The Substance and Circumstances of Race and Immigration Talk in High School Gender & Sexuality Alliances

Abstract

Gender & Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) are school-based clubs that support youth of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. As identity-centered spaces, GSAs could also foster discussions related to race and immigration (i.e., race and immigration talk). We conducted semi-structured interviews from 2016–2018 with 38 GSA members (ages 13–20 years old) of diverse racial/ethnic, immigrant-origin (first and second generation in the United States [US] born of immigrant parents), sexual orientation, and gender identities. Race and immigration talk often occurred when discussing current events (e.g., the 2016 US Presidential Election). Students reported that race and immigration talk depended on representation (i.e., GSA demographics), if it was deemed personally relevant to members, and whether students perceived issues of race and immigration as part of the agenda of the GSA. Some students indicated motivation to discuss racism and nativism yet refrained from doing so due to discomfort or fear of misspeaking. Overall, youth primarily viewed the GSA as a space for LGBTQIA+-oriented discussions and support yet expressed potential for fostering productive race and immigration talk in GSAs given the ongoing US sociopolitical climate. Discussions facilitated by advisors focusing on inter-connected oppression (e.g., intersections of racism and heterosexism), and that leverage brave space discussion dynamics may help students develop competencies to engage in race and immigration talk.

Since 2016, the United States [US] national sociopolitical discourse increasingly has reflected topics of White nationalism, deportation of immigrants, and the denial of rights to immigrants and LGBTQIA+ individuals ( i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and other sexual and gender diverse individuals; Faris et al., 2017; Gomez & Pérez Huber, 2019). In the aftermath of the 2016 US Presidential election, educators across the nation noted a shift in their school climates. Specifically, students of color, immigrant-origin youth (defined as including first generation [born outside the US] and second generation [born in the US to at least one immigrant parent] (Waters & Gerstein Pineau, 2016)), and LGBTQIA+ youth reported elevated levels of discrimination from other students and school officials (Costello, 2016; Gomez & Pérez Huber, 2019; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2019). Given the deleterious impacts of discrimination and hate speech on youth (Trent et al., 2019), it is imperative to identify spaces that foster critical and productive dialogue around racism, nativism, and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric. Some extracurricular student-led clubs, such as Gender & Sexuality Alliances (GSAs), can potentially provide spaces for youth to discuss sociopolitical issues, including those related to race, immigration, and intersectional oppression.

Theoretical Frameworks

GSAs are student-led, adult-advised school clubs in which LGBTQIA+ youth and heterosexual and cisgender allies socialize and receive support; educate one another on LGBTQIA+ issues, predominantly through discussions; and engage in diverse advocacy activities (e.g., poster campaigns, Day of Silence) (Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004). GSAs could be considered counterspaces for LGBTQIA+ youth. As conceptualized by Case and Hunter (2012), counterspaces challenge deficit-oriented narratives about marginalized identities by providing a space for narrative identity work (i.e., creation and maintenance of narratives of oppression and resistance; discussion and reinterpretation of personal narratives); opportunities to engage in acts of resistance (i.e., to behave in ways consistent with one’s identity, without fear of ostracism; or to engage in collective critique of oppressive conditions); and direct relational transactions (i.e., social support, empathy, sharing of strategies to respond to oppression). The GSA key functions of providing a space for socializing and support, education and provision of resources, and advocacy are consistent with features of counterspaces. Research has thus far described the functions and substance of GSA meetings (Poteat et al., 2015), and identified associations between GSA presence or participation and youth wellbeing (Poteat, Calzo, & Yoshikawa, 2018; Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011). In the current study, we examine how GSAs engage in narrative identity work, engage in acts of resistance, and provide direct relational transactions regarding topics of race, racism, immigration, and nativism.

As identity-based groups committed to support and advocacy around sexual orientation and gender, it is possible that GSAs could also foster discussions related to race, immigration, and related oppressions (Chong, Poteat, Yoshikawa, & Calzo, 2019). Indeed, there have been calls for GSAs to adopt an intersectional focus (California GSA Network, 2019). Intersectionality theory, which originated in Black, lesbian, feminist scholarship (Crenshaw, 1989; The Combahee River Collective (1977), 2017), acknowledges that people’s identities and markers of social location (e.g., race, class, sexual orientation, gender) do not exist independently of each other, and that they mutually, constitutively converge to create experiences of oppression (and privilege) in people’s daily lives. To advance social justice and health equity via critical intersectionality praxis, scholars recommend engagement in practices that acknowledge the complexities of identity diversity and social inequality (within and across individuals), and engagement in actions that explicitly address the multiple forms of oppression that are unique and shared across the individuals and groups involved (Cole, 2009; Collins, 2015; Rosenthal, 2016). In the current study, we apply intersectionality theory, both as a means of analyzing how GSA members’ converging identities and lived experiences shape discussions of race, racism, immigration, and nativism in the GSA counterspace, and to examine how GSAs might facilitate and support discussions around inter-locking systems of oppression (i.e., engage in critical intersectionality praxis). Thus far, research has not adequately explored how GSA members discuss and address racism and nativism in the context of their focus on heterosexism and cissexism. Other research indicates that adult LGBTQIA+ organizations can invisibilize (i.e., silence and/or ignore altogether) experiences related to race, ethnicity and immigration (Giwa & Greensmith, 2012). People of color in these organizations report experiences of overt racism (Balsam, Molina, Beadnell, Simoni, & Walters, 2011; Giwa & Greensmith, 2012), potentially indicating a lack of explicit, effective dialogue about the intersections of racial oppression, heterosexism, and cissexism. Whether such dynamics occur in LGBTQIA+ youth-oriented spaces, such as GSAs, remains unexplored.

Race and Immigration Talk in GSAs and Schools

We describe discussions of race and immigration as race and immigration talk, building on Pollock (2004). Whereas race talk considers how youth label people, programs, and situations in racial terms, race and immigration talk can be understood as the ways youth use (or do not use) racial and immigration words and terms for specific situations (e.g., describing individuals, programs, or experiences), as well as their discussion of the topics of race and immigration. In her ethnographic research on race talk, Pollock (2004) found that students regularly engaged in race talk with each other as a key way to understand their identities and to organize their academic and social experiences. Drawing from this and other work (Nelson, Syed, Tran, Hu, & Lee, 2018; Pollock, 2004), we propose that peers play critical roles in broaching and shaping the course of race and immigration talk. In addition, it is important to consider race and immigration talk together, as issues of immigration are often racialized. For example, research on racist nativism—or the assignment of foreign identity based on real or perceived immigrant status (Huber, 2011)—has highlighted the racism and stereotypes faced by immigrants who are also people of color (e.g., portrayals of Latinx people as criminals) (Gomez & Pérez Huber, 2019; Huber, Lopez, Malagon, Velez, & Solorzano, 2008; Muñoz & Vigil, 2018).

Previous research on race and immigration talk among adolescents has focused on discrimination (e.g., verbal threats, slurs), and has been survey-based (Seaton, Gee, Neblett, & Spanierman, 2018; Stein, Cavanaugh, Supple, Kiang, & Gonzalez, 2019). The field lacks a deeper understanding of the diverse content of race and immigration talk. A qualitative approach can reveal a wider range of topics in race and immigration talk, explore nuances (e.g., what might silence mean?), and examine students’ meaning making. For example, in relation to race talk, Pollock unveiled the deleterious impact of colorblind perspectives (i.e., when youth and peers believe that race does not matter), and colormuteness (i.e., omitting or avoiding mention of race) on student academic experiences (Pollock, 2004).

While some have begun to study race and immigration talk in GSAs, there is little to no understanding of the content of these conversations, the factors or circumstances that may promote or inhibit them from occurring, or youth’s perceptions about their place within the context of GSAs. Survey research indicates that youth in GSAs vary in how often they participate in conversations around race and how equipped they feel to discuss issues of race and racism (Chong et al., 2019). Other work on race and immigration talk in the broader school setting offers a relevant framework for exploring these processes within GSAs. For example, research among elementary school-aged children has identified that, whereas White students may utilize race talk to perpetuate stereotypes about students of color, students of color may vary in the degree to which they openly discuss race and racism (Schaffer & Skinner, 2009). In contrast to research on race talk in schools, the evidence on immigration talk in schools is even more limited. Recent research on immigration talk has largely centered on expressions of fear of students about deportation (of themselves or of their parents) (Gandara & Ee, 2018). Qualitative research on racist nativism, in particular, has focused on college students’ experiences of racist or nativist actions and microaggressions (Gomez & Pérez Huber, 2019; Muñoz & Vigil, 2018). Because topics of race and immigration may be personally or politically charged, high-school-age youth may be less willing to discuss them in classrooms unless the settings are perceived as safe (Williams, Woodson, & Wallace, 2016). Extracurricular groups perceived as safe spaces, such as GSAs, may be potential settings to engage in such discussions.

The Current Study

We aimed to examine the individual and contextual factors that might promote or impede race and immigration talk in GSAs and explicate the content and potential student interpretations of race and immigration talk when such discussions occur. The historical context of our study is important to note. Data were collected between 2016–2018 (following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election), a time in which many members of marginalized groups, including people of color, immigrant-origin individuals, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and women were experiencing heightened anxiety and potentially overt ostracism and victimization (Costello, 2016). This created a unique circumstance to observe how a divisive sociopolitical climate potentially shaped race and immigration talk in counterspaces such as GSAs.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We draw our sample from a larger longitudinal study of 594 high school students in 38 GSAs across Massachusetts from the 2016–2018 academic years. We selected schools for the longitudinal study to attain a sample diverse in racial/ethnic composition and region and urbanicity within Massachusetts (for more details see Poteat et al., 2020). To recruit the qualitative subsample, we used participant self-report survey data (see Poteat et al., 2020) to inform a purposive sampling procedure with the goal of achieving diversity in sexual orientation and gender identities, racial/ethnic identities, and students of immigrant-origin backgrounds. Immigrant-origin background was based on student response to questions regarding country of birth and parents’ country of birth (Waters & Gerstein Pineau, 2016). Participants included 38 students from 21 public schools (25 youth from 16 schools in Year 1; 13 youth from 5 schools in Year 2) ages 13–20 years old (see Table 1). In lieu of parental consent, and to protect confidentiality of youth’s sexual or gender diverse identities (Mustanski, 2011), GSA advisors provided adult consent for youth to participate in interviews, and youth provided assent. The Institutional Review Board at Boston College and participating school districts approved the procedures.

Table 1:

Participant Demographic Profiles

Participant Pseudonym	Age	Gender Identity	Sexual Orientation	Race/Ethnicity	Immigrant Origin (1st or 2nd Generation)	Youth/Parent Country of Origin (if 1st Gen., years lived in US)
Year 1
1. Ethan	15	Male	Gay	Multiracial	No
2. Michelle	16	Female	Heterosexual	Latinx	2nd Gen.	Mexico
3. Michael	17	Male	Pansexual	Latinx	No
4. Mary	16	Transgender	Pansexual	Latinx	No
5. Alex/Alexa	16	Genderqueer	Pansexual	Latinx	No
6. Grace	17	Trans Female	Bisexual	White	No
7. Julian	15	Nonbinary	Pansexual	Asian/Asian-American	2nd Gen.	Philippines
8. Rachel	16	Nonbinary	--	White	No
9. Emily	16	Transgender	Heterosexual	White	No
10. Cameron	17	Male	Bisexual	African-American	2nd Gen.	Cape Verde
11. Brandon	16	Male	Heterosexual	White	No
12. Jessica	16	Female	Lesbian	White	1st Gen.	--; Always
13. Jordan	16	Gender Fluid	Lesbian	African-American	No
14. Jamie	15	Transgender	Queer	Multiracial	No
15. Amin	18	Male	Bisexual	Latinx	1st Gen.	Venezuela; Less than one year
16. Savannah	15	Female	Lesbian, Questioning, Asexual	White	No
17. Isabel	13	Female	Heterosexual	African-American	2nd Gen.	Uganda and Germany
18. Caden	17	Male Transgender, Gender Fluid, Nonbinary	Pansexual	White, Latinx	No
19. Laura	17	Female	Bisexual	Latinx	No
20. Camila	14	Female	Bisexual	Latinx	2nd Gen.	Dominican Republic
21. Aubrey	14	Nonbinary	Bisexual	White	No
22. Mia	15	Female	Heterosexual	Latinx	No
23. Kayla	15	Possibly Gender Fluid	Questioning	Multiracial	No
24. Amber	17	Female	Bisexual	White	No
25. Erica*	16	Female	--	--	--
Year 2
26. Dakota	14	Nonbinary, Transgender	Pansexual	White	No
27. Nathan	17	Male	Gay	White	1st Gen.	--; Always
28. Ashton	17	Nonbinary	Questioning	Asian	1st Gen.	China; More than 6 years
29. Lucas	17	Transgender	Pansexual	Latinx	No
30. Rebecca	16	Genderqueer	Bisexual	White	2nd Gen.	Guatemala
31. Mackenzie	15	Female	Heterosexual	Latinx	1st Gen.	Dominican Republic; More than 6 years
32. Danielle	18	Female	Heterosexual	Latinx	2nd Gen.	Dominican Republic
33. Melissa	16	Female	Heterosexual	Black	No
34. Amelia	16	Female	Pansexual	Asian	2nd Gen.	Cambodia
35. Ryan	16	Male	Bisexual	Latinx	2nd Gen.	Colombia
36. Jocelyn	14	Female	Heterosexual	Black	No
37. Gabrielle	20	Female	Bisexual	Black	1st Gen	Dominican Republic; 4 to 6 years
38. Lizzy*	--	Female	--	Black	1st Gen	--

Note: Participant age, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and immigrant-origin identity were based on self-report to survey items from a larger longitudinal survey study. Immigrant-origin was based on student response to questions regarding country of birth and parents’ country of birth= first generation (born outside the US) or second generation (born in the US to at least one immigrant parent).

^*Participant was not a member of the longitudinal survey study, but was recruited and consented for the interview study during the campus visit. “—“ indicates no response given on the survey study, or data are unavailable from the interview.

In a semi-structured interview, participants were asked to describe typical GSA meetings, recent times that the GSA discussed topics related to race and immigration, and their perspectives on how the GSA could discuss these topics. Interviewers (n=13 across the two years) were predominantly graduate students in psychology (7 self-identified as people of color; 5 self-identified as immigrant-origin; 7 self-identified with LGBQ identities) and with prior experience working with LGBTQIA+ or immigrant-origin youth in research or youth programs. All interviewers completed a multi-session training on semi-structured interviewing with adolescents, and received feedback based on 1–2 mock interview sessions with LGBTQIA+ adolescents or young adults. Each interviewer conducted 1–5 interviews.

Analysis

Interviews lasted between 15–55 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analyses. To maintain data confidentiality, we replaced names and locations with pseudonyms. Interview data were transcribed and coded by 5 research assistants (4 undergraduate and 1 master’s level; 5 cisgender females; 3 Asian and immigrant-origin, 2 White; 1 queer, 1 bisexual, 1 pansexual, 2 heterosexual). Research assistants were in degree programs in social and behavioral sciences and LGBTQ studies, and were members of a research lab focused on adolescent health and social development under the supervision of the lead author (cisgender male, gay, second-generation Filipino). We analyzed data using a template analysis approach (Crabtree & Miller, 1999) that applied an initial set of codes for factors that might promote or impede discussion of race/ethnicity, racism, immigration, and nativism. Prior research on factors shaping the social experiences of students of color and immigrant-origin students in GSAs (Chong et al., 2019; Poteat et al., 2015), and school-based research on race talk (Pollock, 2004) guided the template of a priori individual- (e.g., identity; role in GSA) and contextual-level codes (e.g., perceived racial and ethnic composition of the GSA and school). In addition, we engaged in cycles of immersion (i.e., reading transcripts closely and examining portions in detail) and crystallization analyses (i.e., stepping away from data to reflect upon the analytic process and articulate patterns from the data) (Borkan, 1999). Through these cycles we refined and revised codes in the template, identified new codes, and developed overall themes. Upon reaching consensus that no new codes were emerging, the research assistants developed inter-rater reliability (IRR) by coding selections of excerpts. Two consecutive rounds of IRR coding with pairwise kappa statistics in the moderate to excellent range (range= .77–.96) and excellent overall intra-class correlations for the team (ICC range= .79–.85) were achieved at the sixth and seventh IRR sessions. Following the seventh IRR session, we distributed all interviews randomly among the research assistants for coding using Dedoose (Version 7.0.23; SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC, 2016).

Results

Representation, tokenism, and power: “I think it would have to be me talking…”

Participants reported individual- and contextual-level factors that enabled or impeded discussions (Figure 1). One factor that operated at both levels was student representation-- race and immigration talk in GSAs was contingent on membership composition. Nearly all participants, regardless of race or immigrant origin, described the importance of having students of color or immigrant-origin students present to broach and lead race and immigration talk. As Emily (16 years old [y.o.], Transgender, Heterosexual, White) drew an analogy to the sexual orientation focus of the GSA: “I think it’s really important to hear from the people who are actually having the experiences within this discussion. It would be kind of dumb if it was just a bunch of straight people around a table talking about being gay.” Rebecca (16 y.o., Genderqueer, Bisexual, White, second-generation Guatemalan) indicated, in an intersectional way, how the absence of students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds could impede race talk: “And I brought up, uh [pause] talking about how a lot of White gay men kind of appropriate slang and culture from Black women, except that we didn’t have the perspective really [pause], I don’t think of like, a Black gay man or a Black woman in that room, you know?”

Figure 1.

Individual, contextual, and cross-cutting factors that enable or impede race and immigration talk in Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs).

Participants noted that some students of color utilized their roles as GSA leaders to prioritize discussions around race, thus indicating that power dynamics—intersecting with student race—also dictate the course of race talk in GSAs. Jamie (15 y.o., Transgender, Queer, Multiracial) described, “It was my turn to plan the meeting, and of course I pick a racial issue because it’s very near and dear to my heart.” Some noted that if GSA leaders were White, they chose not to prioritize these topics. In such instances, even when students of color were present, their lack of representation in leadership could limit discussion, or lead to ignoring of race and immigration talk. As Julian (15 y.o., Non-binary, Pansexual, Asian/Asian-American, second-generation Filipino) described:

…people only focus on themselves usually, which is why I’m kinda in the background of the club, you know? I’m not like, in the front, kinda telling people what we should be doing… the leaders usually plan the topics that they talk about. So I’m not sure. But you know, they should be talking about diverse people other than just sexualities of people.

In addition, some students of color and immigrant-origin youth indicated that they may feel tokenized, or an additional burden of responsibility to broach topics of race and immigration in the GSA. As Michelle (16 y.o., Female, Heterosexual, Latinx, second-generation Mexican) clarified, the GSA may not even be the preferred space for discussing these topics:

I’m the only one there, so if they were to ever really want to talk about that topic, I think it would have to be me talking [pause]… it hasn’t been a topic that I’ve really thought about sharing in that space, although because I do have other outlets for that as in my family or just really close friends I feel more comfortable with.

Like Michelle, some students of color and immigrant-origin youth may have preferred social circles outside the GSA for support of these aspects of their identities. Further, as Alex/Alexa (16 y.o., Genderqueer, Pansexual, Latinx) shared, when such topics were not understood or embraced (perhaps, particularly by White students and those who do not identify as immigrant-origin), students of color and immigrant-origin youth may have felt invalidated.

You know last year, um, Colombia legalized same-sex marriage…I shared it with the group, and they were like, “yeah that’s cool,” and they kinda like brushed it off. So it was a little upsetting to see them like not [pause], care about such like an important thing to happen, just because like it wasn’t like in the States.

Alex/Alexa’s experience indicates that a potential consequence of the lack of race and immigration talk may be a broader setting-level narrative that supporting the experiences of students of color and immigrant-origin youth (and by extension, topics such as racism and nativism) is not part of the mission of GSAs (see later “not on the agenda”). From a critical praxis perspective, missed opportunities for in-depth discussions on intersectional topics in GSAs may mean that students of color and immigrant-origin students in GSAs may have to seek other counterspaces for narrative identity work and relational transactions connected to their racial, ethnic, and/or immigrant-origin identities (e.g., as shared by Michelle and Alex/Alexa). While there is recognition that students of color and immigrant-origin youth should be the ones to lead race and immigration talk in GSAs, the direct and indirect descriptions of ignoring, invalidation, and upset shared by Julian, Michelle, and Alex/Alexa also indicate the potential silencing or separation of students’ racial, ethnic, and/or immigrant-origin identities when they enter the GSA space.

Discomfort and Fear Create Cycles of Silence

Two recurring individual-level factors impeded discussions of race and immigration. The first was personal discomfort with talking about race and immigration and avoiding the topics because they might make others uncomfortable. When asked why race has not come up in GSA, Laura (17 y.o., Female, Bisexual, Latinx) explained (indicating sensitivity to tokenism), “Since like the whole thing with the cops and the Blacks started to happen, maybe it’s just like sensitive… I don’t wanna like, ask them, ask that one, Black person in the room like, how they feel about it. ‘Cause then it’s gonna be just like, ‘Wow, like why are you picking on me?’” Isabel (13 y.o., Female, Heterosexual, African-American, second generation Ugandan and German) described how discussing immigration in GSAs may instigate conflict.

I know that there are different or differing views where it comes to immigration… It’s so controversial that people might not want to be specific when talking about it because they might be afraid of revealing what their views are on it and then creating kind of a rift in a way.

Because GSAs sometimes enact ground rules for students to maintain a safe space climate, some students (or advisors) may avoid race and immigration talk to maintain such agreements. However, a consequence of such avoidance is that students may not develop the comfort, confidence, and skills to engage in such conversations.

A second individual-level factor, fear of misspeaking, was described to some degree by youth from all racial, ethnic and immigrant-origin backgrounds. One way fear of misspeaking manifested was in fear of seeming ignorant or having insufficient knowledge around topics of racism and nativism. For example, Jamie described, “I was so scared… knowing that maybe I’m gonna misspeak, I’m gonna say the wrong topics, everyone’s gonna hate me.” Other students, particularly students who identified as White or not of immigrant origin, expressed fear because they did not share the same experience as students of color or immigrant-origin backgrounds. Jessica (16 y.o., Female, Lesbian, White, 1^st generation), referring to topics of racism, noted, “Well, I mean, it’s kinda hard not to like, just talk about it cause, I mean, we don’t really know what it’s like to be in their shoes, although I try to….” Indeed, students who identified as White and/or not of immigrant-origin sometimes reported their race as invalidating any participation in race and immigration talk. As Grace (17 y.o., Trans Female, Bisexual, White) recounted in describing a discussion about President Trump’s disparaging comments about Mexican-Americans, and opportunity to discuss challenge racist nativism,

It was a little awkward because it didn’t really affect some of us, so talking about it was a little strange for us, but we still talked about it because we knew it was an important issue… I didn’t really feel like speaking up because I knew that my opinion wasn’t exactly as valid as somebody else’s in that kind of argument…being White, I don’t really have that much of a say in that kind of argument I guess. At least, that’s how I felt.

Discomfort and fear of misspeaking contribute to cycles of silence around race and immigration talk in GSAs, with students of diverse backgrounds shying away from in-depth discussions of race and immigration (or avoiding the topic entirely), due to considerations of tokenism, conflict avoidance, self-doubt in ability or knowledge, or positionality (i.e., lack of shared experience). Such discomfort and fear of misspeaking may prevent acts of resistance (e.g., critical discussion; as shared by Isabel) or relational transactions (e.g., support, as shared by Grace) from taking place.

Breaking the cycle of silence: “We realize that their opinions and their voice really did matter”

As described in the previous themes, the apparent norm within GSAs was to not engage in in-depth discussions of racism and nativism. Demonstrating acts of resistance, some participants described cases where GSA students lean into, rather than turn away from discomfort with the discussion of racism and nativism. Jamie recalled how persisting through awkward conversations about racism, even when GSA members were afraid to misspeak, could have positive outcomes. Jamie recalled,

Of course, people are very quiet ‘cause they’re all very scared to misspeak at the very beginning. No one thinks that they’re educated enough or their opinion matters enough maybe because they are White-passing and they do experience White privilege, but as the meeting progressed, we realized that their opinions and their voice really did matter in the conversation and, of course, we valued everybody’s voice just as much, but people of color talking about it like we had a few people who were Native [American] and they talked about what it means when someone dresses in a traditionally Native dress during Halloween and how it affect them, but once the conversation finally gets started, everybody was very, like in tune and they were very, very excited about talking about it and even our facilitator was very excited to see how it was finally being talked about.

As alluded to by Jamie (i.e., “we valued everybody’s voice”), interviewees noted that the open and safe space norms of a GSA could set a precedent for race and immigration talk. Notably, in Jamie’s example, the inclusion and active engagement of Native American student members (student representation) likely enriched the discussion. Ethan (15 y.o., Male, Gay, Multiracial), also described open and safe space norms and how they created a context for race and immigration talk: “everyone in the GSA is very non-judgmental and they’re very open to what you have to say …it’s a safe place, so when you come in here, it’s like everyone feels so much different and they feel themselves, and it’s just a really peaceful and nice environment.” Open and safe space GSA norms, while supporting discussions related to sexuality or gender identity and expression, could impede race and immigration talk if such talk becomes heated or is perceived as causing rifts in the GSA (as shared by Isabel). However, as described by Jamie and Ethan, the tension accompanying race and immigration talk can be productive through effective facilitation, ensuring that all students can speak and feel heard.

Are race and immigration talk priorities?: “We are busy right now with paint night.”

Some youth reported that racism and nativism are not a problem (i.e., in the school, or nobody in the GSA expresses related concerns), or that race and immigration talk is outside the purview of the GSA (not on the agenda; i.e., not of interest to members, not part of the GSA’s focus). Consistent with the not a problem theme, some students invoked a colorblind perspective. As Amin (18 y.o., Male, Bisexual, Latinx, first-generation Venezuelan) described: “[race is] something that we don’t really talk about in GSA… I think it makes sense because race shouldn’t be an issue with how you think of yourself, how you identify yourself, and how you represent yourself to other people.” Others, such as Ethan, indicated that race did not come up because of a school climate of acceptance: “I think um [pause] generally [pause] race doesn’t need to be talked about too much in our school because people are pretty accepting of race, I guess.”

Respondents often noted that their GSA focused more on LGBT issues than race or immigration (not on the agenda). As described by Danielle (18 y.o., Female, Heterosexual, Latinx, second-generation Dominican), “it [race] is an important topic, but usually in GSA, we talk about mostly what are gays going through…”. Some respondents, such as Savannah (15 y.o., Female, Lesbian/Questioning/Asexual, White), noted the consequences of such a limited focus: “we’ve been narrowing our focus a lot to the issues we face as LGBT students, but it also – I mean, it’s focusing on what we face, but also, narrowing your focus so much can be a problem because it would be good to be more aware of other things in the world and what’s out there…” Savannah’s GSA was comprised predominantly (but not completely) of White students. “Focusing on what we face” may imply that White students do not see being White as a racial category, or that White privilege could limit investment in the topic of race and immigration talk, thereby limiting engagement in discussions about racism and nativism. However, analysis of themes by GSA group demographics indicated that race and immigration were also viewed as not being on the agenda in GSAs that were predominantly comprised of students of color and immigrant-origin youth. This finding indicates that student representation (i.e., mere presence of students of color and immigrant-origin youth) may not be sufficient for race and immigration talk to occur or be thought relevant.

Participants noted that GSAs have multiple goals and time constraints that affected their agendas. As Amber (17 y.o., Female, Bisexual, White) explained, “I just think we are busy right now with paint night.” Amber further clarified, “We just really don’t have the time. We try to do it during advisory, which is only about a 20-minute block. So to get a lot done is hard and we really only have after school meetings like every three months or so.” Some GSAs find it difficult to make room for race and immigration talk while providing space for discussion centered on sexual orientation and gender. While Amber’s description raises important logistical considerations constraining the scope of GSA content, drawing from counterspace and intersectionality praxis frameworks, it may also be possible to integrate topics of racism and nativism in GSAs through prioritization of activities that acknowledge and support the diverse identities and experiences of their members, and discussion of intersectional topics.

Indeed, GSAs may be a unique space to engage in race and immigration talk because GSAs may explicitly address how they connect to LGBTQIA+ topics. When asked to compare how race and immigration talk in their English and history classes (e.g., concerning the DREAM Act) compared to talk in the GSA, Jordan (16 y.o., Gender Fluid, Lesbian, African-American) described, “Well one major key factor—most of the people aren’t in GSA or part of the LGBT community. They’re [in English and History class] more talking about sexism and racism instead of the big homophobia.” Thus, while GSAs are not the only school setting for race and immigration talk, they may be unique settings for discussing intersectional oppression (e.g., connections between racism and heterosexism).

Breaking the ice by discussing current societal events related to race and immigration

Participants described several factors that promoted race and immigration talk within the GSA space. Most factors were at the contextual or setting level, and point to programmatic adaptations. Race and immigration talk frequently occurred when discussing current societal or regional events. Given the study’s timing (2016–2018), it is not surprising that interviewees frequently described discussion of media coverage of the 2016 US Presidential Election and Donald Trump’s comments and policies pertaining to people of color, immigrants, and other marginalized groups. Grace described, “I think I remember the first day that he said those first few words, like, in public [about] Mexicans, things like that. I think I remember that quite well, where everybody was very angry about that, and that was all we talked about for the next like, two weeks.” Students described the GSA as a context for support after the election. At least one student (Jordan) noted how the GSA even supported non-members:

I feel like we helped a lot of people calm down that day because that day in school after Trump’s presidency, everybody was afraid, scared, like there was jokes going left and right about it and it was just – it wasn’t a joking matter… a lot of people who were upset that day came here and I thought that was really wonderful…

This example illustrates the power of GSAs as a communal counterspace that students school-wide (even non-members) perceive as a place of refuge when a crisis has occurred, and where students can discuss a broad range of oppressions. But in our data, the focus on President Trump’s perspectives on people of color and immigrants appeared to wane: Fewer interviewees in the 2017–2018 interview pool mentioned this context of race and immigration talk.

Participants raised the intersectional topic of violence against transgender women of color (29 transgender people were murdered in 2017, with transgender women of color over-represented; Human Rights Campaign, 2018). As Ethan described, “I do know that people have brought up that a lot of Black trans women are being like killed and assaulted [pause], I think it was more like, people um [pause], I think it was more of people just venting and being upset about certain issues.” But Jamie noted discomfort and fear of misspeaking in the GSA space:

I feel like it’s very typical when we talk about race, like everybody’s very careful about what they say. They use very general terms, but not necessarily the best general terms, but they’re very typical and typically the same people speak, not necessarily the people of color, but the White-passing individual – the individuals that are very outgoing and typically do speak during meetings, but the trans– the briefly mentioned – it was very briefly mentioned, the trans people of color that have recently passed. Even still, everybody was very quiet. They didn’t want to talk about it, and it was – it was sad in the way that we were talking about – we were saying it in a remembrance type of way as opposed to an educational type of way.

As Jamie described, GSAs may benefit from more critical, intersectional discussions. For example, GSAs could discuss the oppressions (e.g., racism, cissexism) that contribute to violence against transgender women of color, and discuss actions GSA members can take to promote support and engage in advocacy and social justice. “[The] advisor should bring it up first”

Participants also described that advisors could facilitate race and immigration talk. As described by Brandon (16 y.o., Male, Heterosexual, White),

Brandon: Um, well I think the advisor should bring it up first, but I’m… I don’t know of any current events that involve race or immigration right now. I mean I’m sure there are some, I just, I’m not sure of any.

Interviewer: Why do you think the advisor should bring it up first?

Brandon: ‘Cause I think that they would feel the most comfortable doing it, unless someone else from the GSA wants to. But if no one wants to, I think the advisor should do it first.

Jocelyn (14 y.o., Female, Heterosexual, African-American) also described, “[our advisor] makes sure we’re all together and um, and she would ask like, asks stuff about [pause] our concerns. If we’re not really informed about that issue, she’ll explain it in a way that everybody would understand.” Thus, advisors can introduce and clarify information about race and immigration, and scaffold discussions when they stall or become difficult.

Discussion

This study provides a novel examination of race and immigration talk in GSAs. Findings shed light on how the confluence of intersectional identities (and their representation in GSAs), competing priorities, and open and safe space climate considerations shape the ways in which GSA members engage in race and immigration talk. Youth’s descriptions of how these topics were (and were not) discussed in GSA spaces have implications for how race and immigration talk, and potentially action, can be cultivated in GSAs and other such counterspaces.

Is Race and Immigration Talk a Part of the GSA Mission?

While participant’ descriptions of race and immigration talk indicated that GSAs, as a counterspace for sexual orientation and gender diversity, may create and maintain narratives centered on oppression and building resistance around issues related to heterosexism and cissexism (Case & Hunter, 2012; Harper & Schneider, 2003), student representation dynamics and consideration of tokenism seem to prevent the formation of an explicit narrative around addressing racism or nativism. GSAs may require explicit guidance and activities (e.g., training for advisors and student leaders; discussion tools) to facilitate discussions and foster robust narratives of strength and community resistance around racism and nativism. This is particularly relevant for building students’ capacities to understand, connect with, and support the diverse lived experiences of GSA members, and of LGBTQIA+ communities beyond the GSA and school context. Several participants who are students of color and/or immigrant-origin youth indicated experiencing invalidation or feeling upset by inadequate discussions about topics related to race and immigration, or about intersectionality specifically. The experiences of youth of color and immigrant-origin youth in this study are akin to the disregard and mistreatment reported by adult people of color in LGBTQIA+ settings (Balsam, Beadnell, & Molina, 2013; Balsam et al., 2011; Giwa & Greensmith, 2012). Counterspaces provide opportunities to reframe personal narratives and narratives of resistance (Case & Hunter, 2012). Not including race and immigration talk in “the agenda” of GSAs could diminish opportunities to reframe personal narratives, or develop communal narratives of resistance, that incorporate pride in diverse racial, ethnic, and immigrant-origin identities, and resistance against racism and nativism.

Given the club name, it is unsurprising that several participants responded that race and immigration talk are “not on the agenda” and that GSAs should focus on LGBTQIA+ issues. GSAs may be among the few (or only) school settings where youth can engage in personal, frank discussions of LGBTQIA+ issues with peers and adults. Nevertheless, interviewees also related that numerous instances in which race and immigration talk occurred, that it is desired in GSAs (particularly by students of color and immigrant-origin youth), and that all students may need practice in race and immigration talk to overcome discomfort and fear of misspeaking. Youth of color and immigrant-origin youth described how the lack of in-depth race and immigration talk was a missed opportunity to give and receive support in GSAs, one of their key functions (Griffin et al., 2004). Through more frequent race and immigration talk, GSA members could potentially gain comfort, confidence, and efficacy to counteract discomfort and fear of misspeaking (Chong et al., 2019). Youth noted that GSA leaders could use their position to put race, racism, immigration, and nativism on the agenda, and that advisors (who youth perceived as more knowledgeable and competent) should broach the topic first. The results further imply that framing topics of race and immigration as intersectional (i.e., related integrally to sexual orientation and gender) may be useful to GSA members who do not view it as part of the GSA agenda. Positioning race and immigration talk in such as way may expose GSA members to thinking about commonalities in social position and experience among LGBTQIA+, people of color, and immigrant communities, and enable more effective discussions, coalition building, and activism (Cole, 2009).

Not a Problem Unless It is Personal

While noting the importance of race and immigration talk, youth reported tensions accompanying the topics of racism and nativism within the GSA space. Most GSAs in this study were majority White in racial/ethnic composition (Poteat et al., 2020); as such, the findings highlighted the complexities that predominantly White GSAs (and those with few members who are of immigrant-origin backgrounds) may face when discussing issues of intersectional identity. GSAs are clubs organized around both identity and social justice, and may include LGBTQIA+ members who are also students of color and of immigrant-origin backgrounds, yet not all students may perceive race and immigration issues as appropriate or important if they are not considered personal issues. While students of color and immigrant-origin participants also described fear of misspeaking and discomfort with race and immigration talk, White participants and participants who were not of immigrant origin appeared to have the most difficulty engaging in race and immigration talk. Research on White identity has identified similar tensions or dialectics, particularly regarding how White individuals may minimize racism (i.e., characterizing the phenomena as distal from themselves or their setting) or struggle with feelings of rejection or authenticity when trying to connect in multiracial relationships (Todd & Abrams, 2011). In the current study, minimization of racism (and nativism) occurred when participants declared racism as not being a personal issue (e.g., due to their White identity, due to fear of misspeaking). In addition, participants across diverse identities created distance from race and immigration talk through general statements of acceptance (“people are pretty accepting of race”), or speaking at length about how student representation and competing priorities can inhibit discussions (e.g., the GSA focuses only on LGBTQIA+ issues). With regard to bridging tensions in multiracial relationships, many participants noted avoidance of race and immigration talk as a means of preserving the safe space of the GSA. As a consequence, White and non-immigrant origin students may miss opportunities to develop as allies and change agents in dismantling intersectional oppression. In addition, students of color and immigrant-origin students may feel invalidated that they must suppress expressing their racial, ethnic, or immigrant identities and experiences in the GSA space.

Prior researchers have named similar patterns of silence concerning race and immigration talk “colormuteness” (Pollock, 2004). While fear of misspeaking could reflect cultural humility or personal outsider positionality with respect to race and immigration-related topics (Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998), some (generally White and non-immigrant origin youth) participants also exhibited a degree of privilege in having the power to decide whether race and immigration talk should be included in GSAs (i.e., not a problem; or not on the agenda). By contrast, students of color and immigrant-origin students tended to describe instances of race and immigration talk in which they felt ignored or disrespected, or potentially tokenized based on their identity. Prior research has found that students of color report receiving less support from their GSAs than White youth, and also attend GSA meetings less frequently (Poteat et al., 2015). Insufficient race and immigration talk may contribute to a substandard experience within GSAs for students of color and immigrant-origin youth, who may perceive their peers as disregarding their experiences.

Too Much Caution May Stifle Growth—Moving Towards Embracing Brave Spaces

For LGBTQIA+ issues, ground rules that promote an open climate and a safe space can encourage youth to discuss different aspects of their own and each other’s genders and sexualities. However, in the interviews, such ground rules generally seemed to inhibit race and immigration talk when they could just as easily have supported such discussions. Some of our data implied that safe space ground rules, in particular, could contribute to discomfort and fear of misspeaking because students may avoid discussions that could offend or alienate their peers (e.g., “creating kind of a rift”). Martin Luther King, Jr. noted the concept of “negative peace” (King Jr., 1963), or silence on race that stems from fear of the tension inherent in discussing race and racism. Such silence can contribute to avoidance of more direct antiracist action. On the other hand, open climate expectations that encourage free and civil discourse could explicitly encourage race and immigration talk by fostering sharing, respect (particularly across differences and disagreement), and co-learning (Godfrey & Grayman, 2014).

Conflation of open climate and safe space norms seemed to result in avoidance and silence around race and immigration topics in favor of preserving a climate of comfort and safety. GSAs may consider reframing ground rules to be consistent with a “brave spaces” perspective (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Under a brave spaces framework, GSA members could view race and immigration talk as a challenging, yet important learning opportunity towards advancing equity and social justice. By viewing race and immigration talk as an act of courage and advocacy, students may more willingly take the risk of missteps or tensions in order to engage in conversations about diversity, positionality, and difference (Arao & Clemens, 2013).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our study. Although recruitment focused on attaining a diverse sample of youth, we collected all data in Massachusetts. Findings may not generalize to youth in other U.S. regions. While qualitative approaches are useful for delineating phenomenological processes, results may not generalize to all youth in GSAs, or to all youth of diverse racial/ethnic, immigrant-origin, sexual orientation, and gender identities. Data from the 2016–2017 academic year (coinciding with the U.S. Presidential Election) were overrepresented relative to data from 2017–2018. Due to the study design, we could not consider race and immigration talk within the same GSAs over multiple years. We measured student identity based on self-report from a larger survey study, and did not query on the survey more detailed assessment of racial and ethnic diversity. We did not interview advisors, who might have provided important additional perspectives. GSAs were not the only context in which LGBTQIA+ students engaged in race and immigration talk; future research should explore discussions across youth settings that could serve as counterspaces. A large number of participants identified as Latinx, yet the multicultural study team included one Latinx interviewer and no Latinx analysts, which may have limited inquiry and analysis into the potential, unique experiences of Latinx individuals (i.e., racist nativism under the President Trump administration) (Gomez & Pérez Huber, 2019).

Implications for Race and Immigration Talk in GSAs

It is crucial to identify and support adolescent spaces that foster dialogue around intersectional oppression, particularly for LGBTQIA+ youth, youth of color, and immigrant-origin youth. GSAs—which center on support of LGBTQIA+ youth— are a possible space to discuss racism and nativism, but such discussions are difficult. To encourage further race and immigration talk in GSAs, interviewees recommended facilitated discussion and initial low-risk opportunities. Participants noted that advisors should facilitate race and immigration talk, and that current societal event topics are useful tools to broach discussions on racism and nativism, as these may be considered more neutral than personal disclosures on these topics. Advisors could adapt existing guidelines for how to facilitate such talk in groups and in schools (Pollock, 2017; Singleton, 2014). Likewise, the GSA could be an additional space to bolster race and immigration talk that occurs in other spaces (e.g., history class).

The results further suggest the importance of building students’ understanding of and confidence in addressing issues around intersectional identity, oppression, power and privilege. As suggested by some intersectionality scholars, one intuitive approach could be for GSAs to engage in critical discussion of exploring commonalities across groups that are typically viewed as fundamentally different (i.e., LGBTQIA+ communities, people of color, and immigrant communities), both as means of understanding inter-locking oppression, and to develop coalitions to dismantle oppression (Cole, 2009; Rosenthal, 2016). To support such discussions, GSAs may consider adopting a brave spaces framework to encourage risk-taking (i.e., participation in tough dialogues) and break the discomfort and fear of misspeaking that impede race and immigration talk.