X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:54:32 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: AIDS Wars

Jason (I'm beginning to forget what we were arguing about, but I'm not
going to let a minor detail like that stop me :))

you said:
>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.
>
>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).

Well, this view seems to stem from a mistaken notion about education: that
each subject (reading, writing, math, history, etc.) is completely
separated and isolated from the others.  Under that model, we would indeed
have to make choices about what topics to cover and which to delete.
However, that's not the way it works -- at least not in all schools.  A
number of educational models allow the integrated teaching of multiple
"subjects" -- so, for example, reading comprehension is integrated with all
subjects requiring reading.  Similarly, sex ed can be integrated with
reading, writing, social studies, science, etc.  Believe me, time is not
the problem.

>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.

OK, now we're getting a little more concrete.  You're suggesting, then,
that if we abolish sex ed, we see the following:  (1) advantage =
reinfusion of moral values (taken from the paragraph below) and (2)
disadvantage = a few people in trouble.

>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.

Let's look at the status quo briefly:  some sex ed is taught -- not very
uniformly and not necessarily well.  At the same time, we have one of the
highest rates of teenage pregnancy in developed countries, and an
increasing incidence of AIDS and other STD's, especially in urban inner-
cities.

Now, we change the status quo as you propose.  Parents become responsible
for teaching contraception and sexual hygiene; schools teach nothing but a
little anatomy and physiology.  You contend that:

1)  Shifting responsibility for education to the parents will decrease the
number of unwanted pregnancies and STD/s.

2)  Only a very few people will be unable to carry out their
responsibilities; their inability to do so is entirely the result of their
own decision not to learn.

Now, what kind of evidence can we bring to bear on this?  We can consider
what is known about the environmental influences on education -- all the
evidence suggests that many factors outside an individual's control
influence an individual's ability to learn.  You deny this.  We can also
look at other countries -- todddddd has posted information suggesting that
countries with strong sex ed programs have lower rates of teen pregnancy
and STDs than we do.

Both lines of evidence suggest that your assessment of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of changing the status quo are incorrect.
In fact, they suggest that removing sex ed entirely (except for the A&P)
from public schools will *increase* the number of teen pregnancies and
STD's.

What about the "infusion of moral values"?  What benefit would that bring?
Presumably fewer people would choose to engage in premarital intercourse.
I don't know about this.  According to last month's Harper's, 1 in 6 women
seeking abortions call themselves Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians.
Those data might be inaccurate (Missy J?).  This suggests that teaching
your kids "Christian values" will not always have the desired effect.

More importantly, the bit about "moral values" begs the larger question of
why people have intercourse in the first place.  Sometimes it's for sheer
physical pleasure; sometimes it's an expression of emotional committment.
But for some women, it's the only bargaining chip they have to trade for
protection, socioeconomic status, financial support for themselves and
their children, etc.  If you really want to alter sexual behavior patterns,
you need to address this larger issue.

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

Huh?????   They *may* represent a relatively small fraction of the U.S.
population (we saw earlier some figures on literacy -- 20% of U.S. adults
can't read at the 3rd grade level).  But those individuals tend to be
concentrated in inner cities and rural areas.  In those places, they are *
not* few and far between.

Let me ask you a simple question:  Suppose we remove sex ed from the public
schools entirely, as you propose.  We'll still have teenage pregnancy and
STDs.  What do you propose we should do with those "few and far between"
folks?

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