NY City New Sex Ed Program

[dgriffin]

I don't see this as a religious issue, which of course it is. I see it as parental rights issue, and this is one religion's opinion on that issue. I'm interested to know what anyone else thinks of New York City's new sex education program and its aims.

A link to a New York Times article on the new program is here:
www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/nyregion/in-new-york-city-a-new-mandate-on-sex-education.html

So, what y'all think of this issue?





Experts Strongly Criticize New York City Sex Ed Program


By CLAUDIA McDONNELL

The sex education program that New York City has mandated for middle and high school students contains erroneous information, poses a danger to children and usurps the rights of parents, speakers said at a press conference Aug. 16. They called on parents to advocate on their children’s behalf and fight to prevent the program from being used.

They also insisted that students be taught abstinence as the best way to avoid pregnancy and remain healthy.

Speakers included Edward Mechmann, assistant director of the archdiocesan Family Life/Respect Life Office.

“Parents are the fundamental teachers of their children—not the city government—and their religious and moral values, and the lessons they teach at home, should not be contradicted or interfered with by the government,” Mechmann said. “This mandate is utterly disrespectful of those rights.”

The new program is part of an effort by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases among young people, especially black and Hispanic teens, who have significantly higher rates of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases than other teens. It promotes so-called safe-sex practices, including the use of condoms, while misrepresenting abstinence and failing to promote it adequately, speakers said.

The press conference took place on the steps of City Hall. It was sponsored by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit organization in New York City that supports alternatives to abortion, and the World Youth Alliance, an international coalition of young people that promotes respect for the dignity of the person. Participating were representatives of more than a dozen organizations that work with young people.

CONTINUED AT:

www.cny.org/stories/Experts-Strongly-Criticize-New-York-City-Sex-Ed-Program,6008

[firstamendment]

Teaching moral and religious values will still occur at home, or rather SHOULD still occur at home. Teaching sex ed is not a religious nor a moral issue, it is that of biology and facts, as well as alerting kids to the dangers out there. Many times parents don't even know some of this information, so how does a parent teach a child what they don't even know?

There is nothing wrong with a sex ed program that presents factual information about sexually transmitted infections, pregnancies, etc... These are pertinent items teens would be better prepared before deciding to have sex. Simply giving them the facts is NOT promoting them to have sex. It is helping them make a more informed decision once they decide to. For anyone to suggest that a sex education program is promoting sexual activity is completely false. They can encourage abstinence and obviously abstinence is the safest way to prevent STI's and pregnancies, but schools have an obligation to consider reality. Reality is that not all teens will abstain. It is a fact that cannot be ignored. Because of this, why not teach them ways to protect themselves? To withhold this information or hope they figure it out is reckless and irresponsible to say the least.

Saying sex ed is promoting sexual activity is like saying that teaching someone Martial Arts for self defense purposes would be promoting them to go beat someone up. They are useful tools for people to be better informed and better prepared and that is a good thing.

[dgriffin]

FA wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a sex ed program that presents factual information about sexually transmitted infections, pregnancies, etc... These are pertinent items teens would be better prepared before deciding to have sex. Simply giving them the facts is NOT promoting them to have sex.

Agreed. But, I haven't seen the teaching materials so I don't know if the archdiocese's accusation is fair or not. I'll try to find a copy. The Least Harm Principle sometimes gets the upper hand in school environments because of a disinclination of schools to do their jobs.

[firstamendment]

The fact that Sex Ed is being taught at all typically is enough justification for churches to be up in arms over it. Believe me, with teenage kids of my own, I don't want them having sex either. But I also cannot have blind faith praying they don't. Ideally, kids aren't having sex. Realistically, some are. We live in reality and have to prepare for such reality. I am Catholic and I understand where they Church is coming from in regards to abstinence and wanting kids to abstain. But their fight is with the kids and trying to promote abstinence among them, not a fight with the schools.

Perhaps the Church has issue with something in the actual course curriculm, can't say until we see exactly. But if any logically thinking adult considers what school and education is, it is preparing our youth for adulthood and the rest of their lives. And it is virtually guaranteed sexual activity will be part of those lives.

BTW, how does one "teach" abstinence other than to say don't have sex until marriage?

[virgilgal]

My daughter just started her 4th year teaching 2nd grade in a very low income school just south of Atlanta. She found last year's class to be over the top in EVERYTHING! Some were sexually active and she intercepted many graphically sexual notes being passed between class members. Her school is about 60% Hispanic and 40% African American and there were gang events that extended to the lower grades including her class last year. I hope this is not representative of all schools, but it must be representative of many in certain types of areas. This kind of leaks into Swimmy's thread about Liars. How do we respond and teach children who are growing up in environments where parents are not involved for so many reasons. Many of the families in her school only speak Spanish and she tries to use her limited Spanish skills to communicate basic concepts but how does such education happen so that everyone has at least baseline information if not through the schools? I am grateful that we are perhaps moving back more toward biologically based information; it's a much scarier world out there than when we were in school!

[Deleted]

The church is constantly hung up on the use of condom's. They see it as sinful. It prevents the sperm from fertilizing an egg. Which is its purpose. Within marriage I can understand the churches stance on its non use. For children who are experimenting with sex it is necessary. Heard a lady along with her daughter and four grand children telling another lady that the children are her daughters. She started having babies at 14 years old and her mother approves of this. I guess one see's and hears the stories of life from the real people of Utica when taking a bus.

[JGRobinson]

Condom junction whats your function, blocking those spermies and keeping you from becoming Mom! How about sexual Education on Sesame Street?

Im certain some locals are much more in need than others for this type of education. Truly, it is the parents responsibility to teach their children morals and ethics when it comes to sexual conduct, not the school!

The Catholic Churches teachings and others are not my concern because Im not a Catholic. On the other hand. Schools Subjugating the rights of parents and the teachings of church doctrine seems illegal. The Separation of church and state was actually devised to prohibit the state from enacting any law that would deny the rights of citizens to practice religion without being harassed or regulated.

None of the Catholics teaching discussed in reference to sexual education are illegal in this state, teaching anything that counters their religious beliefs is if it is taught to a Catholic Child without their parents permission.

This was one of the great founding arguments, we didnt want the Church of England, we wanted to choose our own God, church, beliefs and moral guidance. No state sponsored churches and no state interference in religious teachings and practice.

Im not against teaching children about all common diseases and the dangers pregnancy can hold for the baby and the Mother, or that when 14 year old children have sex, they can die from their decision, at the very least, they cannot afford the support for their offspring and therefore should not have any.

Taking that conversation to the pleasure zone is completely inappropriate in a public school system. Graphic illustrations and advanced sexuality is not a thing that every person is ready to talk about at any age, it should be the parents decision.

[dgriffin]

I cannot speak for the Catholic Church, not now being an active member of it. And it's true their doctrine regarding reproduction and birth control methods is certainly not mainline thinking with most people, neither is it popular with most Catholics I'd guess.

But I have to give them credit for speaking their mind. In fact it's refreshing to see a large denomination tell the the state (or city) they're wrong. In today's America, I have to respect a religion that doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks nor that their congregations are dwindling.

I would guess the Archdiocese of New York is not fighting the esoteric Condom/Sperm battle. They know they've lost that one in the schools and no doubt they are just as interested in Harm Reduction as the educators. But I think this battle is about not giving proper weight to abstinence.
I haven't found a copy of the materials yet, but I'd guess the Church thinks the SexEd curriculum does not present abstinence as a viable alternative that is not only possible but has definite physical and psychosocial benefits. I.e., abstinence may be presented, but it is not being "sold" and the Church feels there is ample medical evidence to justify a more aggressive presentation of abstinence.

[firstamendment]

I, too, am Catholic, Dave. I understand the Church's position on the issue. However, that said, religion is separate from public school curriculm and for good reason. Not everyone in the public shares those same beliefs and values. When a faith is allowed entry into schools, it gives preferential treatment to a particular religion and such is barred in the Constitution. But, you do make the case very well, that abstinence is not necessarily a "religious" tenet and therefore this story is not religion related. The only aspect related to religion IMHO is only in that the group making the case is a religious organization.

Instead of outright trying to remove sex ed from schools, a better approach is allowing parents to consent to that content, allowing or not allowing their kids to take the class. I believe some school districts actually do this. I think Herkimer might because I thought I remembered something about it, but I could be wrong.

And lets not forget, the school has available some better and more qualified resources than the typical parent out there. Our household is a bit better qualified than many since my wife worked as a nurse for a Planned Parenthood for several years. Her knowledge and experience on the subject matter is not typical of most households however. But even with that said, I do believe they still took sex ed because there are things out there now my wife might not have known about several years ago.

There is no debating the effectiveness of abstinence. If one is not having sexual intercourse, one is not getting pregnant nor contracting diseases or infections. There really isn't much more to teach. I do agree though that the schools should encourage abstinence. Encourage it. There is no harm in that at all. Perhaps even bringing in real people who have suffered consequences of having teenage sex would be helpful. People who have become underage parents or contracted nasty infections. I'm not talking about a shock and awe campaign, but show real life cases of what can happen. From there, the kids are making their own INFORMED decisions. Abstain or at the very least know how to protect yourself. If they ignore everything taught to them, the school can at least say they tried. Because at the end of the day, kids and people are going to do what they do anyway.

Also keep in mind, the more you tell kids not to do something the more they want to. I think it is better to let them be afraid of what they might catch rather than simply telling them no don't do this.

[dgriffin]

My children attended public schools and I remember their sex eduction curriculum to be rational. From what I knew of it, such was true in the two schools where I worked in the 1990's, one as a teacher. However, since that time ... the 80's and 90's ... I've seen a growing permissiveness creeping into more families. Of course, it would be more noticeable to me as I age, but I see many of the flower children of previous generations bringing up their children to be quite loose in what we at one time called "morals." There are parents who allow sex between their 14 year old daughter and her boyfriend at home, going out to the movies so the young couple can have their privacy.

That's their right and let's hope in some manner it all contributes to the continuing march of evolution.
But we now have many of these people in positions of influence in the public sphere ... news media, film, schools, churches, etc. What school program some of us would not have bothered to investigate years ago because "it couldn't be that bad" today deserves our attention. And since the opinions of the trend-setters are not any more important than ours, we should speak up when we feel they have gone beyond where we think they should have stopped.

That said, I have no knowledge of what the NY City School system is teaching or what the Archdiocese of New York objects to. But I think it is certainly the Church's right to speak their mind. And if they are totally against condoms as a policy, for example, , I am not with them. But if they are saying that those responsible for the SexEd Curriculum have done a disservice to the alternative of abstinence, then I would read the materials myself and possibly see their point. I'm still looking for the curriculum materials.

[Clipper]

In our younger days Dave, I am sure that the church was simply against condoms as birth control, and it obviously was a church policy well adhered to in our day, as is evidenced by some of the large Catholic families that we grew up with.

Now I am sure that their focus is more pointed in the direction of abstinence as a moral issue and as the alternative that should be followed by youth. No sex, no disease, no pregnancy, no need for condoms. It is a simple issue from a religious point of view. However public schools now deal with STD's, sometimes reaching almost epidemic proportion in some instances, as well as increasing numbers of teen pregnancy.

It is my own opinion that there is a fine line between a school providing information to kids that should be the responsibility or right of the parents, and the school contributing to the prevention of STD's and pregnancy among very young people. There was an instance here locally a year or so ago where there was a group of middle school kids that were having group oral sex. An after school party was busted at the home of a kid whose parents both worked, which left the home open to such activity after school and before the parents returned from work. No telling how long it went on before being brought to light and stopped. Now THERE is a great way to insure EVERYONE in the group gets the herpes that one of those kids may be afflicted with. SOMEBODY'S parents most likely had not thoroughly covered the subject of STD's spread by oral sex.

Where does the line get drawn between what is in the interest of public health, and teen pregnancy prevention, and the rights and responsibility of parents?

[dgriffin]

Well, I presume the argument would be over the emphasis given to various solutions covered in a school's SexEd curriculum. There is no way the Catholic Church is going to talk a school district into NOT recommending condoms, nor should it in my opinion. Next up is abstinence (in no particular order) and the question becomes is the curriculum giving it due emphasis as a real choice that has a number of medical and psychosocial advantages? Or does the curriculum all but dismiss abstinence as something one may have to consider only when they can't find a condom.

[firstamendment]

The Church's position with respect sexual relations is that it is reserved for married couples. Always has been. It has always been an act of conception rather than how society looks at it. I understand their position but in this day and age it is no longer widely accepted nor practiced.

By default, abstinence is the unspoken choice. If you don't want to get pregnant and/or contract a disease, don't have sex. Without even stating the word "abstinence" it is already an implied choice. It is not automatic just because kids are taught sex ed that they will have underage sex. I think it is a false conclusion to make between education and promotion. These days my kids were taking a Holocaust class. Would teaching them about how the Nazis tried to eradicate the Jews be promoting Genocide?

Without seeing what the Church is actually up in arms about, it is hard to see if there is validity in their claims or if they are simply splitting hairs.

[dgriffin]

FA: "Without seeing what the Church is actually up in arms about, it is hard to see if there is validity in their claims or if they are simply splitting hairs.

Agree.


FA: "Without even stating the word "abstinence" it is already an implied choice. It is not automatic just because kids are taught sex ed that they will have underage sex. I think it is a false conclusion to make between education and promotion.

I'm not sure I understood your point(s). Agree that teaching SexEd does not create sex-crazed
adolescents. They're created that way by nature. But I don't think anyone is arguing that. Unless I miss your point.

[firstamendment]

Well some believe that teaching sex ed is giving approval or promoting kids to engage in sexual activity. I believe that is a false conclusion to make. Many groups who have been in opposition to sex ed have held that education = promotion conclusion, including Churches.