Ramming Values Down American Parents’ Throats
Posted on May 3, 2007
The war against abstinence education wages on across the country. The comprehensive sex ed crowd was apoplectic with the results of a Mathematica study that showed kids who had abstinence education programs were just as likely to engage in sexual activity with the same rates of “dangerous” behavior. The flip side of the study showed that abstinence education also “did no harm” in that the “risky” behaviors were just as frequent between both groups, but that got ignored. Predictably, the studies that show abstinence ed works also go ignored.
The study itself has recycled some of the same claims that come up every time someone objects to abstinence education. Representative Waxman did a study in 2004 that purported to show all the damage abstinence education does, but between outright stupid objections and showing that some programs do work, his attempt failed.
The push for comprehensive education is nothing more than an attempt to ram values down parents’ throats. The United States is a values pluralistic society that works precisely because other people’s values are respected and tolerated. Except in the narrow case of values that are criminal or quasi-criminal, the government shouldn’t start dictating to citizens what values they must have, religious or otherwise. In short, if government education programs are going to deal with sex (and it’s not clear that this is a necessary area for government to be involved in) they need to do so in a values neutral manner.
A reasonable position would be to allow comprehensive sex ed, abstinence ed, or no sex ed at all to be choices available at the sole discretion of the parents. Parents, as a rule, know their children the best and are best able to make the most informed decisions about them. However, far too often the government turns the school system into a parole office for which parents must issue an accounting of their decisions after committing the crime of conception.
Even the ACLU, an organization that allegedly exists solely to protect the bill of rights, demands that only comprehensive sex ed be taught because that’s supposedly the only legal way to do it. Apparently the Constitution requires nothing less than full and complete courses in sexual technique and pleasuring for six year olds.
The reason for forcing the government to present only comprehensive sex ed from the highest levels is clear when it is realized that parents want abstinence ed for their children by a 2:1 margin. The ACLU always stands ready to thwart the democratic process by forcing their values down the throats (and into the pants) of Americans by going to unelected judges to force the issue.
The message is clear, not only parents can’t be trusted to make this decision for children, but lawmakers cannot be trusted either. All that is left to do is for the ACLU to shop for the right judge to give them what they want judicially for what they could never win democratically.
Instead of looking at the reasons why children engage in sexual activity when and how they do, comprehensive sex ed advocates try to bypass parents to present cookie-cutter values without parental involvement. There are some interesting studies, for instance, that show that intelligent kids don’t have sex.
The school system in this country has enough problems producing students that can compete in a global economy. They certainly don’t need to have days taken out of their classes every year while they are already being left behind by the rest of the world academically. Schools should spend their time focusing on academics, not on being one-step social service agencies.
A constant refrain in politics is anger at the “Christian Right” forcing their values on American society. How about some reciprocity? Let’s leave the parenting to the parents.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
» Filed Under ACLU, Child Exploitation
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Ramming Values Down American Parents’ Throats”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
It’s impressive that you’re able to use that logic and then proceed to ignore the studies that show “comprehensive sex ed” (which is an overly broad term, btw) work.
The fact of the matter is that adolescents are hardwired with sexual impulses and there’s no easy answer on the matter. Pretty much the only thing the majority of parents can agree on is that they want the schools involved to some degree. That’s why the details are largely left up to the local school boards.
That sounds good, but how in the world would you implement that? Sure, you could divide them into different rooms, but do you really think they won’t compare notes when they’re done? You’d end up with everyone getting second-hand hodgepodges of conflicting lessons, which would probably be worse than having no lessons at all.
Say what??? I try to avoid being this blunt most of the time, but you have it completely backwards on this one. “Here is a condom. This is how you use” is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “value”. A properly designed “comprehensive sex ed” course (yes, I concede there are some districts that have implemented course which don’t qualify as “properly designed”.) is just raw information.
The message is entirely “This how physics and biology work”, “These are the associated risks”, and “Here are ways to reduce the associated risks”. The questions of “should/shouldn’t” are left for the student and family to decide. Abstinence ed, OTOH, is specifically designed to teach “should/shouldn’t”.
Well, the only study I think is rather “indisputable” in that regard is the ones involving the AIDS infection rate in Uganda that show that abstinence ed has reduced AIDS where most of Africa is still increasing. The problem with many studies if the definition of what “works”. A year ago the abstinence pledges came under fire as “not working” because all the managed to accomplish was delay sexual activity and then those people engaged in sex at the same rate… I would call that a success.
The ACLU threats against the HHS and the actions done against local boards are designed specifically NOT to leave the details up to local school boards… I know this because I ran for a board and was read the riot act by a national organization who wanted to establish nationwide policies.
As far as implementation, schools usually have more than one classroom and it’s not uncommon that they bring someone external to teach DARE, Sex-Ed and other things. Just have interested not-for-profits teach the classes, not that hard. Kids can compare notes, but that’s different than the government dictating values.
And yes it is a value. Why should a person use a condom? That’s a values-oriented question. The same as why someone should wait to have sex. You talk about reducing risk… well why “should” someone reduce that risk?
The “physics and biology” have been taught, as far as I know, for decades. They certainly remain taught in abstinence education, as far as I know.
Indeed. All the more reason to refrain from drawing conclusions based on a select group of studies. The bottom line is that there’s no simple answer.
Maybe. It depends on a lot of other factors.
Such organizations will be wrong sometimes and they will be right sometimes. Local boards have a lot of latitude, but they don’t have free reign. Their decisions must still comply with state and federal law. I doubt either of us have time to dissect every such example over the past X years, so it’s probably best to leave it at that.
I’ll set that one aside because it goes back to our disagreement over your assertion that a strictly factual course is still a matter of values.
A person should use a condom if he wants to engage in certain sexual activities and would like to reduce the risks of disease and pregnancy. There’s no value or morality embedded in that answer. It’s just a statement of fact.
I don’t dispute that. My only point was that abstinence education goes beyond the raw facts to issue judgements about when and how it is morally acceptable for someone to engage in certain activities.
Jeff Molby Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“Pretty much the only thing the majority of parents can agree on is that they want the schools involved to some degree.”
Can you cite a source for the hard data on that one please?
Thanks.
.
Sure thing: Virtually every school in the country has some form of sex ed and there is no significant movement to change that. What more evidence do you need?
That’s simply not true… for one, I cited a source. Second, running for school I board, I saw firsthand that groups are lobbying hard to increase sex ed and start it earlier. I also know of other groups first hand that fight against that.
jcb, in stating that there are moral judgments involved in reducing the risks
involved in sexual behavior, it’s the equivalent of stating that there’s a
moral judgment in deciding to not walk off a cliff. The only “judgment” involved
is wanting to live longer. Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that
you assigned a “moral value” to gravity.
Ok, let’s say childbirth… why would a guy care if the girl gets pregnant… “It’s her problem” could be a response… probably one most likely to come from an objectivist for that matter. What about reducing the spread of disease… if you already have it what do you care?
Now those are questions being the devil’s advocate…
It stems from a values system as to the meaning and purpose of sex, and there is no way you can cover sex ed without taking a stand on that.
Please clarify. I’m not sure which statement you were referring to.
The laws of most, if not all, states make it clear that it is not simply “her problem”, even if the guy is completely callous and feels no obligation towards her or the child.
If you already have it, you may not. You probably still do, because there are more than a few STDs out there. If you don’t have it, you certainly do care. Especially if you choose a less than reputable partner.
I still disagree. Even if you ignore my answers to your questions, it is still perfectly possible to teach the facts without teaching values. “C is a possible consequences of actions A, B, and C. X, Y, and Z can reduce the probability of those consequences by G%, H%, and I% respectively. Now go talk to your loved ones about what choices are right for you.”
“The facts” as you lay out are already being taught… and in most cases, are even taught in abstinence ed classes.
So tell me again where the values come into play.
When the study determined that the abstinence program did no harm, I suspect that they are not factoring the cost of the program, right? Also probably not factoring in the fact that something useful could have been taught during that time?
I would also question the comment that “comprehensive sex ed” is trying to bypass parents. I think it is more a matter of stepping in to do that job that parents failed to do. I think it would be great if great if most parents had the know-how to shape the values of their children and enough social responsibility to do so. But this does not seem to be the case.
Rather than fighting with the left on such topics as “comprehensive sex ed,” the right (and left) should focus on making the nation’s parents more effective in passing their values to their children. If our nation’s children were not having sex too young, or getting pregnant too young, or growing up to become criminals, the left would be stupid to advocate programs to solve nonexistent problems. But these problems do exist, and if parents can’t/won’t fix them then I’m in favor of giving the state a chance to try. The health care and entitlement program costs, and of course the huge cost of housing prisoners, gives the state an interest in filling the “value vacuum†that parents are leaving.
No one is ramming values down the throats of parents. Parents values are already formed. And if they are any good as parents they should easily be able to shape their child’s values no matter what is taught in school. No ramming of values is happening here.
Somehow I doubt you’d use the same “if they are any good as parents they should easily be able to shape their child’s values no matter what is taught in schools” argument if the schools were teaching, say, evangelical Christianity…
I would still say the same thing regarding evangelical Christianity. I have personal experience with that and I know that Christianity in school that is not also supported by a child’s caregivers is unlikely to take. The problem is as I already said, that most parents leave a “value vacuum.”
I am strongly opposed to any flavor of religion in school, but I would not be worried about my own child in such an environment except to the extent that any time spent trying to indoctrinate the child would be time wasted that should have been spent on real education.
One of my children brought a paper for me to sign regarding AIDS education and safe sex. They wanted my permission to teach them this information. I signed no because they did not teach abstinance. I received a call from the school When I discussed it with them they claimed that teaching abstinance violates separation of church and state. I informed them that abstinance was not religious but scientific. If you do not sit on the rail you do not get hit by the train. I was told that I was wrong. My child did not take the course.