Much consternation within LGBQ communities (Godfrey, 2018) was caused by Section 28 (an amendment to the Local Government Act, 1986) which was introduced in May 1988. Protests against the legislation included the infamous abseil by lesbian women in to the House of Lords and marches against the legislation all over the country (Godfrey, 2018). Section 28 aimed to ban LGBQ literature from public and school libraries and prevent the promotion of LGBQ issues within local authority managed educational settings. Section 28 stated that a local authority ‘shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality ... [or] promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ (DfE, 1988, Section 28). In fact, because local
182 | P a g e
authorities did not control the curriculum in schools (these were individually controlled by School Governors), Section 28 had no legal force over what was taught (Tatchell, 1988 cited in Schools Out 2014; Formby, 2013) but it did bring about ‘self-censorship’ within schools (Tatchell, 1988 cited in Schools Out 2014, p8).
LGBQ-identifying (and other) youth workers were nervous about the impact on the work they were doing when Section 28 was first introduced (Formby, 2013). Working with young people who identified as LGBT or being open about their own LGBQ sexuality might have been seen as promoting the ‘acceptability of homosexuality’ (DfE, 1988, Section 28). This legislation impacted greatly on respondents who were working in youth work at this time. Patricia pointed out that ‘one of my first youth work sessions was helping to run a girls’ night which was really interesting.
It got shut down actually when Clause 28 came out’. It maybe that this girls’ night (delivered by
the local authority youth service) was shut due the leaders’ sexuality as much girls work provision at that time was run by lesbian youth workers (Batsleer, 1996b).
Despite the fact that Section 28 was repealed in England in 2003 (13 years prior to this research), it still cast a shadow over some settings: probably more in schools (as attested to in Formby, 2013) than in youth work settings. Patricia, who was often invited into schools to support LGBT young people, reported that LGBQ teachers were still, in 2016, largely ‘invisible’ within schools. She noted that some LGBQ school teachers were not allowed, by senior school managers, to have photographs of their partner in their office. Patricia suggested that this was ‘due to hangover from
Clause 28 ... so there is no opportunity for there to be a positive role model’ within the school. This
is supported by other research: noting that LGBT young people and teachers were invisible in schools due to policies of omission rather than intent (Epstein and Johnson, 1994) and that all these years later this is still the case (Formby, 2013; Stonewall, 2017). Patricia reported on conversations with teachers that she worked with who identified as LGBQ:
Teachers are not allowed to be out ... they’ve had to ... hide it and they're struggling with that. ... It must be difficult to be in a job where you’ve got to hide who you are. ... [The teacher] said it was about “safeguarding” ... she sometimes teaches dance and ... has to go into the changing rooms. If it came out about her sexuality ... she felt ... it could be used against her by the young people or the parents. ... That’s quite a scary position to be in ... are you assuming that people are thinking you're a predator then because you're not straight?
183 | P a g e
Patricia, here, seems to be referring to a supposed link between LGBT and child abuse in the minds of some (Weeks, 2011; Otto, 2016)a point not be debated here due to lack of space.
Eight other respondents agreed with Patricia that there was still a ‘hangover from Clause 28’ (Nell). Helena, who had worked from the 1980s to the 2010s within the voluntary youth work sector, felt that the repeal of Section 28 did not ’bring a dramatic change ... in mainstream’ youth work settings. Helena said that youth workers (as well as teachers) remained nervous as to what they were allowed, or not allowed, to say about LGBQ relationships. Marie, who had worked in local authority youth work settings during the Section 28 era, agreed with Helena. Marie suggested that the damage done in the 1980s ‘left a sort of imprint’ within youth work settings. Liz, who was also a youth worker in the statutory sector in the 1980s and 1990s, testified that Section 28 was probably one of the influences that encouraged her to be closet for many years about her lesbian sexuality in youth work settings. Beth, a younger respondent, also had strong views about Section 28. She had not been a youth worker under this legislation but had been active as an undergraduate student within the same-sex marriage campaigns. Beth thought that ‘the prejudice from Clause 28 spills over in to mainstream youth work’. Beth spoke with passion about the importance of young people knowing how and why LGBQ-focussed legislation had changed. Beth reported that she told young people ‘the privilege that you’ve got now [compared to] the nineteen-eighties with Section 28 ... you’ve only got that privilege because people before
you have stood and fought and argued and been involved and been political’. Nell, whilst also not
a youth worker in the 1980s and 1990s, felt very strongly about the impact of Section 28 on LGBQ people generally. Nell pointed out that whilst very few people were ever questioned, never mind prosecuted, under Section 28:
the fear of it singlehandedly ... put LGBT rights back ... years. ... The ripple effect of Section 28, the number of suicides, the number of attacks, the number of homophobic assaults on the streets, the number of hate crimes, I think beyond doubt it's made a huge impact on our community and I think we know that there’s still people in parliament that would happily bring it back.
Two other respondents (Beth and Rosie) were also afraid that something along the lines of Section 28 might reappear. So it was no wonder that respondents noted that Section 28 still had some impact on working openly around LGBQ issues with young people. Fern agreed that there was still ‘some apprehension’ due to ‘bigotry or ignorance of Section 28’ amongst teachers and youth
184 | P a g e
workers regarding LGBQ work. However, in recent years with positive changes in legislation, she had noted a ‘shift: ... it’s changed with a new generation of teachers’ and youth workers: so making work around LGBQ issues easier. Carla thought there was no longer any impact in youth work settings from Section 28 as the legislation was repealed ‘too long ago now’ to have any current impact. Carla, working in the voluntary sector, pointed out that ‘prejudice, rather than
policy impacts on ... discussions’ within her youth work. Only Ellie noted that there is now less
heteronormative assumptions within school and youth work settings and she also noted that the 2010 Equality Act had an important influence on both Ofsted reports and what went on in schools. Tatchell (2014 cited in Schools Out, 2014), an LGBT activist, noted three different arenas in which schools need to act for the repeal of Section 28 to be effective. Tatchell said that schools need to: first, stamp out the bullying of LGBT pupils, especially in the playground. Second, schools need to promote understanding amongst all school students regarding LGBT issues. Third, he notes that schools should ensure that issues of relevance to LGBT young people are discussed in Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) classes. Respondents seemed to agree with Tatchell (2014 cited in Schools Out, 2014) when he points out that most schools have not yet acted on these issues. These three elements are covered under the 2010 Equalities Act and the proposed new Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) curriculum (Kibirige, 2017), so hopefully progress will be made in the future in these areas within school settings.
From the above discussion it is clear that there was a range of opinions regarding the ongoing impact of Section 28 on youth work with young people. These varied responses may be due to the range of different settings that respondents worked in or due to their memories, or lack of memories, of working within schools or youth work settings in the 1980s and early 1990s. The discussion now moves to a wider focus on LGB-focussed legislation changes.