Sex Ed, LGBT-Friendly Curricula Should Be Norm in Schools
By Eunice Kim, Section Editor
At a time when many American parents see sex education as inappropriate and “enabling” for teenagers, Montgomery County, MD, has decided to expand its education program in a way that is sure to further inflame conservative critics. The country has chosen to incorporate “Lessons on Homosexuality” into its curriculum for eighth and 10th graders, noticeably advancing the “frontier” of sexual education. The supplementary lessons include teaching students how to put on a condom (nothing new), instructions on living a healthy gay lifestyle and, of course, a focus on common respect regardless of sexual orientation.

Needless to say, these additions promise to further stoke the flames of controversy over sex ed. While the addition to the regular sex ed program includes two 45-minute lessons, for a large proportion of middle school and high school parents, that is 90 minutes too much. Currently, Montgomerty County officials are waging a bitter struggle against opposition from a minority of school administrators and a majority of stressed parents who are, unsurprisingly, furious that their children will be educated about an activity still widely deemed to be sinful. In fact, in a recent survey, 50 percent of high school parents said that if homosexuality is to be even referenced in a classroom, it should only be to declare whether it is moral or immoral. Clearly, the school district of Montgomery County has a difficult road ahead of it. Unfortunately, before cutting-edge programs like this can become the norm in schools, the mentality of the American parent requires a good deal of work.

At a basic level, many parents, even in a progressive state like Maryland, still feel threatened by a school that is tolerant of homosexuality, possibly from the fear that exposure to this alternative lifestyle, in any form, could corrupt their children’s morals. The root of the problem here is that homosexuality, even in the most liberal communities, is still viewed as somehow “X-rated,” something to giggle and blush over. For this reason, the Montgomery County school district’s approach does not go far enough. If the goal is to teach high school students that homosexuality is normal, then why is discussion of the LGBT experience restricted to sex ed? Is homosexuality a topic that dwells solely in the realm of sex and privacy and condoms and all those other uncomfortable topics? Or is it something broader, something that ought to be discussed freely in English classes, history classes, science classes and that should be perceived as a normal lifestyle of human attraction, just as heterosexuality is? The latter is the far more egalitarian approach.

To be sure, the Montgomery County school district deserves praise for promoting respect and unity, but such things should not be restricted to sex ed. Whom one loves is all-encompassing, and should be referred to naturally without any discomfort or forced privacy. Sexuality is important, but sexual identity is more than simply who a person wants to have sex with. Such topics cannot be covered in 45 minute lectures. Of course, the reaction of many parents to such a change would make the apoplexy at the current program seem like mild unhappiness by comparison. That is why its quite as important to educate parents about tolerance as it is to educate kids about sex.

Firstly, it is important to make people aware that homosexuality does not go hand in hand with promiscuity. This fact should not be too hard to accept. Furthermore, parents need to understand that shielding their children from alternative sexual orientations will not keep them straight. If they are genuinely attracted to others of their gender, being kept in the dark will only lead to confusion and anguish.

Finally, to benefit homosexual and heterosexual teenagers alike, it is important to fight the dangerous delusion that underlies all opposition to modern sex ed—that teenagers who are not given condoms, and are kept ignorant of “the birds and the bees” will not have sex. This is the worst type of nonsense, an outdated belief that leads to practical harms. Parents ought to be aware that no matter how often abstinence is heralded in the home and in school, no matter how much talk there is of God and the evils of STDs and teen pregnancy, it is not likely to be enough to hold back a hormonal teenager from becoming sexually active. Put simply, American parents must be skeptical of Junior’s good judgment, and allow schools to take concrete steps to head off the consequences of teen sex, whether STDs or pregnancies. Preaching abstinence must combine with supporting students who are not abstinent with condoms and birth control. When parents form a reasonable consensus around these generally tolerant and enlightened beliefs, we will finally have a sex education model that will work for everyone. Given the vitriol of the spat over Montgomery County’s initiative, don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.

Issue 02, Submitted 2008-09-10 02:40:03