Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) visibility has exponentially grown over the past half century. In one lifetime, America has borne witness to the Stonewall Riots, AIDS epidemic, legalization of same-sex marriage, and debates for transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. Yet, scholarship in top public administration journals has rarely examined how LGBTQ+ milestones relate to policy development, implementation, and service-delivery. This exposes a discrepancy between what scholars study, what practitioners face, and what queer communities need. Building on the Social Equity Manifesto, this manuscript offers recommendations for incorporating queer perspectives into research, teaching, and instruction, offering a more inclusive and intersectional agenda.
Keywords
The Need for Elevating Queer Visibility
Despite more than 70 years of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) policy development, adoption, and implementation, focus on queer policies, milestones, and movements remains rare in the top public administration journals. Several systematic literature reviews have demonstrated the scope of this problem. From the 1940s to 1999, gender, race/ethnicity, indigenous, social class, and sexual orientation topics were seldom published in leading journals from Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States (Oldfield et al., 2006). Most equity-related articles in Public Administration Review (PAR) focused on gender (45 total articles, the first appearing in 1956) and race/ethnicity (60 total articles, the first appearing in 1947). Only two PAR articles referenced sexual orientation in the 20th century, the first appearing in 1996. As of 2013, 0.96% of 208 equity-related PAR articles focused on sexual orientation. It was the least-examined subgroup, with most focusing on gender (36.1%) and race/ethnicity (32.2%). Gender identity has been far less examined than sexual orientation. Transgender people were not mentioned in PAR until the early 2010s. When Guy and Larson (2016) reviewed the top eight public administration journals, they found only 19 total articles on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, 2% of all equity-related articles. Again, LGBTQ+ was the least of all topics identified.
The growth in articles on race/ethnicity and gender is crucial, and more inquiry is needed to deconstruct administrative racism and sexism, dismantle white supremacy, and redistribute power and wealth to people who have been systematically oppressed for centuries. Furthermore, a number of pivotal LGBTQ+ works have been published more recently (See Johnson & Renderos, 2020; Naylor, 2020; Sabharwal et al., 2019; Swan, 2019). And several states and more than 350 local governments have passed extensive antidiscriminatory protections, particularly for transgender youth (Sellers, 2018). Still, the lag in queer scholarship compared to other categories is notable.
How can scholars begin bring greater focus to LGBTQ+ groups and issues? One approach has been to incorporate an intersectional lens that examines how intersecting identities, such as race and gender, create a different and cumulative effect on the people that exist at those intersections, such as BIPOC womxn (Bearfield, 2009; Gaynor & Blessett, 2014; Nelson & Piatak, 2019). This perspective piece addresses the imbalance for queer folks in two additional ways.
The first section highlights administrative milestones that have affected queer people since the 1950s. Scholarly silence on these events contributes to the invisibility of LGBTQ+ inequities, successes to be celebrated, and enduring needs. Queer leaders have also received little recognition, which contributes to present-day marginalization (Burnier, 2008). For instance, various scholars have conducted archival research to uncover the legacies of women like Department of Labor Secretary Frances Perkins in the Roosevelt Administration (Burnier, 2008), Frances Harriet Williams, the only high-ranking African American woman in the federal government during the New Deal Era and author of PAR’s first publication on racial equity (Gooden, 2017), and Laverne Burchfield, an early managing editor of PAR and force for the American Society of Public Administration (Guy, 2000). While LGBTQ+ administrators have also made significant impacts, visibility of their accomplishments is limited and necessitates further examination.
Second, this article provides specific actions that scholars can take to advance investigation of queer lives and experiences. Mindful of the low proportion of LGBTQ+ publications in top public administration journals (Gooden, 2015; Guy & Larson, 2016; Oldfield et al., 2006), this section joins international calls for a greater investigation of public administration and policy through a queer lens (Lee et al., 2008). Blessett et al.’s (2019). “Call to Action” Social Equity Manifesto provides the framework for each recommendation. Their Manifesto proposes seven general principles for making social equity an embedded value in public administration. This section provides a queer perspective for each principle, contributing detailed steps that can be taken to bring equal attention to LGBTQ+ equity alongside race, ethnicity, and gender dimensions.
A Snapshot of Administrative Milestones in Queer History
LGBTQ+ rights have been challenged since America’s inception. Thomas Jefferson explicitly addressed homosexual acts in 1779, mandating: “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least” (The Founders’ Constitution, 1987). In early America, queerness was comparable to acts of sexual violence. Physical punishment remained in effect in some states through the 20th century. Decriminalization of same-sex relationships did not begin until 1962 at the state level. Sodomy laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas decision less than 20 years ago, in 2003.
This section notes key milestones to provide a more contemporary understanding of how LGBTQ+-related events have evolved through recent history. An overview of the events is presented in Table 1. This snapshot enhances visibility of the prevalence of queer experiences and the burdens and benefits imposed at the hands of the administrative state. Although many events could be added, these offer examples of change over the past 75 years in the areas of civil service protections, military service protections, and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Recent Administrative Milestones in Queer History.
Note. EO = executive order; CDC = Centers for Disease Control; DADT = Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
First, federal employment protections for civil service members have been a key part of LGBTQ+ history. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 to rid the civil service of any employees that were deemed untrustworthy, ill, or communist sympathizers. This group also included federal employees that were deemed gay or lesbian. Investigations began during the Red Scare under the auspice of national security, while this later period became known as the “Lavender Scare,” in which 5,000 to 10,000 people lost their jobs (Adkins, 2016). The policy remained in effect until it was overturned by the Civil Service Commission in 1975. The Clinton Administration later added “sexual orientation” as a protected category to federal workers in the 1990s. Gender identity was not added until 2014 by the Obama Administration.
Second, military service has been another important domain for queer rights. One year after the CDC announced that HIV/AIDS was ravaging gay communities, the Department of Defense published a policy statement calling homosexuality incompatible with military service. After nearly a decade, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was passed because President Bill Clinton was unable to negotiate a bill to end the ban on gay and lesbian service members. More than 14,500 American soldiers were discharged under DADT (McVeigh & Harris, 2011). In 2011, President Barack Obama worked with military leaders to repeal DADT and supported several related actions to ensure equal rights and benefits to same-sex military couples. Under the Trump Administration, another ban was introduced disqualifying transgender service members, which was repealed by President Joe Biden on January 25, 2021.
Third, several U.S. Supreme Court rulings have led to immediate and immense change for the LGBTQ+ community. In 2003, the Lawrence v. Texas decision ensured that same-sex relationships were legal in all 50 states, and Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, SOTUS ruled that in the United States v. Windsor case. In 2013, SCOTUS ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. That decision paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which allowed queer couples to marry nationwide (Pew Research Center, 2015). Nearly 123,000 same-sex marriages took place within the first year after DOMA was overturned.
Finally, one of the greatest gains occurred while the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping the United States and weeks of nationwide protests for racial injustice emerged after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. One June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that: “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” in Bostock v. Clayton County. Only 21 states had workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity prior to the ruling. This was an incredible step to ensuring economic justice for the queer community.
Yet, many threats remain. Regarding Bostock, McCandless and Zavattaro (2020) point out: “Concerns remain that this ruling may do little to acknowledge and protect the intersectionalities present in all workplaces, and it can be hard to celebrate victories like these with the extensive disparities of the dual pandemic continue unabated” (p. 4). Protections do not apply to other crucial services, such as housing, education, and places of public accommodation like grocery stores and gas stations (Oakley, 2020). Title VII only applies to businesses with 15 or more employees. And human resource offices will need to revise and develop new transgender and gender nonconforming employee policies that specify procedures for employee transitions, rights, and training for cisgender colleagues to fulfill the promises of Bostock (McCandless & Elias, 2021).
Transgender rights are especially of key concern. For instance, in 2016, the Obama Administration provided a directive to public schools based on Title IX. It mandated that schools must protects the right of transgender students and allow them to use restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identities. In 2017, President Trump rescinded the order. President Biden signed an Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, which includes protections similar to the Obama Era, but states are awaiting rules. Many are likely to resist the change, as evidenced by the number of antitransgender bills introduced in 2020, which is on pace to be even higher in 2021 (Ronan, 2021).
Another issue involves the disproportionate risk of violence to the LGBTQ+ community. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 expanded protected classes to include sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It provided funding and assistance to investigate and prosecute hate crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Yet, these violent acts against queer people have continued and increased in recent years during the Trump Administration, particularly for black transgender women. Furthermore, analysis of the Hate Crimes Statistics Program have demonstrated that many queer folks who experience hate crimes do not report, especially those that occur in rural communities. Reasons for underreporting vary, but the lack of protections in housing, employment, and public accommodations are an oft-cited deterrent. Notably, the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act and add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. As of this writing, it is still waiting to be considered by the Senate.
These events are only snapshot of the everyday issues that people working within public institutions must navigate. LGBTQ-related policies and programs are designed, adopted, and changed by administrators to the benefit or burden of queer people. Yet, as previously noted, the magnitude of these actions is not reflected in the public administration literature. These shortcomings necessitate further action. The next section discusses a starting point to address the enduring omission.
Actions for Queering American Public Administration
As LGBTQ+ topics make up the lowest proportion of equity-related publications across top public administration journals (Gooden, 2015; Guy & Larson, 2016; Oldfield et al., 2006), this section joins other calls to queer public administration, meaning “to make strange, frustrate, to counteract, to delegitimize, to camp up—heteronormative knowledges and institutions, and the subjectivities and socialities that are (in)formed by them and that (in)form them” (Sullivan, 2003, p. vi). Queering is an act related to queer theory (QT). QT emerged as a critique of feminist theoretical assumptions that held women are of a similar nature, divergent from men. QT rejected associating women with the feminine and men with the masculine. Instead, it made space for deconstructing heteronormative, cisnormative, and gender binary categorizations.
QT has since evolved into a broader, poststructuralist tool that deconstructs assumptions of normality that are rarely examined and nonetheless maintain inequities. For instance, in “Queer(y)ing Public Administration,” Lee et al. (2008) explain: If public administration is concerned largely with the ways in which governmental policies are devized and enacted through and within public sector organizations, then QT would, in “queering” every stage of the policy-making and implementation process, challenge the very presumptions upon which each of these “stages” are based. In doing so, it would help explore the complexities of the ways in which “things are done” rather than how we, as researchers, or policy-makers and managers, think they should be done. (p. 165)
Most “queer(y)ing” has since appeared in international contexts. Administrative perpetuation of heteronormativity has been examined in housing and homelessness in Scotland (Matthews & Poyner, 2020), police administration in Australia (Dwyer, 2020), and public leadership in the Philippines (Gamboa et al., 2020). A queer lens has also been applied to understand Latin American transgender prisoners’ experiences (Johnson et al., 2020). These demonstrate how QT can be applied in American administration as well.
A helpful guide for further queering research, teaching, and practice can be found in the “Call to Action” Social Equity Manifesto (Blessett et al., 2019). The Manifesto provides seven principles for making social equity an embedded value in public administration. Considering the principles through a queer lens, recommendations for how each can foster LGBTQ+ equity are provided. In effect, these avenues for action can inform a more inclusive and intersectional manner, keeping queer communities in mind.
Principle I: Social equity is a foundational anchor, not just a (separate) pillar, of public administration.
Blessett et al. (2019) propose that social equity must be discussed in relationship to efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. For instance, primary goal of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program is to provide care, support services, and medications for low-income people with HIV. To evaluate whether or not it is effectively meeting this goal, it is critical to examine who is receiving the benefits of the program. It is estimated that 50% of black transgender women are living with HIV, the most of any subgroup. Yet, they are less likely than black cisgender women to be retained in care, and they reach viral suppression less often than both black cisgender women and men (Klein et al., 2020). This example is one of many that demonstrates disparities specific to transgender people. Furthermore, it illustrates the relationship between improving equitable access to HIV care for black transgender women and achieving greater effectiveness toward the HRSA mission.
Principle II: Our commitment to the field of public administration requires us to stand up for good governance, social equity, and strong communities.
The Manifesto proposes a commitment to professional development to gain skills needed to address bias and engage in crucial conversations. Safe Zone or “ally” training (McCandless & Hooker, 2019) is a common academic affairs program that has been provided by many American universities since 1990s. Poyntner and Tubbs (2017) outline the program goals as: “improving the campus climate, increasing awareness, increasing conversations around LGBTQIA+ issues, providing safe space, educating members and providing skills to members to confront homophobia, transphobia, biphobia or heterosexism” (p. 6). Notably, a trademark of the completing the training is earning a “Safe” symbol to place in office spaces as a way to demonstrate allyship and let queer faculty, staff, and students know where to locate safe spaces and support at any time. Safe Zone training is a vital starting point for any public administration scholar that is committed to LGBTQ+ equity in their workplace and the field more broadly.
Principle III: A goal of social equity is to eliminate inequalities of all kinds. This requires a commitment to structural, institutional changes, and deep personal work on behalf of public administration scholars and practitioners.
This principle can be related to LGBTQ+ hiring equity. While employee data are available by race and gender from the U.S. Census and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, such sources do not track sexual orientation or gender identity. This makes representativeness of queer faculty and disparities difficult to discern.
Measurement challenges also exist within public administration. Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA, 2020) recently released “Toward a Comprehensive Framework and Action Plan” which made several recommendations, including the need for data collection. One strategy proposed to: “Review and revise (as necessary) NASPAA data collection with respect to diversity—ensure data collection on DEI dimensions is thorough for students and faculty to ensure representation” and “(1) Explicitly identify Black (African American) representation, (2) Aggregate data to identify country of origin for Black, Latino, and Asian populations,” and “(3) Be mindful of intersectionality” (p. 6). Being mindful also requires assessment of LGBTQ+ representation alongside race and ethnicity categories.
Increasing department diversity does not accomplish equity in and of itself. Retention requires further action. Queer and trans faculty are more likely to resign due to negative campus climates, if they work in small towns or rural areas (Garvey & Rankin, 2018), or if domestic partner benefits are not provided (Shrader, 2016). Fostering a sense of belonging is also vital to retaining faculty from historically underrepresented groups, as Edwards et al. (2019) note in their examination of gender equity. Oldfield and Johnson (2008) share analogous findings reported by academics in Resilience: Queer Professors from the Working Class. To develop a sense of belonging for new hires, departments must improve their cultural competency and show that they value diverse perspectives, avenues of research, and service activities that focus on equity-related efforts as well.
Principle IV: Research needs to be utilized as a tool for examining whether social equity goals are being realized.
Blessett et al. (2019) propose that researchers must use equity frameworks like representative bureaucracy and intersectionality to inform scholarly inquiry. For instance, they note that theories of representative bureaucracy can assess whether equity-based strategies for hiring and promotion achieve their intended goal of diversifying the workforce. While LGBTQ+ employee data remain difficult to attain, a queer theoretical perspective can be applied to track whether government agencies are addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ communities. For instance, a recent analysis of 10 major U.S. municipalities demonstrated the extent to which their websites included content related to LGBTQ+ policies, programs, and services (Elias, 2020). Further-reaching analysis and benchmarking is possible utilizing annual policy and program data collected by the Human Rights Campaign (2021), including the Municipal Equality Index, State Equality Index, Health care Equality Index, and Corporate Equality Index.
Applying QT to understand how leadership can advance LGBTQ+ equity is also needed. There is an unexamined assumption that LGBTQ+ individuals embody the binary dimensions of masculinity or femininity characterized by straight cisgender people. Looking at the extent to which scholars applied an intersectional lens over 25 years, Breslin et al. (2017) found that only gender was examined, and “an intersectional lens capturing sexual orientation or gender identity was completely absent” (p. 174).
Several studies highlight how gender differences in management affect motivation (DeHart et al., 2006; Metcalfe, 1989), collaboration (Corley & Sabharwal, 2010), and leadership (Fox & Schuhmann, 1999; Hamidullah et al., 2015). Yet, research often applies a homonormative lens to LGBTQ+ workers. This is especially problematic for assessing how to enhance transgender equity. Studies like that of Elias’ (2017) case of a manager who oversaw the transitioning process of a transgender federal employee is needed. Adopting QT as an epistemological approach can enhance understanding of how administrators are advancing equity for the LGBTQ+ workforce.
Principle V: Violations of equity are contrary to democracy.
The Manifesto encourages academics to be more conscious of their research questions, theories employed, and the equity implications of their work. It also purports that democratically responsible administrators must take action that is “encapsulated by an ethos of care” (Blessett et al., 2019, p. 296). Care-centered, democratic administrators practice sympathetic understanding of others’ worlds without judgment, build expertise over time through deep connections to their recipients’ experiences, and cooperate with others—including those they serve—toward shared aims (Burnier, 2019). In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, an ethos of care is needed now more than ever.
For instance, disproportionate infection and death rates of black and African American people have shown the need to target responses to the most socially vulnerable communities (Gaynor & Wilson, 2020). Challenges in child care, especially for women of color who are primary caretakers, has expressed itself in calls for universal child care (Elias & D’Agostino, 2020). And Viswanath and Mullins (2020) highlight disproportionate impacts on women from underrepresented groups (i.e., racial, ethnic, socio-economic and immigrant statuses, and sexual orientations), proposing gender-responsive budgeting as a tool to mitigate gender inequities exacerbated by the pandemic.
LGBTQ+ households have also experienced disproportionate impacts, especially queer people of color and low-income folks. For instance, 66% of LGBTQ+ households “have had a serious financial problem such as paying utilities, affording medical care, or paying bills/loans/debt” (compared to 44% of Non-LGBTQ+ households). In addition, 64% of LGBTQ+ households have experienced employment loss, compared to 45% of non-LGBTQ+ households (Movement Advancement Project, 2020). In the present moment, more attention must be paid to the most vulnerable to understand their situations and allocate equitable resources to ensure their health, safety, and security.
Principle VI: As a whole, academic programs of public administration are not currently equipping or preparing the future of public administrators for the practical work of equity in public service.
Blessett et al. (2019) argue that social equity courses and concepts should be infused throughout the Master of Public Administration curriculum. Lopez-Littleton and Blessett (2015) previously introduced a diversity and inclusiveness framework as a model for public administration programs. These proposals address the need to prepare future public servants to lead and manage in a diversifying world. They note that people of color are projected to make up 57% of the U.S. population by 2060. Like the nation, the federal workforce is also diversifying in terms of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
In 2012, 2% of respondents to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) identified as LGBT, and 6% were born in 1981 or later (i.e., Millennials). In 2019, 4% of respondents were LGB (2,058 identified as Transgender, which was asked in a separate question), and 20% were born between 1981 and 1996. Less than 1% of federal workers identified as Generation Z (born in 1997 or later), but that is quickly changing. Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse group in American history and 22% have at least one immigrant parent. Moreover, 35% know someone who prefers gender-neutral pronouns, the majority feel comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns, and 50% think society should be more accepting of non-binary people (Pew Research Center, 2020).
Administrators need to understand sexual orientation and gender identity as it pertains to the next generation of people they supervise. The 2010s marked increased understanding of LGBTQ+ employees in the literature. For instance, Federman and Elias (2017) found LGBT employees reported positively to safety and security, job satisfaction, and diversity questions on the 2013 FEVS. Riccucci (2017) noted increases in state antidiscrimination laws as of 2013, with gender identity protections in 16 states and D.C. Yet, Sabharwal et al. (2019) found LGBT federal employees are more likely to report intentions of leaving compared to their straight counterparts. If their workplaces are supportive, redistributive, communal, and acknowledge their identities, it reduced likelihood of turnover. More studies like these should be shared with future public servants to equip them to effectively manage and retain the 21st Century workforce.
Principle VII: Practitioners are fundamental actors in extending democracy and promoting equity.
The final principle emphasizes administrators need to commit to the ideals of democracy, justice, and equity in all that they do. Guy (2019) underscored the need to prioritize the citizen-state encounter and how people feel when engaging with government. This is particularly important at a time when confidence in democracy is waning. Reflecting on an ethnography by Arlie Hochschild, Guy (2019) explains that people vote against their own interests because they make decisions based on shared values, norms, and beliefs—not statistics. In other words, “nuanced understandings provide more meaningful information than attitude surveys or census data” (p. 14). This is a critical point for practitioners to note: relationships matter most.
Building understanding between divergent groups requires meaningful engagement. And engagement requires trust. Pete Buttigieg (2020), the first openly gay candidate to be a major presidential contender, argues that trust is the most important ingredient to overcome the challenges of racism, the pandemic, and climate change. Furthermore, adrienne maree brown (2017), a queer black woman and author of Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds, is also a leader in mapping approaches for trust building, relational leadership, and queer community engagement. As a prominent leader in LGBTQ+ circles, brown is an equally important resource to help practitioners, scholars, and activists discover more nuanced strategies to create systemic change.
Continuing the Climb
This perspective was inspired by data that shows LGBTQ+ folks have received the least attention of all equity groups in the top tier public administration journals. This omission maintains a heteronormative and cisnormative ideal within the literature. In reflection, many LGBTQ+ milestones over the past 75 years have significantly affected American society. Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 people lost their jobs under Executive Order 10450. More than 650,000 people have died from AIDS. Approximately 14,000 men and women were discharged under DADT. Nearly 123,000 same-sex couples married within the first year after DOMA was overturned. “Bathroom bills” have brought the conversation about transgender identities to every public school in America. And prior to Bostock, “27% of transgender workers reported being fired, not hired, or denied promotion in 2016-2017 . . . [and] LGBT people of color (POC) report 2x more discrimination based on sexual orientation” (The National LGBTQ Workers Center, n.d.). From the CDC to the DOD, government agencies have transitioned to a more supportive and inclusive approach for queer people.
Queer visibility matters for such policies and positions to change. The milestones reviewed illuminate how a queer lens can offer alternative understandings that are more reflective of intersectional realities. For instance, citizen perceptions of community policing in New York City may have been very different if they were black transgender women arrested during the Stonewall Riots. A study of effective city management may vary widely based not just on the gender, but the sexual orientation of leaders. Public health crises like AIDS have serious implications when they fail to be recognized due to social stigmas and thus tens of thousands of deaths.
COVID-19 has provided an opportunity to investigate the implications of this public health challenge for the LGBTQ+ community. It is well-documented that BIPOC folks are disproportionately affected as evidenced by higher risk factors, cases, and deaths attributed to the pandemic (Gaynor & Wilson, 2020; Wright & Merritt, 2020). Yet, there is little discussion of queer folks, even though they are also more likely to be exposed to the virus, possess risk factors, and disproportionately lack access to health services (Konnoth, 2020). There is space to examine and combat disparities across the spectrum of vulnerable groups. The actions outlined in this article, inspired by the Social Equity Manifesto, are a starting point to continue the climb—and ensure universal equality of opportunity—for queer communities in the 21st Century.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
