LGBTQIA+ Content Could Be Removed From VA Curriculum Under New Law

VIRGINIA — Six-hundred and two LGBTQIA+ students and allies representing 43 Virginia school districts signed on to a letter to state education officials Wednesday asking them to develop guidelines saying that instruction about LGBTQIA+ people is not inherently sexual.

During the 2022 legislative session, the Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 656, directing the Virginia Department of Education to develop polices and guidance for local school boards to notify parents if any instructional material includes sexually explicit content. The bill gives VDOE until Jan. 1, 2023 to complete the task.

"Senate Bill 656, which on the surface just seems like a parental rights bill, is really a very layered bill that labels being part of the LGBTQIA+ community as sexually explicit," said Rivka Vizcardo-Lichter, president of the Pride Liberation Front, which represents LGBTQIA+ students in Fairfax County.

If VDOE fails to clarify the guidance language and defines same-sex relationships as inherently sexually explicit relationships, PLP is concerned that the law would be used to keep all LGBTQIA+ content out of classroom instruction across the state, even excluding the mention of historical figures like Virginia Woolf and Alice Walker or not acknowledging same-sex families.

"Developing guidelines that fail to explicitly specify that LGBTQIA+ topics are not inherently sexual would have a chilling effect on our education," the letter reads. "Erasing Queer people from our classes would lead to fictionalized and over-simplified instruction, given the immense contributions that LGBTQIA+ people have made to our state and county. Moreover, every student, including LGBTQIA+ youth, deserves to be accurately represented in our curriculum."

"Most of my LGBTQIA+ friends are already struggling with their mental health. I’m scared about the message these guidelines could send and losing the already limited affirming representation in my class,” said a Loudoun County student, in a PLP release.

PLP sent the letter to several VDOE officials, including Jillian Balow, superintendent of public instruction; Elizabeth Schultz, assistant superintendent of public instruction; Dr. Leslie Sale, director of Office of Policy; Jim Chapman, regulatory and legal coordinator; Charles Pyle, director of communications & constituent services; and Adria Merritt, director for diversity, opportunity and inclusion pathways.

Patch reached out by email on Wednesday to each of these officials, seeking comment on PLP's letter and concerns. The only person to reply was Pyle, who acknowledged that Balow had received the student's letter, adding she appreciated their comments, as well as those submitted by all students, parents, teachers and other Virginians during the public comment period.

"After reviewing all of the submitted comments, the department will communicate a final document to school divisions to inform the adoption of local policies by January 1, 2023, as required by Senate Bill 656," Pyle said, in his email.

Related: LGBTQIA+ Students Call On Fairfax School Board To Reform FLE Program

In response to a question about what constitutes "sexually explicit content" in regard to Senate Bill 656, Pyle shared a link to VDOE's draft guidance document, which includes no mention of same-sex relationships. The language, in fact, is the same as that contained in the bill:

Section 2.2-2827 of the Virginia Code, which pertains to restrictions on accessing sexually explicit content via agency owned or leased computer equipment, states that “Sexually explicit content” “means (i) any description of or (ii) any picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in Section 18.2-390, sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in Section 18.2-390, coprophilia, urophilia, or fetishism.”

Like VDOE's draft guidance document, this passage at first glance does not include a reference to same-sex relationships. However, following the link to Section 18.2-390 reveals this definition:

"Sexual conduct" means actual or explicitly simulated acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such be female, breast."

While "homosexuality" is defined as "sexual conduct," in the Virginia Code, "heterosexuality" is not. Since homosexuality is mentioned specifically and heterosexuality is not, the Virginia Code could be interpreted to mean that same-sex relationships are sexual conduct and not an identity, which is what PLP contends.

"The word homosexuality doesn't mean a sexual act, it means being attracted to the same sex, just as heterosexual is being attracted to the opposite sex," Vizcardo-Lichter said.

When asked whether the DOE's guidance will define a homosexual or same-sex relationship as inherently sexual conduct and thereby worthy of notifying parents, Pyle responded by sharing a copy of VDOE's draft guidance document and referred again to the language in the Virginia Code, which is the same as SB 656.

"The fact that they are not clarifying that in the guidelines or potentially not finding that in the guidelines, it leaves the guidelines open to interpretation to define all references to people in same-sex relationships as inherently sexual, which is obviously what we don't want them to do," Vizcardo-Lichter said.

For now, PLP and its supporters will continue to lobby the VDOE to clarify the language of the guidelines that same-sex relationships should not be defined as sexual in nature.

"If that doesn't happen, then we'll likely go to our school board next, because they have to implement these model guidelines that are being drafted by Jan. 1," Vizcardo-Lichter said.