newjerseynewsroom.com

BY SUSIE WILSON

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

SEX MATTERS

It’s not every day that I get to challenge the views of a Princeton professor and doctoral student—and about sex education at that. I wonder if it’s because I wore orange and black, the University colors, to a recent party, and the fates took matters into their own hands.

I learned that a gauntlet had been thrown down when I got an e-mail from my sister. She wrote, “Be sure to read the op-ed piece on sex ed by Robert George in today’s Times. Thought that Princeton was more forward thinking.”

I read “Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights,” which George, a professor of politics and founder of the conservative American Principles Project, coauthored with Melissa Moschella, a doctoral candidate in political theory. Both work at Princeton, and although we live cheek by jowl in the same town, our views on sex education couldn’t be further apart.

George and Moschella oppose the new mandate for sex education in New York City public middle and high schools, which began this year as part of a initiative to improve the lives of black and Latino students in the district. They believe that the mandate “promotes a certain sexual ideology among the young as much as it…protect[s] their health” and usurps parents’ rights to educate their children according to their own sexual values and religious beliefs.

I presume that George and Moschella believe that this “certain sexual ideology” will result in instruction that encourages young people to have sex—an argument I’ve heard repeatedly over the years from opponents of comprehensive sex education. It has never been proven correct.

30 years ago, I was involved in the struggle to adopt a sex education mandate in New Jersey public schools when I was a member of the New Jersey State Board of Education.

The Commissioner of Health asked us to consider a statewide mandate for sex education for all students, because of the then-rising rates of unplanned teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Some local school district had adopted programs, but many had not because of the intense controversy spurred by opponents.

After much study and listening to the testimony of parents, teachers, administrators, school board and community members, teens, and even politicians, we passed the mandate. The controversy that raged was fierce, but the board eventually succeeded in its mission.

George and Moschella weren’t at Princeton 30 years ago when conservative groups (with freighted names like Concerned Women of America and Citizens for New Jersey) made many of the same arguments in as they do against the sex education mandate.

Frankly, I think their arguments are old wine in new bottles.

Conservative opponents to sex education invariably use scare tactics to make their points—and the authors are no exception. They ask parents of putative middle-school students how they would feel if as a part of a discussion on the risk of STDs, their children are “given ‘risk cards’ that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts.”

A question like this one can bring all sorts of scary, graphic images to parents’ minds and is designed to scare them into asking for the removal of particular lessons from the curriculum. George and Moschella add that “no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is ‘neutral’ between competing views of morality…”

Playing the masturbation card—a favorite scare tactic of conservative opponents of sex ed—is pretty much out-of-date. Most people accept the practice, and know that it isn’t harmful but, in fact, safer than unprotected sex.

Opponents also attempt to discredit sex education by claiming that it undermines parents’ rights to educate their own children about sex. George and Moschella view parents as a monolithic group, which is a mistake. A friend’s comment aptly expresses my view: “[They] made the extremely presumptive statement that most parents wouldn’t want their children to learn about the topics included in the New York City curriculum. Says who?”

The authors neglect to mention polls that show that most adults support sex education programs by wide margins. And they are in for a surprise if they think their piece will galvanize parents to demand a more spacious “opt out” policy. (Perhaps in the spirit of the day, they are hoping for an “Occupy the Schools’ Chancellor Office” movement.) Yet only a tiny fraction of parents in most school districts opt their children out of certain sex ed lessons.

The sex ed policy in New York City only lets parents remove their children from instruction about birth control and contraception, which George and Moschella argue is too narrow. I am against any “opt out” provision—especially given that our children will inherit a world where STDs like AIDS rage on. They must know how to fully protect themselves, and sex education is the first line of defense for public health. Most parents want their children to learn how to stay sexually healthy and understand that teachers can deliver unbiased, accurate information better than they can.

George and Moschella do not mention young people’s right to sexuality education. Over the years, I’ve heard opponents of sex education argue that the needs of minors should not be considered. They argue, as George and Moschella do, that parental rights “provide a zone of sovereignty, a moral space to fulfill their obligations according to their consciences.”

Shouldn’t young people’s health and safety be at least equal to parents’ “sovereignty”?

I’ve heard too many young people say that their parents do not talk to them about sex. They say that without sex education, they must learn how to stay safe on their own, learning some information from friends or from their own experiences. Today, the Internet provides unlimited sexual health information, and if schools’ hands are tied, young people will simply go online for information, some of it incorrect and frightening.