Bayonets, Brainwashing, and Bathrooms: The Discourse of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Desegregation of Little Rock's Central High

Godfrey, Phoebe

doi:10.2307/40023302

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others assert that discriminatory practices in restrooms are not new. For example, researchers highlight that some believed that African American students should use segregated restrooms to prevent the spread of disease to Whites (Godfrey, 2003), that it was too burdensome to provide access to individuals with disabilities in restrooms (Colker, 2017), and that women could not be accommodated in restrooms as they entered the workforce (Rhode, 1991). Eventually, the Supreme Court declared, in other contexts, that policies that discriminated against African American students ( McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education , 1950), individuals with disabilities ( City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center , 1985), and female students ( U.S. v. Virginia , 1996) were unconstitutional.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Storytelling, Leadership, and the Law: Using Amicus Briefs to Understand the Impact of School District Policies and Practices Related to Transgender Student Inclusion

Lewis

Eckes

2019

Educational Administration Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Storytelling, Leadership, and the Law: Using Amicus Briefs to Understand the Impact of School District Policies and Practices Related to Transgender Student Inclusion

Lewis

Eckes

2019

Educational Administration Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The process of not allowing transgender students access to the bathroom at an IHE can lead to verbal and physical harm, but also psychological harm. There is a historical precedent in not allowing marginalized “others” (e.g., racial groups, individuals with disabilities, genders) to enter certain social spaces (Colker, 2017; Godfrey, 2003; Rhode, 1991), but the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional. However, the legal platform concerning bathroom access has been changing with various presidential administrations.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separate but unequal: Revisiting the discussion of trans‐inclusive bathrooms

James

Coley

2023

Sexuality Gender & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transgender students, often defined as "others," experience legal difficulties navigating within public spaces, specifically in terms of bathroom usage. The ultimate question is whether institutions of higher education (IHEs) are denying equal access to transgender students by creating unisex bathrooms alongside the binary system. The problems with these unisex locations harken back to what the court found in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) that separate but equal does not ensure equality. This policy analysis explores (1) the campus climate for transgender students, (2) the evolution of the bathroom laws, (3) the suitability of unisex bathrooms alongside binary-gendered bathrooms, and (4) transforming all bathrooms into undesignated locations.

show abstract

“Str[a]ight from My Heart”: Black Lives, Affective Citizenship, and 1960s American Politics

Berghel

2019

Children’s Voices From the Past

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bayonets, Brainwashing, and Bathrooms: The Discourse of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Desegregation of Little Rock's Central High

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Storytelling, Leadership, and the Law: Using Amicus Briefs to Understand the Impact of School District Policies and Practices Related to Transgender Student Inclusion

Storytelling, Leadership, and the Law: Using Amicus Briefs to Understand the Impact of School District Policies and Practices Related to Transgender Student Inclusion

Separate but unequal: Revisiting the discussion of trans‐inclusive bathrooms

“Str[a]ight from My Heart”: Black Lives, Affective Citizenship, and 1960s American Politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About