Policy Ambiguity, Erasure, and Discrimination: Why Gender-Inclusive Educational Leadership is Imperative During Authoritarian Drift

• In Event: Controversial Issues Policies, Power, and Practices: How Educators Navigate Hostile and Divisive Political Climates

Abstract

Purpose
Authoritarian drift has been reshaping American educational policy. Characteristics of authoritarianism - policy ambiguity, procedural performance, and discretionary discrimination - have been used to marginalize LGBTQ+ students—particularly transgender and nonbinary (TNB) youth. In a politically divided U.S. state, we evaluate how state and local board policymakers use policies and procedures that appear neutral, but erase LGBTQ+ students under the guise of impartiality and democratic-appearing processes.

Perspectives
We begin by situating anti-LGBTQ+ educational policies within a broader process of international authoritarian drift (Cooley, 2015; Giroux & Paul, 2024), or the gradual hollowing of democratic institutions and processes. We then apply Fricker’s (2007) concept of epistemic injustice to illustrate how LGBTQ+ students are further rendered unintelligible and unprotected in educational policy texts and legislative hearings.

Methods
Using a concurrent embedded design (Creswell & Poth, 2016), we conduct a multi-level critical policy analysis (CPA) of educational policies at the federal, state, and local school board levels. We then use critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the state legislative testimonies to deepen our whether and how policymakers leverage policy ambiguity, procedural erasure, epistemic injustice, and discretionary discrimination. Our two research questions ask: (1) How do local district policies obscure, omit, or neutralize LGBTQ+ student protections? and (2) How do state legislative processes use democratic-appearing procedures and ambiguity to advance authoritarian ideological agendas while erasing oppositional voices?

Data Sources and Evidence
Our data includes (a) 1,895 local board policies on nondiscrimination, privacy, parental rights, and controversial topics across all 421 Wisconsin public school districts and 49 administrative guidance documents (2023–2025), and (b) official records and 83 transcribed testimonies from a 2025 hearing on a “parents’ rights” bill targeting TNB student name/pronoun use (AB 103). These sources allowed us to analyze both textual content and discursive legislative processes.

Findings
We find extensive evidence of authoritarian drift in local school board policies, legislative procedures, and the framing of legislative debate about LGBTQ+ students. “Balanced,” ambiguous school board policy language about “parents’ rights” and “controversial issues” privilege cisheteronormative programs, practices, and narratives, and undermine educators’ ability to even discuss opposing ideologies. For instance, cisheteronormative identities and content do not necessitate opt-out mechanisms, but “controversial” LGBTQ+ student identities and content do necessitate opting-out mechanisms (85%). School boards shift discretionary power to administrators with inconsistent nondiscrimination gender identity protections (78%)
Similarly, legislative procedures maintain the veneer of democratic processes while systematically erasing oppositional voices. For example, 73 of 83 recorded testimonies opposed the anti-trans pronoun/name bill, but opposition testimonies were systematically erased from official legislative records. Findings exemplify epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) and reflect broader authoritarian strategies stifling democratic pluralism.

Significance
This study illustrates how ambiguity and proceduralism can reinforce anti-democratic educational trends. Policy reforms and legislative procedures concentrate authority to a smaller group of administrators and policy advocates, shifting power away from the educators’ and students’ ability to discuss a range of “oppositional” ideologies or protect students from discrimination. Our findings inform a leadership playbook for courageous, gender-inclusive leadership grounded in pluralism, student voice, science, and care.

Authors

• Mollie McQuillan, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Benjamin Lebovitz, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Madelaine Adelman, Arizona State University

• Cris Mayo, University of Vermont

• Rin Xie, University of Wisconsin - Madison