Sex in the Classroom

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Sex education has become the most hotly debated topic in American elementary education. In recent months, a carefully orchestrated campaign led by political conservatives has embroiled one school district after another across the nation in angry argument over sex courses. State legislatures have argued the subject; school-board and P.T.A. meetings have been disrupted by angry opponents of sex education, who have sometimes labeled its advocates Communist sympathizers and proponents of "psychological VD." The nationwide offensive against sex education was a major topic at this month's annual convention of the National Education Association, which passed a resolution strongly reaffirming its support for the courses.

The attack on sex education began last fall with the publication of an angry little pamphlet called "Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?" This diatribe was produced by the Christian Crusade of Tulsa, a right-wing, anti-Communist organization headed by Fundamentalist Preacher Billy James Hargis. The pamphlet focused on the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S., a non-profit health organization that advises schools on sex-education courses. The council's director, Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a nationally recognized authority on sex education, was accused of "tossing God aside . . . to teach American youth a new sex morality independent of church and state," and of telling young people about "their right to enjoy premarital intercourse . . . if they so desire."

Filthy Plot. The Crusade's crusade was quickly taken up by the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, decided that sex education was a "filthy Communist plot," akin to community fluoridation plans. So far, communities in 35 states have become embroiled in disputes over sex courses, inspired by such colorfully named parents' organizations as Sanity of Sex (S.O.S.), Parents Against Universal Sex Education (PAUSE), and the Movement to Restore Decency (MOTOREDE). Although the unsubtle hand of the Christian Crusade and the Birch Society can be detected in most of these groups, the campaign against sex education has enlisted the support of many concerned citizens without right-wing affiliations who oppose the courses on religious or psychological grounds.

Opponents of sex education raise a wide variety of charges--some plausible, some not--against the courses. At the lowest level, the attacks consist of nothing more than innuendoes that the teachers involved are degenerates eager to seduce youngsters into a life of blatant immorality. A more serious argument is that such courses are too specific, too early and too stimulating. Miami Psychiatrist James Parsons, for example, actively opposes any sex education in primary schools because "there is a latency period, between the age of six and the time of puberty, of sexual interest." Forcing sex education on children in this period can cause them to "become overstimulated and obsessed" and can "produce perversion in adults." Still other critics of the courses argue that the schools are illicitly taking over an educative function that properly belongs in the home or with the churches.

Supporters of sex courses include an impressive variety of medical, religious and governmental groups. While they are in agreement that the basic responsibility for teaching children about sex rests with parents, many educators add that too many parents have abdicated their responsibilities, because of incompetence or neglect. Answering persistent complaints that the courses prematurely draw attention to sex, Dr. Calderone points out: "Sex is so intrusive and our culture is so permeated with sexual messages that planned and relevant sex-education programs are vital now." As for Parsons' argument about the latency period, she argues that "sex is so ubiquitous now that the child is getting sexual information from the time of birth."

According to a recent Gallup poll, 71% of adult Americans approve of sex education in one form or another. Under the concerted conservative attack, the programs are being questioned and even halted in many areas. Notably, boards of education in three California cities have been sued because of sex courses by citizen groups charging invasion of privacy. Legislators in Arizona, California, Iowa, New Jersey, New York and Oklahoma have recently debated the merits of sex-education programs. Last May, New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller approved a conservative-backed law withholding state funds from sex education courses, and a similar bill has been proposed in Congress to withhold federal monies. Tennessee has adopted a new law making it a misdemeanor for a teacher to present sex courses without prior approval of both the state government and local boards of education.

Health and Development. The very term "sex education" is a trifle misleading, because almost all programs include sex courses only as part of a broader study of health and human development. To be sure, the courses and their teachers vary considerably both in quality and competence. Typically, the programs include study of family living, growth, hygiene and, in the higher grades, responsible social behavior, the hazards of indiscriminate relationships and premarital sex, as well as basic facts about the reproductive system and its purpose. In many schools, parents can request that their children not participate.

The strongest opposition to sex courses comes from the middleaged; more often than not, it reflects their discontent with the changes taking place in a world different from that in which they grew up. The schools, for their part, are obviously not responsible for creating today's sexual revolution; they are merely trying to help students cope with it. To eliminate these courses is to deny many children access to essential knowledge that can ease their difficult psychic transition from adolescence to adulthood.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.