“To all who come to this happy place: Welcome.”

These words, spoken by Walt Disney on July 17, 1955, and today emblazoned upon a golden plaque at the entrance of Disneyland, are filled with the warmth and whim that is said to be foundational to the Walt Disney Company.

However, in the almost 70 years since its inception, the inclusivity that this message boasts has never truly been manifested in Disney’s practices. While enchanting castles and romance between lighter-skinned royalty have captivated the hearts of children and adults alike for decades, recent decisions within the Disney company have created a media-based movement to unmask the man in the mouse costume and test the corporation’s loyalty to embracing diversity.

At the beginning of March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his support for a piece of legislation titled “Parental Rights in Education,” which opponents have aptly named “Don’t Say Gay.” The bill will ban the discussion of sexual identity or sexuality in Florida’s elementary schools. As the head of a multibillion-dollar company with a strong basis in Florida and a substantial global influence, many turned to Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek to see how the company would respond to DeSantis’ ruling.

Initially, Chapek declined to comment on the matter, citing a desire for the company to remain unengaged in political affairs. Perhaps the CEO is unaware of a cartoon which depicts Donald Duck in a Nazi-based fever dream that the company’s founder oversaw the creation of. Still, the refusal to condemn “Don’t Say Gay” made many Disney employees and fans, especially those that are a part of the LGBTQ+ community, understandably upset. Some felt that the company which they cherished both failed to remain conscious of its social impact and failed to support the welfare of LGBTQ+ youth in Florida.

Even after an apology from Chapek and the release of multiple statements from Disney executives supporting LGBTQ+ rights, media and Mouseketeers alike are hesitant to immediately ignore the corporation’s recent actions, nor should they. This is not the first time that Disney leadership has failed to promote diversity and inclusivity in their work, nor will it likely be their last. Among the organization’s outputs, there have been various minorities that have left without any pixie dust on the cutting room floor. Among these individuals, by far the most underrepresented are LGBTQ+ people.

In the 1990s, or what is often referred to as the Renaissance of Disney animation, Walt Disney Animation Studios released a number of critically-acclaimed films, including “The Little Mermaid” in 1989, “Beauty and the Beast” in 1991 and “The Lion King” in 1994. While many of these productions are undoubtedly beloved classics today, modern viewers have begun to question the distinctions between the heteronormative protagonists and their seemingly “queer coded,” adversaries. Queer coding is the subtextual suggestion that a character is not heterosexual or cisgender without the explicit confirmation that a character identifies as an LGBTQ+ individual.

For instance, the sea witch, Ursula, from “The Little Mermaid” is modeled after the celebrated drag queen, Divine, while Scar’s lack of mating in “The Lion King” (plus a recent statement from the lion’s voice actor) and LeFou’s obsession with Gaston in “Beauty and the Beast” may suggest that both characters are gay. What is problematic about the connection of these characters to LGBTQ+ culture is that they are all the villains of their respective stories. Children observe their behaviors and involuntarily begin to label them, and by extension the behaviors of LGBTQ+ individuals, as evil. This mindset is then transferred into the wider social consciousness when these young viewers grow up and begin to shape society.

In recent years, Disney has transitioned from queer coding to “queerbaiting,” which is the marketing technique of saying that a product will include LGBTQ+ characters without presenting a meaningful depiction of LGBTQ+ representation. Disney loves to advertise that a film will include the “first” character of a particular community, filling the blank in with various LGBTQ+ identities, as a way to appear inclusive and draw in progressive crowds. However, the results are almost always disappointing.

While there have been numerous examples in the past decade of Disney queerbaiting, three of the most notable instances are in 2017’s live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” 2020’s “Onward” (produced by Pixar, a Disney franchise), and 2021’s “Luca” (also produced by Pixar). In the former two examples, Disney announced before the release of the films that they would feature a gay character. However, in both, the references to non-straight characters were mere seconds long. LeFou in “Beauty and the Beast” was shown dancing with a man during one shot of a group scene and Onward featured a female police officer that makes an offhand mention of her girlfriend. Shortly after the backlash in response to “Onward’s” pitiful lesbian representation, Disney released a colorful animated short called “Out” on Disney+. “Out” tells the story of a man named Greg who is unsure how to come out as gay to his mother, only able to do so once he transforms into a dog. While it is wonderful to see an outwardly gay character as the protagonist of a Disney production, the fact that Greg has to become a dog before he receives acceptance dehumanizes the narrative. Incidentally, Disney also has a troubled history of their non-white characters regularly turning into animals, as is the case in movies such as 2009’s “Princess and the Frog” and even their latest release, “Turning Red.” In “Out,” the use of an animal transformation feels like Disney’s attempt to throw a bone (pun intended) to those chastising them for their heteronormative proclivity without creating a meaningful storyline with an LGBTQ+ character.

In “Luca,” two young boys develop a relationship that appears to not be completely platonic (they dream of traveling the world together on one Vespa scooter, an undoubtedly romantic image.) The boys are fish creatures and continually need to disguise themselves to fit in with human society, which can easily be viewed as a commentary on closeting in the LGBTQ+ community. All of these instances give the facade of LGBTQ+ expression without providing audiences with any authentic representation.

Disney has, however, made attempts to highlight LGBTQ+ individuals in their parks and merchandise by releasing a line of rainbow-colored items in June for Pride Month and switching all automated announcements from “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” to “dreamers of all ages.” However, both of these initiatives, especially the former, are based on Disney’s commercialistic desire to generate as much revenue from as much of the global population as possible. Disney only seems to respond to change when it is likely to generate an equal amount of change for Mickey’s pockets.

At the end of the day, the only way for Disney to shift away from their trend of misrepresentation and underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ individuals is by consciously redefining its creative process. Primarily, they need to allow members of the LGBTQ+ community who are in the company to have more influence over not only project ideas, but characters in existing projects. There are too many figures with similar lifestyles, backgrounds and mindsets running developmental departments to create content that is able to bring diverse stories to life. Currently, Disney is working on the movie “Lightyear,” which follows the canonical individual that the iconic Toy Story toy, Buzz Lightyear, is based on. During the production process, Pixar executives wanted to discard a scene in which two romantically-involved female characters kiss. Fortunately, backlash from the animators led this decision to be reversed. This incident only proves the need for Disney to utilize the diversity in its staff to create enjoyable narratives that represent all audiences. A similar solution should be applied to Disney’s interactions with various cultural and social groups, as well as their responses to legislation that applies to those groups. Chapek and his associates must purposefully listen to the voices of those in the communities that are being discussed and impacted in order to properly address them. It is the only way that Disney will ever be able to truly welcome all into their “happy place.”

Peter Proscia is a sophomore majoring in English.