Silenced sexualities in schools and universities

This is an interesting, absorbing and challenging book. It will challenge all educators at every level to re-examine the implicit assumptions of sexuality pervading their institution and their own practice. This book could be classified as one in the range of texts on equal opportunities, but such crude classification would diminish the impact of the message, as well as the academic theory and research which underpins this work. It felt like the missing link in the range of work in this field. The issue of sexuality is still perceived by some as a delicate subject, particularly for some teachers, educators and even those of us who think we are liberals. It is an issue which some find uncomfortable and challenging. If you fall into either category then rather than avoid this book, I would recommend that you read it!

The book examines the concept of ‘normal’ with regards to sexuality. The normalisation of heterosexuality is a construct arising from the discourse of power. This is the underlying principle that Epstein et al promote is this book. They argue that this normative heterosexuality constrains and influences the construction of a personal sexual identity. They demonstrate that this power of normative heterosexuality pervades all institutions including primary and secondary schools, as well as universities. At each institutional level there is pressure on young people to adopt and conform to a heterosexual, monogamous, family-orientated life style.

The authors state that primary schools are the site of enforcing this normalising heterosexuality. The culture in schools promotes this model of sexuality and thus it has become institutionalised. Individuals from primary school to university are expected to shape their own identity within this framework, so heterosexuality is compulsory. This leads to exclusion of the other, those that are not ready to engage in this framework and those that know they do not want to be part of this framework, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. The authors link this to boys’ underachievement at primary level and that some young women suppress their sexuality by focusing on their learning. This does not change when youngsters transfer from school to university since a climate of regulatory heterosexualism dominates and again this is an exclusionary culture. One may consider universities as liberal spaces but the authors argue that the pressure to conform is greater.

The analysis of the current position through the perceptions of young people enables the authors to suggest that the current model of sex education is inadequate since it promotes a biological and moral approach. They advocate the removal of sex education from the PSHE curriculum and placing it within the Humanities and social science areas. This would facilitate discussion of sexuality within a social and cultural context. Students could examine the history and sociology of sexuality on a worldwide scale. This would present differing models of sexuality, which could promote understanding, reduce prejudice and lead to students examining their own assumptions of heterosexism, homophobia and racism. They advise the development of a pedagogy, which equips young people, but also teachers, to analyse and understand the different approaches to sex education, in other words an empowering pedagogy.

I would recommend this book for undergraduates studying sociology and the Humanities. However, the authors rightly imply that teachers are inadequately prepared to teach sex education and this needs to be addressed through initial teacher education and continuing professional development. So most importantly this is a book that should be read by teacher educators, teachers and student teachers.