Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:02:00 EST
From:         the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

jasonz sayz:
Kerry:
>>I'm all for teaching people to read, and if the school system is SO horrible
>>that it isn't even succeeding in doing something as simple as that, I don't se
   e
>>how we can even THINK about expanding the curriculum beyond the three Rs.
>>Unless you think that sex ed is as important as reading.

>We were discussing sex ed as a way of providing people with the information
>they need.  Much of the educational system needs reform -- the three Rs are
>important, as are other areas of knowledge.

I'll grant that the educational system needs reform, but if it is, as you
suggest, such a collossal failure that it is churning out a significant number
of students who cannot even read after 10 years of school, then I would say
that we're facing such a massive crisis that we can't afford to waste time on
"periferal" subjects like sex ed.

        thing is, its not a peripheral subject.  it is something that is
        having immense impact on a huge number of people's lives right
        now.  there is a massive crisis, especially in inner city schools.
        its hard to educate people, tho, when they've dropped out of school
        to take care of the kid.

Maybe our educational philosophies are different, but I think that the three Rs
ought to be the foundation of schooling.  Once those subjects are mastered,
THEN we can talk about introducing other subjects.  But if our schools can't
handle reading to your satisfaction, then we should redouble our efforts on
that front instead of spreading our educational resources too thin (time itself
is limited, after all).

        our educational resourses are already spread too thin.  what is
        necessary is a huge influx of resources, and an education that
        takes into account the students' needs, not just the canonical
        "fundamentals" of education.

>To reiterate, then:  It's better to tell a teen with AIDS "tough luck, you
>chose the wrong parents" than to try to do everything you can to prevent
>them from contracting the disease in the first place.

No, no, no.  Its been so long since we started on this issue, I think I should
reiterate my main point.  I am contending that the disadvantages of abolishing
sex ed are outweighed by the advantages.  As I see it, the main disad is that a
few people will get themselves into some type of trouble.  Clearly, the weight
of this disad is determined by how many people get pregnant or contract an STD,
which I think is what we were discussing.

Yes, a few people will wind up with some type of trouble if sex ed is
abolished.  Any change in the status quo usually hurts somebody.  However, I
believe that the advantages (reinfusion of moral values w/o state interference)
outweighs the disadvantage of a handful of people getting themselves into
trouble.  I say "a handful" because I think we've agreed that these people are
either illiterate or incredibly isolated from society.  Since such people are
few and far between, I think that the balance favors the abolition of sex ed.
Of course, you still contend otherwise since you think that there are a lot of
illiterates out there.

        nonsense.  if only a "handful" of people were getting in "trouble,"
        abortion wouldn't be an issue.  this is a BIG problem already.
        keeping sex-ed out of school only worsens an already bad situation.

I support taking steps to prevent the spread of AIDS such as mailers and the
like (which is what started this side-debate in the first place).  I just don't
want such instruction to take place in the moral vaccuum of our public schools.
Educating adults to pass info on to children is fine.  Teaching children this
info in a context to which their parents would object is not.

        nope.  a moral vacuum is exactly what the school should strive for.
        that way, when the parents teach the kids the morals they want to
        teach, it won't conflict with the schools morals.  but the kids
        (all of them) will still get the info they need to make responsible
        decisions.

BTW, you said you teach in New Mexico, right?  I don't know about your area
schools in particular, but I know that in my home town (which is pretty
conservative socially), most people would agree with me that much of what
currently passes for sex ed should be kept out of the public schools.  Maybe
the citizens of your town disagree, which is why education should be conducted
at as local a level as feasible.  I know you never maintained otherwise, but I
want to make that clear for others dropping into this conversation halfway
through.

>>Practically all parents are able to adequately carry out their duties specifie
   d
>>in #1.  Of course, not all parents are equally skilled, but I think that most
>>are good enough.  Originally I would have said "all," but your example about
>>people who are oblivious to the existance of public libraries prevents me from
>>doing so now.  I still maintain that someone this ignorant could also not be
>>trusted to carry out many other parental duties (such as providing the proper
>>diet to an infant).  These people are, I believe, hopeless.

>Amazing.  Now, you're probably aware that these "hopeless" people *do* have
>kids, and *are* being trusted to carry out parental duties.  What do you
>suggest we do with them?  I can hardly wait to find out.

Again, remember that I'm weighing costs against benefits.  These hopeless
people are few and far between.

        these "hopeless people" are nowhere near few, but they don't get
        into competitive schools.  that way, people like you can think that
        they don't exist, or are some freak minority, because they are not
        in your face all the time.

If many people are getting out of school without even the fundamentals of an
education, then I think we should reiterate those fundamentals in our schools.
For the illiterates who are already out of school, most counties already offer
remedial courses for adults.  If the problem is as large as you say it is,
these programs certainly ought to be expanded to allow these adults the ability
to function in society, as well as teach their children.  I don't think I ever
maintained otherwise.  I'm pretty sure I mentioned this to MacPhil a few days
ago, but its been so long, I don't really remember either. :)

        jason, i taught at temple university for a bit.  one of the courses
        i taught was Comp 50, your basic frosh composition class.  this was
        not the remedial class for the wholly illiterate.  however, a large
        number of my students were incapable of constructing a coherant
        sentence (they tended toward being neither grammatical nor under-
        standable).  they were also incapable of critical thought, because
        it was never taught them.  some of my students brought their kids
        to class.  others missed class a lot because of their kids. believe
        me, the problem is not so isolated as you think.

        as an undergrad, i went to a mostly white school.  as a grad student,
        i had to re-evaluate many of my positions, because they didn't
        hold up to the reality that i faced every day when i stood up in
        front of my class and tried, one more time, to explain what a
        comma was for...

        brni
>Kerry

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU