The axing of the Anti-Bullying LGBTQ+ Fund
The Government Equalities Office had funded programmes to prevent and tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools. This essential fund has been axed and quietly removed. To expect children and teenagers, with no settled induction, to join without tension is infeasible. And to simply cut the programme will allow reservation for bullying.
I think discontinuing this fund will encourage the prospect that LGBT+ bullying has either stopped or is not worth funding. It sets the precedence of reclassifying the severity of LGBT+ bullying and relaxation of demand for equality. This issue means a lot to me. During my education, there seemed to be a complete lack of understanding. Conversations were not happening and anyone seen as different was not celebrated. The impact I noticed during my final years of education was immense. Self-expression was being celebrated. Conversations around gender identity and androgyny were massive trends in the corridors. I watched younger years having ownership of their identity without backlash. I remember feeling jealous of their freedom, but that wasn’t fair. My journey was different and I held my empowerment through rebellion. So, I stopped being blind-sighted and appreciated the positive changes within those smaller spheres.
I transferred from an all-boys school to a mixed-gendered school in my intermediate years. I was astounded to observe the contrast in cultures. Especially the freedom of expression in this school. Initially, I thought it must be the flexibility of non-uniform, being a mixed-gendered school, but liberation seemed to be progressing year by year. I can now discern it was the efforts of various campaigns, funds, communities and society that was slowly shifting this contemporary acceptance.
Friends had told me that they didn’t want to be categorised anymore, or if they had to… correctly at least. The influx in conversation regarding inclusivity, diversity, gender identity etc over the past 5+ years have been incredible. Everyone was learning to delegate all cultural/identity niches with conscious respect. Terms and phrases have become outdated and offensive, so conversations began to be specific with its agenda; being appropriate concerning topics and representation. Reinforcing this, having these programmes and familiarising this to students is enough to spark change.
There is a reasonable basis that the reluctance of change will have a detrimental effect on LGBTQ+ youth. Neglecting this fundamental support means neglecting vulnerable children who need our support. And thus, Abandoning this inquiry means abandoning our LGBTQ+ youth. I do not recall any discussion in school or support regarding LGBTQ+ identity and history. So creating a safe space for conversation, familiarising identity as something you shouldn’t be ashamed of will help students to not suffer in silence — as I did. Progression has been made and it warmed me to see this, so it shouldn’t be suspended.
I remember a teacher saying, “how would I know? You seem like a happy young boy”, but that was far from the truth. How could I blame them? Let us not forget that some teachers would have completed their training during Section 28. Unequipped and unbothered. Schools must have access to the correct support to focus on their duty on keeping students safe — free from unwarranted resistance. I did not get to see the full extent of this programme, but my school experience would have been a different story. Ultimately, without programmes and anti-bullying funding, I risked my education due to my absence. This alone should serve as a case to extend the fund. Without it, during my years of schooling, it felt like my right to education had been dismissed. Action is needed to stop LGBTQ+ bullying. LGBTQ+ students have disproportionately bad mental health; personally, primarily due to my school experience. Let’s not disregard anyone’s mental health and let’s call this out.
Why was this fund seen as so adversarial? There is an apologetic uselessness in not mandating legislation which some have said to be culturally influential. What message does this send to our youth? The government is propelling backwards on their primary promise of LGBTQ+ support. Although the government hasn’t directly slapped any sanctions, it does feel like a slap in the face. I would have thought that the government would have wanted to take all necessary measures to protect their youth — especially after returning to school following the pandemic. They have rolled out to be a renegade.
People have been speaking out, but they are not being heard. These initiatives are not constituting any escalation or change. It is unacceptable to not consider this to be of major concern. There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ youth are predisposed to bullying. There have been considerable efforts to change this in the past 5 years. These efforts have come from the LGBTQ+ community and no doubt these programmes have made a positive change. But equality and eradication of discrimination have no been delivered. This is why we cannot liquidate programmes like this. I want LGBTQ+ youth to have a safer education than I did. The cumulative change to the safety of children and adolescents should not be trivialised (as you take away a safety net — the risk reignites). If the Government lived up to the statute of what was initially presented when inducing these programmes, then it would be a force for good. However, simply revoking these programmes and tiptoeing out suggests that financially LGBTQ+ youth are just not substantial enough. Essentially, Tories are delegating young people to bullying.
Jack Groves
