What's That Class About?

Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine you are in a large High School, and you stick your head into first this classroom, and then that one. How will you know what class is being taught in each? Well, if there are equations on the board, with x's and y's, and an axis on which a line has been drawn, I'd bet on algebra. If there's a discussion of the Constitution, then go with American History or Civics. It's really quite easy: You know what the class is about based on what's being taught. It's a matter of content. Similarly, if you were asked to design a course outline you'd need to know what the class was supposed to be about, since the curriculum would be quite different depending on whether you were to be teaching Differential Calculus, The Art of the Souffle, or Small Unit Tactics.

Which brings us to today's topic: "Sex" education. [I see I now have your full attention.]

Here at the Center of the Empire, there has been a flap in nearby Montgomery County (MD) over a proposed new sex education curriculum. WaPo stories (registration required) are HERE and HERE. In granting a preliminary injunction bringing the new curriculum to at least a temporary halt, the Post reports what the judge found:

"Defendants [the school system] open up the classroom to the subject of homosexuality and specifically, the moral rightness of the homosexual lifestyle," the judge wrote in a 22-page opinion. "However, the Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject -- that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle -- to the exclusion of other perspectives."

He also pointed to another angle taken by the new course:

"The Revised Curriculum notes that 'Fundamentalists are more likely to have negative attitudes about gay people than those with other religious views.' The Revised Curriculum also paints certain Christian sects, notably Baptists, which are opposed to homosexuality, as unenlightened and Biblically misguided," he wrote.

The school system's attorney didn't see what all the ruckus was about

. . . because parents who opposed the new curriculum could opt out of the unit and choose an alternative curriculum for their children.

We'll have to remember this attorney's name when someone next proposes a voluntary prayer each day before school, and each child is given the opportunity to opt out.

We now know part of "what's the course about?"

Dawn Eden provides us with more information regarding what some authorities believe should not be included. In "Abstinence - Real Scary, Kids," she has collected excerpts from "SIECUS" (the "Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States") a fellow traveler of Planned Parenthood. SIECUS argues:

In recent years there has been a proliferation of curricula used in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Many of these curricula are designed to control young people’s sexual behavior by instilling fear, shame, and guilt.

It goes on to cite several examples of what it seems to feel are outrageous attempts simply to terrify our teens. Remember, these are quotations from abstinence programs, chosen by SIECUS to prove their point -- that such programs have been put together by moonbats. My favorite is this terrifying selection:

Question: "What are the risks of being sexually active?"

Answer: "Teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, low self-esteem, loss of reputation, feelings of being used."

Seems about right to me. But think more carefully. The society that's ever so careful to give the same trophies to both the winners and the losers of the soccer game, lest the losers' self-esteem suffer, also tells us that it's silly to worry about a young women who graduates from High School having had three or four different sex partners.

So now we've got quite a good idea of what’s being taught: homosexuality is a natural and morally correct behavior, some religious groups have some really wild ideas about sex (and they've got their theology wrong, to boot), and there's really nothing at all negative, let alone scary, about promiscuous sexual behavior.

These are all (I suppose) defensible propositions, but they certainly have little to do with "sex" education.

Instead, of course, these matters properly belong in a course on morality. If you stuck your head into a classroom and overheard such discussions, you’d know that you had come upon a course in ethics or morals: What's right, what's wrong, and how do we tell the difference?

Do you think it's the place of the State, which compels your child to attend public school, to require your child to study the State's version of morals?

I didn't think so.

[UPDATE] More on SIECUS HERE. This is a wild bunch, boys and girls.