X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:54:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

>From: the anti-elvis <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>
>>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.

I think the ability to read may have more impact on one's life than sex ed.
After all, the country survived for centuries without sex ed, but I doubt it
could last so long without a literate electorate.

>>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.

What we're discussing is an impact of a change in the status quo.  Since Kerry
and I apparently agree that abolishing sex ed would only hurt people whose
parents are illiterate, and since I think those people are so few in number,
only a handful would be hurt by the change.

>>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.

If you want your child to learn in a moral vaccuum, be my guest.  But don't
force the same education (or lack thereof) on my child.  This was the whole
point of my argument to begin with.

As far as a moral vaccuum not conflicting with morals taught at home, I still
disagree.  Remember that a vaccuum tends to suck everything away into it.
Especially when we're dealing with impressionable children, I believe it to be
impossible, based on my own experience, to divorce moarlity from value-ladden
issues without implying that that a lack of morality is okay.  I posted a much
more detailed form of this argument a while back, and no one refuted it, so I
thought we had all agreed on this, or had at least agreed to disagree.

>        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.

I wonder why it is that left-wingers like yourself seem to think you have a
monopoly on experience with non-millionaires.  This is the first summer of my
life that I haven't worked on the farm.  Between our workers, neighboring
farmers, and all the mechanics, etc I've worked with, I think I've met a fair
number of people who are not as well educated as I am.  However, I have never
met anyone who could not read.

I also attended a rural high school.  It wasn't as bad as some I've read about
in the Bronx, but it wasn't that great either.  Still, I never met anyone there
who couldn't read.

Maybe things are different outside the heartland.  Maybe that's becuase our
schools emphasise the fundamentals and don't waste time on expansive sex ed
courses....

If others schools around tthe country are as bad as you claim, I wish them luck
in improving.  Please don't try to tell me, though, that I am unfamiliar with
the educational opportuinites of my own area.

>        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.

Clearly, their schools didn't do a very good job.  However, that's not what
Kerry and I were discussing.  These people you're talking about aren't Rhodes
Scholars, but they are literate enough to teach their kids about sex and STDs.
We were discussing people who are truly illiterate and/or oblivious to the
existance of libraries.

>        brni


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