Posts Tagged ‘Sex Ed’

The battle over sex ed is one of those “issues” that I feel is generally blown way out of proportion. Not because I don’t think it’s an important issue, but because it seems like most reasonable people believe that some type of comprehensive sex ed should be at least be an option for kids in school. The linked article shows that it’s not just a simple majority of individuals in North Carolina who believe comprehensive sex ed should be available… it’s almost 70%. Those are huge numbers of support (especially in a state which, despite turning blue in the most recent presidential election, isn’t always known to be a bastion of liberalness). So, in some ways, it seems that the controversy sounding this issue is just the result of a very vocal minority expressing their opinion, albeit loudly.

That minority recently got a perceived boost to their cause, when a new study was published this month in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. The study aimed to examine success rates of varying types of sex ed curricula on 662 African-American sixth and seventh graders. The students were enrolled in one of the following: an abstinence-based program, a program that dealt only with “safer sex,” a comprehensive-based program, and a control program that focused on health issues that were unrelated to sex ed. Students were then tracked for two years, at which point the researchers attempted to find out how many of the students had engaged in sexual activity.

The study found that those students who took part in the abstinence-education program had the lowest rate of sexual activity. This, as you might imagine, caused the abstinence-only crowd to go a little wild. One organization, Abstinence Clearinghouse, declared that it meant that “comprehensive sex ed [is] a big flop.” You might consider the generalization that all comprehensive sex ed programs are worthless because of the findings of this study to be a little suspect. And, unsurprisingly, you would be right.

As a result of these distortions (let’s call them what they are), the study’s authors felt the need to clarify a few things. They point out that comprehensive sex ed programs have consistently be shown to work and therefore, this study should not be indicative of any great failure on the part of comprehensive sex in general. Also, they clarify that the abstinence-based program that they examined was not a typical one. As another organization reported, this particular program “did not advocate abstinence until marriage, did not portray sex in a negative light or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information” (quite different than most abstinence-based programs). In other words, the authors say that this study should be seen as an indication that this particular program seems to work for this particular population… which is not even remotely close to the conclusion that all abstinence-based programs are successful.

Now, my reasoning for mentioning all of this isn’t to denigrate all abstinence-based programs (though I will confess to having a strong bias for the alternative). Instead, I simply find it interesting that abstinence-based groups took something that could have been a small, positive turn of events… and twisted it into a lie. Maybe they’ve been lying so long that it was just a reflex action on their part, trying to turn this into something much more. Regardless, I think it’s a shame that the fact that researchers are finding successful interventions at all is being overlooked to engender hyperbolic propaganda. Because that’s what it should be about. Helping kids learn about sex ed in a way that makes sense to them. It’s too bad that some groups had to make an issue out of it.

An employee at a Virginia elementary school has been suspended for handing out 4-inch tall plastic representations of fetuses to 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students. The principal of the school has also been placed on leave, although it seems to be unclear as to whether or not she knew the dolls were being distributed.

From the linked article:

“The teeny figures, in pink and brown, came with a “pro-life” message and information on fetal growth, according to one teacher.”

While this scenario raises a host of questions (like who actually thought this would be a good idea? or where does one even procure a large number of fetus dolls?), the thing i find most amusing/infuriating is that this person is guilty of the exact thing that the religious right routinely accuses liberals of: trying to indoctrinate children to feel a certain way about an issue.

How many times have we heard the cry from Republicans, anti-choicers, and others that “the gays” are trying to force their “lifestyle” on unsuspecting children? Or that sex ed classes are just thinly veiled advertisements for promiscuity, abortion, and Planned Parenthood? That children shouldn’t be confronted with these types of ideas and situations at such a young age? If this is true (and I am, by no means saying that it is), how is it then perfectly acceptable for anti-choicers to force their opinions and viewpoints on young children? You simply cannot have it both ways.

But to these people, indoctrination evidently only includes attempts to teach tolerance and scientific information, not blatant propaganda in the form of fetus dolls handed out to 8 year olds. I guess these types of issues are only problematic when one don’t agree with the way that they’re presented. That’s a great lesson for kids.

A Mississippi high school senior, Constance McMillen, wanted to take her girlfriend to prom with her. Her school district refused, so she contacted the local branch of the ACLU, which then contacted the school and asked them to reverse their policy or face legal action. The school’s response? They canceled the entire prom. Because, as we all know, it’s better to completely cancel an important rite of passage for high school students than allow any lesbians access to it.

Since then, Constance has become a bit of a celebrity. Articles about her have appeared on Yahoo, CNN, and Huffington Post. A Facebook fan page called “Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom” now has almost 430,000 fans. She’s also appeared on CBS’s The Early Show and Ellen Degeneres’ talk show, talking about her experiences.

The ACLU sued to get the school district to reinstate prom but, to no avail. And, in the meantime, Constance became a walking target at her school, as fellow students blamed her for the cancellation of prom and “ruining [their] senior year.” In a sick twist, students appear to have gone so far as to set up a fake alternative prom for Constance and some other students (including students with learning disabilities) to attend, while the “real” prom for the majority of students was held elsewhere. You can read more about that here.

Situations like these are why I feel the need for comprehensive sex ed in school systems is so important to put in place. One of the facets of may comprehensive sex ed programs is a respect for diversity and tolerance of all people… which are two things that Constance’s school district (and her fellow classmates) seems to be desperately lacking. I’m under no delusion that comprehensive sex ed would have fixed all of Constance’s issues… but I do feel that, just maybe, if we begin to instill lessons of tolerance in kids from an early age, some of that sticks. And maybe some of Constance’s fellow students (along with school district employees) would have stood with her.

One day, I hope that they’ll wish they did.