 |
| Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons |
Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, Republican, Costa Mesa, is introducing Assembly Bill 1348 to the California State Legislature. The Parental Oversight and Involvement Act would require schools to “receive affirmative permission from a child’s parents before providing classroom education related to sex, family life, morality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation,” the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.
The Times did not go into much detail, devoting only a paragraph to the story. Considering that state social studies content standards include world religions, the bill could have far reaching implications that go far beyond health and sex education courses. Biology courses, likewise, routinely cover sexual reproduction and human physiology and anatomy. However, the bill seems most targeted at health education courses that cover human sexuality, reproduction and STDs, as well as tolerance curriculum that is common throughout California. In fact, the bill may have been drafted in retaliation to Mark Leno’s senate bill, SB 48, which would require teachers to discuss the contributions of LGBT historical figures in their curriculum.
While it is not surprising that some parents and fundamentalist residents would be upset over the teaching of tolerance for gays and lesbians, or the discussion of safer sex, there is a far more important public good to be gained by these practices. Ignorance about safer sex practices and pregnancy prevention increase the frequency and the costs of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, costs that all Californians must bear. Ignorance about other religions, cultures, sexual orientations, lifestyles and family structures contribute to fear, misunderstanding, prejudice and abuse.
Also, if parents do not want their children to be taught about their bodies and sexuality at school or to learn about other religions or famous homosexuals in their history classes, parents have the right and the responsibility to remove their children from public schools and either place them in a parochial school or home school them. They should not be allowed to burden schools and society simply to satisfy their fears and prejudices, particularly considering that society will end up bearing much of the future costs caused by the additional unwanted pregnancies, STDs and hate crimes resulting from their ignorance.
Oh come on now Mr. Dunn, you and I both know the best way to deal with things that make us uncomfortable or afraid is to repress them.
ReplyDeleteTed Haggard of New Life Church is a perfect example. I'm sure Allan Mansoor is just trying to follow in Mr. Haggard's footsteps.
"The Times did not go into much detail, devoting only a paragraph to the story. Considering that state social studies content standards include world religions, the bill could have far reaching implications that go far beyond health and sex education courses. Biology courses, likewise, routinely cover sexual reproduction and human physiology and anatomy."
ReplyDeleteIs there an implication that world cultures and religions would not be taught?
Basic sexual reproduction of course should be taught in biology and anatomy. Beyond that parents are responisble for instilling morals and ethics in their children regarding sexuality and relationships. What morals and ethics are instilled will vary from family to family and is largely influenced by things like culture, sub-culture, sectarian religious affiliation or spirituality, and the parents' own socialization.
"They should not be allowed to burden schools and society simply to satisfy their fears and prejudices, particularly considering that society will end up bearing much of the future costs caused by the additional unwanted pregnancies, STDs and hate crimes resulting from their ignorance."
I'd be interested in any studies showing a correlation between the extent of sex education (or lack thereof) in various schools, including private and/or parochial, and the % of unwanted pregnancies, STDs and hate crimes across the various schools.
Regarding home schooling, it is becoming increasingly popular, even amongst the non-religious.
The law, if it passes, would not affect what is taught. Rather, it would make it easier for parents to get their kids exempted from certain classes or content.
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous studies that show a significant correlation between sexual education programs and lower pregnancy and STD rates. Obviously, the quality of the program makes a huge difference. For example, there have been several studies that show that abstinence only programs have little impact on long-term sexual practices. Also, consider how education and outreach have lowered HIV transmission rates. Anecdotally, my high school students all know how HIV is transmitted and how to reduce their risk. Ostensibly, they have learned this, and certainly they have had it reinforced, at school. Here are a couple of sources that survey the effectiveness of sexual education programs: (http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_sum.pdf), and (http://www.fhi.org/NR/rdonlyres/e4al5tcjjlldpzwcaxy7ou23nqowdd2xwiznkarhhnptxto4252pgco54yf4cw7j5acujorebfvpug/sexedworkingpaperfinalenyt.pdf) and (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/storage/advfy/documents/sciencesuccess.pdf)
"The law, if it passes, would not affect what is taught. Rather, it would make it easier for parents to get their kids exempted from certain classes or content."
ReplyDeleteRegarding sexually explicit content I would have to support the bill.
I recently read a number of articles about the "FISTGATE" incident concerning Kevin Jennings who is in charge of the National Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
I read the transcripts and there is some justifiable fear that this is the type of content that may possibly be "taught" across all middle and high schools in the US someday soon.
Being in education, you probably know more about that case than I do. However, parents do have a right to know what their kids are being "taught" in school and FISTGATE style content is certainly something most parents - religious or not - would object to.
Thankyou for the links. I'm assuming that parochial schools have a more limited sex education program than most public schools.
I wonder how those schools fare in terms of HIV and unwanted pregnancies. One might logically assume that their unwanted pregnancy and HIV rates are sky high, considering the lack of a truly sophisticated sex ed program.
I wonder?
"Fistgate" is essentially a smear campaign against Obama, promoted by right wing bloggers. I couldn't find any credible sources to confirm the story.
ReplyDeleteSchools generally screen their speakers and have teachers present during presentations, which reduces the chances of something truly inappropriate being presented to kids.
The transcript and audio is avaiblable online. Do you think it was entirely made up? I don't watch TV news because my opinion is that at least half of it is staged performance, so it wouldn't surpise me if FISTGATE were similarly so. But if not, that's the type of stuff that worries parents.
ReplyDeleteObviously, it is inappropriate to get in front of students in a school and promote porn or talk about one's personal sexual turn-ons.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was totally fabricated. What I could find on the matter was that Fenway Health, not GLSEN, accidentally left the "black books" out. Regardless, MassResistance, a homophobic hate group, manipulated the facts, exaggerated what happened, took things out of context, and published material that a judge had blocked because it was inaccurate and libelous.
The most terrible crime in our society is a crime against children. The worst kind of crime is a sexual one. The slightest hint that such a thing has happened (whether or not it is true) is enough to cause the internet to explode with ranting and raving people who want to defend America's youth. It is difficult not to get upset about such claims, but it is dangerous to accept them. People were unjustly imprisoned for child abuse in the 1980s when a similar hysteria broke out over perverted daycare providers that turned out to be untrue.