (p 72). Moreover, the metaphor of coming out of the closet implies that declaring one’s gay and lesbian identity is a forward moving act where one opens the door, steps out of the closet, and is then revealed (see Faderman, 2015; Harbeck, 2014; Siedman, 2002). Coming out is a continual, context-specific practice and not a linear (one time) process. Many authors employ the metaphor, defining “coming out” as a partial, ongoing, and dynamic process of staking claim to a gay and lesbian identity (see Harbeck, 2014; LaSala, 2010; Siedman, 2002). Moreover, coming out implies an intent. Connell (2012) states that “coming out is synonymous with disclosure, the process of purposefully signaling one’s gay or lesbian identity to coworkers, administrators, and students. Coming out is thus distinct from being inadvertently read as gay or lesbian by virtue of one’s gender performance because disclosure requires intent” (p. 98).

Due to the societal view of gay and lesbian people, those who experience same-sex attractions “develop negative conceptions of themselves as deviant, sick and/or immoral” (Coleman, 1982, p. 469). However, positive acceptance can offset the perceived stigmas, and educators and administrators can understand the unique identity formation and self-concept that occur during the teenage years and into young adulthood. Foucault (1990) once referred to coming out as a church confessional composed of two parts: the confessor, the one who divulges the information, and the confessant, the one who receives the divulged information. The critical juncture occurs not only when the gay and lesbian person decides to share their gay and lesbian identity, but also the moment when the recipient reacts to the outing; moreover, as I can attest to, the pause between the sharing and the reaction is even more intense.

3.2.2 Coming Out in the 1970s and 1980s

In this section I cite the works of those authors of the 1970s and early 1980s who started pro-gay research during the period of the American (ca.1969) and Canadian (ca. 1981) Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movements. Their papers ushered in many additional scholars (see Cass, 1984;

Coleman, 1982; Monteflores & Schultz, 1978) who then started the dialogue most pertinent to the realities of many gay and lesbian people —coming out of the closet. The truth is that gay and lesbian identities remain marginalized and the reality behind the narratives of gay and lesbian people is usually lined with emotional upheaval, social turmoil, and self-hatred. The theoretical underpinnings introduced by the authors of these works still hold true, as coming out continues to be a process towards self-authentic identity.

In the words of Monteflores and Schultz (1978), “coming out is the developmental process through which gay people recognize their sexual preferences and choose to integrate this knowledge into their personal and social lives” (p. 59). Schultz offers a psychological process to coming out: “the sociological and political effects of coming out have been examined, but its importance as a psychological process requires further exploration. Adopting a non-traditional identity involves restructuring one’s self-concept, reorganizing one’s personal sense of history, and altering one’s relations with others and with society. A psychological focus on the coming out process can help clarify developmental issues for gay people, as well as contribute to the general study of identity formation and socialization” (p. 60). In essence, Schultz has offered a new point of view regarding the process of coming out. Monteflores and Schultz referred to

models of gay and lesbian identity with the active role when coming out: covert, overt, keeping quiet, then sharing one’s homosexual identity. In this developmental chronology, coming out privately is a precursor to more public experiences, and what Schultz referred to a feed-back loop, a balancing act between the gay person and society in which there is a “back and forth in degrees of openness, depending on a variety of personal, social, and professional factors” (McDonald, 1982, p. 48).

Coleman (1982), one of the first scholars to shift the point of view regarding gay and lesbian identity, advocated for the coming out of gay and lesbian peoples, stating that “coming out would be incredibly simple to describe if it were a singular event of acknowledging one’s same- sex interest to oneself and one’s public” (p. 469). At around the same time, as gay and lesbian liberation was asserting itself in North America, authors started to analyze coming out of the closet as a process. Schultz claimed, “a number of experiences are critical in this process: the awareness of same-sex attractions, first homosexual experience, coming out in the gay world, labelling oneself as gay or homosexual, coming out to friends, family and co-workers, and coming out publicly” (p. 59). He continued to look at the psychological issues involved in coming out, such as identity formation, self-disclosure and self-validation. Coleman (1982) also outlined a five-stage model that can be used to understand the complexities of coming out. This model is one that he insists provides a positive framework when advocating for and supporting people who need to come out of the closet—those who need acceptance and to have their identity accepted. Coleman’s model of developmental acceptance was new in the early 1980s, a time when the behavioral psychotherapists’ concepts of illness or contagion held sway. As Monteflores and Schultz (1978) wrote, “perspectives on homosexuality are diverse. According to many church leaders, homosexuals are sinners; according to the law, they are criminals. Mental health professionals until recently have viewed homosexuality as pathological. The sociology of deviance school reflects yet another negative point of view” (see Faderman, 2015). The underlying message is clear: Homosexuality is “bad and shameful, to be feared and suppressed” (p. 59). Coleman’s five stages focus on what happens to the person who becomes aware of their same-sex attraction; I have come to call it a realization of self. “These stages are as follows: pre- coming out, coming out, exploration, first relationships, and integration” (Coleman, 1982, p. 470). It is important to understand each stage Coleman proposed, as his model provides the

ground work for current scholarly study regarding coming out (see Matthews, 2003; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2004).

Coleman (1982) describes pre-coming out: “the awareness of same-sex interests and feeling is usually a slow and painful process. Individuals who become aware of these feelings are most likely to reject, dismiss, or repress them. Pre-coming out refers to obvious consequences of this growing awareness of the negative impact on the self-concepts of these individuals” (p. 471). Because of the wavering acceptance (usually via tolerance) of gay and lesbian individuals in society, the initial self-concept of being gay and lesbian is a negative one. “They conceive of themselves in the same way society portrays homosexuals—different, sick, confused, immoral, and depressed” (p. 471). Both Coleman and Schultz claim that this indirect rejection is usually felt deeply, as it happens often enough to keep gay and lesbian individuals from revealing this aspect of their identities. Consequently, “many individuals at this stage are often depressed because they are not being accepted for their true sexual identity, which is a major part of themselves” (Coleman, 1982, p. 471). Fisher further adds, “every time a homosexual denies the validity of his feelings or restrains himself from expressing, he does a small hurt to himself. He turns his energies inward and suppresses his own vitality. The effect may be scarcely noticeable… over the years, these tiny denials have a cumulative effect” (1972, p. 249). Such denials of gay and lesbian identity are shrouded in denial, suppression and repression. However, acknowledgment is needed at this point for self-realization and is an important step for any gay and lesbian person looking to come out.

During the coming out period, Coleman says, “they stop fighting with themselves and begins a period of reconciliation, or making peace with their sexuality. Self-admission is the first developmental task of the coming-out stage. Once these feelings are identified and acknowledged, the next developmental task is to tell others” (1982, p. 473). When coming out, it is important for gay and lesbian people to tell those who will reassure their homosexual-selves. Dank (1973) found that feelings of guilt and loneliness were related to the length of time one lives with a suppressed gay and lesbian identity; to be clear, coming out is not a public disclosure, but a sharing of one’s true gay and lesbian identity with someone—family members, friends, colleagues, etc. “Because of the vulnerability of the self-concept during this stage, it is important that positive responses be gained during the coming-out stage” (Coleman, 1982, p. 474). Coming out depends on the responses of those who have received the news of one’s gay

and lesbian identity. The more positive the responses, the lesser the damage when one receives a negative response. Moreover, Coleman (1982) adds, “each situation must be examined individually. It seems that gay men and lesbians might tell their parents and family members when they have built up enough positive responses from significant others that they could withstand the probable negative response” (p. 475). The author adds that there is a timeframe during which parents or families may grieve the loss of the family member who will not be getting married and/or having children. It is important to note that since the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement, and since the publication of Coleman’s book, political, legal and scientific strides have been made for the equalization of gay and lesbian peoples regarding marriage and bearing children (Corrigan & Matthews, 2003).

Coleman refers to the exploration stage as one “of exploring and experimenting with [the] new sexual identity” (1982, p. 475). Gay and lesbian people make up for lost time when searching for, and engaging in, same-sex interpersonal skills, sexual acts and generally interacting with other gay and lesbian people. In other words, as it is incongruent with the chronological age of the person who just came out, this is a re-adolescent stage. According to Coleman, “these individuals were denied (by society and themselves) the opportunity to move through this stage at an earlier stage as most people in our society are encouraged to follow a heterosexual adolescence, not a homosexual one” (p. 476). I must note that Coleman (et al.) refer to the coming out of middle-aged adults who have been, for societal reasons, stunted in the development of their homosexuality. Furthermore, because this stage of exploration involves self-promoted promiscuity (akin to teenaged-based sexualized actions), society tends to sexualize gay and lesbian people and does not see this as a stage of self-actualization (see Coleman, 1982; Fischer, 1972; Hencken & O’Dowd, 1977; Monteflores & Schultz, 1978).

First relationships, as explained by Coleman (1982), occur “when gay men and lesbians conceive of themselves as capable of loving and being loved, they are ready to enter this next stage of first relationships. This period of exploration has lost its intrigue, and there is a yearning for more stable and committed relationships” (p. 477). Society has long held that gay and lesbian couplings never last very long and are fraught with rejection and hurt (see Coleman, 1982; Fischer, 1972; Hencken & O’Dowd, 1977; Monteflores & Schultz, 1978). Yet, similar to their hetero-counterparts, first relationships are commonly filled with intensity, possessiveness and lack of self-trust, coupled with a lack of know-how as to how to be in a relationship. Shortly after

the ending of the first relationship, people will either return to the same destructive pattern that ended their first relationship or evolve into healthier ones.

The last step of coming out is what Coleman (1982) calls “Integration, where relationships are usually more successful because individuals are confident that they are capable of maintaining a long-term committed relationship” (p. 479). Because the author often refers to the coming out process of middle-aged adults, he contends that “individuals at this stage still face the developmental tasks of adulthood, such as middle and old age. However, with an integrated identity, many individuals at this stage report a greater ease in confronting these tasks than individuals who are still working on earlier developmental stages” (p. 479). As Monteflores and Schultz (1978) added, “with the advent of the gay liberation movement, then, we may be in a position to develop more complex models” (p. 62). Pro-gay and lesbian scholars from this period reflected a shifting societal mindset that viewed gay and lesbian identity not as ill, immoral or indecent, but one deserving of legal protections, societal advocacy and socio-legitimacy.

3.2.3 Coming Out of the Closet and Homophobia

In the 1970s, homophobia was adopted as the preferred term to describe the oppression of, and discrimination against, homosexuals (see McCaskell, 2016; Warner. 2002). This led to the emergence of the term heterosexist, which Warner explains as “not only a manifestation of ignorance and fear, but also of the power wielded by the state and by social and commercial institutions that systemically promote, tolerate or sanction prejudice” (2002, p. 1999). In other words, heterosexism is a social construct that assumes and expects that heterosexual orientation is the only accepted and normal state of sexuality and which presumes that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexual attractions and relationships are the norm. Kinsmen (1996) explains that homophobia can be defined as “heterosexist discourse and practices” (p 34). He continues that this is akin to heterosexual hegemony in “institutional and social setting[s] and to sex relations without reducing gay and lesbian oppression to an effect” (p. 34). Institutional homophobia is a locale-based anti-gay philosophy in which hetero-normative policies, socio- expectations and assumptions are ingrained in institutions (such as work places). Knegt (2011) states, “institutional homophobia can be seen as a response of heterosexism, which is the system that favours opposite-sex sexuality and relationships and presumes that everyone is heterosexual or that heterosexual attraction and relationships are the only norm, and therefore superior” (p.

53). Kinsman (1996) alludes to the fact that the mainstream media’s depictions of gay and lesbian people generally come from psychology, sexology, the churches, and the courts and police. Social media portrays gay and lesbian people as either liberated from straight culture or still under siege by those who disagree with gay and lesbian identities for any number of reasons. Smith (1988) states, “The ideological circle through which the world is interpreted by the media and other agencies… is one of the ways heterosexual hegemony operates” (p. 171). Interestingly, Kinsman (1996) claimed that “the world is interpreted through the schemas of ‘expert sources’ (police, policy analysts, government bureaucrats) and hegemonic cultural narratives to confirm the dominant interpretation of same-gender sexuality. Scientific theories of homosexual deviance, criminality, or sickness thereby enter public discussion” (p. 25).

In the recent history of institutional homophobia in Canada, the federal government in 1967 collected more than 9,000 names of suspected homosexuals in the Ottawa area. This project included the Fruit Machine, a mechanism developed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and partially funded by Health and Welfare Canada, which could supposedly determine if a man was gay by recording changes in pupil dilation when shown erotic images of other men (see Kinsman, 1995). The Prime Minister of Canada eventually issued an apology to all queer peoples regarding this hunt (see Laws section in Chapter Two, page twelve). Nevertheless, heterosexism and institutional homophobia are still prevalent—although sometimes silenced—in our public institutions.

Coleman (1982) suggested that coming out of the closet is an important milestone for gay and lesbian people of any age. At the time that Coleman was writing, North American society was starting to view the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement as an outward force demanding the legal and social equalization of gay and lesbian identities. He also encouraged others to help gay men and lesbians through what he termed the stages of coming out. Coleman was ahead of his time, as we in the public education sector have finally made it explicitly clear that equal rights for gay and lesbian peoples are human rights. The author tells the readers to take notice of self- bias against gay and lesbian peoples, and that acceptance (beyond tolerance) is needed to understand and destroy the stigmas that surround gay and lesbian communities; better still is advocacy.

According to Coleman,

A developmental model of the coming-out process has been presented which can be helpful in understanding the unique identity formation of individuals with same-sex feeling and interests. Better understanding has led to greater acceptance by all concerned. I hope that this model can help eliminate the view of gay men and lesbians as sick, immoral and/or deviant (1982, p. 481).

Coming out as an act is a process, an internal and external realization that is dependent on the audience and self-perception; it is never-ending, and never just one’s own decision, as some have a self-issued license to share others’ gay and lesbian identities. Coming out is a way to make the invisible visible, and it is this visibility that allows for health care and legal reforms to penetrate those institutions that have traditionally upheld the ignorance of heterosexism shrouded in homophobia.

Figure 1. Show the iterative action when coming out of the closet as one balances aspects of homophobia with coming out of the closet.

4 Research Methodology

This chapter describes the methodological approach of this research and outlines participant selection, data collection and data analysis. More specifically, this chapter explores the critical underpinnings and purpose of the study.

4.1 Justification of a Qualitative Research Approach

A qualitative research approach best suits this study as it aligns with narratives that investigate the coming out experiences of lesbian and gay principals at work. More specifically, since this study involves a social examination of a particular social scene, a qualitative thematic approach was chosen (see Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014; Creswell, 2013). This approach was also used to systematically gain knowledge and empathy about a person, an interaction, a group, and/or a situation, and solidified a phenomenon that relates to a particular situation as represented in the experiences and perceptions of the participants (see Fereday & Muir- Cochrane, 2006; Schwandt, 2014; Smith & Firth, 2011). The data gathered in this study have provided meaningful and important insights into how gay and lesbian principals navigate their gay and lesbian identities when coming out—insights that could not have been collected from quantitative surveys.

In this study, participants’ knowledge, experiences and actions provided an outlet for discussions and shared understanding of coming out for principals. A qualitative research approach allowed me to investigate how the participants interact with the social phenomenon of coming out at work.

4.2 Participant Selection

Creswell (2013) emphasizes the importance of selecting appropriate candidates for semi- structured interviews that leads individuals to describe their lives and to focus on their experiences. Etikan, Abubakar and Alkassim (2016) state that “convenience sampling targets populations that meet certain practical criteria, including a willingness to participate in the study, the geographic location of the participant and availability” (p. 2). As such, those participants who met the research criteria were identified and invited to participate. As a result, participation in this study was limited to self-identified gay or lesbian, elementary or secondary principals in non-denominational, publicly funded school districts. See Appendix B for the Participant Letter

to Participate and Appendix C for the Request to Participate form from the Ontario Principals’ Council.

Creswell (2013) proposes that developing a strategy for purposive sampling supports the researcher when finding participants who best inform the phenomenon explored. As I connected with the participants, I inquired if they knew of other gay or lesbian principals who would be willing to partake in my study. In addition, using the criteria outlined, further potential participants were selected from among current work contacts and those with whom I had been involved in various pro-gay and lesbian projects and school-based ventures. Further, because I had shared my gay identity, I sought out those public school principals who had also shared their lesbian or gay identities with me. As a result, I knew five of my participants because of my work as an Instructional Curricula Coordinator where they shared there was a strong level of trust between us. Further, six were as a result from snowballing and a blind call out from the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC). Of the one secondary and ten elementary school principals who participated in the study, two identified as lesbian women and nine as gay men.

Due to the confidentiality required to protect the participants, details pertaining to their profiles are not outlined. Nevertheless, the following information is available for each participant: a brief description of the school context, number of years as principal, type of school, as well as their assigned pseudonyms, presented gender identities, presented racial identities, self-identified sexualities (see Table 1). The school communities served by these principals varied in size and all were diverse in regard to culture, religious affiliation, family structure and socio-economic composition. At the time of the interviews, elementary schools ranged from kindergarten to grade eight and secondary schools ranged from grades nine to twelve. School populations ranged from 300 to 1,500 students, and all served several hundred families within their communities. Participants worked in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and described their schools as being situated in suburban communities. As such, each alluded to the fact that the city of Toronto is close to their communities, allowing them to travel to the Gay Village and other known gay and lesbian-friendly neighbourhoods during their personal time.

Table 1

Summary of Purposively Selected Participants

Pseudonym Sexuality Presented Presented Average Type of Total Number Gender Racial Years as School of Schools as Identity Identity Principal at Principal Time of Study

Etienne Gay Male White 11-15 Elementary Two

Allen Gay Male White 6-10 Elementary Two

Harry Gay Male White 11-15 Elementary Two

Lowell Gay Male White 16-20 Elementary Three

Doug Gay Male White 1-5 Secondary One

Vahn Lesbian Female White 16-20 Elementary Three

Robert Gay Male Asian 1-5 Elementary Two

Thomas Gay Male White 1-5 Elementary One

Adam Gay Male White 1-5 Elementary Two

Vince Gay Male White 11-15 Elementary Two

Colleen Lesbian Female White 1-5 Elementary One

4.3 Data Collection

Interview questions were informed by the use of Queer theory and coming out of the closet (theoretical and conceptual frameworks) and inquired about the participants’ navigation of coming out as gay or lesbian principals at their work places (see Appendix A for the interview protocol). Specifically, the questions derived from the works of Khayatt (1997), who questioned the process of coming out to her university students as a declarative statement. Further, she questioned whether that is the only way to come out as a teacher at work, and also questioned the notion of what it means to come out in class. The interview questions were also derived from Silin (1999), who questioned his involvement in the gay and lesbian liberation movement that had led him to teach as an openly gay man, claiming, “others interpret my coming out in class as an invitation to unlock their own histories and join me in exploring the intersections of our personal lives and professional commitments” (p. 95). With Khayatt and Silin in mind, the questions revolved around the notion of principals coming out to the many educational stakeholders in their schools.

4.4 Field Testing the Interview Questions 4.4.1 The Interviews

I interviewed one K-8 principal, one 9-12 principal, and one 6-8 principal, all serving in the same school district. In each interview, I shared my main research question and associated sub- research questions to give them context for the interview questions. At the beginning of each conversation I explained that ‘coming out’ is an abbreviated form of the metaphor ‘coming out of the closet’, meaning to share one’s gay and lesbian identity. I also shared that I am interested in seeking to understand ‘coming out’ and ‘coming out’ as a principal at work, and that piloting my questions would help me decide the focus of my research. I asked each participant which questions they felt comfortable answering, which questions caught their attention (and why those questions caught their attention) and which questions were confusing or (in their interpretation) irrelevant to my study.

The interview questions have been altered to reflect the field-testing input from these principals. As a result, the secondary school principal was the only one who did not want to be part of this study once I had started to recruit for it.

Before collecting the data, the University of Toronto ethics protocol was completed and the Research Ethics Board approved the study. As per this protocol, all participants received and signed the informed consent letter (see Appendix D for the Participant Consent Form), which included an outline of the study, the purpose of the study and the intent thereof. Participants were offered the opportunity to discuss the study before meeting, and to connect with the researcher should they have questions, concerns, or need clarification. At the time of the interview, all participants had signed the consent forms, which were then collected prior to the interview itself.

According to Opdenakker (2006), “face-to-face interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in time and place. In these types of interviews, there is no significant delay between the question and the answer; the interviewer and the interviewee can directly react on what the other says.” (p. 3). As such, data collection consisted of face-to-face qualitative, single- round interviews with non-denominational public school principals. To encourage open-ended responses, participants were asked similar questions to allow some flexibility in the wording (see Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003).

McIntosh and Morse (2015) share that, “semi-structured [interviewing] is designed to ascertain subjective responses from people regarding a particular situation or phenomenon they have experienced” (p. 1). Semi-structured interviews were ideally suited to the research questions for this research because they provide reliable, qualitative data, having allowed participants to share their views and opinions, and provide for focused discussion between the researcher and each participant (see Creswell, 2013). Interview responses suggested a strategy for understanding the constitution of the principals' gay and lesbian identities within school contexts.

4.5 Data Analysis

I used thematic analysis to extract themes from the data. Braun and Clark (2006) state that, “thematic analysis as an independent qualitative descriptive approach is mainly described as a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns [themes] within data” (p. 79). Furthermore, open coding develops codes from the data by locating core categories, while theoretical coding develops relationships between the categories (see Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006). Understandably, the analysis was simultaneous via memoing (instead of at the end of data collection), since “memos are typically a rapid way of capturing thoughts that occur throughout

data collection, data condensation, data display, conclusion drawing, conclusion testing, and final reporting” (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014, p.96).

I looked for codes that appeared iteratively (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007) and inductively (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006). First, I transcribed the interviews, then I read through the data set at the end of each interview, then the entire data set once again when all interviews were completed. I then used different coloured highlighters to label each chunk with a descriptive code, showing the different categories as they emerged from the transcripts. I compared each new chunk of data with previous codes, as similar chunks were labeled with the same code. After coding all the data, I grouped the codes by similarity and identified themes based on each grouping (see Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007; Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006).

I selected quotes that illustrated the varies themes within phenomenon of coming out at work, including an understanding of the role of the principal, the reasons why they became principals, and how they navigated their roles as principals being gay and lesbian people/leaders in their schools. Reading the interviews and identifying commonalities led me to the findings in Chapter Five. I analyzed the interviews (via memoing and coding) keeping in mind the conceptual framework of ‘coming out of the closet’. What resulted was a congruence between the data collected with the conceptual framework. In other words, as I took memos (during and right after each interview) the concept of ‘coming out of the closet’ solidified itself via my analysis of the data. As such, participants' answers showed a “clear linkage to the study's conceptual framework and research question” (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014, p. 96).

Interestingly, Harry was the one outlier in my study who had never come out to any educational stakeholders (supervisors, colleagues, staff members, families—including parents and students). While other participants had experienced some level of coming out at work, Harry shared with me (as he was embarking on his retirement) that he had never uttered a word about his homosexual identity to anyone at work. He did continue to qualify this when he offered that that does not mean others had not outed him, but he guaranteed that he himself had never come out at work.

4.6 Limitations of the Study

Due to time constraints, the vast geography of the Greater Toronto Area, and taking into account travel time to a third location, in most instances each participant was interviewed once. Also, often the participants were only available for one interview as their jobs limited their availability. My intent was to recruit participants from across Ontario to gain a full spectrum of principal experiences. However, once I had realized that the participants resided solely in the Greater Toronto Area, I focused the study on this geographical area.

I have focused my study on the experiences of gay and lesbian principals, regardless of the student age groups they serve. As a result, I interviewed two self-identified lesbian women and nine self-identified gay men, all of whom were principals at that time. I had focused on their experiences as either lesbian or gay as principals in Ontario public schools. Lastly, all the principals were employees in public, non-denominational school systems in Ontario.

4.7 Delimitations of the Study

When first starting my research, I explicitly sought out participants from non-denominational, publicly-funded Ontario schools. I also investigated the school leadership position of principal and have chosen not to study the experiences of other school leaders, such as Vice Principal, Department Head, Central Leadership, and Superintendents of Education, as principals have a unique role in their actions as school leaders in service to their communities. Further, I have decided not to add identifying factors to my study, such as age, ability, and class, as a means to keep my participants’ identities confidential.

5 Findings

This chapter describes the findings of the study. The first section focuses on the ways in which the participants understood their positions as principals in schools as related to their job expectations by educational stakeholders (e.g. supervisors, colleagues, staff and families). They shared how they became principals by being encouraged and sought out by their supervisors. They perceived their principal roles as being community builders and equity programmers for their school communities.

The next section addresses the participants' sharing and/or expressing their gay or lesbian identities as they relate directly to those with whom they come into contact on a daily basis at work. The participants share their gay or lesbian realities with coming out of the closet to their educational stakeholders, including supervisors, colleagues, staff and families. They understood coming out as an ongoing and situational process, sharing about those to whom they disclosed their gay or lesbian identities, and for what purpose. Principals enact their gay or lesbian identities within various situations and chose to either express or repress their gay or lesbian identities accordingly.

The final section demonstrates the impact of how participants interpreted both school district policies and Ontario laws. The participants took into account their positionality as principals coupled with their equity advocacy for gay or lesbian peoples within their schools. Principals navigated socio-systemic resistance while participants interpreted school district-wide messaging from the senior leadership administration (namely, Superintendents, Directors' Office and Board of Trustees) and the efficacy of their school district’s pro-gay or lesbian policies with their default setting regarding their school’s pro-gay or lesbian equity programs within the wider scope of Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) policies.

5.1 Positions as Principals

While the positions held by principal participants were complex, each principal interviewed shared that they were happy to have been principals in their schools. The role of the principals was one that is fraught with complex daily interactions, which they claimed gave them a sense of accomplishment. They agreed that being principal was at times exhausting, yet mostly rewarding. They also shared the commonality of being sought after to become principals by their

41 42 immediate supervisors when they were teachers or vice-principals, or by their Superintendents of Education when they were vice-principals.

5.2 Direct Encouragement from Supervisors

“My superintendent saw my potential and had seen my success; they pushed me through the process. I got promoted very quickly… and placed immediately.”

(Robert)

Harry mentioned, “I had lots of encouragement” from his supervisor. He felt that since he had been explicitly encouraged by his supervisor, then that was the next logical step for his career path. This coincides with Doug, who said, “I taught elementary school for a couple years... I decided to be a principal once I started teaching high school, and the administration at the time tapped me on the shoulder and started that conversation.” Both of these participants felt that if their administration at that time were not certain of their potential as principals, then they would not have pursued that career path. However, since they were approached, such encouragement started them on their path towards principalship. The participants shared that their effectiveness as teachers also ingratiated their principals to direct them toward promotion. Colleen shared, “probably five years into teaching, it was recommended because I had leadership potential by my current principal at that time.” Lowell began engaging in the promotion process once his principal witnessed his school leadership potential as to how he ran the program in his classroom and his volunteer work around the school. Allen recalled, “it was one of my principals, when I was teaching, asked if I considered leadership” and he shared that this leadership consideration was directly related to the administrative role. This coincides with what Thomas experienced when he shared, “when I was working at a K-8 school, my principal then felt that I needed to go further and find ways that I can contribute... My principal felt that in an administrative role, I would be able to take the work that I was doing further... I think becoming a principal was a natural progression.” Vince shared, “I worked with regional programs, all the administrators I worked with urged me to be a principal.” All of the participants mentioned that non-solicited encouragement from their principals truly encouraged them to pursue promotion.

Adam said, “My superintendent saw something in me, so I trusted him, I became a principal,” and further shared that without that direct encouragement from his Superintendent of Education, he would never have thought to strive for promotion. Vahn said, “Somebody saw some leadership in me and suggested I should start that journey, think about it. What it would be like to have my own school, and the impact beyond your classroom.” She added that that somebody was her direct Superintendent of Education who encouraged her leadership journey towards principalship. Also, Colleen shared, “I was asked by my Superintendent to consider the promotion to principal after six years as a vice-principal. I figured I would go for it, and I was promoted quickly.” Further, Etienne shared, “it was suggested to me... I just kinda fell into it and I was a vice-principal for two years and then became a principal.”

It quickly became apparent that all the participants had been approached by their supervisor(s) to encourage and support their promotion to principal. Specifically, principals approached teachers as Superintendents of Education approached vice-principals to work towards becoming a principal. The underlying messaging shared by the participants was that there was a level of trust, coupled with the evidence of effective school leadership, when the participants were asked to engage in leadership promotion. All participants shared that once they were approached, and encouraged, to pursue a principalship, they interpreted that as a green light to advance their careers.

During the time of the interviews, all participants shared their enjoyment and love of being principals. They shared that the position itself is political, relentless and quite taxing on them personally and professionally, but at the same time to be advocates, building relationships, leading schools and affecting a change for the betterment of students, families and staff was paramount to their shared experiences. None of the participants regretted their promotions to the principal position. As shared by Allen, “I do enjoy it, it's not like I look back with regret but it wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be either. So, I learned that lesson.”

5.3 Principal as Community Builder

Robert shared his approach when he started in his current school, ”I started to question how to create a positive climate, and parents were welcomed in the office; staff didn't feel stressed... It was my job to create a positive climate for all the school.” Throughout this interview, he kept referring back to co-building a relationship with his greater school community. At times it was

44 difficult, as some families were in disagreement with his approaches, but he always welcomed said families into the school and into his office. Robert knew there would be challenges, but such challenges would be discussed in a space of mutual respect and clear approaches resulting in what is best for his school, his students, and his staff.

Vahn shared, “people often ask me if I miss the kids, and I don't because the kids fill my office, I am in classroom everyday... very rarely you would see my office door closed.” This speaks to the role of the principal as a community builder; she rarely stayed in her office and was intentional in connecting with the greater school community to build relationships and to be visible with the intent to establish her office as a place that the students claimed as their space as well. Roles of the participants as principals' experiences varied; nevertheless, the ways in which the participants approached their leadership as principals reflected their approaches regarding concerns (the realities) in their schools, and their recognition of the school climate directly related to their principalship coupled with stakeholder expectations. Each principal participant identified that their approaches to building school community differed in context, yet they shared an overall vision that combined a sense of altruism with an environment of belonging.

Harry shared, “we didn't have tradition, kids came from thirteen different sites; some schools sent us a lot of kids, others a dozen... The teachers had a say in the building as it was a constructivist approach, as we had parents coming from thirteen different places, new staff, and I am new too, as we could have 60 people at our first school council meeting, but after four years it pared down to a core of twenty.” For the formation of the school community, he took notes from neighbouring communities who had come together to work in a school. Harry had opened a new school at this time and when he was informed that this school would not be made up of children from Kindergarten to grade five (as initially planned by the school district), but grades six to eight, he was immediately concerned with the climate of the school due to the age level of the students. As he worked with staff, families and students, Harry believed in voice and choice from all who wanted to share with him as he was the principal. Putting aside the stresses of opening a new school, he took it upon himself to allow free access to his office, and he would seek out opinions, thoughts and differing points of view while focused on building a new school community. He also realized that,

it was an inner-city with a population that was disadvantaged nestled in a location that was fed by families who were middle-class... We had half the student population needed an awful lot, and the other half would do well, anyway. It has a reputation that was unhealthy... What do you really need to improve and you had some choices to be made. It would have been easy to say this is the way it's always been and ride that out and buy into the narrative that this was a tough community and to not do much, or make cosmetic changes. The disadvantaged families were not really engaged in the school while the other families felt their job was to help all the kids in the school.

How he built the school community was crucial to the success of students, families and staff. Harry knew that in order to effect deeper and meaningful community involvement, it was necessary to hear the voices of the families from all thirteen communities pulling together, coupled with the voices of the staff he had hired to support the families and the greater community.

When building school community, Allen focused on the students and his relationships specifically with his students. Doing this allowed him to connect with the families and to start building an involved school community. The community was built around the shared needs of his students and what was best for them. He shared, “I stand up for the kids. I feel that my job is to advocate for the students... Teachers have unions, parents have themselves, but children have the principal to constantly ensure that they are getting the very best education they can.” Throughout the interview, he kept the needs of his students paramount.

Allen shared that, “as a teacher, you have 30 kids in front of you, that's 30 families... As a principal, I have 400—that's a different dynamic.” He was referring to the need to realize the scope of the principal’s job. The number of families with expectations for the principal never stopped: “principals are teachers at heart, and they affect the climate of the school.” Allen spoke about how families were the spokespeople for their children and it was the duty of the principal to build a trusting relationship with parents. Allen continued, “we have many new Canadians and English is obviously not their first language, and within the community, they speak mostly in that, their language within the community. When parents come into the school, it's really hard for them to communicate with us.” Allen's approach to this was to build trust by reinforcing that the

46 school is a community hub for all families. It was also Adam's approach as he shared that “this was a tough school, we had an ethno-cultural diversity with new Canadians, but I remained steadfast and focused on equity and how to best serve this diverse community.” During the interview, he mentioned that the obvious language barrier was difficult to overcome, and included their cultural narratives in which schooling was a barrier in their home countries or represented a governmental institution where trust was never the focus. Further, Colleen shared, “we have a very large Mandarin population that we are having trouble engaging in school with community building.” These principals had tried to engage in their school community by offering different community-based programming to assist with English language acquisition. They mentioned that the formation of any trust, at any level, was difficult but that as principals they were determined to keep trying; if the data showed only minimal engagement, at least there was engagement.

The approaches that principals have taken to build communities were essential to the successes of those communities and the school at their centre. Having relied on building trusting relationships, Vahn shared upon her arrival to her school, “to be able to impact people and gain the trust of teachers, and students, and families, having them understand what it's like to have a principal to be completely involved in work they were doing and not someone who leads from the office.” She took action as soon as she could in building trusting relationships with all educational stakeholders. During this interview, Vahn referred several times to the need for trust as it relates to educational outcomes, decisions she made, and her communication with everyone. As Vahn built trust to encourage positive relationships and then implement positive educational outcomes, Lowell also referred to trust when building school community. In his community

[it] was a very high social economic status so it was a very different experience and most of the time I was focused on my parents' needs... Most of the families had a nanny and lived in two million-dollar homes... Once the parents and the staff trusted you, I was invited into their families—the social dinners and gatherings was what they wanted from their school principal.

There was a new level of personal-individual trust directly with parents. Parents in that established community wanted to build trust with their new principal to see if he was a good

47 match to their already established school community. Lowell shared that, after several years, the parents trusted him and agreed with his vision for the school.

Doug was in a very interesting position; he was at the beginning of his career as principal and was placed at a school where his predecessor had been principal for a very long time. He shared that

the previous principal was here for a long time, when I came in, I started to give opportunity to change for the better... It is refreshing to me as well. I started to rebuild the community in our school because I almost was able to hand-pick the leadership team, like a new school would.

In his attempt to re-envision and re-construct the community relationship, he took it upon himself to re-visit the school teacher-leadership team, as this was a secondary school where the department headship role is up for renewal every five years. Upon entering this school, and learning more about its community history, he chose department heads who subscribed to his vision as principal and his vision as community builder. Doug shifted the teacher-leadership dynamic to have an effect on the greater landscape of the school community. As such, new programs were offered to students, parents became more involved in school-based activities, and families were invited into the school to enhance overall school community. At the time of the interview, he had been there for several years, and he shared how staff were re-energized and re- engaged with the greater school community and that the overall feeling in the school was one of cohesiveness between the school and the school-community.

Robert was assigned to a school where the challenges were just that: challenging. The morale of the school community did not hinge on the principal, but on those who were at that particular school the longest. It became a reality to have followed which teacher was there the longest versus who was supposed to be in charge (namely, the principal). Robert shared that,

I went to a low socio-economic middle school, where I was the thirteenth principal in three years and was given a mandate to work with staff, reduce student suspensions, and support the staff to get them motivated.

Throughout the interview, it was clear that this principal had a strong vision that was both student-centered and family oriented. His first few months were focussed on delivering his vision via action, principal visibility and a strong voice from his position as principal. His mandate was to build school community by simply referring to the school as a community. Soon after arriving there, suspensions were not an option for him and he focussed on shifting staff morale. Further, Robert had just begun his second placement as principal, and he remembered that once established at this school, his job would need to change since “a middle school with not as low socio-economic status as my last school… this school is manageable. My philosophy is, trust the people you work with; I put the right people in the right programs.” He got to know his staff, offered an open-door approach, and listened to what his staff needed him to do, needed him to be. Having been there for the last two years, he was able to see the difference in how staff and families were reacting to his approach as a servant leader in his school. He knew that families and staff could have approached him and discussed issues, shared celebrations and talked about concerns having known that he listened, offered solutions, and discussed the situation at hand.

5.4 Principal as Equity Programmer

“Since this is my first placement as principal, I maintain a strong equity focus with my families and I listen to what they need, and communicate the needs of staff to build a strong community.”

(Thomas)

Thomas believed that his commitment to equity programming would change the school climate for the better. When he arrived at the school, he said to his staff that to be present for families and staff was to offer them a different way of doing what has been traditionally done, and why it was done.

Vahn faced a situation in which the families at her school were disengaged and only saw school as a barrier to what they thought was more important—the real world. She wanted to support her families by showing them that school was the right path to ensure that their students—their children—would discover that both the families and herself believed in the same outcome. In speaking of her experiences as a principal, and making certain that equity was the cornerstone of her school vision, she said

you stand on what you believe in, you stay firm, and you stand in that light. You don't give up on your belief system. If you believe in it, to lead from the heart... We can show them they can learn, get them back if lost in schooling.

While at her school, Vahn made certain that teachers based their curricula programming to reflect school district equity programming, and also ensured that families understood such a delivery philosophy. She engaged families in many ways—from conversations, to school-wide assemblies and after-school family programming. She also shared that “this was a tough school, we had an ethno-cultural diversity with new Canadians, but I remained steadfast and focused on equity and how to best serve this diverse community.”

Vince shared his first principalship as a place where

I worked at a very affluent school... privilege was very obvious at that school—so was bullying—thankfully, we had a regional program that tied me into the community of the school; for the programming, they were very supportive with the equity programming I had put in place to deal with bullying.

While at that school, Vince decided to change the school climate to one that dealt with bullying; students and families were eventually on-board with the anti-bullying program, regardless of their higher socio-economic status. He worked with the teachers to embed anti-bullying pedagogical means into their programming, and he used the regional program as a vehicle to change the school climate and to have the students examine their privilege.

Adam realized that the culture of his school was such that it gave rise to a feeling of entitlement from the students and their families. They expected certain programming and would not deviate from what they knew and had been given by the previous principal. Adam knew he had his work cut out for him as he shared, “this is more of a mono-culture of affluence, quite entitled families, I had to really take a new point of approach with equity work with our community.” He worked with his teachers to unpack their habits of entitling the students and their families. He approached his families with care, but at the same time he offered a sense of reality when it came to the essence of public education and their place in the larger municipality beyond the school community. Colleen had a different reality at her school, as she mentioned that

it was an inner-city school with programming for lower index population density. This school had additional programming to support the lower index of the community. We had a very large refugee population as well. It is a very difficult population to serve in a public school because the culture has very different attitudes towards school... They don't see it as a way to get ahead of the system; they see it as something they have to do to get their welfare cheque. Attendance is a huge problem, so it is a very busy and demanding place to build community through an equitable approach.

The messaging from Colleen was such that she had walked into a school that had already established a reputation; the school climate was not about to allow itself to change, at all. Over the years she had been at this school, she noticed that the families really did not see education as important but as a vehicle, a governmental expectation for them to be able to receive government funding for their families. The families would not engage in schooling; unfortunately, Colleen found this to be a very difficult environment in which to alter the larger scope of this neighborhood—this community—despite her many attempts and efforts to engage her families.

Etienne recalled that his first school experience as a principal was a frustrating one: “It’s exhausting, the job had changed so much over the years; to have to do it over again, I would not. It is such a political bag of garbage right now; kids are secondary to what we do.” In recollecting his first principal experiences, he continued:

it was not a good first experience as an administrator because at that point really, curriculum was secondary and I was looking after kids who had no shoes, kids that had no lunches, kids that were latch-key kids that didn’t see their parents for days at a time… very high CAS [Children’s Aid Society] involvement.

Advocating for his students was his priority as principal, and he worked with the mindset that his students cannot learn when they are simply trying to survive. Allen commented that, “I think being a principal can be very stressful, but how you deal with that is different for each person… I was in a community in a high needs area; I had to meet the needs of students coming from really difficult situations.” Allen was a hands-on principal who, like Etienne, believed that students need the bare essentials in life and the mental-wellness to learn in order to gain an education. Lowell said

… I was at a school with a much larger student body and there were lots of needs. This was the most difficult school I was principal at because half were in the specialized enhanced programming, and the other half were not, where each brought different needs.

Lowell faced a situation where his student population was divided via school district programming, which offered him a unique adversarial environment to navigate. Lowell shared that such school district programming polarizes the population, including teachers and families. He had a difficult time ensuring pedagogical outcomes (that learning was happening) when the school had been set in an us-and-them climate.

The participants’ understanding of their positions as principals was often at odds with the expectations of educational stakeholders such as supervisors, colleagues, staff and families. Nevertheless, they shared how their roles as community builders and equity programmers were such that they put in the effort, had difficult conversations, and even celebrated their successes as principals. Lowell shared, “I love the job, I love helping families, I love helping kids, I love supporting teachers. I have nothing but positive statements to say.” During this study, Lowell had been a seasoned principal, and his positive outlook no matter the situation had always proved successful. Doug is similar to Lowell when he says, “I like working with the kids, the kids here are great; they are teenagers and they mess up, but they acknowledge when they have and they do not lie about it, and that is nice.” Moreover, Vahn focused all her energy into what the students needed, making opportunities fair for them all:

students didn’t have the opportunity to be involved in all the other activities… we opened that up… this placed is filled with kids, kids who can’t work in classrooms, they’re gonna work here with us in our office space, and they are going to start to see themselves as learners.

Vahn insisted that students need to be given multiple opportunities to learn and to seek assistance when learning is not happening.

5.5 Coming Out of the Closet

This section addresses the participants’ shared and/or expressed gay or lesbian identities directly related to who they come in contact with on a daily basis and where such contacts occur. The participants unpacked their gay or lesbian realities when they came out to their educational stakeholders, including supervisors, colleagues, staff and families. They experienced coming out as a continual process, cited situational circumstances, and questioned the purpose of coming out at work. Principals manoeuvred their gay or lesbian identities within various situations and chose to either express or repress their gay or lesbian identities accordingly.

5.6 Coming Out as a Continual Process

“I think coming out involves coming out to yourself first before coming out to anyone else; being comfortable, confident in who you are… your values, ethics, integrity. I think coming out depends on when the person is ready to come out; there are many different forms of coming out… I continually come out.”

(Robert)

Robert’s interpretation of coming out is about his self-perception as a gay or lesbian person. Similarly, Thomas expressed, “being truthful about who you are… it’s a huge process because first you have to come to terms with understanding who/what it means to be gay to yourself, and that struggle with… there are many stereotypes in the media.” He referred to the public perception of what it means to be gay via the media and the general public perception of, and about, gay people. He wondered how this would manipulate, or create, a gay persona in the views of his educational stakeholders.

Etienne shared that, “it’s not a one-time thing… it depends on the process… so coming out means being honest with who you are and accepting that that’s gonna come with consequences, but if you’re in a safe place to do so, you do so”. Although Etienne said that a sense of safety was a prerequisite to coming out, Allen expressed his joy that he was able to just be gay after the process of coming out had been started:

my process of coming out was much later in life than I probably would have wanted it to be… I fought the coming out process as much as I possibly could

until it got to the point where I couldn’t do that anymore and I decided that it was in my best interest to come out… the journey was very difficult but coming out the other end has been an absolute joy.

Along with Allen, Vahn shared that once she had been out as a lesbian to her friends and family members, it was both relieving and empowering: “it’s a process… it’s a long process, but when you get to the point I am at, it’s just so relieving and empowering…” She continued, “coming out means accepting who you are… recognizing that you don’t want to play the game anymore, pretending that you are not. We all go to varying lengths of hiding and it just means having a real acceptance of yourself.” Allen delayed when he was to come out to later in life, which had certain repercussions in his personal life. He expressed that being out as a gay man—at least to himself—had resulted in a much better present life status. Vahn saw hiding her lesbian identity as a game where she would take note of the number of people who did not recognize her as lesbian; she grew to accept herself and to realize her lesbian identity as the truest form of her persona in her personal life.

Adam shared the same sentiments as Vahn, Robert and Thomas when he said, “coming out is a journey… a process. It means to be honest and transparent, which I live through constantly.” Being true to oneself is part of the coming out process; the truth will set you free.

Harry also shared his coming out as process: “I am glad you put it in the present. I think it’s constructed as a singular event by the Gay Community, and that couldn’t be further from the truth; it goes on forever and ever… it’s a long process.” He elaborated, “it doesn’t stop there… there are these concentric circles… you, then others… then there’s are you doing all the coming out?” This concept of continually coming out was also shared by Doug:

for me, you are constantly coming out so, there is the initial coming out, the self- realization, then coming out to whomever the first couple people are… but after that, you are constantly coming out… coming to a new school… you need to know where there is that comfort level.

What Harry meant was that once he came out a few times, and the more people knew about his sexual identity as a gay man, then how many more times does he need to come out? Who has come out on his behalf? In his social circles, he had come out, and friends and family knew. He

54 was concerned for his work life in terms of who knew what since he had never come out to his colleagues, staff, and families. He remembered,

I came out to my parents and siblings first, then my ex-wife and my kids. Never at the professional level. I still have not come out. Was it my choice to keep quiet because I was afraid to? It didn’t occur to me if I would… I knew I never would. I never gave it a thought in becoming a principal.

Similarly, Vince related his coming out to the workplace:

coming out is absolutely a process… you have to make sure you are either true to your integrity and your own identity… and won’t jeopardize it no matter who your employer is, or what the values are…

Colleen also shared when I asked what coming out means to her:

well, it means telling people that you are gay. Pretty much, that’s it. It’s definitely a daily process. Every single encounter I have, it’s a decision. Do I disclose that? Or not? If I was straight… Because I am in a long-term relationship, we have been together for seventeen years...

Lowell shared that coming out was a never-ending decision as to who to come out to, when, and why: “… coming out is a never-ending process. I make decisions every single day as to who you want to let into your identity…”

For the participants, coming out was a continual process that began with self-acknowledgement of the gay-self, or identity. Once that truth has been realized, then others start to learn of this gay-persona; they are told about it either by the participant themselves or by others with whom they have shared their gay or lesbian identities. The initial sharing is usually to families, friends, and their closer social circle. When it came to coming out at work, the participants recognized that this too is a process pertaining to safety, to authentic identity and to their gay or lesbian- selves at work. The next section will delineate the participants’ perceptions and realities of being gay and lesbian at work, namely with supervisors, colleagues, staff and families.

5.7 Coming Out at Work

“… as a gay person, you are always wondering in what spaces am I free to be openly gay, and where am I not free. And, in that space, I did not feel free to be openly gay… sexuality is not like race… I didn’t know what kind of response I would get and I am not the kind of person who is going to stand up and carry the [Pride] flag.”

(Allen)

Both Etienne and Allen shared the same sentiments about coming out at work (school). Etienne said, “I would never use male pronouns, I have been with the same guy for 23 years and I would never use his name or I would never say him/he/his…” He mentioned that,

as a teacher, people knew, I didn’t lie and I had close friends on staff, they would know I was gay but I didn’t announce it to principals—I was always afraid of repercussions.

This adds to what Allen shared:

I worried a bit about the school I would be placed at… At first, I was very afraid to even be open with staff, particularly when I was at the beginning stages of being an administrator… I worried about how I would be accepted if staff knew that about me.

Both participants feared how being out might affect their professional identities as principals, resulting in negative reactions from stakeholders or in simply not being accepted at the work place. I asked the participants to share with me their disclosures of being gay or lesbian to educational stakeholders, including colleagues, their staff (teaching and non-teaching), and families, including students. The participants were more inclined to come out to colleagues than to students. Depending on the circumstances, some principals were reluctant to come out at all.

Vahn shared:

when I came to this school, filling out the emergency list, I gave my partner’s name, not flinching, not thinking about it, but saying that she is a real person…

incredible feeling that you are gay, you’re accepted and you are in a relationship… I was empowered not to hide that [being in a same-sex relationship] and just let the other person handle how they’re gonna handle it.

This was a self-evolution, as in the past, Vahn continued,

I would out myself [at work] eventually but not talk in the same way as if I were in a partnership, never acknowledging it. When filling out forms [in the past], I would fill out my roommate.

Early in her career as a principal, she was not comfortable with disclosing her lesbian identity at work, instead allowing co-workers to simply learn about her roommate as opposed to her partner. The participants varied on where, to whom, and how they have come out at work. Several participants hinted at, and mentioned, that even though they had not outed themselves, that did not mean they had not been outed.

5.8 Coming Out to Supervisors and Colleagues

“I have been reserved within our principal association, I have a few friends in our association… I know people know, however they know; like I said, it is not really talked about and I have never involved my partner in any of those events, ever, before.”

(Allen)

As the participant principals shared their decisions to come out to their supervisors and colleagues, they recalled the need for a sense of safety. In other words, they came out to their supervisors or colleagues as a defensive move in case staff and families were to find out; the principals needed their support and their advocacy. Moreover, they were searching for safety in the sense that if they were to share their gay or lesbian identities, then there was nothing else to hide, and they could be who they needed to be at work. The participants also needed to know, and feel, safe in their work environments should they decide to come out. In some cases, principals did not hesitate to come out; once they had met their staff, they outed themselves at staff meetings and/or in one-on-one conversations.

Etienne shared that

as a principal, the Director of Education wanted me to do a session on LGBTQ identities with all administrators and with an openly gay man [his colleague from the same school district]. Every principal from the system was there and we were talking about LGBTQ… And, at the end of the session, my co-presenter kept talking about his husband; I didn’t talk about my partner.

As Etienne and I talked about coming out at work to colleagues, he shared, “I am very open now… with that have come consequences…” He went on to share with me the trials he had experienced with staff once they knew—or found out—he was gay.

Similar to Etienne’s experience, Allen shared that when coming out to colleagues, “that was more difficult for me, I found it a lot easier to come out to my children than I do to my colleagues.” He continued, “at a principals’ meeting, I felt immediately uncomfortable because I don’t know those other principals and I am not going to put myself here because it is not safe.” Lowell said:

it’s something that, for me, when someone asks how was your weekend, you have to make a choice… am I going to say partner, or am I going to skirt around the issue? Am I going to put a picture on my desk for people to look at it? You make decisions all the time.

He continued, “there have been times I have come out, and there have been times my sexuality has been disclosed for me to other people—like people [colleagues] know.” Doug mentioned,

I have been reserved within our principal association, I have a few friends in our association… I know people know, however they know; like I said, it is not really talked about and I have never involved my partner in any of those events, ever, before.

One participant, Robert, had no issue with coming out to his colleagues: “I speak freely with superintendents and colleagues…” as a sign of his not being shamed of being gay. On the contrary, Thomas came out to his colleagues and superintendents to build a sense of safety for them in case any issues arose that were linked to his gay identity:

I have always told them to let them be aware. One of my superintendents didn’t realize, the first superintendent I spoke with [about being gay]… I think once one [colleague/superintendent] knows, they all know…

Similar to Thomas, Adam shared: “I had to tell them [colleagues] in case I needed their support… I told the vice-principals who worked with me… I stopped hiding; I had to come out.” Whereas Colleen said

it’s more implicitly [my coming out to colleagues]. If my personal life happens to come up, then it’s gonna be something that I share. Obviously, I shared it deliberately to my principals when I was a vice-principal. I have shared it explicitly with my Superintendent, but people I happen to see at meetings, it’s gonna be a choice depending whether or not that emerges.

Like Thomas, Adam and Colleen shared their gay identities with their supervisors, and shared with immediate work colleagues as a measure towards protection and safety.

5.9 Coming Out to Staff

“I was an administrator when I came out to myself. If there is a professional distance between yourself and others (and there is professional distance between principal and staff) that there was some security in that the staff would probably not ask me directly.”

(Harry)

When asked about coming out to staff (both teaching and non-teaching employees) in their schools, there was a common response of having to be guarded. In other words, most of the participants questioned the intent of telling their staff, how such information would be shared, and why such information would be communicated. Although most participants implicitly shared their sexual identities, some participants did explicitly share their gay or lesbian-selves once they had met the staff. Harry used his principal positionality to create a professional distance between himself and his staff:

professionally, I have never come out to anyone. I am not saying people haven’t speculated… I would say if you don’t want your identity known for whatever reason, either your own discomfort or fears (a lot of it is fear), you hear stories where it changes as your professional profile becomes more public.

He was the only participant who had never shared his gay identity with colleagues. At the time of the interview, he had announced his retirement. He continued, “my point is, for a number of reasons some professional distance between principal and staff worked. And it works because I rely on that distance to maintain anonymity.”

This built-in, fool-proof protection was also alluded to by Vahn when she shared that when she was newer to the role of principal, “I never actually [came out to staff]. In fact, I would deny. I had a staff member ask me one time, ‘is that your partner answering the phone?’ I would deny… [eventually] I would out myself but not talk in the same way as if I were in a partnership, never acknowledging it. When filling out forms, I would fill out ‘roommate’ in the past.”

Allen approached coming out to his staff in a quiet manner when he got married to his now husband:

when I got married… I kept it quiet; however, I didn’t lie about it either so if someone were to ask me up-front, I would have told them the truth. I have a picture of myself and my husband on my desk and then I realized if I am going to do that, I will have to come out to the staff.

Allen did not hold back. When staff questioned the picture, or asked about his weekend, he did not play with pronouns, re-direct the answer, or ignore; he simply answered truthfully.

Lowell also wanted to make his sexual identity known in a way that would avoid the identity politics that had many times been tied to this identity: “I never made it a political statement. I was very cautious… for me, I wanted to make it as natural as possible.” Further, he said,

I think because I would be close enough to certain people on staff, I would have conversations about my personal life; that information gets passed on to other people and it sort of spreads that way.

He was very aware of the dynamics of his staff, and how they would share news of his gay sexual identity. In speaking with him further, he found it somewhat comforting not having to come out to all his staff en masse, but he knew he was comfortable enough to have discussions with staff members if questions were to arise about his gay identity. As we discussed his other schools, Lowell mentioned that

I am completely out to staff... once again, I brought staff with me from other locations who would have known I was gay; picture of me and my partner and my kids on my desk during the staff interviews, and I think staff talk. I never stood up at a staff meeting and said I am gay; I would say partner when talking about my weekend... I believe in making yourself vulnerable and saying this is who I am.

Lowell was not willing to hide his gay identity, but he was not willing to deny it either.

Doug was reflective in his response as he said, “I have never come out, or talked about it to staff, but staff know… it was not me making an announcement, but I share how life is.” He also referred to the dynamics of his staff knowing about his gay-self without him even sharing his identity. Doug was not bothered by the dynamics of his staff, he knew that if staff wanted to learn more about him, they would simply ask; however, at the time of the interview, no staff had approached him. He attributed that to the inherent professional distance between principal and staff. Adam shared that he implicitly came out

when the situation called for it. Then again, is it relevant to the job as their principal? The more I thought about it, the less guarded I became… I didn’t announce it, but I didn’t hide it either.

He shared his sexual identity in situations where it was warranted, where it was safe to discuss it, and where there was trust between himself and staff member(s).

Etienne eventually felt comfortable with his gay-self at work. As he became more comfortable with the role of principal, he realized the importance of coming out as his son had recently moved into a school in his district and he wanted to make a positive move toward gay inclusion in the district. At a workshop he was co-delivering, Etienne replied to a participant who asked

61 him how he knew so much about gay experiences: “‘I know this because I am gay’; it was a mixed reaction—again—naively, many already knew.”

Robert was also very explicit about coming out: “I am very out. I talk about my partner, about my personal life… I just talk about my life. I don’t believe in that [hiding my sexuality from staff], it’s just who I am.” Similarly, Thomas came out to his new staff at their first introduction:

it’s been an interesting year, one with the fact that I came in and made a deliberate choice…. I made the conscious choice at my first staff meeting, identifying with who I was, identifying my partner and we’ve been together for 23 years and he’s very much a part of my journey getting to be principal. I didn’t want to start my career here with it being under the surface. I wanted people to know who I was and [get] feedback either way. I needed to be prepared to accept that… I didn’t want someone else to out me because I have done a lot of equity work as a VP and I knew there were pieces out there I helped to create… I knew it was out there, so I wanted to be the person to say it instead of someone else.

To have taken the power away from remaining quiet, closeted, when being introduced to his new staff as principal was something Thomas wanted to do. He understood the possible ramifications of sharing his gay identity, he was prepared to endure possible questions, but he wanted to be honest with his staff in that his gay identity—related to his relationship—was an important piece affecting his role as principal. In speaking with him, however, there had been some expected negative repercussions.

Colleen shared that

my staff know… that has been a deliberate choice, otherwise it’s too awkward. I feel like I want to front load that because I don’t want to have to sit and worry… about… whether or not… people will deal with it like they do… again, because the policies are fairly clear for teachers, it’s pretty straight forward.

Colleen referred to school district and Ontario Human Rights Commission policies to have direct conversations with staff without the need to either deny or allude to her lesbian identity as principal. Similar to Thomas and Colleen, Vince was very explicit to his staff:

the staff knew I was gay upon my introduction with transitioning into the school in August from my VP role. I made it very clear who I was, who my family was, and if they had questions, they can approach me about it... there were no initial issues at all, and no longer-term issues either—they were a very close staff.

From his first placement as principal, Vince had made the decision to have his new staff know him for who he was, and being gay is a large part of this overall identity. Throughout our conversation, he referred to his gay identity as playing a large part in the decisions he made as principal. Nevertheless, situations did arise that resulted in some participants needing to protect themselves and led Etienne to re-evaluate sharing his gay identities. Etienne shared:

[situation with a custodian] at one point, he came in and said to the secretary, when I wasn’t there, ‘Can you let me know when Princess returns?’ The secretary reported that to me and I called his supervisor, and his supervisor was very supportive.

This made Etienne aware of the homophobia in his workplace, and while being principal did not ensure him immunity, it gave him the authority—and know-how—to report this workplace harassment. The custodian was reprimanded, and was expected to apologize to Etienne.

5.10 Coming Out to Families

“People ask if I am married… I don’t have time to mask my gay identity, I close it off. I don’t need to disclose that to parents.”

(Robert)

Participants grew fearful as they approached parents of the families for a level of approval; they sought consent to come out to their child(ren). In this study, families are defined as parental unit(s) and their child(ren), namely the students that attend, and are connected to, the school the principals have led. All participants expressed a level of concern regarding sharing their gay or

63 lesbian identities with the families. Moreover, they were fearful of the resulting reactions, and when they did come out (most implicitly, a few explicitly) there followed a need for parental consent. Consent, contextually, is the need for principals to legitimize the sharing of their gay or lesbian sexuality and/or the need for the principal to not share but only allow their professional selves to be the basis of their interactions with the families.

Although the participants were reluctant to come out to families, Colleen came out to her families as she had been assigned to two schools at the same time with varying populations including differences in social economic status, cultural make-up, religious affiliations, etc. Her other school is a place where

the parents are extremely involved, and I have many, many lesbian and gay parents… at that school, I am completely out, they all know. This year I came out, very deliberately…

She felt it was safe to come out to her families. Etienne worked in a school district that is mandated to fly the Pride flag every June in celebration and recognition of Pride Month. He shared his trepidation when he was to fly it for the first time:

every school in the board raises the Pride flag, but the principal at the school previous to me had never done that, so upon my arrival I raised the flag. I expected a blow-out… I got three phone calls about it: one didn’t know what I meant and thought maybe someone had passed away, and the others wanted to know what it was—once they knew what it was, they were fine with it.

Etienne shared his anxiety about flying the Pride flag as he did not know how the community would react and what the families in his school community would do once the meaning of the Pride flag was made clear. In his conversations with those few parents, their non-reactive responses were a form of consent, allowing him—and his school—to recognize his homosexuality.

For the most part, the participants have not shared their gay or lesbian identities with families due to the perception that principals need to be role models for staff and students; there are pressures to come out for the benefit of students and staff. Allen felt criticized

because they [colleagues] feel as a gay administrator, I should be setting examples for others, particularly for students. However, I am not sure that I am prepared to accept the consequences of that decision.

Allen was fearful of his identity being known, but he was not prepared for negative reactions from the families he served. When I asked about his school parents knowing, he said,

they [parents] don’t know from me. I can tell you that in most, many, communities this will not be well received… I know a few principals who identify as gay or lesbian, I don’t know any of them who are out to their community unless they are in a community in the downtown core; many of our parents may be same- sex couples… where I am now, I would not be out.

Allen was convinced that had the families been more liberal; for example, had there been more same-sex couples attending his school, then he would have considered coming out. The reality was that there were no same-sex parental families where he was placed as principal, which prevented his coming out to families. He did not want his gay identity to interfere with his position as principal, or cause any negative repercussions. Lowell said that

parents are a different story. It's interesting because when I was at my first school, acceptance of gay people from the parental community was not irregular as they were exposed to a lot of different aspects of culture.

Although he realized that his parents would not be bothered by his gay identity, he continued:

I would not disclose to parents, and even when people would ask 'do you have a wife?', I would not answer those questions... I would say 'no' and then divert the conversation elsewhere, making it clear I don't want to discuss my personal life. There was a comfort level with myself that I would never lie, but I would shut down the conversation.

Lowell was not as open about his gay-self to families as he was with his staff and colleagues. Harry maintained his closeted position by being defensive when having to interact with families:

I did think about if someone were to ask, how would I answer? I would have to formulate a ready response, tell me why that information is important to you? And I think it worked with kids and I believe it would have worked with adults if I needed to use it, and I never did.

Harry was prepared to question the motive of anyone who asked him, while he continued to rely on his position and hoped that no one would ask him. Vahn recalled never having to come out to families:

I don't think it ever came up [with families], even now. I have no questions asked of me. I don't think I've ever been asked by a parent... because I have kids in my family, I have their pictures in my office—part of the game.

She once again referred to this “game” aspect of hiding her lesbian identity as a way to “get the parents off the scent” of her lesbian identity. There were times when she would hear anti- gay or lesbian sentiments from parents. She would then protect herself by speaking about gay or lesbian peoples, referencing laws and policies and skillfully removing herself from being identified as lesbian.

Doug was a new principal who knew his placement at that school was coming to an end as the school district had plans to place him elsewhere. In relation to being out, or coming out, with families, he said, “I have never had conversations; it has never been out there. No one has ever asked... the community did not pull back about the physical education curriculum.” He noted the importance of the revised physical and health education curriculum that explicitly informs teachers to speak of, about, and for gay or lesbian peoples. Doug recalled his own school days:

I was pretty closeted in school, and I did not want those labels thrown at me [referring to derogatory slurs]… that stays with you, and because of that, I have stayed very protected in general. I do not know if I would always be comfortable with all that [referring to his gay identity] due to that [to come out] but when it has come up, I have been [out].

Having learned of his student narratives and how those affected his gay identity as a principal in an Ontario school, I asked Doug if he had given any thought to his next principal placement. He

66 replied, “I am not worried about it. I feel pretty safe within our board now; I would have before too. I started working for this board... I don't feel the need to talk about being gay with staff, families, including students, in an open setting. Just like a straight principal would not talk about being straight either.” Doug mentioned that he would not expect to out himself to families just as a straight principal would not disclose their heterosexual identity. He simple expected, and wanted, the families he served to know him as an effective principal—sexuality should not and did not play a role in his position.

Adam, also a new principal, said, “this [coming out to families] took longer to be somewhat implicitly open. At the beginning, I feared for my reputation as a principal, accusations and even for my OCT [Ontario College of Teachers] license knowing that parents can file complaints.” Adam was not alone; the reality is that principals face reprimands since they are still members of the OCT and the Ontario Principals' Council (OPC).

Robert had a unique experience involving parents on his parent council. Similar to Doug and Harry, he shared, “people ask if I am married... I don't have time to mask my gay identity, I close it off. I don't need to disclose that to parents.” His motive was fear coupled with the time needed to focus on him being gay. However, at the time of this interview, he shared:

I have come out to a parent this year as I have known her for four years... I can be out to a couple of parents, but I think I have come out implicitly... the words wife or partner are never used. The first time my VP mentioned my partner was in front of a student and I was uncomfortable with that because I don't really talk about my family life with kids. I am still not out to students.

Robert had come out to a member of the School Parent Council due to their relationship over the last several years. He shared that he told her with trepidation, and as he shared his lesbian identity, he hoped for a positive reaction from a prominent member of the School Parent Council and school community. This was his way of seeking consent from a parent who held a strong voice in the overall school community. Thomas had also experienced fear when talking with members of his school parent council:

I didn't come out initially, but I did eventually speak to both parent council chairs; as suspected, they had already known because of the community and teachers

within this community. They are very well linked... so that discussion already occurred before I talked with them.

He was concerned about his reputation and his position as principal, and having members of the parent council affirm their consent with his gay identity was what he wanted. Vince shared, “they [families] came to know that I was a gay male... the parents did.” He shared a very interesting situation involving a student, as this spoke to his fears and the consent he sought from a parent on the parent council:

it was during a bullying incident with a grade four class where the students learned of my sexual orientation. At a restorative circle, in my office, they were to create a script and perform a scene... they had decided that the bullying victim was going to be a gay boy. As they were creating this, they kept laughing. I asked them about their laughing, it was in that conversation that homophobia came out. They decided to say that they didn't know anyone gay... then one girl said, 'my mum and dad say you are gay... is that true?' I said, 'yes it is.' That is where I was honest and outed myself and really considered the impact on the kids; the ramification that it may have being publicly out to kids but, it was time. I called the parents [of the student who asked me] and I explained to the parents what had transpired during the day that I was asked directly... the child was the daughter of the School Council Chair who I have been close with and we talked about relational trust. It went fine, there was no issue in the community that I was aware of at all; kids did the play, it was successful.

In these cases, there was a concern with parental positionality in the overall school community. The power the School Parent Council has in terms of the role of principal is vital, and strikes a delicate balance when principals navigate the needs of families with programming expectations from the school district. Colleen's experience was similar to Lowell, Harry, Vahn and Vince:

[coming out to families] so that's a different animal... that's a very different animal. It's not that I am secretive about it; there are many parents that are aware but there were parents that were not. Well, it's not something that I hid very deliberately... at my last school, I had a number of lesbian parents in the regional program. So, I would be open with them and they were very well connected in

that regional program parent community. I am sure many of them... the parent council chair, and the one after her... know.

Colleen had been out (and outed) by her willingness to speak with other lesbian parents in her community. There was still a sense of fear regarding her confirmation with the parents (who also chaired the school parent council) of her lesbian identity. Interestingly enough, Vahn shared:

with the kids, I don't think I would. I don't feel safe doing that. It could be an unfounded fear, but it is still fearful... I don't know of any principal actually out to the kids. So, when you are dealing with kids in the office who claim that gays need to be burned and sent to hell, having to reply with plain language without taking it personally...

She shared that she often has to deal with students who use anti-gay or lesbian, hate-based language, where she needs to explain the negative effects on others' identities with those students and their parents. Vahn continued to share, “can you imagine if... I wonder what that would be like... to actually be out... [to families]?” Each of the participants was very reluctant to share their gay or lesbian-selves with their families as that would have jeopardized principal-parent relationships, and it did not secure their identities from the students as in the situation with Vince and the grade four students. With the exception of Harry, who has never come out at work himself, some of the participants eventually found the fortitude to come out—albeit implicitly— to their families. Though initially fearful, coming out gained the needed consent from parents in an act of reassurance that led to the affirmation and acceptance of their gay or lesbian identities as principals.

5.11 School as a Workplace

Although the participants navigated their gay and lesbian identities at work, I also inquired about their positions as gay or lesbian principals. Did they have pro-gay or lesbian programs in their schools and how did they navigate their gay or lesbian identities? Lowell had markers in his office signifying his gay identity. Adam was fully aware of his principal position as he had to navigate conversations with parents if/when they were to ask, or complain, of the existence of a Gay-Straight Alliance, or Etienne hoisting the Pride flag in June recognizing Pride Month.

5.11.1 Positionality and Professionalism

“It’s not about you, it’s about the teacher... it also helps maintain professional distance; I wasn’t coming out. If he put two-and-two together, he could imply.”

(Harry)

Harry’s point of view regarding his gay identity as a principal employed a metaphor: “the principal is an anchor position in our field and your experiences of not being comfortable with who you are, I think…” Etienne shared, “I didn’t pretend, but I wasn’t as evident with pictures of my husband, I didn’t talk... the teachers knew I was openly gay in that sense but it wasn’t something I discussed.” He further reflected, “My first principalship, I didn’t want to go down based on my sexual orientation when I really didn’t know what I was doing as a principal.” He continued, “I would talk about it like when people were complaining about kids, I would use gender when discussing kids at home with my husband. Occasionally, somebody could kind of stand up and say, ‘he?’… ya… my partner is male, and go on… again, I think if nasty things are said, based on my position, they don’t have the courage to say it to my face.”

Allen then revealed the following after stating that his gay identity had nothing to do with his being a principal: “However, when I began to think about it, I do think that there are probably elements that do impact the way I do my job… they probably are if I think about it.” Allen shared his insight on the position of being principal when he stated, “I didn’t see what being gay, being married to a man, had anything to do with my profession as a principal; I did not connect the two.” Allen shared that, at his present school, “we don’t have a program.” He had decided that “we do have posters in our intermediate area that have LGBTQ-friendly messages. The perception that it would be intermediate students who would be most in-touch with their sexual identity.” In speaking with Allen about being a pro-gay advocate for staff as principal, he shared:

absolutely, I would 100% support them [teachers seeking assistance coming out to their students and families]. My superintendent knows I am a gay man and she told me that my choice to be open with the community was, again, my choice. But she did say do not feel you have to be open about that… at all.

His superintendent’s support had given him permission and allowance to come out.

Lowell also shared his positionality regarding his professionalism,

there would be people [with whom] I would come into contact at the professional level where I wouldn’t talk about personal life, I wouldn’t talk about my family, I wouldn’t talk about my kids, and I wouldn’t talk about someone I was dating because of the professional relationship. We would talk about schooling, we would talk about kids...

Lowell’s point of view acknowledged his position as a principal who happens to be gay while maintaining his professionalism. Doug recalled his purposeful distance from his staff: “I do not really hang out with teachers outside of school… I always tried to keep my work life and personal life separate; I leave my computer in my office, I keep to myself personally. I don’t have a lot of personal stuff in my office either.” He continued, “I think as I get more comfortable as time goes on as a principal… again, I do not really engage in a lot of social conversations with teachers… a distance.” As we continued our conversation, Doug shared, “But I started to be more social because as principal, they need to see you in that light… [He shared that he had invited staff to his home; his anxiety lied the exposure of his gay identity] I am trying to be more sociable.” Doug had shared his gay identity with staff members as a learning tool and demonstrated empathy as he advocated for gay or lesbian identities.

Adam shared his positionality when, “I would support teachers and students who wanted to run the GSA [gay-straight alliance], but I would be aware of the language used to support the GSA because of my position as a principal.” However, Thomas was clear with his Superintendent of Education regarding first school placement in terms of being deliberately placed at a school in a community that would accept his being gay: “I think I was carefully placed here when I looked at the openings available at the district, some areas that were open… I feel I was placed in a community where, for the majority, family population would be accepting of who I was.” Thomas was also told he was placed at his school for the reason that he would not have to navigate his sexuality, but simply be the school principal. Vince used his position as a tool: “as a principal, you are the leader, you are setting the tone. I used to think as a teacher, no one person makes the difference, then I realized it’s huge for the principal to set the tone of the school… then, I made sure the kids knew I was gay as this set the tone for honesty and truth.”

5.12 Resistance

Vahn shared her resistance to coming out to parents:

I am pretty closeted to the parent community… and again, really based on what I believed the religious beliefs are… I had parents come in and refer to me as a sister to the father, and so on… I remember thinking when he was talking, ‘if you really knew who I was, you would not feel that comfortable letting me into your family.’ It would be based on their religious beliefs and background. I hear it from kids and we deal with it. I don’t think there would be too many parents happy with me sharing it… we have many parents that have very strong feelings about [against] homosexuality.

Vahn approached resistance when she shared,

I do have one staff member who’s gay. We talk, I don’t recommend that he come out to his kids. I think he’s getting there, that he might… he’s come out to a Trans-boy to give this young boy someone to talk with… the father’s having a tough time with it. Now to learn that the student had lunch with his gay teacher, knowing the teacher has to be careful, beware of how things can get twisted.

She continued:

He’s had people write on the wall outside his room ‘gay’; so, you just have to prepare for that when you choose to do that. I don’t think it’s safe as the admin at the school to be able to do that. I feel completely comfortable to the adults in the building, I would not be prepared to take on the community backlash. And from the kids as well.

As Vahn had shared that one of the staff members officially has a safe space in her school, she added, “but I still don’t think it’s safe. All you really want to do is help the kids struggling with it; not being allowed to be who you are.”

In terms of the absence of one’s gay-self, Robert was eager to support staff as they started their middle school GSA; however, he also shared that “I have yet to come to a meeting, but she [the

staff sponsor] has my 100% support; we have five rainbow flags, we strategically placed them in our school—to avoid vandalism.” The purposeful placement of the Pride flags to avoid vandalism is an action he takes to promote gay or lesbian peoples; nonetheless, his absence from the GSA, coupled with such purposeful placement, speaks to the resistance he felt when considering coming out at work as a principal.

I asked Harry what he had done as principal and equity leader to develop a pro-gay or lesbian message at his school. He shared:

the notion of gay identity was there from the get-go because we had a middle school population, how do we respond to the commentaries ‘that’s so gay’ and that kind of stuff, and we would talk openly about it at staff meetings and there were some students...

Having been familiar with the common language used by middle school-aged students, Harry took it upon himself to understand and recognize the built-in resistance from his community.

Even though Doug had come out to a staff member to help him navigate negative comments in the staff work room, he said that “we have a GSA. I have never really made a presence there, which really bothers me as I do not know why I never did. I have always supported it, but never actually gone to meetings.” He had noticed his resistance to attend the gay-straight alliance and has removed his personal barrier: “This year I have stopped by a couple times to check up on kids because they were doing cool stuff.”

Thomas also referred to socio-economic status when sharing his options for his first school placement: “There were two schools in a neighbourhood of lower social-economic status available. I wasn’t placed at either of them.” Since he was at the beginning of his principal career, I asked him about the likelihood of being placed in other schools. He said that he would expect his Superintendent to place him in a school known to be welcoming of gay people.

Allen shared, “As my first placement, I was guarded… it was also a very rough inner-city school.” Allen realized that students are mostly inclusive of all identities, then shared, “it’s the adults in their lives that get in the way.” He then referred to the learned behaviours imitated and inadvertently taught to children, referring to religious doctrine as a barrier to his equity work,

especially as it relates to gay or lesbian identities: “I don’t like feeling vulnerable about that particular issue. I know there are a lot of people who have a particular religious view… I feel fortunate to be working in a non-religious public school system where I am actually free to be open about my sexuality if I were to choose to do so.” He discussed his first school placement: “That would have been a different conversation because I would have gotten resistance from staff. The kids there were a little less willing… a little less inclusive.” In speaking with Allen about advocacy, he shared, “I would feel very reticent at my previous location because I would be faced with a barrage of god knows what… judgment, assumptions… it would be a battle every day and I would wonder if that was worth a battle.”

Vince offered another source of resistance to his coming out—religious identities in the larger community, including parents and students. He shared a story about a mother:

one parent came in, she was very Christian, she came in and her child had been involved in some theft. She was expecting her son to be suspended, I didn’t do that. She came back unexpectedly and she had brought me a treat and she sat down, she wanted to thank me for working with her son—as his principal—she said, ‘you know, you surpassed my expectations considering what people are saying about you and your wicked, wicked ways.’ I was absolutely stumped!

Vince has experienced religious resistance to his being out—implicitly—at work. It was only when he had worked with her son to support him that she realized the impact he had as a principal. Colleen made it clear that her barrier to coming out at work was religious:

but in the refugee population, I wasn’t going to disclose. I had a lot of Muslims at my last school and I have a lot of Muslims here, and I know that it, that it could potentially be a barrier with relationships with those families, so I am not out, it’s not something that I made known… again, it’s not something I hide particularly, but it’s not something I refer to…

Colleen chose not to disclose her lesbian identity to a religious group to avoid potential disruption with her families.

Lowell also mentioned religious populations with low social-economic status as barriers to his coming out: “… it was different, my religious populations were difficult parents to manage, some very low economic area… and a lot of homophobic statements.” He identified these religious views and the low-income status of the area, as well as the homophobic comments within his school community, as barriers to his coming out. Lowell added that he did not bring too much attention to his gay identity:

All my time as a principal, I always had pictures up, not Pride flags, but pictures. I always found that I would justify that, any principal has pictures of people they love in their office and I am not about to do differently because my love is not less than your love. And that's what my fundamental belief is, that my love is not less. That's how I have always managed to be gay at work.

Similarly, Adam referenced religious resistance to his coming out at work: “I was aware of the community and parents who hold religious beliefs…”

5.13 Pro-Gay or Lesbian Advocacy

“In June last year, for the first time, I put the Pride flag up in my office; there was no real reaction to it, but I did add that [to pictures of my family], but other than that, there isn’t anything else.”

(Allen)

As Allen found himself transferred to his second (and present) school, he talked about the effects of the obvious presence of the Pride flag in his office, adding, “I advocate for all rights… if I hear [an anti-gay comment in the school], I will address it very publicly with children… with adults, I will not… that gets addressed very publicly by me because I feel that that’s important that children see that their principal will not accept that.” Allen also understood the principal’s position as one of being an advocate for equity in his schools: “we are encouraged as schools to have inclusive spaces because we do work towards inclusion and our children, for the most part, are very inclusive kids.”

Understanding that Harry had never come out to anyone at work, I asked him about his experiences with gay or lesbian teachers. “When a teacher sought help regarding their gay

75 identity,” he said, “it’s not about you, it’s about the teacher. It also helps to maintain, I wasn’t coming out. I think he put two-and-two together and he implied I was gay.” Harry shared that he

would be central to Day of Pink and I need to model the conversation, the adult to student conversation, in a big group that teachers can replicate with kids if they had never thought of it… we developed a story… when you say those things, there is a difference between visible difference and the less visible difference… collateral insult. In saying homophobic comments, there are other kids who hear you and how you have made yourself unsafe to be safe around.

Although Lowell had managed his gay identity with what he had learned/heard on the grounds of the first two schools at which he had been principal, at his present school, he shared:

I knew for the cause of gay rights, it was better to come from a place of equity than a personal response, which is hard… for the cause of gay rights, it’s better that it’s not personal… I think I was cautious. This school, because it’s K-8, we have a GSA… I had not a negative phone call, I met with kids after a couple of meetings asking how their parents reacted and the kids were surprisingly open and honest of the GSA with their parents… I had no issues with a GSA at my present school [it is important to note that, out of the three schools at which he had been principal, this was the only one with a GSA]. The teachers who run the GSA are highly motivated and are active at the board wide conference.

As noted above, Doug used his gay identity when a staff member approached him with a concern within that department:

I shared it with a teacher because he had come down, there were comments being made in the workroom that he was uncomfortable with… his son is gay. So, I kind of shared a little bit of my personal story and that is really the only time that I had discussed it with anyone because I thought it was important for me to put that on the table… I really wanted him to know that I support him in however he wanted… using my own narrative to help him work through that process… I think too for the most part is, the teachers on staff making those comments would change their own behaviour if they knew how it was impacting their peers.

Although Vahn herself is not out at work to families, she does share a concern for a safe space for her students in her school:

We had a teacher who certainly had a safe place…somehow kids find their way. Through Guidance [counselling] we identified people… I find myself advocating for gay rights from an educational point of view as opposed to a personal point of view. I would talk with one of the Superintendents, they would remind me that you don’t need to take it personally. But if you don’t take it personally, then how do you move things forward? The kids need role models, but I still don’t think it’s safe. All you really want to do is help the kid struggling with it; not being allowed to be who you are…

As Robert shared his experiences, he remembered,

I did have a boy come out to me my first year here [as a principal], he was new to our school, who I helped… it was a difficult time for the parents. I did come out to him; I did it very professionally. I had pictures of my family and friends. I referred to my partner in most pictures. He felt very comfortable and I shared with him my coming out… I trusted him enough not to…I think it’s so much more important to know that he could have someone to go to.

He also shared:

At my present school, we have a lot of different events, we started a GSA; I was concerned with overworking the staff… a [lesbian] staff member rallied other staff members to start the GSA; they do the Day of Pink too… whatever she wants to support, the GSA, she’s got it; she started the GSA with three students, now we have 28 students involved!

Interestingly, Thomas’s experience in advocating for gay rights in his school was “being done for me. Last year, Day of Pink was big, this past year, it’s bigger.” He thinks because the staff know that, “I support all programs as long as it’s about inclusion, tolerance and understanding.”

Colleen shared that there was a time at a previous school where, although she did not disclose her lesbian identity to her families, she did support the activities that advocated for gay or lesbian spaces and pedagogy:

At my last school, we had a very active GSA… it was a K-8 school, so we had a pretty active 7/8 program. They were part of the Positive Space program. They planned and developed a positive space… we began to bring that down to the school through Day of Pink in April, and we did a different way of celebrating Valentine’s Day. We did a challenge around gender in that context. And, again, because of the population I was dealing with it was a gentle but a persistent questioning that we were doing with students at the school because there was quite a lot of—among the older kids—‘that’s so gay’, and language… that kind of bullying, and intimidation, that would often particularly target boys.

Etienne said, “You have to advocate. I think part of the reason why I do it is because I know what it was like for me at school. If I could make it better for kids now, it just makes sense to do it because I am in a position of privilege now... I am in a great relationship, openly gay, a house, job security... nobody can touch me about my sexual orientation but they can still touch these kids.” All of the participants either directly or indirectly supported gay or lesbian rights and gay or lesbian advocacy in their schools. However, as the participants supported these programs, they remained aware of their surroundings, safety and their (in)ability to come out at work.

5.14 School Policies and Ontario Laws

Navigating the workplace as a principal has been tricky for the participants, especially in precarious situations where their gay or lesbian identities may be exposed or questioned; even those who are out may find that their sexuality is a source of contention. How have pro-gay or lesbian policies dictated by their school districts affected the gay or lesbian identities of these principals? Manoeuvring their professional and sexual identities with regard to school district policies, coupled with Ontario education and human rights laws, adds complexity to managing their identities at work.

5.15 School District Pro-Gay or Lesbian Policies

“Certainly, the message from the director stating that we are an equity board, it gave me credibility to know that there is legislation that I was supported by the senior administration… I feel supported and I feel like someone will stand up for me if there was bigotry and homophobia.”

(Lowell)

Lowell shared that the messaging from the Director of Education in his school district was very powerful. In addition to this testimony from Lowell, Doug added that, “at this point, I would say that all of our policies are gay friendly. What makes them gay friendly? I do not think the policies are spelled out, but the fact that it is at least in documents is an improvement.” He added, “the existence of the policies does not really matter. It is there definitely to protect those who need it; I have been lucky enough not to have any negative interactions…” Having shared this, he continued to recount an equity incident involving the Pride flag: “the board wanted the Pride flag raised during a specific week… so I get here as principal, luckily my VP [vice- principal] is a strong advocate and friend of mine. She said we have to put up the flag, we are putting it up… as we put up the flag, teachers stood around and cheered.” This was an instance where he felt uncomfortable following district policy, found an ally in his VP, and then realized that, although the Pride flag was to be hung, was glad that he was not the administrator who was assigned to hang it.

Colleen was very proud to share that her district has a very good equity policy that supports her pro-gay or lesbian work as a principal: “I advocate for gay rights in my school, I think policies make a difference… we have had a lot of support [from the district]. I think what our alternative schools have done for the greater public school system is they modeled some educational practices that have begun to be adopted in regular schools.”

When asked about the efficacy of equity policies regarding gay or lesbian identities, Vahn said, “we have our Gender Equity Guidelines; I don’t think with the policies in our board, or any board, it’s an invitation for that [coming out].” In terms of district policies, Etienne shared a list of district policies he used, adding:

we have GSAs in elementary schools—not everyone—but I do workshops with elementary teachers on how to start a GSA in elementary schools. We have GSAs in every secondary school; we do a GSA conference every year, a series of PD [professional development] on Trans-, LGBTQ, on GSAs, on integrating LGBTQ with curriculum.

He continued, “it [the conference] is not mandated, so in a sense, if a school administrator or teacher thinks gays are icky, or is uncomfortable because they are worried about the questions that are going to come forward, they don't have to attend.” Being an elementary school principal, Etienne is focused on (and is an advocate for) the visibility of GSAs at the elementary school level in his district, and he supports the involvement of his teachers at the district LGBTQ conference. Further, Etienne shared that his school district “has GSAs [in response to Bill C-13 - The Safe and Accepting Schools Act], LGBTQ parent group, the district offers an LGBTQ educators' group, there are pro-gay books in school libraries, and [my] district recognizes the International Day Against Homophobia and the Pride flag is raised at every school.”

Sharing what he does at his school, Robert added, “Day of Pink, GSA, School Bill of Rights,” and continued, “as a district, it’s more reactive than proactive… I do think these policies have limited effect to no effect; there is no training. I started to advocate for gay rights in my school. We are going to be pinking our school and I have put it right out there in our parent/community newsletter. I put Gay-Straight Alliance in our newsletter.”

Allen's school district follows the tenets of the Ontario Human Rights Code: “We have an equity policy in our board that highlights that code and that is what we accept and what we don't accept.” He did share that his district had a “process that we follow as a school board around that [supporting students who self-identify as gay or lesbian], if it does happen, and what steps we would take to make sure the child is supported, particularly if they tell us that their family will not be supportive of that...” He further added, “we do have a team from the board office that will work with schools to develop a greater sense of acceptance. So, if there is an issue in your building related to that, then they are brought in.”

Harry took the stance regarding the protection of his identity as a school district employee: “I know of a harassment policy, specifically states that grounds for harassment include outing someone, or implying that they are out...” He continued to question the efficacy of the school

80 district: “we have a policy to protect, but do we challenge them? I also thought, throughout my career projection, that I may well have that conversation post-fact, especially given the equity profile of my boss.” Harry referred to several incidents where his boss simply assumed his gay identity, and further assumed co-workers in that school knew that he identified as a gay man. He had planned to speak with his boss to point out that he neither appreciated, nor condoned, their assumptions regarding his sexual identity. This situation pointed out the fact that policies are in place in this school district but are never used as a vehicle for the protection of gay or lesbian employees.

Another participant, Thomas, mentioned his Director of Education: “Our director of education has made it clear, human rights are human rights and the district will support and stand behind schools that are doing the work…” Which brings me to the question, would the district then support principals who are open with their sexual identities? Adam said, “since our Director of Education is an openly gay man, I think this supports those of us who are contemplating coming out, or have come out.” He added, “we have many district programs that support our gay youth, and a network for teachers.” In terms of positionality of system power, Vince shared, “we never had an elementary GSA because our Trustee at the time, who said to my face, that she understood the importance of being fully inclusive; what she said to me, and what she did behind by back were different… she was a barrier.” He continued, “we are not anywhere we wanted to be in terms of LGBTQ youth. We don’t have GSAs in our elementary schools…yet. We have elementary equity clubs but we won’t have elementary GSAs. We believe the barrier is our Board of Trustees and we have Senior staff that maintain the status quo, there is no shift… there is not progress.”

Although there are policies in place because of the Accepting Schools Act, this does not guarantee that the enactment of such policies is active. The participants knew of their rights, but were not convinced that the senior administration behind such school district policies would serve to protect them as gay or lesbian principals.

5.16 Ontario Pro-Gay or Lesbian Laws

“We did a lot of work with our library, and two of my staff members joined the regional team of Positive Space where we developed for the school board an on-line platform within out intranet, we developed resources, book lists, videos, a repository of strategies for the K-12 region as a whole.”

(Vince)

Taking advantage of the Accepting Schools Act, Vince spearheaded a team of teachers to compose, create and provide an ongoing program that will assist with the recognition, celebration and societal significance of gay or lesbian peoples.

Knowing the district policies enacted by Ministry of Education laws in his school district, Etienne shared this knowledge by naming the Equity and Inclusion Policy and Bill C-13 Safe and Accepting Schools Act of 2015. He continued to share that, “vice-principals, more so than principals, have taken me aside and thanked me very much for what I do [for the gay or lesbian communities] because it gives them the feeling that when they become principals... because there is still that fear of the interview team...” I asked him about his promotion process to principal and if he had been concerned about his gay identity when going through the process. Etienne replied that he was tentative to speak of his gay identity, but then realized that that is simply a part of who he is and that part was essential to how he would be as a principal. He was admittedly anxious at his first placement as principal, but was less so during the promotion process.

Allen made reference to the protections afforded to gay or lesbian peoples in the Ontario Human Right Code: “in our board, we follow the tenets of the Human Rights Code, at no time can anyone discriminate against anyone based on identity; we follow those tenets, it's an understanding...” He continued, “Elementary schools [in his district] don't have GSAs; however, children are open to self-identify...” Harry referred to The Day of Pink recognition, and recalled the time when having a GSA, or outwardly recognizing the existence of gay or lesbian peoples in schools, was not law. However, Lowell mentioned the Accepting Schools Act, “when Bill 13 came through, and I was dealing with a lot of homophobic statements at my school… I was very clear from our response around equity but I never made it personal. I played the role as a leader of our expectations of equity.”

Robert believes that his position as principal is to support the rights of all his students and families, as reflected in the Ontario Human Right Code. “I worked with a grade eight teacher last year… it’s about the learning for me… we went through an assignment and said I will not exempt your child from human rights; it’s not even a negotiable, it’s about education and learning.” Colleen referred to the Ontario Human Rights policies:

Because we have a very progressive human rights policy in Ontario, and my district has a progressive equity policy, no one is ever going to say to my face anything that will disagree with that lifestyle, anyway. I haven’t found that part to be difficult, but I would say for the most part, I think even underneath that, I don’t think people had huge issues with it.

At the end of the interview, I asked the participants to share anything else they would like to add to our interview. Two main themes arose: Professional Community and Gay Agenda.

5.17 Professional Principal Community

“I think it would be interesting to speak to other principals who identify as gay or lesbian too. I have never actually had this conversation with anyone because it’s a difficult conversation to have; the extent to which one feels, we have a responsibility to actually be open about that.”

(Allen)

“As principals,” said Harry, “it is difficult to network with each other about personal information… it would be interesting to have a principals’ group to support gay identities… perhaps then, if there was one, I would have come out as the supports would have been there… maybe…” This speaks to his unwillingness to come out during his career. Vahn shared her thoughts regarding a professional community for gay or lesbian principals:

I think we all have, in many ways, all of us have moved in our journeys to be who we are, but there are still so many… we carry so much of our own baggage in terms of who we are, what were our experiences as kids… what our families might think, what our colleagues might think… what the religious background is of so many of the kids in the school.

She shared that a gay and lesbian professional community would have helped her in her journey as a lesbian principal.

Etienne was quite irritated with his school district in terms of transparent hiring practices for principals: “I find it frustrating. I think the board is in the process of advocating to hire Black principals because there are few racialized administrators in our district... I am completely for that because we need more racialized administrators than we do. But we don't do the same push for gay administrators. Why? We don't actively seek [an] LGBTQ portfolio.” He also wanted to see a professional community established in his district to support all gay and lesbian principals. He also shared, “it amazes some kids when they say, 'you're gay?' It amazes them that a gay guy can be a principal because they've never seen it. So I think it is very important that we are visible and as out as we can be, safely. So, if we can get more and more people being openly gay and just safe... I think that would be a great thing.”

Lowell brought up a strong point regarding systemic expectations for principals—expectations that a gay or lesbian professional community could help them navigate:

there was an expectation that administrators meet with parents one-to-one to go over the document [referencing the Health and Physical Education revised curriculum document of 2015]. I do not know if it was thought through what that felt like being a gay administrator… we would never ask a Black administrator to sit down with an openly racist White Supremacist to go over policy… to listen to the homophobia and then try to navigate with the fear of finding out that you are gay.

Robert added, “we need time to roll out resources, and actually do training that is meaningful when it comes to sexual orientation. We need to do more work that is meaningful to really make change happen for all.” He liked the idea of a professional community since that would have provided him with the supports needed as a principal to guide the next steps for the school district. Thomas, whose Superintendent of Education was an out lesbian, commented on the void of her absence, “I worry when you see a gay superintendent retiring, we need a voice in the senior administration team.” This voice would also be invited to the professional community for gay and lesbian administrators. Vince worried that when principal placements happen, “what does the district do to support gay principals, at the end of the day, what should and can they do

84 to protect us?” He also added that the presence of a gay and lesbian professional community would alleviate the anxiety of so many gay and lesbian principals. He gave this example, “if there is a placement made that’s going to be problematic for the community, then don’t place that person there—don’t put them in a precarious position where they have to hide part of themselves… senior admin should make sure the placement meets everybody’s needs…” If there was a committee to consult concerning principal placements, taking into account their gay and lesbian identities, then the anxiety of leaving one’s school would decrease.

5.18 The Gay Agenda

“The most difficult experience I had as a gay principal was choosing staff for my present school. The reason being, I had a lot of great candidates and I hired an openly gay teacher for the junior division, then I interviewed a great candidate for kindergarten… both men, both openly gay. And I had a really hard time because I did not want to be seen as the gay principal hiring gay teachers…. It was the only time I questioned my sexuality and my decision making to avoid the perception. I was very cautious as people may judge the minority status and the hiring process of the same minority status teachers. That was a tough one for me…”

(Lowell)

Lowell’s awareness of the perceptions of his staff made him question his efficacy as a principal and his ability as the best person for the job. All participants brought up the nefarious, ever present feeling of what they called The Gay Agenda. This agenda lends itself to the premise that actions they take as gay and lesbian principals have an ulterior motive to garner power and grant greater positionality to those staff members who identify as gay or lesbian.

Doug shared, “The next year, the board mandated putting up the Pride flag. I do not have to worry that it is the gay principal putting it up, because we all had to put it up. But that was one of my worries that I am only putting it up because of me. That is why at my last school, I did not want to say, we should be doing this… I was very cautious of the gay agenda throughout my career.” Doug avoided the gay agenda by partnering with fellow principals when specifically doing pro-queer work: “the principal down the street and I have done equity work, we led staff

through; even through that, there were discussions on homophobia and I didn’t speak to that, my vice-principal did because I didn’t want to be seen as the one pushing that [gay agenda] forward. I hold back, it still gets out there. And I understand the positive impact that it could have if I spoke to it as well, and, if it comes up, and it needed to, I think I would. I haven’t had to use that yet.”

Vahn was straightforward as she shared, “but my big fear—this goes back to the beginning of our time—when people thought gay people were predators.” This fear is proven via the outright refusal of some of Thomas’s staff members to acknowledge gay or lesbian peoples during the Day of Pink:

On the surface level, it [coming out to staff] appeared there was no problem whatsoever… one particular staff is uncomfortable with it. On the Day of Pink, we purchased t-shirts for the staff who wanted one. She wanted a t-shirt, but is uncomfortable wearing it. She shared, I didn’t realize they were going to say stand up against homophobia and transphobia; so she is wearing it today but with a jean jacket, to cover up the words because she didn’t think it’s appropriate for young children to be exposed to an alternative lifestyle… she pushes back, I am not sure that she questions the journey we are going through developing our philosophy as a school… I feel she questions me because of me being gay, and the gay agenda… she has made it abundantly clear she does not agree with the direction of the school, she has said to me.

Although Thomas had come out to his staff, he was very aware of how staff would interpret his pro-gay or lesbian requests as being evidence of his gay agenda.

Adam feared his staff and supervisor misinterpreting his work for his gay agenda as this may ruin his reputation as a principal:

when teachers realized that I was gay, I was very careful not to raise suspicion and to be equal with my decisions… if not, this could create problems where this can ruin my reputation as a principal… I knew that the gay agenda was founded in fear… fear from many people who are in my school, but also my own fear.

Colleen questioned straight privilege:

I think the thing that's missing, it's an on-going piece, it's been dealt with at different places, and it’s the work around the community. Um... And so, if I were a straight principal doing that work, it's different work than doing it ... It's not only the gay agenda, but it's that I am open to personal attacks in a way a straight person would not be open to personal attacks. I was, y'know, sort of pushing a gay agenda, it becomes a different kind of conversation... If I were to have support from a straight colleague while I was doing that work, it would allow me to step back a little bit and [allow] my straight colleague to field those questions and assumptions in a way it would not be personal for them.

In terms of gay or lesbian identities as principals, Doug reiterated that “it’s important to me not to be the ‘gay principal’ and even in our board, at workshops, I will share my opinion but as a principal, not as a gay male. I don’t want to be labeled as that person—it’s not negative, but it’s just not how I identify.” Which brought me to what Robert had asked: “Am I a principal who is gay, or am I a gay principal? My identities intersect depending on who’s in my office.”

5.19 Summary of the Findings

The participants were very forthcoming when sharing their gay or lesbian experiences involved with coming out at work. I find the narratives interesting as all the participants referred to their gay or lesbian identities as 'it'. In other words, they referred to their gay or lesbian identity as 'it' when speaking to their identity and acknowledging this identity as real, valid and inescapable. As we spoke further about their gay or lesbian identities at work, the participants who are early in their principal careers were more apprehensive as to where their school district would assign them next. On the other hand, the principals who were close to retirement and had not come out, came out to certain stakeholders but never to students and/or families. I will summarize my findings with the themes derived from the questions shared in my research.

5.20 Principalship

The participants were sought out by their supervisors, who encouraged them to become principals—to apply to the promotion process from the Vice Principal position; other principals had sought them out when they were classroom teachers to apply for promotion to be Vice

Principals. All participants shared that they had not considered promotion until their supervisors (either Superintendents of Education or principals) approached them with such a career path. I must point out that these promotions to the principal position remained internal. In other words, the participants were promoted within their school districts; they did not seek promotion at a different school district. As per the role of the principal, the participants’ shared that the role itself is dynamic and has a tendency to evolve; nevertheless, they shared that the role revolves around two larger duties: community builder and equity programmer.

When building the community, participants have found themselves in positions where they have had to balance the functionality (operations) of the school while maintaining transparent communication with all educational stakeholders (families/staff/administrative team/Superintendent of Education). In addition to their plight of being the equity programmer, participants feel that they need to lead their schools in a culturally responsive—progressive— manner that follows Ontario laws and school district policies, all of which are based on the Ontario Leadership Framework.

5.21 Coming Out at Work

The participants shared their experiences with coming out at work by also referring to coming out in their personal lives. All the participants referred to coming out as an ongoing process that starts with the self-recognition of their gay or lesbian-self, followed by sharing their gay or lesbian identities with others in their personal lives, then possibly with those at work. I must also add that coming out was not only done by the participants; once one person knows, then it is likely that others have outed them as well. Having said that, participants came out to their supervisors (colleagues) once they felt safe to do so; principals needed to feel that they were safe to tell their Superintendent of Education about their gay or lesbian identities. Further, they came out to their supervisors out of a precautionary sense of safety. They did not want their supervisors (Superintendents of Education) to learn of their gay or lesbian identities from others, or when it could hinder their relationship. For example, one participant shared that he told his Superintendent of Education that he identified as gay in case a parent were to find out and report him, thus putting a strain on their collegial relationship and adding stress to their position as principal. When coming out to staff members in their schools, the participants felt guarded; some relied on their positionality to either defend their gay or lesbian identity or to simply not share

their gay or lesbian identity. Harry is an example of a principal who used his positionality as principal to avoid exposing (sharing) his gay identity with this staff. Meanwhile, Thomas came out to his staff knowing that he might face adverse reactions from his staff, all the while knowing he is the principal and, at the end of the day, staff must follow his leadership. As the principals feared coming out to parents (families including students), they kept quiet; when they did come out to students, they first sought consent from the parents. For example, when Vince shared his gay identity with a grade four student after she had inquired about his homosexuality, he felt he had to share the incident with her mother, which led to his affirmation of being gay. In other words, the participant sought consent while feeling anxious about the mother’s reaction once she had learned of their conversation. When coming out to students, the participants did not do so lightly, if at all. Vahn mentioned how she is fearful about coming out to students due to possible retaliation, a shift in school dynamics, and simply because she has put herself in a precarious situation at work.

Each participant experienced coming out in different ways, either explicitly or implicitly. One participant never came out, although he does recognize that others may have outed him without his knowledge. I define explicit coming out as the deliberate, outward act of sharing one's gay or lesbian identity with another person or group of people. Implicit coming out is more stealth, in that participants alluded to their gay or lesbian identities contextually when referring to their home lives, personal lives, relationship status, or when advocating for gay or lesbian peoples, thus outing themselves via association. With the exception of Harry, most participants came out to colleagues, including their direct supervisors. While some participants came out to their colleagues to reveal their authentic selves, others came out as precautionary safety measures. None of the participants came out to students explicitly. In fact, one participant warned about coming out to students, as this would only disconnect the principal from their work and create a strained work environment.

5.22 School as the Workplace

When asking the participants about their workplaces and navigating their gay or lesbian identities, some relied on positionality to keep their distance from sharing their gay or lesbian- selves with others, including colleagues and supervisors. For example, Doug shared that he had purposefully kept his personal life separate from his professional life; there was nothing in his

office that gave any information about his personal life. Others relied on their positionality when discussing gay or lesbian identities with the student body and/or families (see Harry’s actions when addressing the school student body regarding hateful anti-gay or lesbian words used by students in his school); however, socio-systemic resistance was recognized by the participants. For example, Colleen recognized that there was a large contingent of religious families (students) at her school who were resistant to her lesbian identity. Aware of her professionalism as principal, she kept quiet. There were times when principal participants used their positionality, coupled with their gay or lesbian identity, to advocate for gay or lesbian identities in their schools. For example, when Robert started the GSA at his school, he relied on a lesbian staff member to whom he had come out, but he also advocated for the GSA as an important school- based program for his students.

5.23 Ontario Policies and Laws

Principal participants are well aware of the laws and policies that are in place to support gay or lesbian peoples and gay or lesbian identities in schools. The primary presence of gay or lesbian peoples is the GSA, which has been mandated by The Safe and Accepting Schools Act (2012). When I asked if they had visited their school GSA, the participants responded that they had not for fear of guilt through association. The principals were also aware of the need for community partnerships. Etienne mentioned that his school district works with a pro-gay or lesbian organization called Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (Egale), which has been integral for the inclusion and visibility of gay or lesbian identities in his school. Further, participants expressed their awareness of the provincial organization called the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), which offers interpretation of Ontario laws and mandates policies such as the Program and Policy Memorandum (PPM) 119 and the Ontario Equity Strategy. Allen shared that he does not have a GSA in his school, but does have an equity team whose mandate is to empower all marginalized identities, including gay or lesbian identities, based on the messaging from the OHRC. Further, participants have mentioned that their school districts do offer supports via their human rights policies. Harry, although he has never come out at work, shared that his school district is well-versed in human rights policies and operating procedures to both protect and advocate for gay or lesbian identities. He shared that he knew of a policy statement that forbids one from outing a fellow employee you know to be gay or lesbian. Such a violation of school district policy may lead to a reprimand by their supervisors. Messaging from the Director

of Education was also important (as shared by Lowell), in that the messaging was one of support, advocacy and unwavering action toward the visible inclusion of gay or lesbian peoples in their school district.

5.24 Additional Comments

Two more aspects of the participants’ gay or lesbian identities have come to light from the interviews and discussions: 1) Queer Employee Resource Group and 2) The Gay Agenda. Some participants shared that it would be interesting to share the narratives of other gay or lesbian administrators (principals and vice principals) across the school district. The formation of an employee resource group dedicated to those who identify as Queer would garner very interesting narratives and experiences. Further, it would allow for spaces to then network with one another. This would also bring to light the existence of The Gay Agenda, which some participants feared regarding hiring practices, when seen as equity programmer, when building community, and simply when building relationships with students. Colleen mentions that she believes that the general public still sees gay or lesbian people as predators. Professionally speaking, Lowell mentioned how he was aware of the Gay Agenda when hiring staff who were openly gay or lesbian. Although he had not come out himself to the staff, he knew that others had and was aware of who he hired, and why.

6 Discussion

In this chapter, I provide a review of my study and an interpretation of the data collected to answer my research questions. I then offer implications to further research. I also suggest policy actions that need to be implemented to allow gay or lesbian administrators to come out at work. Further, I look at the practice as implied in my research, including a revamp of the Principal Qualification Program (PQP) courses to include principal identities as an integral piece of their leadership expectations and actions. The chapter concludes with a summary of my findings.

6.1 Review of the Study

As an administrator in an Ontario public schooling system, and as a gay man, I wanted to learn more about the experiences of other gay or lesbian principals in Ontario; not only to see the similarities, but to capture the realities of gay and lesbian principals as they navigate their identities at work. The interviews for this study were conducted between March and June, 2017. The participants willingly identified themselves as either lesbian or gay, principals of non- denominational public schools, with experience ranging from beginner principals to eligible to retire. From the eleven participants, ten are elementary school principals and one is principal at a secondary school.

The following section correlates the findings with the sub-questions of my investigation. Each question was created to further understand the nuances of school principals who identify as gay or lesbian. I will elaborate on five questions using the information gathered during my interviews with the participants.

6.2 Answering the Research Questions 6.2.1 Question one: How do lesbian and gay principals understand the coming out process? 6.2.1.1 Coming Out as an Ongoing Process

All participants shared that coming out is an on-going, forever process. It is also a process that is not solely theirs, as others could disclose their gay or lesbian identity without their knowing. Because this research focuses on coming out at work, their coming out was due to many factors: who they were coming out to, sense of safety, necessity to come out at work, why they came out

91 92

(or have not come out), and the aftermath of having come out at work. While my research has shown that there are many mitigating factors that affect principals’ decisions to come out at work, there nevertheless remains the fact that “the practical implications of differentiated citizenship for queers working and learning in public schools are generally severe. Gay and lesbian administrators must generally cover their identities” (see Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Tooms, 2007; Yoshino, 2006).

Although the work of early gay and lesbian scholars referred to coming out as a linear process that starts first with oneself, then family and friends, then co-workers, my research has shown that that is a very broad way of understanding the coming out process (see Conceptual Framework).

Figure 3. Participants shared that their coming out is on-going and cyclical in nature.

The above figure shows the continual coming out process phenomena as shared (and developed) from this research. There is a constant negotiated nature when coming out at work involving many educational stakeholders (supervisors, colleagues, staff and families). This is especially true as the principals welcome new educational stakeholders to the greater school community,

and when principals are transferred into their next school community they are expected to serve, and lead. Further, as the principal renegotiate their gay or lesbian identities, they do not escape the two mitigating circumstances when maneuvering their gay or lesbian identity: (1) outed without your awareness and, (2) being outed without consent.

Vargo (2019) offers a “roadmap through the confusing process of coming to terms with your sexuality both privately and publicly” (p.2). His research refers to the stages of coming out, the emotions involved, the potential downfalls, and the kinds of reactions a gay or lesbian person may encounter once their gay or lesbian identity has been announced/shared.

Further, Vargo refers to coming out as an ongoing process, as does Christiansen (2019), whose research shows that coming out of the closet is often thought of as a “defining, one-time event in a queer person’s life. For many, however, the reality is that they must constantly renegotiate their identity and determine who they will ultimately reveal their identity to and when” (p. 1). In his research, he also found that compulsory heterosexuality and safety were the two driving forces behind gay or lesbian individuals’ decisions to come out. Gay or lesbian people were consistently misidentified as heterosexual and felt compelled to disclose their gay or lesbian- identity to others, and this process would continuously repeat itself, starting over with each new person they encountered. In fact, he surmised that “the coming out process is never truly complete and is something that will persist throughout their lives as they encounter new people and situations every day” (p.2).

The participants in this study mentioned that, should they be assigned to a different school, they would have to decide how to come out and to whom as they encountered colleagues at regional principal meetings and built new relationships with colleagues, staff and families.

6.2.1.2 Coming Out at Work

Each participant experienced coming out in different ways, either explicitly or implicitly; one participant never came out, although he does recognize that others may have outed him without his knowledge.

According to Griffith and Hebl (2002, p. 1192), although the “workplace has been experiencing pro-gay and lesbian progress, homophobia still exists in the workplace and remains under- represented in diversity and inclusion conversations”. Further, only 59% of organizations

94 communicate a strong leadership message to their employees on the importance of gay and lesbian inclusion in the workplace. While only 14% of organizations consider gay and lesbian- inclusive diversity and inclusion training as required knowledge for manager roles, 11% of organizations have their managers undergo advanced training on gay and lesbian issues relevant to their role and 7% of organizations expect managers to make resources and guidance available to gay and lesbian employees.

In addition, Griffith and Hebl’s study examined the disclosure of gay and lesbian identities at work for 220 gay men and 159 lesbians. Self-acceptance, how out one is to friends and family, employer policies and employee interpretation of those policies and perceived pro-gay and lesbian work places were associated with disclosure behaviours at work for gay and lesbian employees. Self-disclosing at work and working for an organization perceived to be supportive of pro- gay or lesbian identities were related to higher job satisfaction and lower job anxiety. The positive reactions of co-workers to gay and lesbian colleagues assisted with work relationships and offered a less anxious workplace.

Vargo (2019) described that “the majority of gay men in the United States today conceal the fact that they are homosexual when they are on the job” (p. 85). While a substantial number of men are openly gay in their personal lives, they remain closeted at work, coming out to a few other gay employees or to a handful of trusted, self-identified straight colleagues. At the end of the day, Vargo concluded that most men do not come out at work because they are simply not welcomed, or do not feel welcomed by their work place.

The October, 2018 edition of the Harvard Business Review included the following: “It’s becoming clear that when workers can bring their authentic selves to work, they are more productive and engaged. Research shows that coming out increases job satisfaction, intention to stay, and emotional support from co-workers, whereas staying ‘in the closet’ has costs—both for the individual and the company” (Tran, O'Leary & Brown, 2018, p.1). These authors present a list of seven myths that gay and lesbian employees face when coming out at work: “1) Coming out at work is not a big deal—after all, it’s the 21st century! 2) Coming out is similar for all LGBTIQ+ people; 3) LGBTIQ+ workers have complete control over whether they do or don’t come out at work; 4) Coming out has nothing to do with work; 5) Coming out at work happens

just once; 6) There is only one way to come out or not come out; 7) People are scared to come out solely because of career risks” (p. 3).

Interestingly, Sandfort, Bos and Vet (2006) looked at the burnout rate of gay or lesbian employees who had been either outed or discriminated against and found that the organization lacked pro-gay and lesbian policies and protections. They also found that employees who kept closeted at their jobs simply burnt out and needed psychological therapy to deal with their efforts to keep their queer identities a secret at work.

The participants in this study experienced coming out as an ongoing process, cited situational circumstances, and questioned the purpose of coming out at work. Principals maneuvered their gay and lesbian identities within various situations they encountered and chose to express or repress their gay and lesbian identities accordingly.

6.2.2 Question two: why do they come out at work? 6.2.2.1 (In) visibility

Coming out at work gave the participants a sense of legitimacy not only as principals, but more importantly as people. Participants who either explicitly or implicitly came out at work wanted to be honest, particularly with staff. Referring to their mental well-being, the participants shared that they did not want the anxiety of hiding at work as it was too much for them to constantly devise ways to distract from their sexual identities (see Sandfort, Bos & Vet, 2006). One participant said that she came out at work to connect to a greater community that included many same-sex families and where she could have a positive effect on a combination of school with gay or lesbian peoples—that is, to make visible the invisibility of gay and lesbian people.

Tierney and Dilley (1993) define “visibility to denote the inclusion and presentation of individuals, groups, and topics of gay, lesbian, or bisexual” (p. 54). Moreover, “due to the conscious efforts by employees about negotiating their sexual and professional identities, gay and lesbian educators are more attuned to the role of personal identity in shaping pedagogical [leadership] practice” (Connell, 2015, p. 22-23). Self-disclosure and self-validation are important aspects of identity politics—making oneself visible—when balancing the gay or lesbian-self in hetero-society and organization. Jourard’s work (1968/1971) offers the concept of self-disclosure (a purposeful visibility) in the discovery of gay or lesbian identity, self-disclosure being an act in

which a person establishes contact with his real self and makes his public self-congruent with his real self. He also noted that “society punishes disclosures of self that do not fit social stereotypes, and he sees the choice for the individual as one between acceptance by society or personal authenticity” (p. 27).

In Coming Out of the Classroom Closet the author gave visibility to gay or lesbian issues in schooling where this book gave normalcy to gay or lesbian teachers in education (see Harbeck, 2014). In the early 1990s, research about gay or lesbian people revolved around the notion of invisibility (see Weis & Fine, 1993; McLaughlin & Tierney, 1993) and the silencing of gay or lesbian people in public schools and by systemic public school organizations. Friend, Weis and Fine (1993) wrote about how any “serious discussion of how inequalities in terms of sexual orientation are reproduced and sanctioned by schooling has been absent in the social analyses of diversity, equity and power in education” (p. 210; also see Rofes, 1997). Their research has driven further research to analyze the ideology of silencing that leads to the larger problem of systemic homophobia and heterosexism.

The concept of coming out of the closet is a purposeful act towards visibility. Corey (1992) states, “to be out is really to be in—inside the realm of the visible, the speakable, the culturally intelligible” (p. 125). In fact, to be out is a facet of gay or lesbian identity. Adams and Holman (2008) refer to “coming out as an aspect of performative work which then allows for the visibility of gay or lesbian selves” (p. 380). In other words, the act of coming out is purposeful, intended and an act to speak out. Rosello (1992) rethinks the process of coming out, stating that “coming out itself is not an action of the person coming out, but is the result of the listener receiving the deliverer’s message” (p. 151). Once the gay or lesbian person is visible, how will this visibility be received? Instead of the “repetitive moment of public self-constitution by way of confessional truth-telling, coming out becomes a problem of dialogue” (Rosello, p. 152). Rosello questions the possibility to shift the attention from speaking one’s identity, from one’s declaration of being gay, to listening to someone speaking gay. In other words, is it possible that the visibility of a gay or lesbian identity suggests a move from identity to dialogue? Coming out is the act of making the invisible, visible. Coming out of the closet is a political stance intended to break down invisibility at work.

Another aspect of visibility is the existence of queer as a culture. Pinar (1996) argues that “homosexuality has been regarded not only as not assimilable into mainstream culture, but as exhibiting revolutionary potential” (p. 6). He asks if “queers are revolutionaries against the hetero-patriarchal heterosexist social order, or if we are considered just plain folks” (p. 6). As much as we have fought to develop, maintain, and normalize queer culture, and despite the explosion of scholarly materials, social movements and educational pro-queer programs, we remain in a defensive position: “trying to teach tolerance, trying to teach the truth, trying to find ways to de-center and destabilize the heterosexual normalization that so constructs the students we teach, indeed the public world we inhabit” (Pinar, p. 6). With the continual plight for gay equality, is the idea of a queer culture too far off?

6.2.2.2 School Climate and Queer Culture

The participants were well aware of the connection between their positionality with creating a pro-queer school climate in their schools. Educators must be aware, accepting, and advocate for those voices lost in school cultures and otherwise silenced. Dewitt writes, “in order to make sure that students learn about other cultures and minorities in a correct way, administrators and teachers must make sure that they are teaching about those groups properly” (2012, p. 33). However, I wonder what he means by cultures. There is a link between macro-socio-culture (society) and micro-socio-culture (school). The common thread is culture. The explicit existence of queer people as a culture has increased in many school districts via social justice policy enactments.

Specifically, queer communities within a cultural context and social location can be identified as queer culture. These communities are vast, divergent and quite different from one another, but the common thread is the shared non-hetero-norm; Harris (1997) argues that “the fall of gay (queer) culture will be the assimilation of one culture into the dominant one” (p. 101); basically, the gay (queer) culture will be assimilated by the straight culture via the shared experience of mainstream media, leading to the equality of rights. For example, the legalization of Gay Marriage in Canada has led to the equalization of law; however, it has led to an assimilation of queer culture into a heteronormative practice (see Signorile, 2015).

Harris argues that the demise of the ignorance that brought queer culture into existence will be the downfall of queer culture. I contend that the end of ignorance will only enhance queer culture

as a viable culture. Consequently, bringing allies into the queer culture denotes a level of assimilation of the majority (straight culture). Putting the altruistic nature of allies aside, (re)defining queer to include allies will only lead to the erosion of queer culture as a whole. As such, I (re)define queer culture as a shared set of organizing principles (see Erickson, 1987) of communities (see Harris, 1997), politicized in situation (see Halperin, 1995), whilst advocating (see Dewitt, 2012) for social justice and equity (see Russell, 2013). To avoid assimilation of queer culture into the mainstream straight culture, school districts are tasked with a sensitive balancing act between equal rights and assimilation.

Unfortunately, research has shown that, in general, “77% of teachers would not encourage a class discussion on homosexuality and 85% of teachers oppose integrating gay/lesbian themes into curricula” (Harris & Dyson, 2004, p. 183). Teachers may feel that they are incapable of talking about an equitable and inclusive queer curriculum that offers a balance of perspectives allowing students to live in a diverse, complex society. In addition, teachers may not see themselves as the bridge between policy makers and their policy intentions despite being obligated to meet these requirements. To that end, queer youth in our schools are not guaranteed the experiences and representation in school, including the curriculum, which will make them viable contributors to society.

Cronin and McNinch (2004) consider pro-queer actions to be an effort to make a pro-queer world, which they describe as “a more caring and understanding world in which Canadian gay and lesbian youth can grow up with the same expectations of all young people, not feeling ashamed of who they find themselves to be, and being fully respected as human beings” (p. ix). The values, ethics and overall trains of thought inside the school derive mostly from what the students experience in the culture outside the school walls. As a result, hegemonic patriarchy (see Khayatt, 2002) creates the trends of what is normal in society. As Ontario forges forward toward inclusive schools, the advent of a viable queer culture is evident. As noted above, queer culture is vast, and to incorporate all of the communities into one vast culture is important to develop the presence of queer peoples in Ontario schools. With the advent of queer culture, queer people have adopted an identity and not merely accepted a label given to them by the de facto hetero-normative culture. Why identify queer culture, specifically in schools? Understanding the intersectionality of cultures via visible cultures (e.g. race, some faiths, abilities, sex), we must understand, and give credence to, the invisible cultures—in this case,

99 queer peoples. This leads to the structure and ingrained notion of what is called in Ontario school climate. This aspect of schooling involves student engagement and equity, which are best situated in transformative actions. Such actions, supported by The Safe and Accepting Schools Act, give students, teachers and administrators license and leeway to (re)construct realities in schools, and the license and leeway to (re)construct queer identities, celebrations, and remembrances (of queer culture) in Ontario schools.

With school climate at the forefront of student success and teacher advocacy for equity (including queer culture), what does it take to have everyone feel and know they are included in the school? Not only does inclusion have to be present in the curricula developed by our democratic education system, but the power of the administration and teachers in schools must be present. The power and potential to include, or even to marginalize, a student culture is present. To create (empower) queer culture is to make known the shared experiences of queer peoples (both students and adults).

Are educators able to deliver, expect and accept radical or emancipatory pedagogies leading to a totally accepting school climate? These questions ask educators to bear the knowledge that students cannot; the knowledge of being resistant to the hetero-status quo. According to Luhmann (1998), the “process of making sense of selves relies on binaries such as homo-hetero, queer theory and pedagogy place at stake the desire to deconstruct binaries central to Western modes of meaning making, learning, teaching, and doing politics” (p. 150-151). As such, queer as a pedagogical term is used to disrupt, re-shape, and re-define, to invoke and to produce new identifications that lie outside the binary of sexualities. Therefore, Luhmann writes that “what is a stake here are the implications of queer theory and pedagogy for the messy processes of learning and teaching” (p. 151). Simply put, schools will shift from hetero-centric places of learning to allow non-hetero-learning.

Although the reasons why participants in this study came out vary, with some being more explicit than others, the central reason remains—they came out to avoid the anxiety of interacting with staff. Having said this, the participants who did come out came out to staff, colleagues and supervisors. I must reiterate that coming out to students/families remained a source of anxiety and continual self-questioning; at her second school, Vahn was the only one who came out to her families, but only because she was aware that that community included

100 many same-sex families and she had realized the importance of school climate juxtaposed with the visibility of queer culture.

6.2.3 Question three: what strategies do they employ to come out at work?

6.2.3.1 The Accepting Schools Act

A few of the participants cited and referred to the Ontario Accepting Schools Act as a strategy towards coming out at work. However, some participants believed that laws and policies do not encourage coming out, more the participants added that this piece of legislature did influence their decision to come out at work.

The Accepting Schools Act (Bill 13) is integral to gay and lesbian peoples’ navigation of our public school systems, such that

students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, including LGBTTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning) people. (MOE, 2012, p.1))

The Accepting Schools Act supports publicly funded schools to outwardly showcase Gay- Straight Alliances (GSAs), allowing students to embrace who and how they are in society and the right to celebrate queer culture in schools. However, in an age when Ontario schools continue to strive for social justice, equity and inclusion, social norms dictate the necessity for status quo citizenry within the school leadership. The Act further recognizes:

that a whole-school approach is required, and that everyone—government, educators, school staff, parents, students and the wider community—has a role to play in creating a positive school climate and preventing inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia, transphobia or biphobia. (MOE, 2012, p.2)

Does the Accepting Schools Act influence the school administrative profession by including gay and lesbian administrators? Solomon, Singer, Campbell and Allen (2011) contend that, “given

101

school leaders’ pivotal role in either reproducing the status quo or transforming schools for inclusivity and social justice, school administrators are under the microscope, especially when openly self-identifying as gay and lesbian” (p. 27). In Ontario, the Accepting Schools Act represents a paradigm shift, as it is the latest cry for social evolution to equalize all Canadian people (albeit with a humanist approach). The Act specifically amends the existing Ontario Education Act with respect to bullying. It explicitly outlines that education plays a critical role in preparing young people to grow up as productive, contributing and constructive citizens in Ontario’s diverse society. Specifically, this legislation acknowledges “that students cannot be expected to reach their full educational potential in an environment where they feel intimidated and insecure” (MOE, 2012, p.1).

Moreover, this Act ensures that all stakeholders—government, teachers, school staff, parents, students and the wider community—play a role in the education of every student while creating a positive school environment. Especially since the mid-1990s, education policy in Ontario has placed a great deal of emphasis on school as a vehicle leading students into the work place, where “schools prepare people for adult work rules by socializing people to function well and without complaint in the hierarchical structure of the modern corporation” (Bowles & Gintis, 2002, p. 1). All schools are inclined to further reach out to the disenfranchised gay and lesbian population. Schools should move toward society’s ideal conception of itself, that change is inevitable as our social ideals change and grow, without embracing the cultural relativism that the quality of a school can only be determined by a set of (neo-conservative and neo-liberal) norms and values (see Freire, 1970). School is to teach students to review their existing value systems and to develop a coherent set of values that will be appropriately respectful of their worldwide and local community. It will prepare young people to lead fulfilling lives on the basis of good feelings towards others and about themselves. Consequently, “queers who are vulnerable as a group, are, like others who are socially excluded, disproportionately searching for forms of justice” (Meiners & Quinn, 2009, p. 46). The Accepting Schools Act singles out four areas where boards are required to allow students to hold activities and create groups: gender equality, anti-racism, people with disabilities, and sexual orientation/gender identity.

A GSA is an example of a student-based group where all students can go for social activities and emotional support. This is important for gay and lesbian students, their allies within the school, and students with gay and lesbian parents and family members. GSAs “empower students to

102

become agents of change who advocate schools where all students can learn, all teachers can teach, and every family is welcome, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression” (Jennings & Macgillivray, 2011, p. 26). Basically, the presence of a GSA leads to greater school inclusion for gay and lesbian students in the classroom and in the school at large. In Ontario the Accepting Schools Act currently states that all publicly-funded schools must allow GSAs. The presence of a GSA will reduce the number of immense moral panics caused by the discovery that lesbians and gays are teaching children (see Luhmann, 2009). We need the ambition and strength to recognize the need to change, to re-establish rights, to show that situations do not only dictate character but also strengthen pride and acceptance.

6.2.3.2 Explicit Coming Out and Implicit Coming Out

The participants reflected their coming out at work as a way to navigate their gay and lesbian identities. This navigation of their coming out was dependent on who they came out to and for what purpose. The visibility of queer culture in schools is an uphill battle. Although there are laws and policies that encourage the visibility—equity—of queer culture, this is not always the case in schools, and it is not always led by school principals who identify as gay or lesbian. Nevertheless, some of the participants implicitly outed themselves to make themselves more visible as gay or lesbian people.

As mentioned above in Question One, participants asked their direct supervisors to be aware and to remove any chance of negative repercussions should they be informed of their sexual identities by anyone but themselves. In many instances, the participants were explicit with their staff regarding their gay or lesbian identities. Some principals straightforwardly shared with staff as part of their introductions at staff meetings when they had first been placed at their school. When asked about this, the participants wanted to be honest and open with staff, as their same- sex partners played a large role in their promotion to the principal position; they wanted staff to be aware of the whole persona leading the school. Although some participants did not explicitly come out to staff, they did have pictures of families in their offices. My research shows that principals do use their positionality to create a distance between their gay or lesbian selves and staff. As the participants alluded to, they are the face for hundreds of families, not just the students in one classroom, or one program.

103

In a study by Connell (2012), she interviewed teachers to further understand their gay or lesbian positions as teachers in public schools. She labeled the participants and either knitters, splitters or quitters. Knitters are professionals who successfully knit their gay or lesbian identity with their professional identity; splitters are those who attempt to divide their personal (gay or lesbian) identities from their professional (non- gay or lesbian) identities (Connell refers to them as “living in a glass closet”, p. 25); quitters are those who cannot reconcile their gay or lesbian identities at work and decide to leave the profession.

Table 2 shows my analysis of our participants as either a splitter, knitter, or quitter (Connell, 2015), according to the educational stakeholder. Table 2 Ontario School Principals, Gay or Lesbian Identities, Principals Coming Out Profile

Participant Direct Colleagues Staff Families

Supervisor

Etienne Knitter Knitter Knitter Knitter

Allen Knitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Harry Splitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Lowell Knitter Knitter Knitter Splitter

Doug Knitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Vahn Knitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Robert Knitter Knitter Knitter Splitter

Thomas Knitter Knitter Knitter Knitter

Adam Knitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Vince Knitter Splitter Splitter Splitter

Colleen Knitter Knitter Knitter Splitter

104

Dantley et al. (2009) support the fact that “openly gay people are more productive at work, and it therefore makes sense to create a work environment that is an overall better place for all employees” (p. 49). She also argues that being out of the closet leads to better relationships with people (employees) and less complicated interactions with employees. She advises leaders to establish a work environment in which leaders cannot ignore the human dimension. Similarly, school districts need to monitor educational stakeholder attitudes regarding queer culture in their schools, and principals need to measure the same attitudes with all their educational stakeholders in their schools.

Although the daily navigation of one’s gay and lesbian identity is contingent on many factors, and is affected by many ever-changing relationships, the role of the principal stays the same: the leader who is tasked with the running of the school. Although there is no clear-cut answer on how to navigate coming out at school, I can say that this research offers an additional dimension regarding educational leadership. This research has proven that gay and lesbian principals are not alone, and that actions are needed to evolve schooling to include gay and lesbian principals in the mix of pro-gay and lesbian social justice and diversity (equity) programming in our schools.

6.2.4 Question four: what are the challenges in coming out at work?

The participants faced many challenges when navigating the decision to come out at work. Many mitigating circumstances affected their coming out. These challenges include straight privilege and playing it straight.

One of the participants referred to the public perception of what it means to be gay via the media, as well as the general public perception of gay people. He wondered how this would manipulate, or create, a gay persona in the eyes of his educational stakeholders. The participants found it difficult to be gay or lesbian while building and establishing a school community to the expectations of students/families/staff. When they were new to the role of principal, the majority of participants felt that trust in the principal (and subsequently in the principal’s belief system) was important in establishing a leadership presence in the school. Although a few principal participants explicitly came out to the staff, most struggled before reaching their decisions, experiencing extreme fear and anxiety. But this was accompanied by the courage—the need—to be who they are.

105

The participants’ roles as principals varied; nevertheless, the ways in which they approached their leadership as principals reflected their approaches regarding concerns (the realities) in their schools. Each principal participant identified that their approach to building school community differed in context, yet they shared an overall vision comprised of a sense of altruism and an environment of belonging.

All the principals shared that the position of principal is regarded by all stakeholders as a powerful place to be; the principal, after all, makes all the final decisions as to how the school will be run. The gay and lesbian principals in my study questioned their ability to lead—not because they felt unprepared, but because they felt that stakeholders would judge them as inadequate due to their gay or lesbian identities. Some participants mentioned how media stereotypes affect educational stakeholders and the public point of view. This spawned their own suppositions as to how stakeholders would align what they experience of gay and lesbian people via media outlets (including social media) with how they expect the principal to be like as a gay or lesbian person.

Some factors that contribute to the challenges of coming out stem from the participants’ concerns as to how their gay and lesbian identities will be interpreted, and understanding what barriers stop them from feeling safe enough to come out, such as socio-economic status, geographical placement of the school, and familial religiosity. Whether these concerns are perceived or real is immaterial, since systemic and social barriers exist to hinder their coming out.

6.2.4.1 Straight Privilege at Work

The term straight “refers to heterosexual people as someone who has never engaged in deviant or outlaw sexual behaviour and sexual acts are only with an opposite sex partner. In this definition of straight, a person only engages in sexual activity with opposite sex partners throughout the lifespan” (Rocco & Gallagher, 2006, p. 12). Queer, on the other hand, “encompasses all the variations in sexual desire, activity, and identity that are not straight. Queer is also used by LGBTQ people as a way to create an identity as a community” (Rocco & Gallagher, 2006, p. 30). Moreover, “queer is used to describe a particular form of political dissidence that blurs the dominant binary” of homosexual and heterosexual (Hill, 2006, p. 59). Moreover, privileged people can choose not to fight discrimination and unjust social relationships (see Wildman, Armstrong, Davis, & Grillo, 1996). As a result, heterosexual (straight) people have the privilege

106

of ignoring diversities in sexual orientation. Wildman (1996) asserts, “the holder of privilege need not feel excluded when the norm describes her own actuality” (p. 30). As a result, such privilege is a greater social comfort for heterosexuals and requires little energy to manage one’s sexual identity in the workplace. Heterosexuals do not have to continually evaluate the safety of disclosing their queer identity or coming out to others (see Allen, 1995). An employee (or even an employer) who lives in constant fear that someone will find out that they are gay or lesbian takes energy away from productive work-based activities (see Tran, O'Leary & Brown, 2018).

Jiménez Ramiréz (2019) offers that “heterosexism (straight privilege) manifests at work in a number of ways: a gay and lesbian people choosing not to pursue career advancement due to one’s gay and lesbian identity and the fear of this identity being found out; individual spaces devoid of family pictures, including personal memorabilia that disclose one’s gay or lesbian identity; communal places at the workplace cause angst, as deciding how much to divulge to co- workers is concerning; diversity training at the workplace may not include the experiences of gay and lesbian people as part of their definition of diversity” (p. 5). Therefore, work spaces are infused with the expectation and assumption of heterosexuality and the repression of non- heterosexual behaviour.

All employees and their employers must recognize heterosexism and its negative repercussions on the workplace. Discrimination that gay and lesbian people regularly experience results in decreased participation, causing their knowledge and abilities to become wasted resources. “Straight privilege is a system of oppression that minimizes the experiences of gay and lesbian minorities, sustains a legal system that denies equal protections, and holds in contempt the personal relationships of gay and lesbian (non-straight) people” (Rocco & Gallagher, 2006, p. 30). Heterosexist privilege causes gay and lesbian people to pass as straight at different times (see Yoshino, 2007). The concept of choosing to pass as straight may not be a choice at all as the person’s economic survival or family relationships are based on keeping one’s gay and lesbian identity secret. Sedgwick (1993) shared, “even at an individual level, there are remarkably few of even the most openly gay people who are not deliberately in the closet with someone personally or economically or institutionally important to them” (p. 46). Rocco and Gallagher (2006) continue, “for every new introduction or encounter, a decision is made about how much to disclose, when to disclose, and what the consequences are if the decision to disclose was ill advised or the wrong decision” (p. 32).

107

According to Ragins and Wiethoff (2005, p.181), between 25 and 66 percent of gay and lesbian people experience workplace discrimination. When seeking workplace advancement (promotion), Friskopp and Silverstein (1995) found that heterosexism limits the career advancement of gay and lesbian people. Consequently, workplace heterosexism resulted in fewer promotions over a ten-year period for gay and lesbian people.

6.2.4.2 Playing it Straight

Research by Williams and Giuffre (2011) concludes that “gay professionals experience pressure to play it straight to fit in and succeed in the corporate world” (p. 554). Therefore, the need to play it straight in workplaces today “should be significantly diminished in the gay-friendly workplace, where gay and lesbian workers are not just tolerated but welcomed” (Connell, 2015, p. 19). She adds that gay and lesbian employees today are expected to either downplay their sexuality or conform to narrow stereotypes of gay and lesbian appearance and behaviour. “They are thus forced to choose between acceptance and visibility, rather than achieving true parity with their heterosexual colleagues” (Connell, 2015, p. 19). Rumens and Kerfoot (2009) revisited the question of gay and lesbian professional identity posed by Williams and Giuffre (2011) in light of social and legal movements toward gay and lesbian equality. Although there were gay- friendly work places, the gay and lesbian people interviewed still had to keep in mind the performative aspects of their gay and lesbian sexuality (see Butler, 2008). Thus, “they are thwarted in their attempts to identify themselves simultaneously as professional and openly gay” (Connell, 2015, p. 19). Hill (2006) suggests that, “missing in most organizational formulations is the notion that organizations are placed where human sexuality also intersects with technologies, culture, and society. They are spaces where the politics of identity and sexuality are played out” (p. 7). In organizational settings, gay and lesbian individuals have traditionally joined workplaces where the dominant organizational culture has been “silence regarding sexual orientation, with the concomitant expectation of invisibility, to which sexual minorities have often complied” (p. 8). In 2015, the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion (a pro- gay and lesbian organization whose mandate is to support employers in creating and supporting gay and lesbian -inclusive work places), with Pride at Work Canada, shared a study called In and Out: Diverging Perspectives on LGBT Inclusion in the Workplace. As per the scope of my study, I am looking at only the results pertaining to the Disclosure and The Importance of Being “Out” at Work sections of their study. It is important to note that the Centre’s study showed that “there

108

was significant divergence between the dominant groups and gay and lesbian identified individuals on the importance of being out. Many people in the dominant groups downplayed or did not understand the importance of being out at work” (p. 16). The co-authors of this study, Sasso and Ellard-Gray (2015), concluded that

employers should ask themselves what about the culture or environment of their workplace is deterring people from disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity. A few things to consider: are there potential barriers in place for queer people in gaining employment with the organization? Are your recruiting processes such that people do not feel comfortable coming out during the interview and then continue to be closeted once they get hired? Does your organization have an external reputation as not being open and inclusive for queer people, and as such, people from different sexual orientation groups choose not to apply? (p. 17).

Public sector employees, as noted, are questioning their organizational dynamics of making work pro-gay and lesbian and, gay and lesbian friendly.

6.2.5 Question five: what are the consequences of coming out at work? 6.2.5.1 Pro-Gay and Lesbian Workplace

The participants all dealt with the consequences of coming out at work, including the one participant who had never come out at work. Each participant shared that they evaluated when, where and to whom they would have shared their gay or lesbian identities. Having said this, the following themes emerged from the results of the study: pro-gay and lesbian workplace, Queer employee resource group, and the gay agenda coupled with moral panic. Rocco and Gallagher (2006) questioned how to create a workplace that is non-heterosexist—that is, a workplace that works for the abolishment of straight privilege. They suggest that “developing queer work environments requires interventions at the individual, program, and advocacy levels” (p. 36). The value of gay and lesbian people coming out to themselves and others is significant. Increased contact with self-identifying gay and lesbian people results in decreased hetero-sexism (Herek, 1990). Friskopp and Silverstein (1995) add that “in order to create a safe space, organizations need to have policies in place to combat heterosexist language, jokes, and remarks; policies that

109

are not punitive but that explicitly expect pro-gay and lesbian language in the workplace” (p. 48). Rocco and Gallagher (2006) suggest that “creating queer work spaces means challenging relationships that are not generative or caring, or naming the dynamics, the actions and the meaning that are discriminatory and oppressive” (p. 32). Gay and lesbian work spaces challenge privilege that creates oppressive relationships at work to make heterosexual and gay and lesbian people’s career development equitable.

Organizational and occupational settings are never absent from the dynamics of gay and lesbian oppression and hetero-based marginalization. Like many social institutions, educational settings across the life span are caught in the cultural wars of values currently raging in Canada regarding gay and lesbian sexuality. Within this social organization, the workplace, Hill (2006) refers to the knowledge that is contrasted; not to fit existing hegemonic meanings, or what Hill calls “fugitive knowledge” (p. 3). In other words, with the increased visibility of gay and lesbian peoples in the workplace comes an understanding of more than one way of social interaction— the reality of gay and lesbian identities shall be recognized in the workplace.

According to Raeburn (2004), “gay and lesbian workplace advocacy and activism have started a new social movement where this workplace movement, related to gay and lesbian rights, is derived from other minority rights movements” (p. 19). Nevertheless, akin to the glass ceiling depicted in women's rights movements, where women have had to settle for the misogynist limitations of the workplace, Swan (1995) refers to the lavender ceiling, “a term used to describe the kinds of systemic barriers which prevent recruitment, retention, and promotion of openly gay and lesbian people” (p. 51). Aquino, Tripp and Bies (2001, p.1) add that “systemic exclusion is the absence of affirming policies, rules, role models, mentors, internship programs, recruitment, and advancement to highly visible positions, messages, merited awards, and images about LGBTQ members”. Systemic inclusion of only heterosexuals is the process of institutionalized heterosexism. All this leads to workplace actions that include prejudice reduction strategies related to gay and lesbian identities. Palmer (1998) developed a three-part program: 1) the golden rule describes diversity as a moral issue and inclusion as the right thing to do; 2) righting the wrong model which seeks to redress the wrongs of exclusion; 3) valuing diversity includes the strategy of valuing diversities for the contributions they make to an organization (also see Grenier & Hixson-Vuple, 2018; Tran, O'Leary & Brown, 2018). Moreover, Esty, Griffing, and Hirsch (1995) say that “the key is not necessarily to change people, but to change the

110

organizational systems and culture so that the organization can become inclusive” (p. 2). However, I would be remiss if I did not mention the potential backlash to this shift towards gay and lesbian inclusiveness at the workplace. As Hill (2006) writes, “backlash to queer presence is one of the consequences of gay-affirming changes in society (and in organizations). Backlash takes many forms. In organizations with active diversity programs that include anti-oppression education and training, resistance is one of the responses” (p. 13; also see Kumashiro, 2002). In other words, backlash at the workplace may emerge when straight (non- gay and lesbian) members demand equal time based on objections to pro- gay and lesbian initiatives and programs; this is usually due to personal, religious and/or ethno-cultural reasons.

The participants did mention that there were times when derogatory remarks were used, which makes me think that most remarks are made without the knowledge of the participants themselves. There were instances where co-workers of the principals reported the remarks to the principal, which led to action in accordance with workplace harassment policies. Situations did arise that resulted in some participants needing to protect themselves, which led to a re- evaluation of their sharing their gay and lesbian identities. Consequently, the principals involved used these instances to advocate.

6.2.5.2 Employee Resource Group

Throughout the extent of my research, I have been involved with the formation of Queer Employee Resource Groups (ERG) in two large district school boards. We have outlined the kind of action plan needed to support gay and lesbian employees and to align with school district equity policies. In my conversations with my research participants, I shared that my research covered the GTA. Participants have asked about narratives, experiences and the leadership realities of other gay and lesbian principals in their districts and across Ontario. Coming out at work as a school principal is never ending as we welcome in new families, staff and community members, often on a daily basis. This research will have an effect on practice as we navigate our gay and lesbian identities with our families we work with—serve—in our schools. As such, Queer ERG has been formed to support employees who identify as gay and lesbian. The membership of this ERG varies in that it may include Allies or include only those who identify as gay and lesbian. In public schools, we have gay and lesbian identities, but there is no guarantee that gay and lesbian identities will remain only ours to share, or that we will not face

111

harassment from families, staff, colleagues or supervisors. The Queer ERG has been formed to give voice, to make visible, and to assist with the on-going equity challenges in our public schooling organizations.

Given that discrimination against gay and lesbian people is explicitly illegal in Canada, Muňoz and Thomas (2006) state that, “individual organizations are knowledgeable about the extent to which LGBTQ workers experience intimidation and violence. Organizations, however, are less aware of the extent to which heterosexism, and the privileges that come with it, creates unequal opportunities for heterosexual and homosexual workers” (p. 86). Further, at the workplace, formal discrimination includes societal and institutional customs and traditions that focus and only allow for the hetero-hegemonic realities of the employees, including discrimination in the hiring process, promotion, access, and resource distribution Also, this leads to subtle interpersonal discrimination that includes verbal and nonverbal behaviours that occur in social interactions (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002). Moreover, heterosexist privilege sheds another perspective on the workplace when it can be implicit in its appearance, yet explicit in its effects on gay and lesbian people. Muňoz and Thomas (2006) write, “Heterosexist privilege might include heterosexuals being able to express affection (for example, by hugging or holding hands) in social situations without hostile or violent reactions from others” (p. 87). A common example of heterosexist privilege in the workplace is the comfort that non-gay and lesbian people experience when displaying pictures of loved ones on their desks (or workspaces), knowing that they can freely express their relationship or family without having to consider the potential negative consequences of such a simple act.

Bell, Ozbilgin, Beauregard and Surgevil (2011) share that “the formation of a queer focused employee resource group as a foundation for supporting and advocating for gay and lesbian employees” (p. 141). Muňoz and Thomas (2006) state that, “the major vehicle by which affinity [employee resource] groups support the careers and presence of LGBTQ workers is through the provision of safe spaces to discuss their identity and its role in their work lives” (p. 90). They add that an employee resource group adds value to the organization by: 1) creating a more equitable and safe work environment for gay and lesbian employees; (2) increasing awareness and education for all employees about sexual orientation as a workplace issue; 3) increasing the retention of gay and lesbian employees; 4) working with the workplace organization to include sexual orientation in relevant personnel policies and practices; 5) increasing employee

112

recruitment within the gay and lesbian community; and 6) providing a network that supports the professional development of gay and lesbian employees (Muňoz & Thomas, 2006). Members of these resource groups provide advice and counsel to organizations regarding organizational policies that do not include gay and lesbian identities (see Obear, 2000). Muňoz and Thomas (2006) share that, “the visibility of the LGBTQ population in our working environments is increasing rapidly. With this increase in visibility, these workers often confirm overt and covert instances of discrimination in their working environments” (p. 93). As such, the workings of a pro-gay and lesbian employee resource group deconstruct straight privilege (heterosexism) in workplaces.

6.2.5.3 Moral Panic and the Gay Agenda

The reality of gay and lesbian administrators is that they are cognizant of what is commonly referred to as The Gay Agenda. When I ask my administrator colleagues who I know identify as gay or lesbian (as they know I am also gay), they do not come out simply due to fear, not feeling safe, and the potential of being outed at work to their communities beyond their control; not to mention the unspoken impact on their careers as they are either seeking promotion or do not want to be placed in a community far from home. The last two reasons speak to the fear of being reprimanded by their supervisors based on institutional homophobia. My research has shown that principals are afraid to come out to families (parents and students) due to negative repercussions, or simply not being taken seriously as a gay or lesbian principal. There needs to be a policy in our school districts that empowers, encourages and enables principals to come out should they want to, without having to experience apprehension due to a lack of explicit policy that combats the dreaded gay agenda.

Participants brought up the nefarious, ever-present feeling of the gay agenda. This agenda lends itself to the premise that actions they take as gay and lesbian principals have an ulterior motive to garner power and greater positionality to those staff members who identify as gay or lesbian. These principal participants were well aware of this gay agenda.

The results of the principal participants coming out at work are polarized between positive results and negative (gapped) results. In other words, with coming out there is more room for advocacy and an increase of gay and lesbian visibility with stakeholders in the school. However, since there are people who have come out, there is more of an expected action plan to support

113

pro-gay and lesbian programs as well as increased support from the employer. The Gay Agenda is also used to undermine the efforts and successes that school districts enable, encourage and advocate in our schools. The suggestion that a gay and lesbian principal has an ulterior motive to enhance their own gay and lesbian agenda slows down the pro-gay and lesbian movement in schools.

In Ontario, there remains what is called moral panic (see Niblett & Oraa, 2014) over the issue of students learning of sexual orientation, diverse families and gay and lesbian identities. Within institutional homophobia, there is an underlying fear of gay and lesbian teachers having access to students (the panic increases when the students are younger). This issue of gay and lesbian teachers in education has featured predominantly in the history of public education. Socially conservative parents have long sought to exclude gay and lesbian people from teaching young children simply because they are gay or lesbian. In 2015, during the initial stages of the revised Health and Physical Education (HPE) document, there was a very vocal homophobic special interest group who did not want their children to learn of gay and lesbian identities. In fact, they went so far as to not only temporarily home school their child(ren) but also demanded that gay and lesbian teachers in their local grade K-8 school remove gay and lesbian teachers, or at the very least, name them so that parents could side-step those gay and lesbian teachers. Clearly, this “ideology associates queer with pedophilia or suggests that queers have the ability to recruit their children into becoming queer themselves have been relayed repeatedly in this heterosexist quest, and many teachers have had their professional lives destroyed as a result” (Knegt, 2011, p. 78). As in most discrimination cases involving employment, even after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly listed sexual orientation as a protected group in the eyes of the law, there are still many instances of homophobic environments in Ontario schools.

According to Luhmann (1997), “immense moral panics erupt over the discovery that lesbians and gays educate our children. An intense, sometimes even violent, contestations occur over the curricular inclusion of the study of sexuality in general, and of lesbian and gay content in particular” (p. 142). For many gay and lesbian teachers, in speaking with many of my teacher colleagues, and as an administrator supporting closeted gay and lesbian teachers, this is fallout of the repressed state of sexuality within the realm of public school education in Ontario. More specifically, of the continued marginalization of lesbian and gay subjects in Ontario curricula. Since the last revision of the Ontario Health and Physical Education curriculum in 2015, there

114 has been a shift towards the discussion of gay and lesbian identities. Such discussions are either optional, left to the discretion of the teacher, or teachers avoid the topic altogether, claiming either ignorance or their convictions when refusing to teach gay and lesbian issues. The problem lies in the continual repression of the topic that is sexuality (all sexuality, not just heterosexuality). Openly shared experiences of being gay and lesbian at school (work place) expose the mostly negative effects that heterosexism and anti-gay practices and discourses have on gay and lesbian teachers (see Epstein, 1994; Harbeck, 1992; Khayatt, 1992).

Interestingly enough, Seidman (1994; 2002) shares that coming out of the closet as a political strategy is flawed. She adds that, “the near-ubiquitous imperative to come out negates the intersecting identities and life circumstances, including raced, classed, and gendered hierarchies that make coming out more difficult” (Connell, 2015, p. 97-98). Connell takes the work of Woods and Lucas (1993) and Rumen and Kerfoot (2009) to study gay and lesbian teachers, revealing how “acceptance and visibility binary play out under less friendly working conditions” (p. 19). School as a workplace is a unique employment location. It inherently invites a level of public moral vigilance that is not necessarily seen at most workplaces.

6.3 Implications and Future Directions

The directions listed are inherently connected. There is an interconnection between the research, policy, and practice supporting praxis. However, the data gathered has offered other avenues for further research. There were nine participants who presented as gay men and two as lesbian women. Further, ten participants presented as White, one participant as Asian. Is coming out a predominately White male phenomena? Further, is their dominate status (being White men) giving them the privilege (accessibility) to question their coming out at work as principals? Moreover, I question the lesbian nomenclature I used. Would I have had more lesbian participants if I had chosen a less conventional title? Lastly, ten of the participants are principals at the elementary (grades K-8) level; one participant was secondary (grades 9-12). Is coming out primarily a pressing issue with principals’ work with younger students? Did the focus of the provincial government stance on elementary HPE (including sexuality education) increase the number of voluntary elementary principals for my study?

115

6.4 Research 6.4.1 Vice Principal

My research can be expanded to include, or examine solely, the school vice principal; that is, to look at the gay and lesbian identity from the positionality of vice principal. According to my colleagues, the role of the vice principal is to keep the school running. The VP handles the operational aspects of the building, including working with students, families and staff. The vice principal works in tandem with the principal, and their relationship is critical for the successful outcomes expected from an administrative team from the school district, specifically from the Superintendent of Education.

6.4.2 Minoritized Identities and Intersectionality of Identities

This research has implications for further studies of minority groupings within a larger hegemonic structure; leveraging the commonality of the minoritized experiences in larger hegemonic organizations. Such minority groups represent both invisible and visible minorities as they exist and navigate a society that applies minoritized labels to those who are not part of the status quo. This research offers a framework to further understand the educational leadership structure in Ontario as viewed by those who belong in a minoritized—or multiple minoritized— group of people. I would like to ask atheist principals how they navigate their philosophical views in a school with multiple families subscribing to several religions and spiritualties.

6.4.3 Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sexual Orientation

Further research needs to look at other gay and lesbian-based minoritized identities and how they engage, interact and lead schools while identifying as either bisexual, pansexual, asexual (sexual orientation), and/or as either transgender, inter-sexed, asexual, transsexual (gender identity and gender expression). What of the schools on Indigenous reservations (which receive federal funding, not provincial)? How does the re-introduction (re-recognition) of Two-Spirited identities factor into gay and lesbian leadership at such schools? Research also includes a study of how gay and lesbian principals in publicly funded, Catholic systems in Ontario come out as gay and lesbian in their schools and school districts. Looking at their leadership narratives, their views regarding coming out, their interactions with supervisors, colleagues, staff and families

116

would be affected by the dogma of Catholic doctrine woven with public education and leadership.

6.4.4 Geography

Gay and lesbian leadership research is geographical. My research shows that all participants are from the GTA even though the call for participants was sent to all regions of Ontario. The participants came from a densely-populated, urban/suburban area where the school population ranges from 750-1,700 students with a variety of identifying factors, including race, gender, faith and ethno-culture. What of the rural schools? Further, a comparison of this research with other Canadian urban centers such as Vancouver (BC), Calgary (AB), Montréal (QC) and/or Halifax (NS) will lead to further understanding of how principal leadership is affected by principal identity—in this case, gay and lesbian.

6.5 Policy 6.5.1 Action

The principals in my study have found solace in pro-gay and lesbian policies and laws; however, neither translates smoothly into practice. Current anti-harassment policies in school districts must include explicit items that enable gay and lesbian principals (moreover, all gay and lesbian staff) to be able to maneuver their gay and lesbian identities at work. There are policies that protect gay and lesbian staff; however, do gay and lesbian staff know that such policies exist? And if one is a victim of anti-gay and lesbian harassment, does the victim know how to enact the policy? As gay and lesbian visibility increases in our schools, so too do the rights of gay and lesbian peoples as a viable, visible minority. Policies need to support not only gay and lesbian employees, but also act on them intentionally to empower gay and lesbian employees to know they are protected at work.

6.6 Practice 6.6.1 Principal Qualification Program (PQP)

Teachers seeking promotion to vice principal, and eventually to principal, are required to complete two courses called PQP (Part 1 and Part 2). Each course is designed to offer a glimpse into the operational and leadership aspects of schooling. Further, the courses are available through either post-secondary universities or union affiliates, and are accredited by the Ontario

117

Principals’ Council via the Ontario College of Teachers. Even though the courses are accredited and are required to reflect the OLF and the OCT Act, these courses lack references to the realities of gay and lesbian identities in schools. Having completed the qualification courses needed to be a qualified principal, and in discussions with other administrators, I have come to realize that those courses lack the equitable means to support principals in practice. Needless to say, principals are then left to confront for themselves the anxiety of being gay and lesbian on the job. The PQP courses offer operational, practical and legal frameworks, as well as an equity lens that refers to both PPM 119 and the Ontario Equity Strategy. These courses need a gay and lesbian lens. As more and more students come out, more and more families are either accepting of or opposed to gay and lesbian identities, and it is important for gay and lesbian administrators to be aware of the policies, laws and operating procedures that protect them. It is also important to allow them to advocate visibly and with a purposeful voice in their schools as gay and lesbian administrators.

6.7 Summary

As principals, the participants navigated their gay and lesbian identities daily with every new family they met, with new staff who entered their school, and with students they encountered daily. The Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF), along with the Ontario Principals' Council (OPC), offer concrete leadership expectations coupled with guidance on how to navigate the mitigating circumstances that come with the job of being a principal. Neither the OLF nor the OPC offer support from the point of view of the marginalized principal. In this study, I reflect directly on the usually invisible identity of gay and lesbian principals. The participants shared their leadership journeys towards becoming school principals, how they are community builders (connecting with all stakeholders) and equity programmers (working with all stakeholders), all while navigating their gay and lesbian identities at work.

The research question concerns principals coming out at work. Participants shared their insights regarding the coming out process and they shared their realities with regard to coming out at work as principals. The principals came out as a method of protection, or they only came out when necessary or when they felt safe enough to do so; one principal shared that he had never come out at work, but that does not mean he was not outed at work by others. As some participants shared, you are never certain who else is either coming out for you, or outing you

118

without your consent. As Harry mentioned, not coming out at work does not negate the fact that he was never outed at work.

My research has also shown that there are many mitigating factors that affect their coming out at work, including self-comfort level, educational stakeholders, and mitigating circumstances with staff and families (including students). Nevertheless, as mentioned in the Literature Review, principals were (depending on the situation) either splitters, knitters or quitters (Connell, 2015; also see Yoshino, 2007). The following are the descriptors of each, according to Connell:

Connell defines knitters as those who position themselves as positive role models for gay and lesbian and questioning students, including allies, who might otherwise characterize gay and lesbian people according to negative stereotypes. Interestingly, Connell sees the move to administration as quitting the teaching profession in a move she calls the “glass escalator” (p. 92). I need to mention that none of my participants shared that they needed to leave the classroom to avoid being detected or “because of homophobic discomfort with their working with young children” (p. 92). In fact, their worries about their gay and lesbian identities increased as they assumed the role of principal.

This project helped to confirm that coming out of the closet continues to be a daily navigation for principals whose professional purpose is laid out by the Ministry of Education (via the Ontario Leadership Framework). This research has shown that there needs to be continual and purposeful systemic work towards the empowerment of gay and lesbian principals by both school districts and the Ontario Principals' Council. Consequently, there is a need for increasing the visibility of gay and lesbian principals at work via the formation of gay and lesbian employee resource groups in each school district and specific language in district and provincial policies explicitly supporting principals to come out at work. There also need to be purposeful actions led by the Ontario Ministry of Education to specifically empower gay and lesbian principals and advise them on how to be out with each of the educational stakeholders identified in my project.

6.8 Conclusion and Recommendations

This dissertation is the first to present an in-depth, focused study of public school principals who face the decision of coming out, as well as those who ultimately did come out. The coming out narratives of lesbian and gay principals affect their decisions, actions, and overall roles as school

119

principals. No other research literature addresses the experiences of school principals coming out at work.

Lugg and Tooms (2010) refer to the “profession dress” in their article The Right Kind of Queer describing a gay and lesbian administrator as being “an overachiever and workaholic who lives with a different, lesser set of human rights. One that must constantly edit who they are in every aspect of their life because being a school leaders does not end once one leaves the school car park” (p. 80-81; see also Toom, 2007). Moreover, they claim that principals remain ‘on call’ 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a high profile within the larger community outside of the school walls. Thus, they are “constantly scrutinized in terms of their behaviour and their presentation of self” (p. 79). Lugg and Tooms (2010) also suggest that “because school leaders in the US have been professionally socialized to be both sexist and heterosexist, US educational leaders have had to be demonstrably non-queer” (p. 80). The principals in my study have had to navigate their gay and lesbian identities depending on the situation, their level of safety and their concerns regarding educational stakeholder opinions. The principals were less open to coming out with families and students, and the majority of the participants struggled with coming out to staff, colleagues and supervisors.

There must be explicit additions to school district policies regarding pro-gay and lesbian advancements, including amendments to Human Resources (for example), specific Queer employee resource groups for principals, equity programming and community building. In addition, school districts and the Ontario Principal’s Council need to be openly supportive of gay and lesbian principals and offer support for coming out at work. These pro-gay and lesbian advancements will create opportunities for gay and lesbian principals to be openly gay or lesbian at work.

120

References

Accepting Schools Act (2012, c. 13). Retrieved from the Ontario Legislative Assembly website: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-40/session-1/bill-13

Adam, B. D. (1995). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. New York, NY: Twayne Pub.

Adams, T. E., & Holman Jones, S. (2008). Autoethnography is queer. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln & L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 373-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen, K. R. (1995). Opening the classroom closet: Sexual orientation and self- disclosure. Family Relations, 44(2), 136-141.

Altman, D. (2013). The end of the homosexual? Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52-59.

Auger, J. A., & Krug, K. (2013). Under the rainbow: A primer on queer issues in Canada. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128.

Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131-146.

Berrill, K. T., & Herek, G. M. (1990). Violence against lesbians and gay men: An introduction. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 269-273.

Blasius, M. (1994). Gay and lesbian politics: Sexuality and the emergence of a new ethic. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

121

Boatwright, K. J., Gilbert, M. S., Forrest, L., & Ketzenberger, K. (1996). Impact of identity development upon career trajectory: Listening to the voices of lesbian women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 210-228.

Bower, L. (1997). Queer problems/Straight solutions: The limits of a politics of official recognition. In Shane Phelan (Ed.), Playing with fire: Queer politics, queer theories, (pp. 267-291). London, UK: Routledge.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The Economic Journal, 112(483), 419-436.

Braun, V., & Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Butler, J. (2010). Performative agency. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2), 147-161.

Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 143-167.

Chauncey, G. (2008). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890-1940. London, UK: Hachette.

Chenoweth, K., & Theokas, C. (2013). How high-poverty schools are getting it done. Educational Leadership, 70(7), 56-59.

Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. London, UK: Sage.

Clendenin, D., & Nagourney, A. (1999). Out for good. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Cohen, A., & Granatstein, J. L. (2011). Trudeau's shadow: The life and legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Toronto, ON: Vintage Canada.

Cohen, E. (1991). Who are ‘we'? Gay ‘identity’ as political (e)motion (A theoretical rumination). In D. Fuss (Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories (pp. 71–92). New York, NY: Routledge.

122

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2-3), 31-43.

Connell, C. (2015). School's out: Gay and lesbian teachers in the classroom. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Corey, F. (1992). Gay life/queer art. In A. Kroker & M. Kroker (Eds.), The last sex: Feminism and outlaw bodies (pp. 121-132). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Corrigan, P., & Matthews, A. (2003). Stigma and disclosure: Implications for coming out of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 235-248.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronin, M., & McNinch, J. (2004). I could not speak my heart: Education and social justice for gay and lesbian youth. In G. Unks (Ed.) The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents (pp. 12-16). Regina, SK: University of Regina Press.

Cruikshank, M. (1992). The gay and lesbian liberation movement. London, UK: Psychology

Press.

Currah, P. (1997). Politics, practices, publics: Identity and queer rights. In Shane Phelan (Ed.),

Playing with fire: Queer politics, queer theories (pp. 231-266). London, UK:

Routledge

Daresh, J. (2006). Beginning the principalship: A practical guide for administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. de Lauretis, T. (1991) Queer theory: lesbian and gay sexualities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

123 de Leon, M. J., & Brunner, C. C. (2009). Lesbian and gay public school administrators: Early experiences that shape today. In J.W. Koschoreck & A.K. Tooms (Eds.), Sexuality matters: Paradigm and policies for educational leaders (pp. 157-177). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

D’Emilio, J. (1992). After stonewall. In D’Emilio, J. (Ed.), Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university (pp. 234-74). New York, NY: Routledge.

Depelteau, J., & Giroux, D. (2015). LGBTQ issues as Indigenous politics: Two-spirit mobilization in Canada. In Manon Tremblay (Ed.), Queer mobilizations: Social movement activism and Canadian public policy (pp. 64-81). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

DeWitt, P. (2012). Dignity for all: Safeguarding LGBT students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Doan, P. L. (2015). Planning and LGBTQ communities: The need for inclusive queer spaces. New York, NY: Routledge.

Edelman, L. (2013). Homographesis: Essays in gay literary and cultural theory.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Engel, S. (2001). The unfinished revolution: Social movement theory and the gay and lesbian movement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 335-356.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Etsy, K., Griffin, R., & Hirsch, M. (1995). Workplace diversity: A manager’s guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Adams Media.

Faderman, L. (2015). The gay revolution: The story of the struggle. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.

124

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.

Fraynd, D. J., & Capper, C. A. (2003). “Do you have any idea who you just hired?!?” A study of open and closeted sexual minority K–12 administrators. Journal of School Leadership, 13(1), 86-124.

Friend, R., Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in United States schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: Part 1, an introduction. New York, NY: Random

House.

Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1995). Straight jobs. gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the Harvard business school, and the American workplace. New York, NY: Scribner.

Fuss, D. (1991). Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School Review, 65(4), 423-441.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Grace, A., & Wells, K. (2006). The quest for a queer inclusive cultural ethics: Setting directions for teachers' pre-service and continuing professional development. In Robert J. Hill (Ed.), Challenging homophobia and heterosexism: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues in organizational settings (pp. 51-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: Coming out at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191-1199.

125

Halperin, D. M. (1997). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford, UK: Oxford Paperbacks.

Halerpin, D. (2003). The normalizing of queer theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2), 339- 343.

Harbeck, K. M. (2014). Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers, and curricula. New York, NY: Routledge.

Harris, D. (1997). The rise and fall of gay culture. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Harris, N., & Dyson, M. R. (2004). Safe rules or gays’ schools: The dilemma on sexual orientation segregation in public education. Journal of Constitutional Law, 7(1), 183-218.

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815-825.

Hennessy, R. (1993). Queer theory: A review of the differences special issue and writings on the straight mind. Signs, 18(4), 964-973.

Hencken, J. D., & O'Dowd, W. T. (1977). Coming out as an aspect of identity formation. Gai Saber, 1(1), 18-22.

Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316-333.

Hill, R. J. (2006). Challenging homophobia and heterosexism: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues in organizational settings. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200.

Jackson, J. (2006). Removing the masks: Considerations by gay and lesbian teachers when negotiating the closet door. Journal of Poverty, 10(2), 27-52.

126

Jackson, J. (2009). Teacher by day, lesbian by night: Queer(y)ing identities and teaching. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6(2), 52-70.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Janoff, D. (2005). Pink blood: Homophobic violence in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Jennings, T., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2011). A content analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender topics in multicultural education textbooks. Teaching Education, 22(1), 39-62.

Katz, J. N. (1996). The invention of heterosexuality. New York, NY: Plume.

Khayatt, D. (1997). Sex and the teacher: Should we come out in class? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 126-143.

Khayatt, D. (2002). Toward a queer identity. Sexualities, 5(4), 487-501.

Kinsman, G. (1995). Character weaknesses and fruit machines: Towards an analysis of the anti- homosexual security campaign in the Canadian civil service. Labour/Le Travail, 35(1) 133-161.

Kinsman, G. (1996). Responsibility as a strategy of governance: Regulating people living with AIDS and lesbians and gay men in Ontario. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3), 393-409.

Kinsman, G., & Gentile, P. (2010). The Canadian war on queers: National security as sexual regulation. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2012). Addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues in teacher education: Teacher candidates’ perceptions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 444-460.

Knegt, P. (2011). Queer rights. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Koschoreck, J. W., & Tooms, A. K. (2009). Sexuality matters: Paradigms and policies for educational leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

127

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and anti-oppressive pedagogy. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

LaSala, M. C. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lugg, C. A., & Tooms, A. K. (2010). A shadow of ourselves: Identity erasure and the politics of queer leadership. School Leadership and Management, 30(1), 77-91.

Luhmann, S. (1998). Queering/querying pedagogy? Or, pedagogy is a pretty queer thing. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 141-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayo, J. (2008). Gay teachers’ negotiated interactions with their students and (straight) colleagues. High School Journal, 92(1), 1-11.

McCaskell, T. (2005). Race to equity: Disrupting educational inequality. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines.

McCaskell, T. (2018). Queer progress: From homophobia to homonationalism. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines.

McDonald, G. J. (1982). Individual differences in the coming out process for gay men: Implications for theoretical minds. Journal of Homosexuality, 8(1), 47-60.

McGregor, C. (2008). Norming and forming: Challenging heteronormativity in educational policy discourses. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 82(1), 1-38.

McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 10(1), 1-12.

McLaughlin, D., & Tierney, W. G. (1993). Naming silenced lives: Personal narratives and processes of educational change. New York, NY: Routledge.

128

McLeod, D. W. (1996). Lesbian and gay liberation in Canada: A selected annotated chronology, 1964-1975. Toronto, ON: ECW Press/Homewood Books.

McNaught, B. (1994). Gay issues in the workplace. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Mercer, R. (2011, October 27). Rick Mercer comes out again after his rant goes viral. Toronto Star [online edition]. Retrieved:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/10/27/rick_mercer_comes_out_agai n_after_his_rant_goes_viral.html

Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35.

Monteflores, C., & Schultz, S. J. (1978). Coming out: Similarities and differences for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Social Issues, 34(3), 59-72.

Morris, R. (1994). Three sexes and four sexualities: redressing the discourses on gender and sexuality in contemporary Thailand. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Culture, society and sexuality: A reader (pp. 15-43). New York, NY: Routledge.

Muñoz, C. S., & Thomas, K. M. (2006). LGBTQ issues in organizational settings: What HR professionals need to know and do? In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.) Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 85-95). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Nash, C. J. (2006). Toronto's gay village (1969–1982): Plotting the politics of gay identity. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 50(1), 1-16.

Niblett, B., & Oraa, C. (2014). The gay agenda in Ontario Catholic Schools: Gay-Straight

Alliances as activist education. In G. Walton (Ed.), The gay agenda: Claiming space,

identity, and justice (pp. 53-69). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Nicholls, R. (2013). Queerying my teacher identity. Toronto, ON: Taylor and Francis.

129

Obear, K. (2000). Best practices that address homophobia and heterosexism in corporations. The Diversity Factor, 9(1), 24-29.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Institute for Education Leadership. (2013). Ontario leadership framework: A school and system leader’s guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Retrieved from https://www.education-leadership- ontario.ca/application/files/8814/9452/4183/Ontario_Leadership_Framework_OLF.pdf

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2007) An array of qualitative analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557-584.

Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. In D. Krathwohl (Ed.), Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods, (pp. 235-255). Long Grove, IL; Waveland Press.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The grace of great things. Jakarta, Indonesia: SWA Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.

Pinar, W. F. (2003). Queer theory in education. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2-4), 357-360.

Pinar, W. F. (2012). Queer theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Quinn, T., & Meiners, E. R. (2009). Flaunt it! Queers organizing for public education and justice. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Raeburn, N. C. (2004). Changing corporate America from inside out: Lesbian and gay workplace rights. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ragins, B. R., & Wiethoff, C. (2005). Understanding heterosexism at work: The straight problem. In A. Konrad, P. Prasad & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 177-201). New Delhi, India: Sage.

Rayside, D. (2008). Queer inclusions, continental divisions: Public recognition of sexual diversity in Canada and the United States. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

130

Rocco, T. S., & Gallagher, S. J. (2006). Straight privilege and moral/izing: Issues in career development. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 112(1), 29-39.

Rofes, E. (1997). Schools: The neglected site of queer activists. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 7(1), xv-xv.

Rosello, M. (1994). Get out of here! Modern queer languages in the 1990s. Canadian Review of Literature, 21(1-2), 149-168.

Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re) constructing the self as professional. Human Relations, 62(5), 763-786.

Russell, J. (2013). Who’s better? (Re)orientating a queer eco-pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 18(1), 11-26.

Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 149-161.

Sandfort, T. G., Bos, H., & Vet, R. (2006). Lesbians and gay men at work: Consequences of being out. In A. Omoto & H. Kurtzman, (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp. 225-244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sasso, T., & Ellard-Gray, A. (2015). In & out: Diverging perspectives on LGBT inclusion in the workplace [Report]. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion.

Schwandt, T. A. (2014). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sedgwick, E. (1993). Queer and now. In D. E. Hall, A. Jagose, A. Bebell & S. Potter (Eds.), The queer studies reader (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Seidman, S. (2002). Beyond the closet? The transformation of gay and lesbian life. New York, NY: Routledge.

Signorile, M. (2015). It’s not over: Getting beyond tolerance, defeating homophobia, and winning true equality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

131

Silin, J. G. (1999). Teaching as a gay man: Pedagogical resistance or public spectacle? GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 5(1), 95-106.

Slay, H. S., & Smith, D. A. (2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations, 64(1), 85-107.

Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: The framework approach. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 52-62.

Solomon, R. C. (1999). A better way to think about business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Solomon, R. P., Singer, J., Campbell, A., & Allen, A. (2011). Brave new teachers: Doing social justice work in neo-liberal times. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

Spargo, T. (2000). Postmodern encounters: Foucault and queer theory. New York, NY: Totem Books.

Sparrowe, R. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 19-139.

Statistics Canada. (2015). Same-sex couples and sexual orientation… by the numbers. Retrieved

from: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr08/2015/smr08_203_2015

Stevenson, R. (2016). Pride: Celebrating diversity & community. Victoria, BC: Orca Book

Publishers.

Stronge, J., (2013). Principal evaluation from the ground up. Educational Leadership, 70(7), 60- 65.

Swan, W. (1995). The lavender ceiling: How it works in practice. In W. Swan (Ed.). Breaking the silence: Gay, lesbian and bisexual issues in public administration (pp. 49-63). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.

132

Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research and gay and lesbian studies. Queer Theory in Education, 1(2), 49-71.

Tooms, A. (2007). The right kind of queer: Fit and the politics of school leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 601-630.

Turner, W. B., (2000). A genealogy of queer theory. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.

Vargo, M. E. (2019). Acts of disclosure: The coming-out process of contemporary gay men. New York, NY: Routledge.

Volkmann, M. J., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Creating professional identity: Dilemmas and metaphors of a first-year chemistry teacher. Science Education, 82(3), 293-310.

Wahlström, M., Peterson, A., & Wennerhag, M. (2018). “Conscience adherents” revisited: Non- LGBT pride parade participants. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 23(1), 83-100.

Walcott, R., & Rayside, D. (2009). Queer inclusions, continental divisions: Public recognition of sexual diversity in Canada and the United States. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Waite, D., Nelson, S. W., & Guajardo, M. (2007). Teaching and leadership for social justice and social responsibility: Home is where the struggle starts. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 18(1&2), 200-223.

Warner, T. E. (2002). Never going back: A history of queer activism in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Warner, T. (2010). Losing control: Canada's social conservatives in the age of rights.

Toronto, ON: Between The Lines.

Weeks, J. (1977). Coming out. London, UK: Quartet Books.

133

Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in United States schools. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wildman, S. M. (1996). Privilege revealed: How invisible preference undermines America. New York, NY: NYU press.

Williams, C., & Giuffre, P. (2011). From organizational sexuality to queer organizations: Research on homosexuality and the workplace. Sociology Compass, 5(7), 551-563.

Yoshino, K. (2007). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York, NY: Random House.

134

Appendix A: Participant Interview Protocol

Principal Notes/Memoing

Participant #__

Pseudonym: ______

Age: ____ Gender: ____

Sexual Identity: ______

Education: ______

# of years as principal: _____ # of years at this location: ____ School Grade Range: _____

1. Principalship:

When did you decide you wanted to be a principal?

Describe your experience(s) as a principal.

How long have you been a principal?

If you've been principal at other schools, tell me about that experience?

If this is your first principalship, tell me about your experiences thus far?

135

2. Coming Out:

Share with me what 'coming out' means to you.

Do you agree that 'coming out' is a process?

As a principal, what is process of 'coming out' when it involves:

- Colleagues (other principals, vice-principals, superintendents),

- Staff (teachers, office assistants, custodial),

- Parents and families,

- The greater community (community partners).

If you have, how did you 'come out' to those groups of people listed above?

In the process of becoming a principal, did you consider ‘coming out' as a principal?

3. School as the workplace:

In terms of school culture/climate, are there gay-friendly programs (e.g., Gay-Straight

Alliance, professional development for staff, etc) at your school? i

Were you ever unwilling to 'come out' at a school where you were a principal?

Were you ever willing to 'come out' at a school where you were a principal?

4. Policies/laws:

Do you know of any gay-friendly school district policies specific in your school district?

Do you know of Ontario laws or mandates, e.g. Bill C-13, Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC), that are gay-friendly?

136

Appendix B: Participant Letter to Participate

RE: Invitation to Participate in a Research Study:

Gay and Lesbian Principals:

A study exploring narratives of Gay or Lesbian Ontario school principals.

I’m writing to invite you to participate in a research project. As you know, large-scale equity and inclusive education reform has occurred in Ontario from the formation of the Ontario College of Teachers in 1996 to the passing of the Accepting Schools Act in 2012. Such reforms are a reaction to program and policy memoranda and legislation reflecting the laws regarding human rights in Ontario. While a great deal of contemporary research exists concerning the outcomes and impacts of such educational policies as they pertain to human rights, few have examined these policies as they relate to the role of Ontario public school principals.

Very little discussion can be found in the literature about the coming out experiences by principals who self-identify as lesbian or gay. The proposed dissertation will be the first to present an in-depth study on public school principals who self-identify as lesbian or gay. This research will focus on how school principals negotiate their principalship.

Specifically, the objective of the study is to understand principals’ narrative of coming out at work.

Your participation will benefit Ontario’s education system by contributing to research available concerning the effects of equity policies for LGBTTIQ peoples. The results will be relevant to equity and leadership studies. The study will also provide data to other researchers who may build on the findings. You may also find that participation contributes to your own professional development, since doing so will provide you with an opportunity for reflective practice and share concepts arising out of the international research.

Interviews with school administrators like yourself will constitute the primary data. I am seeking your participation based on your role as a principal. You are invited to participate in an interview of about one hour. Complete confidentiality of interview discussions is guaranteed.

137

Any audio recordings of the interviews will be done only with your consent. You may choose not to have the interview recorded. A copy of the interview questions will be provided to you in advance. I will conduct the interviews at a time and place convenient to you.

To protect your identity, you will be assigned a number that will correspond to your interview answers and the transcript of your interview. Your transcript will be sent to you to give you the opportunity to add any further information or to correct any misinterpretations that may result. The information obtained in the interview will be kept in strict confidence and stored at a secure location. Digital data collected will be password-protected and encrypted on a private computer so that only I have access to it. Any hard copy materials (such as your consent form) will be kept in a locked filing cabinet. All data will be kept securely for five years after its collection, and will then be destroyed by shredding or deletion, including the deletion of system backups, using software that overwrites the original data. Because participants will come from different school districts, the results will not be identifiable by employer. School districts and school names will not be included.

You may at any time refuse to answer a question or withdraw from the research. You may request that any information, whether in written form or audiotape, be permanently deleted. At no time will value judgments be placed on your responses, nor will any evaluation be made of your effectiveness as an educator. Finally, you are free to ask any questions about the research and your involvement with it and may request a summary of the findings of the study. Results of the study will be made available to all participants. You can indicate on the consent form (below) if you wish to receive a copy.

I also invite you to recommend to me the names of other individuals who might be interested in sharing their perspectives for this study. If you have any questions about the project, or wish to recommend a colleague to participate in this research, I can be reached at 416-999-2430, or by email at [email protected]. Additional concerns can be directed to Dr. Joseph Flessa, Associate Professor and research study supervisor at 416-978-1187, or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

138

Hubert Brard, M.Ed.

Doctor of Education Candidate

OISE/University of Toronto

Tel. 416-999-2430

______

139

Appendix C: Request to Participate from Ontario Principals Council

RE: Invitation to Participate in a Research Study:

Gay and Lesbian Principals:

A study exploring narratives of Gay or Lesbian Ontario school principals.

Your participation will benefit Ontario’s education system by contributing to research available concerning the effects of equity policies for LGBTTIQ peoples. The results will be relevant to equity and leadership studies. The study will also provide data to other researchers who may build on the findings. You may also find that participation contributes to your own professional development, since doing so will provide you with an opportunity for reflective practice and share with you concepts arising out of the international research.

If you have any questions about the project, or wish to recommend a colleague to participate in this research, I can be reached at 416-999-2430, or by email at [email protected]. Additional concerns can be directed to Dr. Joseph Flessa, Associate Professor and research study supervisor at 416-978-1187, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Hubert Brard, M.Ed.

Doctor of Education Candidate

OISE/University of Toronto

Tel. 416-999- 2430 ______

140

Appendix D: Participant Consent Form

CONSENT FORM: PLEASE RETURN THIS TO RESEARCHER

By signing below, you are indicating that you are willing to participate in the study, that you have received a copy of this letter and the attached interview questions, and that you are fully aware of the conditions above.

Name: ______Organization: ______

Signed: ______Date: ______

Please initial if you agree to have your interview audio recorded: _____

Please initial if you would like a summary of the findings upon completion: ____

If you have indicated that you wish to receive a copy of the study when completed, please indicate an email address to which it can be sent: ______