At long last we arrive at Part 5 of a lengthy email exchange between me and a public high school censor—I mean, “educator”—who arrogates to himself the right to decide which ontological and moral views regarding homosexuality are true and life-giving, and then censors all competing views. 

Once again, we find leftists in government positions abusing the power and resources of government to promote their subjective beliefs. Conservatives are rightly outraged by the IRS’s abuse of power, but relatively few say anything about the abuse of power that takes place in our public schools with our most vulnerable and impressionable citizens: children. How is it more reprehensible for the IRS to target and in effect silence political groups that espouse conservative beliefs than it is for public schools to target and censor resources that espouse conservative beliefs? The fact that this teacher said he would never allow students to read the work of Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George is shocking. 

Citizens in every community should demand that their schools have explicit policy prohibiting teachers from presenting any resources on homosexuality (or gender confusion) unless they’re willing to spend equal time having students study resources from the best scholars on both sides of the debate. And presumptuous teachers like this Maine teacher should be required to post their commitments to censorship of conservative views on issues related to homosexuality on their faculty webpages on their school websites. Here goes…: 

Hi Laurie, it is telling to me that you refuse to visit the GLADD Commentator Accountability Project. Either the quotes attributed to you and your “scholars” are true or not. You don’t need me to cull the particular comments that are reprehensible in my estimation. You can do that on your own. You will recognize (indeed I think you already know) the filth that is expressed by so many of you. If there is anything scurrilous it is the plethora of hateful, bigoted commentary from so many on that site who, while presenting a Christian persona whenever invited to a national discussion still are saddled with the truth of their innate homophobia and willful attempts to denigrate gay people and especially (and most egregiously) gay kids who simply want nothing more than to be loved and appreciated for whom they are. 

I googled your name earlier this evening since I was not particularly familiar with you prior to our most recent exchanges. Laurie, you are dangerous and disturbed. You will ask me why I say that. So, once again, google yourself and you will come to know why I am of that opinion. I will devote my life to protecting kids from you and your messages and tactics. You seem oblivious to how the larger world perceives you. I said in an earlier post that your objective seems quite clear: convince the world that gay adults and kids are immoral and their dreams are immoral, too. Nothing I have read on-line or in your e-mails to me even remotely suggests that you believe differently. How can you expect me, a teacher to kids, to ignore the inherent harm you would willfully deliver to some children?  

As teachers we are charged with protecting our students from adults who would diminish them, threaten them, marginalize them. Academic freedom does not mean that you or anyone has the right, let alone freedom, to tell any gay kid that they are “disordered”.  

We started our conversations with you professing a love for your kid’s gay friends and others you know as gay. I find myself absolutely appalled that you would begin our conversations with such professions and then follow those comments up with such blatant expressions of disdain for those you know and any gay person whether you know them or not. Do you have no shame? I truly believe that you and so many like you have forgotten that every gay adult was, first, a gay child.  

Read the GLADD Commentator Accountability Project. You will then know that George and Anderson and everyone else on that list have no academic credentials that any responsible, caring and professional educator or educational institution would ever entertain as a reputable source of pedagogical vision.  

Laurie, I know that I have presented tough commentary in my e-mail to you. But I do not apologize for that. I have said from the very beginning of our shared dialogue that all kids, and particularly gay kids, are my primary concern. After two days of exchanges I believe you have no concern for kids. I do not believe that you love any gay child. Since you are a parent this must smart but your words and the words of many in your camp are your enemy.  

Laurie, I said earlier that I am comfortable and quite optimistic that It Gets Better is actually true for many, perhaps most gay kids today. I am cheered that so many indications suggest that justice and equality for gays is a driving force world-wide. It is sad to me that so many of you would so willingly castigate and denigrate gay persons and most especially gay children. But here is the silver lining in your hate. The world sees you and yours for what you are. Your words are you. It is a failing strategy most importantly because your naked aggression simply is not shared by decent citizens in the U.S. and worldwide (Russian blowback is a good example).  

R

---

R,  

I have no interest in what GLAAD has to say. I want you to defend your assertions with evidence, and once again you refuse. Why not simply copy and paste those quotes from Robert George that you believe are “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive” and “dangerous.” 

And please give one quote in which I express hatred for homosexuals. 

You have misquoted me: I did not say that kids who identify as homosexual are “disordered.” I said same-sex attraction is disordered. All humans experience disordered impulses or feelings, but those disordered feelings do not define them. Teens who experience same-sex attraction are much more than their sexual impulses. Furthermore, I don’t believe that in order to love people I have to affirm all of their feelings, beliefs, and life choices.

Once again, if my moral propositions are true, then expressing them is not hateful. You have no ethical right as a public servant paid by taxpayers to decide which ontological or moral propositions are unfit to present in schools and censor them. If your biased moral views are false, then expressing them is potentially dangerous and destructive. If your subjective beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality are wrong, you are harming children. I believe you are harming kids, promoting falsehoods that damage hearts, souls, and bodies. You have simply assumed yours are true and then use public resources to promote them. If you want to serve as an advocate for particular moral and political beliefs, censoring all viewpoints with which you disagree, go teach in a private school. Who are you to presume to be the ultimate arbiter between two competing visions of truth on this most controversial subject and then use public funds to censor dissenting visions?  

Your assertions about Robert George and Ryan Anderson are both presumptuous and preposterous. You laughably claim that George has no “academic credentials that any responsible, caring and professional educator or educational institution would ever entertain as a reputable source of pedagogical vision.” Tell that to Princeton University. Here is just a bit about George.

Laurie

---

Laurie, my interest is in protecting kids from dangerous people who, in public, present a false persona yet, out of the spotlight seek to diminish, negate and shame gay children. I will not countenance that. Remember, I said I now know you and I know George, Anderson and others. A Princeton Phd is good cover for a truly disturbed person. You, apparently, must access GLADD in order to understand me. Just as I would never use some of the vile terms directed at you, I will not even entertain, in print, any of the vile terms/expressions found on GLADD. Simply put, I don’t appreciate your friends; they are dangerous people who obsess about homosexuality in sinister and sick ways. When necessary, I will speak out in defense of kids against adults who seek their harm. 

R

---

R, 

Your steadfast refusal to provide even a single quote from either Robert George (who is not my friend, though I wish he were) or me suggests that even you may realize how silly or outrageous your claim that we are “deeply disturbed” and say “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive” and “dangerous” things. Your attempt to ennoble your refusal behind some spurious claim that you “will not even entertain, in print, any of the vile terms/expressions found on GLADD,” fails because neither I nor Robert George have said anything dangerous, abusive, disturbed or hateful. 

Here’s yet another really peculiar and contradictory claim of yours: You said that I present a “public, false persona” and yet “out of the spotlight seek to diminish, negate, and shame gay children.” That’s peculiar in that it was the private things I shared with you about my personal life that you said indicated I did not hate homosexuals. It is the very public things that I have written that you claim are “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive, dangerous” and “deeply disturbed.” Curiously, you refuse to cite the public statements that purportedly expose my hidden side.  

I too seek to protect children from the harm caused by dangerous, destructive, and false ideas. The difference is you’re using the power and resources of government to promote your subjective views and censor those with which you disagree. And that is both dangerous and un-American. 

I asked you earlier if you present any resources to your English classes at Freeport High School that address homosexuality and gender confusion. Surely, you can answer that. 

Laurie

---

Laurie, we’ve said all we need to say. 

R 

---

As further evidence—as if any were needed—that teachers use their positions to advance their personal beliefs, here is a news storyabout last spring’s graduation ceremony at Freeport High School in Maine, during which homosexual American Studies teacher and “gay-straight” alliance sponsor Rich Robinson preached:

[K]eynote speaker Rich Robinson, American Studies teacher at Freeport High, who sang and occasionally danced his way through a speech that used “The Wizard of Oz” as a metaphor for lessons in courage, intelligence and most importantly, heart….As a gay man, Robinson said, he used his own experience in courage to highlight the importance of staying true to yourself.

“You know me and you know what I am,” said Robinson. “But like the cowardly lion, I lacked the courage for too many years to be myself. This is a grand and glorious world that in part has to do with the diversity in people. As juniors, you learned about the importance of identity. One aspect of mine is most different from anybody here. I mustered the courage after many years to embrace that aspect of myself and with that has come a wonderful measure of self-respect and integrity in my community. What I wish for you is that when you leave us and go off into the great world, that you will come to know yourself and come to celebrate yourself.”

The homosexuality-affirming advocacy and commitment to censorship of teachers subsidized by federal, state, and local taxes likely sits well with “progressive” constituents, but perhaps not so well with conservatives.

**Parents**: If you are able either to homeschool your children or send them to Christian private schools, do so. Public schools dominated by presumptuous “educators” are becoming institutions of propaganda for sexual deviance.

And taxpayers with or without children in public schools: Have the courage to object to this usurpation of government-subsidized schools by homosexuality/gender confusion activists and their ideological allies.

Read more in this series:  Part 1         Part 2        Part 3         Part 4

 Stand with us 

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our staff, families and work are coveted.  Also, the promotion of our articles on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network is vital if we hope to spread the pro-family message.  And of course, your financial support is a huge part of our ability to be a strong voice for the here in the Land of Lincoln. 

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

This is the fourth part of an email exchange between a public high school teacher and sponsor of the “gay-straight alliance” in a high school in Maine, and me. In this part, he makes clear what he presumptuously views as his right to do in his taxpayer-funded position. He and all teachers who share his pedagogical philosophy should be required to post their philosophies on their faculty websites. And every school should have strict policy prohibiting the kind of censorship that this “educator” promotes. To learn more about this correspondence, please read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.  

Laurie, 

I did revisit this morning the GLADD Commentator Accountability Project and was horrified. Just about every person you suggested should be invited into schools to present a conservative position on homosexuality is on that list: Robert George, Ryan Anderson, yourself as I mentioned and dozens more, some of whom are familiar to me: Tony Perkins, Frank Schubert and the worst of the worst Bryan Fischer. It’s a regular rogues gallery of bigotry and homophobia. Needless to say no responsible teacher, administrator, superintendent or school committee, conservative or liberal would ever subject any student to the hateful, vile attitudes and opinions of any one of those people. I am surprised you would recommend even one of those people. You say you have never looked at this project on line yet you say your quoted comments are what you most likely said. Laurie, for your own sake you should check this out before you ever make any recommendations for responsible discussion leaders. In short I believe that the ugly comments quoted on this site are the truth of yours and other’s positions. They are appalling, deeply offensive and absolutely dangerous for children. These comments are child abuse and have no place in a civil, polite environment of a school. 

First, you are factually incorrect: Of the names you mentioned the only ones I recommended were Robert George and Ryan Anderson. I’m not “dissing” the other names you mentioned. I’m simply pointing out your inaccurate statement. Additionally, I didn’t recommend George and Ryan be invited to schools (although that’s a fantastic idea). I recommended that students be exposed to their work. And I did not recommend that students read my articles or that schools invite me in. I’m interested in neither. I recommended students be exposed to the ideas you and I have been debating. 

If teachers are going to have students study texts like The Laramie Project, Rent, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Angels in America or essays like “American Things” by Tony Kushner, in which non-objective  “progressive” views of homosexuality are espoused, they should have an opportunity to study competing ideas. 

Second, please provide quotes from Robert George and Ryan Anderson that are objectively “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive” and “dangerous.” You shouldn’t from your biased position, unilaterally declare that your opinions are factual and serve as valid justification for censorship in public schools. 

Third, your claim that “no responsible teacher, administrator, superintendent or school committee, conservative or liberal would ever subject any student to the hateful, vile attitudes and opinions of any one of those people….These comments are child abuse and have no place in a civil, polite environment of a school,” is not merely presumptuous, it’s un-American and dangerous. You have concluded that a certain set of propositions offends you and therefore you are censoring them, while at the same time promoting another set of propositions. That is pedagogically indefensible and threatens the essential principles of a truly free country. If you believe that students have no right to study the work of eminent scholars like Robert George and Ryan Anderson, then you have no right to expose them to the work of “progressives” who promote non-objective beliefs on arguably the single most controversial topic in America. You have no right to use public resources (i.e., public education) to act as an advocate for particular ontological, moral, and political views—views which, by the way, often align with and reflect liberal theological views.  

I hope you recognize that many people would find your subjective opinions bigoted, hateful, offensive, ignorant, appalling, and dangerous. Just because you don’t like a viewpoint doesn’t mean it’s bigoted, hateful, vile, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive, or dangerous.

And what do you mean by “homophobic”? I don’t know anyone who has a fear—irrational or otherwise—of homosexuals. Having moral views different from yours on the morality of homosexual acts does make one “phobic” or hateful. Are those who believe polyamory is immoral “polyphobes”? Are those who believe consensual adult incest is immoral “incestaphobes”? Are those who find sadomasochism morally objectionable “sadomasophobes”? Are those who find the beliefs and practices of theologically orthodox Christians wrong “theoorthophobes”? 

This is yet another instance of “progressives” twisting language beyond recognition in order to ridicule those with whom they disagree into submission. What does the epithet “homophobe” really mean in “progressive” parlance? It means someone disagrees with your ontological and moral propositions. But name-calling is much more demagogically and, therefore, tactically effective. Name-calling obviates the need for rational, fair, free discourse and debate. Let’s just hope no one remembers that inconvenient “no name-calling” campaign sponsored by GLSEN. 

In your English classes, do you introduce students to any resources (e.g., novels, plays, poems, essays, films, speakers, or newspaper articles) that espouse “progressive” views of homosexuality or gender confusion? 

Your mission would appear to be global, to convince the world of your belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gay marriage is, too. While I will oppose you in in your endeavors, my more immediate focus is on protecting gay kids from the harm caused by homophobia and bigotry and supporting their dreams of a fulfilling life and, perhaps, marriage to someone they choose. I don’t believe that there are any reasonable, even rational points of view/beliefs that could convince a civil society to deny a gay child his/her promise of love, marriage and family. In fact it is nothing short of evil to me that any adult would seek to turn kids on kids let alone either overtly or intuitively deliver to them the message that they are immoral and should not expect a future of happiness. You will deny all this but, and again, we choose to disagree. 

Have you, yet, accessed the GLADD site. There is so much there that all you need to do is check it out and you will know what I mean by vile, hateful expressions. Read up on your “scholars” and you will see what I mean. BTW, I do very much believe that many on that site are very fearful of gay people; the obsession with gays and their sexual expressions is just too bizarre and not at all a sign of good mental health. We fear that which we tend not to understand let alone know. And we fear the power they wield. This is why I, for one, don’t fear you, any religious organizations or others in your camp. The sheer desperation exhibited in the attempts by these individuals and groups to change public opinion is very revealing of a tremendously diminished power.  

I’m curious why you won’t cite a single quote from Robert George or Ryan Anderson that you consider objectively “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive” and “dangerous.” I’m not interested in visiting the GLAAD website. Since you have made the, in my view, scurrilous claim that George and Anderson have made “bigoted, hateful, vile, homophobic, appalling, offensive, uncivil, impolite, abusive” and “dangerous” comments, I think it’s reasonable to ask you to provide evidence for such a claim. 

You put “scholars” in quotation marks when referring to George and Anderson. There really is no debate about whether they are scholars or not. They are objectively scholars. Are you suggesting now that any scholar who holds and expresses moral propositions or legal opinions different from yours is not really a scholar? That seems as presumptuous as claiming you have the unilateral right to decide which viewpoints kids will be exposed to in public schools. Should conservative graduate students be permitted to write dissertations that articulate theses with which you disagree? Would their academic credentials be withheld if you disagree with their theses? How does academic freedom fit into your apparently narrow pedagogical vision that brooks no dissent? 

I don’t know anyone who seeks to “turn kids on kids,” nor do I know anyone who tells kids that they “should not expect a future of happiness.” The future happiness of kids who experience same-sex attraction depends in part on which set of beliefs about homosexuality are true. If your beliefs are false— as I and others think they are—you are contributing to their future unhappiness. And I will repeat, you have no right to use public resources to promote your non-objective assumptions and censor those you don’t like.

That you would cite the It Gets Better project by Dan Savage who promotes the most perverse ideas (using the foulest, most uncivil language)and engages in the most malignant personal attacks on people undermines your claim to be motivated by a desire to protect students.

Laurie 

Coming Tomorrow: Part 5, the end of a dialogue that should incense taxpayers…

Read more in this series:  Part 1         Part 2        Part 3 

 Stand with us 

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our staff, families and work are coveted.  Also, the promotion of our articles on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network is vital if we hope to spread the pro-family message.  And of course, your financial support is a huge part of our ability to be a strong voice for the here in the Land of Lincoln. 

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Today we present Part 3 of an email exchange between a homosexual activist, who unfortunately is also a public high school teacher and sponsor of the “gay-straight alliance” in a high school in Maine, and me. He initiated an email exchange in which he reveals his commitment to use his taxpayer funded job to promote “progressive” views of homosexuality and censor all views with which he disagrees. To learn more about this correspondence, please read Part 1 and Part 2.  

Laurie, you asked me why I didn’t address concerns about a child’s right to his/her biological parents. I’m not sure the word “right” is really the issue. I, for one believe that a child who is with a loving mother and father is the optimum for rearing. No argument there. Now, having said that please tell me how you or anyone can guarantee that every child will have his/her mother and father and in a loving supportive family? I don’t think there is any vehicle to insure that this will always be the case. You and I both know the various constructs for a child and his/her family. For me, I would rather not waste time bemoaning that which exists and cannot be changed. If the word right is applicable it is, for me, a child’s right to a loving parent(s). In those 40 years I have had more than a few students with a gay couple as parents; most kids were adopted; some but not all were loved and well adjusted. This is my experience.

I am thankful that you didn’t throw out the chestnut: shouldn’t a human be able to marry their dog. When I read that, I know the rest is drivel. As for polyamorous, brother-sister whatever, I can certainly in my own mind argue why these arrangements are counter-productive and, indeed, harmful to some member of the construct but, really, I see no correlation between these and gay marriage. For me the ideal in marriage is that two people commit in love to support and protect one another and any children they may have. This includes a gay couple. Now, if someone wants access to polyamorous or whatever marriage let them argue their case in a court of law. Again, I and you have reasons to argue against this but, for me, gay marriage in no way applies.

When I refer to objective facts they are as follows:

• Homosexuality is not a choice.
• Homosexuality is a sexuality.
• Homosexuals are people.
• Homosexuals are, by definition, sexual.
• Homosexuality is not considered immoral by many nor the government. (Not objective, except that there are no enforceable laws that prohibit homosexuality.)
• Many consider homosexuality immoral for religious reasons. (Again, not objective)
• Marriage is a civil institution regulated by the state.
• Civil, federal and SCOTUS have applied civil, federal (constitutional) considerations to rulings regarding the right of gays to access civil marriage. This is still a work in progress.
• The net result is that civil gay marriage exists in some places in this country with all the state and federal protections contained therein.
• Religious or any other uncivil considerations of the morality of homosexuality and gay marriage carry no constitutional muster as determined by SCOTUS. 
• A gay kid knows that he can grow up, fall in love with another gay person and marry in this country.
• A married gay couple will receive full recognition, rights and responsibilities as any other married couple in the United States.
• Some Christians do not consider homosexuality and gay marriage as immoral. 

These are my facts that I believe to be true and that, in some cases, you seem to ignore as reality. Of course one man’s reality is another man’s delusion which is why it is so important that we are a nation of civil laws with judges to address them. 

First, I find it alarming that you don’t or won’t acknowledge that children have a right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. The fact that society can’t or doesn’t perfectly protect such a right doesn’t mean that no such right exists. We should certainly do a better job of protecting and preserving children’s right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own. How can you argue that children have a right to be raised by loving parents while denying they have a right to a relationship with their own parents? How do you rationally justify the deliberate creation of children to be motherless or fatherless? And why did President Obama claim in his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations that mothers and fathers are essential to their children’s lives? 

Second, it’s interesting that you dismiss sibling marriage while concomitantly asserting that “marriage is about two people who commit to love each other.” 

Third, you also dismiss plural unions, but offer no rational reason for their legal prohibition. If marriage is centrally or solely about love, why the magic number two? 

Fourth, concerning the “objective facts,” some of which, as you acknowledged, are not facts, here are the ones I have never ignored or with which I have never disagreed. Nor do they refute or undermine any of my claims: 

• Homosexuality is not a choice.
• Homosexuals are people.
• Many people consider homosexuality immoral for religious reasons.
• Civil, federal and SCOTUS have applied civil, federal (constitutional) considerations to rulings regarding the right of gays to access civil marriage. (I would use the word “misapplied.” Further, we know from history that that judges, including Supreme Court judges, don’t always get things right.)
• A gay kid knows that he can grow up, fall in love with another gay person and marry in this country.
• A married gay couple will receive full recognition, rights and responsibilities as any other married couple in the United States.
• Some Christians do not consider homosexuality and gay marriage as immoral. 

I don’t know what you mean by “Homosexuality is a sexuality.” All sexual acts are by definition sexual. I would argue that the notion that homosexuality is ontologically analogous or equivalent to heterosexuality is neither factual nor true. 

Similarly, your claim that “Homosexuals are sexual” is a strange statement. All humans are sexual in that they reproduce sexually, and most humans experience sexual desires which are often misdirected to all sorts of inappropriate objects and activities. 

Your claim that “Homosexuality is not considered immoral by many” is neither an objective fact, nor true. Many, many people consider homosexuality immoral. If you don’t know that, you live a very insular life. Millions of people believe homosexuality is immoral. 

Laurie

Laurie, I see myself as a realist and I see you and your compatriots as not. Adopted children, surrogate children, abandoned children, test-tube children, biologically sired children, all children have a right to expect that they will be loved and protected. You won’t get to me by suggesting that I would seek to deny a child his/her biological parents and it is beneath even you to suggest otherwise. This accusation is not now nor ever has been a motive of those of us who support marriage equality. I actually cringed when you mentioned Obama because I have suspected (and you confirmed) that no matter what he says, you will interpret it as anti-family. On Mother’s and Father’s Day, parents, no matter the origin of the parentage, are essential to their children’s lives. How can you question such a concept in light of the many children who simply need love, support and family? I think of the millions of adoptive parents (gay and straight) who would sneer at your arrogant presumption that they are not, truly, really parents. Your comment re: sibling marriage, ignores my previous response to you. As regards your suggestion that anyone who creates a child as motherless or fatherless is subjective. For me, the reality is that children are born via multiple arrangements. I know of no laws that prevent this so I won’t angst over it. What I will hope for is that all children will be loved, supported and raised in a family environment. Of course the sticking point is that you have only one concept of family. I accept the reality that there are more constructs to family and neither you nor I can change that. 

You and others of your persuasion have this need to push/support polyamorous, sibling, and other forms of marriage. In short, I see two consenting, loving and committed adults (gay or straight) as the ideal for a civil marriage construct. If others want a variant of this, and as I said in my earlier post, then they should seek redress through the courts. We are a nation of laws. Our nation’s laws support marriage for gay couples. If you want that extended to other constructs then pursue it legally. Reproduction, appropriate sexual positioning and complementarity of the sexual organs is not now nor ever has been a legal, civil requirement for marriage. But you know this and yet you and others insist that these are the prerequisites of marriage. Again, it is not realistic. It is not a legal consideration and I venture to say most would reject it. I get it. You and others want marriage to be about reproduction. I say good for you but, and again, the reality is that there is no legal prerequisite for reproduction. It simply doesn’t exist in any court or law in the United States. Logic tells us that this can never be the case as it would preclude millions from the civil right to marriage.  

When I say homosexuals are sexual, I mean that homosexuality can comprise sexual acts. I mean that they, by virtue of the shared gender of the homosexual couple can participate in sexual relations that are complementary to the two of them. The fact that you deem those actions as immoral are of no concern to me or the law of the land. Again, reality rears again…the consensual sexual actions of any couple are of no concern to me or the law. I said it earlier. It is amazing to so many people that so many of you are obsessed with the sexual relationships of other couples. Many will suggest that those of you who obsess over gay sexual relations are suspect. It simply does not seem healthy to be so focused on other people’s personal lives. 

I am intrigued that you are willing to accept so much of the reality of the existence of gay marriage. (The comment about SCOTUS reflects a hurt you have but is meaningless as regards established law. Your comment is one of the talking points of your group but, again, what impact does it have? A majority of the court made a decision; the decision is law whether you think it’s right or not.) Since you acknowledge the reality as present in my list, we are left with only this: you and I agree on plenty but your perception of what we agree upon is that it is immoral and mine is that it is not. I am comfortable with that because I don’t care about or share your moral proclivities.  

Your source of morality seems to be the law. It seems that whatever is legal is right in your view, which means that twenty years ago so-called “same-sex marriage” was not right because it was not legal. I, on the other hand, believe that sometimes our laws reflect truth and are, therefore, good laws, and sometimes our laws reflect error and are, therefore, bad laws. 

Of course, as a nation of laws (which Obama, Holder and some attorneys general seem to conveniently forget), we have an obligation to obey them. But that does not make them right. We have flawed foolish lawmakers, judges, and presidents who exercise poor reasoning. Laws are passed, repealed, and overturned. Although laws should reflect truth, they don’t always do that. 

 You said that homosexuals who seek to redefine marriage do not “seek to deny a child his/her biological parents.” Of course, they seek to deny children their right to be raised by their biological parents. Redefining marriage to eliminate any inherent connection between marriage and reproductive potential necessarily results in both a theoretical denial that children have such a right and the creation of deliberately motherless and fatherless children. Ideas have consequences, and one of the many consequences of this radical redefinition of marriage is to sever any connection between children and their biological parents.

When you claim that sexual acts between two people of the same sex are “complementary,” you reveal that you don’t know what “complementary” means.

When did I arrogantly sneer at or make any claim, presumptuous or otherwise, that adoptive parents are not really parents? That’s another warrantless assertion on your part. I said children have rights, central of which is to be raised whenever possible by their biological mother and father. I have never said, nor do I believe, that adoptive parents are not real parents. I think it is irresponsible, unethical, and lacking in compassion to deliberately create children to be motherless or fatherless. The fact that “no laws prevent this” has nothing to do with whether doing so is ethical—unless, of course, you believe that ever-shifting laws determine morality. 

I also did not say that Obama’s statements about Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are anti-family. I believe his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations are correct: children need mothers and fathers.  

My question about sibling marriage doesn’t ignore your response. Rather, I am pressing you for a defense of the view that although marriage is about love, siblings who love each other shouldn’t be permitted to marry. 

Similarly, I know you said that polyamorists can work toward legalization of plural unions, but you didn’t justify your claim that marriage is a union of two people. Are you saying that marriage has an inherent nature and one of its inherent features is “twoness”? Should the law reflect that truth? 

And why should marriage have anything to do with romantic/erotic love? If marriage is solely about who loves whom and has no inherent connection to reproductive potential, then why shouldn’t elderly sibling relationships or platonic friendships be legally recognized as “marriages”? 

You claim that “Reproduction, appropriate sexual positioning and complementarity of the sexual organs is not now nor ever has been a legal, civil requirement for marriage.” You’re wrong. The requirement regarding numbers of partners reflects the reality of two sexes, the sexual union of which is the type of union that naturally produces children (whether or not any particular couple can or chooses to is irrelevant). And historically marriages could be legally annulled if they were not sexually consummated. The legal language may not have replicated yours, but it embodied those realities. There would have been no need to replicate the language you used, because the concept of same-sex marriage would have been utterly absurd. It would have been absurd because marriage has a nature that we don’t create. 

There is a type of relationship that exists in the world, throughout history, and cross-culturally, which is a sexually complementary union that is reproductive in nature. That type of relationship is called “marriage.” There are other types of relationships that are homosexual and non-reproductive by nature. They’re not marriages. There has to be a linguistic term to identify these two very different types of unions. And it’s perfectly legitimate to assert that these very different types of relationships contribute different things to society. It’s also legitimate to treat them differently in the law as a result of their different inherent natures—particularly when true marriage respects the inherent needs and rights of children. 

When homosexuals claim they are only attracted to members of their same sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are inherently and significantly different. Further, they are acknowledging that those differences are not merely biological and anatomical. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex is inherently and significantly different from a sexually complementary union. It’s legitimate for any society to recognize these differences and acknowledge that sexually complementary unions affect society in ways that are more important to the continued health of society and the needs and rights of children than are naturally sterile, homosexual unions. 

By the way, all laws reflect and embody moral beliefs—including your revisionist view of marriage. The revised legal definition embodies the belief that sexual complementarity is irrelevant to marriage, but “binariness” is relevant. 

Of course many in the culture are changing their views, but why? Is it some organic evolution in the direction of truth? Or could it be that for the last fifty years, “progressives” have been in charge of the academy and imposed an ideological monopoly, engaging in the kind of censorship that only a hoary communist could love? And could it be that our myth-making industry, Hollywood, dominated by shallow, puerile “progressives,” pump out stories that demagogue a culture about whom Neil Postman warned in Amusing Ourselves to Death? And could it be that the vitriol and epithets hurled by the left, and urged by Kirk and Madsen in After the Ball, have had their desired effect? 

The ideas we have been debating should be debated by students in public high schools. And their education should include as many resources that articulate conservative views as articulate what are laughingly called “progressive” views. The censorship of conservative resources represents either an astonishing hypocrisy and presumptuousness on the part of “progressive” “educators” or a fear that some students may be find conservative arguments persuasive. 

Laurie 

Coming Tomorrow: Part 4 in which this teacher reveals what he thinks about his role as a teacher and what he thinks about students being exposed to conservative ideas, including those of Princeton University Law Professor, Robert P. George.

Read more in this series:  Part 1        Part 2

Stand with us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our staff, families and work are coveted.  Also, the promotion of our articles on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network is vital if we hope to spread the pro-family message.  And of course, your financial support is a huge part of our ability to be a strong voice for the here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Today we present Part 2 of an email exchange between a public high school teacher in Maine, who is also the sponsor of the “gay-straight alliance” in his school, and me.  To learn more about this correspondence, please read Part 1. As a government employee in a public school, he should share his teaching philosophy, which is revealed in these emails, with everyone who pays his salary. And every other teacher who shares this philosophy (and commitment to censorship) should be required to make it known to their constituents:

Laurie, for the life of me I do not understand how you can print what you did in your letter to parents and your e-mails to me and then turn around and express love and caring for the very homosexuals you know. Do you truly believe that the very friends of your kids and those you knew in school actually made a conscious choice to be gay? Why are you and so many others so obsessed with the sexuality of gay people? Don’t think about it. Gay people are, like all humans, sexually predisposed. You say it’s immoral. Do you say that to your kids’ friends? Do you advise your kids to love their friends but hate their sexual inclinations? Why would you even care? What will happen when a life-long gay friend of yours or your child marries his/her gay spouse? Would you expect them to be celibate? Why? I want to believe that you genuinely do care for gay kids especially since you seemed to go to great lengths to convince me of that.  There just seems to be such a disconnect between what you write me and your letter.  In short, I have to assume that because you love your kids’ gay friends and those you know you accept that some people are homosexual (and not by choice). 

If this is so why do you and others set up a double standard: straight kids can marry and presumably have sex but gay kids cannot? Again, it seems that you and others who seem to obsess over another form of sexuality cannot get out of your own way in condemning it. And your condemnation is all too often extended to the very nature of all gay people. Imagine the following: there is a world where a gay or straight kid can grow up, get married and live their lives. The impact of who they are, their marriages and families extends only to those who know them. Where is the danger in this? With all the bad (immoral) things that happen in the world why concentrate so heavily on a form of sexuality and subsequent expressions of love. If you think about this you might better understand why most people see your cause as homophobic and bigoted. I accept that you, because you actually know and love gay people, are not homophobic. The rest makes no sense and comes off as hateful to kids and adults alike. 

If you whole underpinning of belief is based upon religious precepts than you can never come to a place of acceptance and understanding. The key here, of course, is that these are your beliefs and not most others. And, clearly, not all faiths Christian or otherwise share your concepts of homosexual morality. 

BTW, do you truly believe that a gay teacher should not put a picture of his/her spouse on his/her desk. You do know this is common practice. 

You’ve asked some of the most important questions on this topic, and they’re huge questions. They get to some of the fundamental issues, like, “Is it inherently and automatically moral to act on all feelings, particularly if they’re unchosen, powerful, and persistent?”

I will try to answer some of them as succinctly as possible.

Q. Do you truly believe that the very friends of your kids and those you knew in school actually made a conscious choice to be gay?

A. No, I don’t believe anyone chooses to experience same-sex attraction. But the absence of volition in regard to feelings tells us precisely nothing about the morality of acting on feelings. Imagine the implications of your question. The logical implication is that any behavior that is driven by unchosen feelings is inherently moral.

Q. Why are you and so many others so obsessed with the sexuality of gay people?

A. I’m not obsessed with their sexuality. I’m simply responding to the very public moral claims that homosexuals and their allies are making. They’re trying to change the public’s view of the nature and morality of homosexuality and they’re using public resources to do that. You seem to be suggesting that while homosexuals barrage the public with their moral beliefs, everyone else should remain silent.

Q. Gay people are, like all humans, sexually predisposed. You say it’s immoral. Do you say that to your kids’ friends?

A. I don’t advise people on their moral beliefs or life choices unless they ask me. I don’t tell my children’s friends who are living with partners while unmarried that such behavior is immoral either. If they asked what I thought, I would tell them, but I don’t offer unsolicited advice on personal matters. Now, if a discussion arose about homosexuality, or marriage, or any number of moral, social, or political matters, I wouldn’t withhold my views just because it might touch on an issue directly relevant to them. So, for example, if the issue of polyamory arose, I wouldn’t withhold my view of polyamory just because the person to whom I was talking was a polyamorist.

Q. Why do you and others set up a double standard: straight kids can marry and presumably have sex but gay kids cannot?

A. It’s not a double standard. Homosexuals can marry. They are not asking for the right to marry. They’re demanding the unilateral right to redefine marriage by jettisoning its central defining feature: sexual complementarity. I’m saying that homosexuals no more have the right to redefine marriage than do polyamorists who aren’t permitted to redefine marriage unilaterally by jettisoning the less central feature regarding number of partners in a marital union. The question is, does marriage have a nature that we merely recognize and regulate, or do we create marriage out of whole cloth. I would argue that it has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity. By the way, there is no government interest in “love.” The government has no interest in recognizing or affirming love. The government’s interest is solely in the objective features of marriage. Do you think two brothers or five people should be permitted to marry? If not, why not?

Q. The impact of who they are, their marriages and families extends only to those who know them. Where is the danger in this?

A. Wow. There’s no danger in radically redefining society’s central social institution? This is a huge question, but here’s my short answer:

If schools truly valued diversity, tolerance, the free exchange of ideas, and critical thinking, and truly honored all voices, students would be exposed to the ideas I’m expressing. They would read essays by Robert George, Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and other scholars writing on the website Public Discourse.

Students would be challenged to think critically about the comparison of race to homosexuality or the comparison of interracial marriage to homosexual “marriage.” They would be challenged to think about whether negative moral propositions constitute hatred and whether children have an inherent right to be raised by their biological mother and father whenever possible. And they would be permitted to have their ideas shaped by the best scholars on both sides of these critical issues. Right now, they’re not.

You said, “The rest makes no sense and comes off as hateful to kids and adults alike.” Perhaps it comes off as hateful because people like you keep telling kids that people like me hate them. There are literally millions of people who think and believe as I do. Why don’t you hear more from them? Because they’re afraid to be called haters, b**ches, a******s, and c**ts. And there’s something else they fear. They fear losing their jobs for saying that they believe homosexual acts are not moral acts.

And why do I want to express my moral beliefs publicly? First, because I believe they’re objectively true. And second, because I think homosexual acts efface human dignity, undermine human flourishing, harm human bodies, and corrupt love between men and men and between women and women. I express my beliefs because I love those who experience same-sex attraction, and I care about both their temporal and eternal lives.

Laurie

You just went off the deep end Laurie. No one denies you the right to say what you believe. And others are free to say what they believe. You believe that the sexual expression of homosexuality is immoral. Gays, their families, friends and billions of others believe differently. We all get that. 

You don’t think your harsh judgment of conservative moral beliefs, which millions of people share including countless teens, and are central to our identity as Christians, has the potential to make Christians feel “less than”?   

You are implying that the ethical legitimacy of speech is determined by the subjective response of the hearer. The logic of that would lead to no one being permitted to express any moral propositions publicly because someone in their presence may feel “less than.” You’re suggesting that if anyone feels bad hearing a moral proposition that applies to him or her, they’ve been bullied? Wow. So much for free speech and public discourse.

If your moral propositions are false, then you are not keeping students safe. And since when is it the job of public school teachers to protect students “from the moral indignation of others”? How do schools facilitate the free and fair exchange of ideas on one of the single most controversial topics in America while preventing students from hearing moral beliefs with which they may disagree? Sounds like rationalizing censorship to me.

 Laurie

Your responses are not new to me. It is a script that is repeated by others in your camp. I simply disregard your concerns and see them as absent any objective basis in fact. Where you see the destruction of the family, I see a renaissance in building strong, loving and committed families for gay people and their kids. And, to me, this is in perfect harmony with any heterosexual two person marriage. If others want another construct let them fight for it. The facts that matter most to me are that I see tremendous and wonderful opportunities here and on the horizon for gay kids. The opportunity to be married to a person they love is now the reality in this country and federally. Yes, there are some states that will need to come on board (yours in particular) but it is my belief that it will happen and sooner rather than later. I do not believe this reality is or will cause any damage whatsoever to yours or any other couple’s marriage or the civil construct of marriage itself. To me it is a win-win situation for gays and gay kids. Of course you will disagree entirely and that is okay. I have no doubt that there have been vile characterizations hurled your way and that is wrong, just has it is wrong and has been for millennia to disparage gay persons with similar terms. That is one major reason why we have a GSA in our school. 

 I notice that you didn’t answer my question regarding whether children have an inherent right to be raised by their biological mother and father. Nor did you answer whether siblings or polyamorists should be permitted to marry. 

Can you copy and paste the specific quotes of mine that you think are “disturbing.” I haven’t seen the GLAAD quotes, but I would assume they’re accurate. And I assume they got them from my articles, all of which are publicly available.  There is nothing that I say in my articles that I wouldn’t say to my kids’ friends if they raised the issue.  

I’m just curious what specifically are the “objective facts” I’m ignoring? 

Laurie

Coming Tomorrow: Part 3

Read more in this series:  Part 1

 Important Upcoming Events:

–> September 7th — An Evening with Eric Metaxas, Dennis Prager, & Dr. Erwin Lutzer
(Click HERE for more info)

–>  September 14th – IFI’s 3rd Annual Fun. Run. Walk in Joliet 
(Click HERE for more info) 

–> October 23rd — IFI’s Defend Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield  
(Click HERE for more info)

Following my recent piece about “progressive” teachers who exploit their publicly subsidized positions in government schools to advance their personal moral and political beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and gender confusion, I received an email from a public high school teacher in Maine who is also the sponsor of the “gay-straight alliance” in his school. For the next two days we exchanged emails which are both illuminating and deeply troubling. This week I am posting the entire exchange, so that taxpayers can hear from the proverbial horse’s mouth what many progressive “public servants” believe is their right to do with public money. Remember, the beliefs revealed in this email exchange are not unique to this teacher. The public that pays the salaries of teachers like this one—that is, teachers who view themselves as “agents of change”—are entitled to know what these teachers presume is their right to do on the public dime with other people’s children.

Two clarifications are in order:

1. IFI has the following statement on our “Contact” page through which emails are submitted: “All emails sent to IFI become the property of IFI and may be published.”
2. This email exchange is lengthy. If you have neither the time nor interest in reading it, stop now. This post is intended only for those who have both the interest and time to read it.
3. The teacher’s name is redacted throughout the exchange.

Here goes, but fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy week:

Until the fall of 2008, I worked full-time in the writing center of the local public high school where all four of my children attended. We live in a liberal community with a high percentage of community members who are Jewish. I grew up in this town. I have no desire whatsoever for my local high school to teach biblical doctrine. You have manufactured that strange claim out of whole cloth. I challenge you to find one bit of evidence from any interview I’ve ever done or article I’ve written to support that claim. 

Further, from my years of working in a public high school, I have a fairly good sense of what the administration knows about what goes on in the classroom and what they don’t know. I also have a pretty good sense of the liberal bias they are willing to tolerate (and promulgate) in text selection, library book collections, professional development opportunities, and classroom commentary from teachers. 

I disagree with yet another assumption of yours, which is that I’m “paranoid.” It’s difficult to respond to such a charge when it is accompanied by no evidence of paranoia whatsoever. 

At the high school level, I am completely comfortable with students being exposed to the “real world,” and the “real world” actually includes ideas and propositions that dissent from “progressive” ideas and assumptions. The irony in your claim is that it’s “progressives” who are committed to de facto censorship on the topics of, for example, homosexuality, gender confusion, and Critical Race Theory. While “progressive educators” expose students (starting freshman year) to plays, novels, essays, films, speakers, and activities that promote their non-factual views on these topics, they refuse to spend equal time exposing students to the work of the best conservative scholars (e.g., Princeton law professor Robert George) on these same topics. Such arrogant censorship transforms education into indoctrination. 

Finally, moral propositions about volitional behavior do not constitute “animus” toward persons. Perhaps you hate those whose beliefs and actions you disagree with, but you ought not project your attitudes onto others. Most people in our wildly diverse world are completely able to love and delight in the company of those who hold very different beliefs and make very different life choices. Most of us do it all the time.

I find it troubling that the majority of kids in the club you sponsor would reject someone who holds different moral and ontological views on homosexuality than they do. Sounds like someone isn’t doing a very good job of fostering tolerance and respect for diversity. Those kids are going to have a lot of trouble making their way through a world that includes Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics and many Protestants who believe volitional homosexual acts and cross-dressing are immoral.   

Sincerely, 

A little story for you: 2 years ago our high school librarian hosted a poetry day activity. She placed a basket on her counter. In it were small folded pieces of paper with poems printed on each one. An advisor picked up a handful of them to distribute to her home room. One young man who happened to be gay, open his to read a note written on the back. “Roses are red, violets are blue, F——High School is gay and so are you!” The teacher and students were livid. Some came to me and asked what could be done. There were calls for finding the student and shaming him. I asked the kids and teacher to give me a night to think on it. At home I happened to look at the actual printed poem on the piece of paper. On it was a beautiful poem about honesty, respect and love for the differences in all of us. It was amazing. The next day I asked the kids to let me try something. I went on the intercom when morning announcements were being made. I spoke to the school about the incident and read first the kids vile poem and then the actual one. I asked the school to consider if this one kid’s poem is representative of our school. I asked them to consider if expressions of homophobia are to be considered acceptable. I then asked them to please stand if they felt. Our high school was better than that. I proceeded and asked them to move to the classroom door if they wanted all of our state to know that this is not right. And then I invited them to move into the corridor, clap, cheer and make a lot of sound if they wanted the world to know that this type of bullying would not become our identity. You can imagine the result. Many were moved to tears and the feelings of hope and our shared humanity were palpable. On that day many kids in our school felt safe and protected from bullying. On that day our school was a safe space for everyone who believes in diversity and fairness. When I spoke to the kids I acknowledged that the student poet has a right to hate but that student has no right to threaten with hateful words. On that day our school was, indeed, a safe space even if the student poet was feeling a bit uncomfortable.

R

---

R, 

What’s interesting in this anecdote is that you once again reveal both your presumptuousness and your ignorance. You have conflated my moral beliefs with hatred. Of course there are conservatives who hate homosexuals, just as there are liberals who hate Christians. I know because I get emails that say things like “You c**t,” or “You b**ch,” or “I hope you f******g die.” The right has no monopoly on hatred. 

But there’s a world of conservatives—thoughtful, compassionate, articulate, well-educated, intelligent (even brilliant) conservatives—who believe that homosexual acts are not moral. I know very few liberals who have spent any time reading the work of the best conservative scholars who write on issues related to homosexuality. In fact, the liberals I know can’t even name them. The liberals I know live in an intellectually insulated world in which they talk only to each other in elitist ways about anyone who thinks differently than they do. While they claim to value diversity, their intellectual awareness says otherwise. 

When people like you keep telling kids that people like me hate them, you breed anger and hatred. I challenge you to find a single person—homosexual, “transgender,” “progressive” or any other—who will tell you I spoke to or treated them hatefully. Expressing moral propositions—even negative moral propositions—is not equivalent to hatred. The only way you can sensibly claim that I am hateful is if you redefine hatred to mean “moral propositions with which R. disagrees,” but then that wouldn’t be a very sensible definition. 

Your response epitomizes the presumptuousness of so many on the left. You know nothing about my personal life, so you can’t possibly know whose company I delight in. 

All four of my children have had friends who self-identify as homosexual. One of my children’s closest childhood friends “came out” early in high school. One of my children had a classmate who self-identified as “transgender.” I had tutors who identified as homosexual who worked for me in the writing center in the high school I used to work in. I delighted in the company of these kids no less than the company of other teens—most of whom held beliefs very different from mine on a number of issues and made choices that I believe do not lead to human flourishing. I loved being around them. I loved talking to them and laughing with them. I loved working on their college essays with them and learning about their interests outside of school. Teenagers are my favorite group of humans. 

My young adult children are completely comfortable inviting their friends—any of their friends—to our home. One of my children was ostracized during most of the K-12 years. It was a very painful childhood, so I know about bullying. I taught my children that they were not only never to bully, but they were to defend those who were being bullied. So, your claim that I have no interest in protecting homosexual kids or acknowledging their existence is ugly and untenable. 

Love depends first on knowing what’s true. If homosexual acts are not moral acts, it cannot be a loving act to affirm them. I believe affirming homosexual behavior as moral behavior harms kids. And liberals compound this harm by continually spreading the vicious lie to children that everyone who believes homosexual acts are wrong hates them. Liberals spread this lie and in so doing destroy any possibility of dialogue and relationship between homosexual kids and those who hold different moral beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality than they do. 

Do you believe that all negative moral propositions constitute hatred of persons? Or is it just those moral propositions with which you disagree that constitute hatred? 

You know what I write about moral propositions, public policy, and school issues. That’s it. You have no idea how I feel about people as individuals or how I interact with or treat them. 

Oh, and you probably know what the intellectually vacuous, morally corrupt SPLC says about me. You may want to read what I’ve written about Mark Potok and Evelyn Schlatter. It’s a fascinating story. 

It just struck me that your emails prove the point that I’ve been trying to make for several years, which is that the end game, the ultimate goal of the current incarnation of bullying-prevention efforts is not to end bullying—a goal with which virtually everyone agrees. The ultimate goal of current bullying prevention efforts is to eradicate conservative moral beliefs. 

I have consistently stated that no one should be bullied for any reason. I have never bullied anyone. Yet people like you keep calling me a bully and a hater. Why? Because I will publicly state my belief that homosexual acts are not moral acts. And the only reason I do that is that the left keeps saying they are moral acts. Not only are they saying it, they’re using publicly subsidized schools to promote those subjective beliefs. 

So, your end game is to hurl epithets at conservatives—even conservatives who have never uttered a single hateful word—until they’re silenced. 

Laurie

Stay tuned! Part 2 will be published tomorrow.

Stand with us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our staff, families and work are coveted.  Also, the promotion of our articles on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network is vital if we hope to spread the pro-family message.  And of course, your financial support is a huge part of our ability to be a strong voice for the here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

My favorite writer, Anthony Esolen, Professor of English at Providence College in Rhode Island, has written yet another incisive and illuminating article, this time on the dishonest exploitation of school bullying prevention efforts for the purposes of normalizing homosexuality. His piece, titled “Pulpit for Bullies” exposes the ugly tactics of the left, made all the more offensive because they’re employed in our schools against conservative teens:

[A]ny disapproval of the homosexual life is to be construed as homophobic, without regard to reasons or persons….The message may be unfolded thus: If you do not wear this shirt, or if you do not approve of the life it celebrates, you are evil. You’re a bully.

The occasion of Dr. Esolen’s piece is a court decision on the case of a Michigan student who was publicly berated and denied his constitutional right to freedom of speech by his economics teacher for expressing his beliefs about homosexuality on yet another purported “bullying prevention” day (it would be more accurate to refer to these as homosexuality celebration days).

It is our hope that Professor Esolen’s piece will be read in its entirety and widely circulated. Conservatives need to stop allowing the name-calling of the left to silence them. The ultimate goal of liberals is not to end bullying, which is a goal all decent people share. The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs or the creation of a social, political, and legal climate that makes expressing them too costly. Redefining bullying and calling conservatives ugly names is merely a tactic in their larger unholy war.

Please read Professor Esolen’s piece:

On June 19, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in favor of a high school student named Daniel Glowacki, who had charged that his high school teacher, Jay McDowell, had violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. He was granted one dollar in compensation. The court’s verdict, in vulgar terms, was that the pig had the right to say what he said.

The facts, according to the court’s judgment, are these.

On October 20, 2011, the Gay Straight Alliance at Howell High School planned to take part in a national “campaign aimed at raising awareness of the bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youth.” The court acknowledges that the day is also called “Spirit Day,” which, the plaintiffs contended, is so-called to foster acceptance in the public schools of the homosexual lifestyle. The Gay Straight Alliance made up flyers to be posted all around the school, urging students to wear purple on that day as a sign of their solidarity with homosexual teenagers. The principal approved the flyer.

Wendy Hiller, one of the teachers, printed a batch of purple T-shirts, reading “Tyler’s Army” on the front and “Fighting Evil with Kindness” on the back. She had, in the past, worn a black shirt reading “Tyler’s Army.” The name refers to Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers who took his own life after his roommate had secretly filmed him in a homosexual encounter. Hiller, says the court, in evident agreement, did not believe that the shirts would be controversial, since the topic was bullying and not homosexuality. Hiller sold some of the shirts to other teachers at cost.

Jay McDowell, an economics teacher, bought one of those shirts and wore it in class that day. McDowell then showed his students a video about a gay teenager who committed suicide, and devoted the rest of the class period to discussion.

Daniel entered McDowell’s classroom for the sixth period that day. McDowell noticed that one of the girls in class was wearing a belt buckle with the Confederate flag. He ordered her to take it off, because it offended him. Daniel then asked the obvious question. Why should it be all right for so many students and teachers to wear the purple T-shirts, but not all right for the girl to wear the belt buckle?

Consider the great difference here in boldness and specificity and intention. The belt buckle expresses a feeling of pride or affection for the American South. It is small. It does not demand to be noticed and read. It does not say anything. It is not a part of a school-wide campaign. It is not as if the student, together with others throughout the school, wore it on her shirt, with the words, “The South shall rise again.” It is also a private thing; she is just one student.

McDowell then, predictably, told Glowacki that the Confederate flag was a symbol of hateful things, like “the slashing and hanging of [African Americans].” It was discriminatory against blacks. Glowacki responded that the purple T-shirts were discriminatory against Catholics. This prompted a heated exchange. The young man is no theologian, and the teacher no moral philosopher. McDowell says that he told Glowacki that it was all right if his religion said that homosexual behavior was wrong, but that Glowacki could not say that in class. He also says, missing the illogic and the aggressiveness of his statement, that he told Glowacki that to say “I don’t accept gays” is like saying “I don’t accept blacks.” When Glowacki replied, “I don’t accept gays,” McDowell threw him out and began disciplinary action against him.

The parents complained, and McDowell was issued a reprimand: “You disciplined two students for holding and stating personal beliefs, to which you disagree. You disciplined them in anger under the guise of harassment and bullying because you opposed their religious belief and were offended by it. The students were causing no disruption.” Indeed, the reprimand specifically states that McDowell attempted to get Daniel to “recant,” and notes the irony that this should occur on a day devoted to fighting bullies.

What happened to Daniel after that is instructive, and does not enter the court’s opinion, though it easily might have, since it provides abundant evidence for the plaintiff’s contention that the Anti-Bullying Day was really a Pro-Gay Day, and that Jay McDowell was himself a bully. McDowell went on television claiming that Glowacki had entered the classroom spewing epithets against gays—a claim which, if true, the court would certainly have seized upon. Glowacki was (and continues to be) vilified across the nation. The lesbian Ellen DeGeneres featured a gay student on her television show who testified for McDowell in the disciplinary hearings.

There are two points I wish to make. The first is that the superintendent’s ironical insight did not go nearly far enough—the bullying was not limited to that incident in the classroom. The second is that the state is acting as a church, engaged in catechesis. The superintendent was correct; no student should be constrained to make an auto da fé. Those confessions, rather, ought to be procured over years of badgering, cajoling, wheedling, insinuating, urging, tempting, persuading, ridiculing, debating, by all means fair and foul, so long as the façade of “objectivity” and religious “neutrality” and “respect” for the students—but never for the parents!—be maintained.

On the bullying: the students know that what is going on here is the advocacy of homosexual activity. Many people are bullied, for all kinds of reasons—for being fat, or stupid, or poor, or ugly. If the school wishes to teach gallantry and kindness, why not do so with as broad a sweep as possible? But the teachers and students chose Tyler Clementi as their cause célèbre.

Homosexual activists do not say that Clementi was merely the victim of a nasty roommate. Their point—as the students at Howell High School no doubt were made well aware—is that Clementi was the victim of a general disapproval of his behavior. That is, any disapproval of the homosexual life is to be construed as homophobic, without regard to reasons or persons. That is precisely the message conveyed by the purple T-shirts.

The message may be unfolded thus. If you do not wear this shirt, or if you do not approve of the life it celebrates, you are evil. You’re a bully. You want people like Tyler Clementi to die. The superintendent, but not the court, notes that Glowacki was held up to opprobrium in the classroom.

Neither the superintendent nor the court expresses any concern about the massive contradiction that McDowell could order a student to remove a belt buckle because it might create a hostile environment for some other students, while not noticing that the entire school bristles with hostility against Catholics, evangelical Protestants, orthodox Jews, and anybody else who holds that sexual intercourse is to be bound within marriage, between a man and a woman.

Which brings me to my second point. If I hire a man to teach my son economics, I’d be shocked to learn that he’d been using his position to run down my faith. Granted that students, because of their age and the special circumstances, do not possess complete freedom of expression in school, it is equally true that teachers and schools must not capitalize upon their strength, their numbers, and their separation from the home, to advocate what is essentially a religion, with its (peculiar and incoherent) set of universal demands and condemnations.

Suppose it were not a Confederate belt buckle that McDowell had ordered removed, but a placard reading “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” That commandment—nowadays not controversial, though we obey it no better than any generation ever has—would be proscribed, as “religious” speech. But “thou shalt not disapprove publicly of the homosexual lifestyle,” which is what “Tyler’s Army” means, and in an aggressive and accusatory way, with the aim of silencing those who might disagree, and humiliating those who might express that disagreement—that is plastered all over the school and on the bodies of the teachers themselves, the masters, whom the students are supposed to respect or at least tolerate, since their future in part rests in those teachers’ hands.

What gives these schools the right to engage in that catechesis? The business of the public school is akin to the business of a group of tutors hired by a group of parents. It has become, instead, the business of a group of self-imagined forward-thinking missionaries introducing students to their new and enlightened world, against the supposed inertia and ignorance of parents, pastors, and the great majority of moral philosophers and theologians older than yesterday.

 Three Important Upcoming Events:

–>  September 14th – IFI’s 3rd Annual Fun. Run. Walk in Joliet 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 4th — IFI’s Fall Banquet with Dr. Benjamin Carson in Northlake 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 23rd — IFI’s Defend Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield  
(Click HERE for more info)

As your children start off a new school year, take time to get to know what’s going on in your local public schools.  

Although taxpayers must address the issue of objectionable curricular material directly, which will involve challenging the specious “book banning/censorship” arguments employed by school boards and administrations, there is something additional that parents can do to minimize their children’s exposure not just to inappropriate texts but to ideologically biased classroom proselytizing. In addition to objecting to objectionable resources, parents can object to objectionable teaching.

Here are some suggestions for parents who are fed up with the subtle and not so subtle messages that “progressive” activist teachers work into their classroom teaching through their classroom comments, curricular and supplementary materials (including textbooks, novels, plays, short stories, essays, newspaper and magazine articles, films, and speakers), and even their desks and classroom displays:

1. Parents can go to their middle school and/or high school websites and find out which teachers sponsor gay and straight alliances and liberal political activist groups (e.g. AWARE).  It is much more common for teachers who sponsor liberal clubs to express their views in the classroom and to proselytize through both curricular and supplementary resources than it is for teachers who sponsor conservative clubs to express theirs in class.  
   
   
2. Parents should ask what texts will be assigned, performed, or recommended (e.g. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Chocolate War, Fat Kid Rules the World, Angels in America, The Laramie Project, Rent, or The People’s History of the United States) by a particular teacher. Parents should ask for the reading list for the entire year. Teachers who have a reasonable degree of respect for the values and beliefs of all parents will not select highly controversial texts for either required or recommended reading lists.
   
   
3. Students usually know who the liberal, activist teachers are. Liberal activist teachers develop reputations, often as the “cool” teachers who express antipathy toward traditional and conservative views. Parents with children who have already completed a year or more of school should ask those children, their friends, or friends’ parents which teachers are known for expressing their moral and political beliefs in the classroom through, for example, their comments or by displaying symbols associated with homosexuality on their desks, classroom doors, or walls. Those symbols include “Safe Space” stickers,  inverted pink triangles, rainbow flags, and the lower case Greek letter “lambda.” These symbols are not used centrally to ensure safety, which all teachers support, but rather to announce affirmation of “progressive” views of homosexuality.
   
   
4. If parents have concerns that a particular teacher uses his or her classroom comments, curricular materials, and supplementary resources to express his or her moral or political views, they should email the appropriate department chair and/or their child’s counselor to request a teacher reassignment, explaining that they will not permit their child to be in the classroom or under the tutelage of any teacher who has made their moral or political beliefs known in the classroom.  
   
   
5. Email all your children’s teachers now, telling them that under no circumstance is your child to be exposed to any resources or activities that address homosexuality or gender confusion, including through “bullying prevention” activities or sex ed. Tell them that you will be addressing those topics at home in a way that honors your beliefs and respects the dignity of all persons–which public school resources do not. Ask them if they agree to honor your request. If they tell you that they will be exposing students to material on homosexuality and gender confusion, you can either ask for a teacher reassignment, ask for prior notification so you can opt your child out of class on the days when such material is presented, or seek to homeschool your child for just that class (e.g. health).

Parents should no longer passively accept polemical and biased teaching. Parents are entitled to have their children placed in apolitical, ideologically neutral academic contexts in which critical thinking is actually fostered. Insisting that their children be placed in classes taught by teachers who truly respect diverse voices, including conservative voices, will prevent parents from getting involved in specious “book banning/censorship” discussions. Parents can do more than oppose objectionable texts; they can oppose objectionable teachers. Perhaps if administrators  are confronted with enough scheduling problems, they will decide it’s more practical to rein in their ideologues.

If administrators believe that teachers, who are in positions of power, including the power to grade, have the right to express personal views on controversial moral and political issues in class, and have the right to assign resources that espouse only one set of beliefs on controversial issues, then those administrators must grant parents the right to remove their children from such dubious academic contexts. Parents must be granted the right to have their children placed in the classrooms of teachers who voluntarily demonstrate academic integrity. 

Help protect marriage & family!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square.

On June 10, the Hadley Middle School Board of Education in Glen Ellyn reversed its prior decision to exclude the obscene and sexually graphic The Perks of Being a Wallflower from its independent reading program. This second vote was 6-1 in favor of retaining the book, with the lone wise and courageous opposing vote coming from school board president, Sam Black.

The school board voted to strengthen the parental notification letter that goes out to parents at the beginning of the year by adding a euphemistic caution, warning parents that particular books contain “mature” content. Yes, nothing says “maturity” quite like masturbating with a hot dog, homosexual sodomy between teenagers, and the use of obscene language.

For a parental notification letter to be meaningful, it should avoid vague and euphemistic language like “mature content.” Teachers should include clear and explicit descriptions of the “mature  content.” For example, in the case of Perks the notification should state that the book includes obscene language and depictions (in some cases graphic depictions) of masturbation, homosexual sodomy, heterosexual teen intercourse, incest, rape, and bestiality.

One aspect of the controversy that has received too little press are the actions of teachers who exploited their positions and power in the classroom to promote their views with little regard for how their political activity would affect students. It has been reported that the three teachers who spoke at prior school board meetings in favor of Perks and who expressed their views on the community controversy in class, Tina Booth,  Lynn Bruno, and Ali Tannenbaum, also  wore paraphernalia  with messages about  book banning or “FREADOM” during school activities.

There are far too many political activists/ “agents of change” masquerading as “educators” in American classrooms. They rely on their anonymity and autonomy to use their publicly subsidized positions to try to shape the moral and political views of other people’s children. They do it through curricula, through supplementary resources that are never reviewed by department chairs or curriculum review committees, and through their classroom comments and actions of which parents remain largely unaware. Community members should demand that school boards create policy to stop these abuses of power on the parts of teachers—most of whom hold “progressive” views.

One report on the school board meeting states that The Perks of Being a Wallflower  “will again be allowed for independent reading purposes for eighth graders, as will any other legal book that teachers choose to offer as an option for students.” Community members should ask what criteria teachers use in determining what they “choose to offer as an option for students.” 

Ever in thrall to celebrity, some students asked author Judy Blume to make a statement in opposition to “book banning.” Apparently, Blume’s status as celebrated author makes her an expert on educational philosophy, the use of public resources, the First Amendment, psychology, sociology, and ethics—all of which are relevant to this discussion. (What’s curious is that when IFI writes about a school issue, encouraging taxpayers to contact school board members, the press often describes IFI as an “outside” organization in an apparent attempt to delegitimize our efforts. I have yet to see any articles in which Florida-based author Blume is described as an “outsider.”)

These students  also wrote to Hollywood  actor and activist Anne Hathaway who promotes the normalization of homosexuality because her brother is homosexual; Chris Colfer, homosexual actor on dissolute teen television show Glee; and Logan Lerman one of the stars of The Perks of Being a Wallflower film. Perhaps they chose Hathaway and Colfer because these Hadley students understand that one of the goals of Perks is to normalize homosexuality.

The school board believes that as long as parents have the right to decide whether their child reads Perks, it’s legitimate to spend public funds to purchase and include it in the independent reading curriculum. This “solution” to the controversy ignores three critical questions:

• Should public resources be spent on highly controversial books with language so obscene and sexual content so graphic and in some cases perverse that they couldn’t be read over the PA system or printed in newspapers? 

• Is it the position of those teachers who support the acquisition and use of Perks that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when considering the purchase or use of books for school? If they do make the claim that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when selecting texts for purchase or use, they’re either lying or our schools have even bigger problems than it appears. If they say they do take into account obscene language and sexual content when making literary decisions, then they should be asked if they, therefore, engage in book-banning. 

• Some defend the purchase and use of Perks in public schools because students are already familiar with the controversial content. This is another way of saying that curricula should reflect culture. If that is the educational philosophy of Hadley, what happens as culture continues to degenerate? Are there any objective standards regarding obscene language and sexual content that should be included in text-selection criteria? 

Conservatives need to be as tenacious in pursuing sound school policy as “progressives” are in undermining it. It should be unthinkable that any public school would have this book in its library or that any teacher would permit students to choose it for a class project. We have allowed the culture to desensitize us to vulgarity and perversion. We have allowed the ridicule of the “cool” people to silence us. And we have allowed the rationalization that minor concessions to an obscene culture and Leftist teachers are unimportant.

When in doubt about the wisdom, reasonableness, or truth of your position on a controversial issue, look to see who is on the other side. You should feel reassured that you’re on the right side when you see that most Hollywood actors and Neuqua Valley High School math teacher Hemant Mehta* (aka “The Friendly Atheist”) are on the other side.

*Click here and here to learn more about Neuqua Valley math teacher Hemant Mehta who has written on the Hadley controversy and oh so much more.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

This is a follow up from a recent IFI E-Alert.

Important Address Correction: The Hadley Middle School Board of Education meeting next Monday, June 10 will be held at the Central Services Office, 793 N Main St. Glen Ellyn, 60137. It begins at 7:30.

Anyone who wishes to speak at the meeting is asked to fill out a green form which is available when you walk in the door. The form is then turned in to the secretary prior to the start of the meeting. The secretary will call the names in the order she receives them. This gives the public an opportunity to be heard prior to the board voting on The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I recommend typing out your thoughts ahead of time, so that you don’t exceed the time limit (usually two minutes) and so that you stay on topic.

Important Plea: Please attend and speak. Parents who have the courage to challenge a book are usually outnumbered by “progressives” at school board meetings and consequently feel intimidated and beleaguered. Please come alongside the brave parents objecting to this objectionable book.

Every community member, whether they have children or not, has a stake in this issue. Children at Hadley are our future culture-makers. What they are being exposed to in public schools on our dime matters.

Whether you have children or not, your taxes are subsidizing the purchase of this book and the salaries of the teachers who are recommending and teaching it.

When schools are permitted to purchase, teach, and recommend a book like Perks, they are emboldened to purchase, teach, and recommend others like it.

The decision by schools not to purchase a book does not constitute censorship. Schools have limited funds and make spending decisions all the time. There is no reason that criteria related to obscene and profane language and sexual content can’t be part of the evaluation process. There is no ethical imperative that only Collection Development Policies may or should be used to assess whether schools should purchase a book or use it in curricula or include it on recommended book lists.

To demonstrate respect for all voices and for the use of taxpayer money, schools should avoid purchasing, teaching, and recommending books whose content is not just a little problematic, but so extreme that it can’t be read over a school PA system or printed in newspapers (I find it ironic that NBA player Roy Hibbert was just fined $75,000 for using the word “homo” once, while Perks is purchased with taxpayer money for public schools even though it uses “f**k” multiple times). In a time when there are far more books available than could possibly be taught, the prudent and respectful thing to do would be to choose books that respect the values and beliefs of all parents.

Conservative parents are often told that if they don’t like what’s being taught in public schools, they should send their kids to private schools. Well, that’s what’s happening. Increasing numbers of parents are justifiably choosing private, charter, or home schools. But, here’s another idea. How about those parents who want their children to read novels like Perks send their children to private schools or have their children read them on their own. That way public schools can maintain a rigorous curriculum while respecting the beliefs and feelings of everyone in their communities.

Conservative parents, ever deferential to the “progressive” “experts” who run academia, have settled for their woefully inadequate sop to conservatives: opting out. We eagerly accept it like starving Dickensian urchins thankful for the bit of gruel offered us by the great and powerful. That should stop.

Opting-out is neither a fair nor compassionate response to the reasonable objections to books like Perks. No child wants to be isolated (as Perks tries unsuccessfully to teach), and, in addition, opting-out offers a diminished academic experience.

Furthermore, opting-out often creates conflict between students and their own parents. Schools are now creating problems for families, problems that are completely unnecessary by making different curricular selections.

Finally, schools are creating a climate rife for bullying as seen by what happened to the daughter of one of the families objecting to Perks.

The easy-peasy solution is to establish criteria for text-selection that include considerations of language and sexual content and to make selections that respect the entire community. Perks may have some literary value, but surely there are other texts that provide at least as valuable a literary contribution without the deeply objectionable content. I wonder what books students are not reading in school because they’re reading Perks instead.

Click HERE for more on objecting to offensive books.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

Here’s an email I received from a Christian public school teacher who defends the teaching in public schools of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, followed by my response:  

I am a conservative, a church-attending Christian, a public school elementary teacher, and I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower four times when I was fourteen years old. I think you are incorrectly analyzing the book when you say that it tries to teach that children want to be isolated. It features a cast of outcasts, and the protagonist is an outcast, not by choice but out of fear, anxiety, and depression. Many of the topics that the IFI disapproves of are also generally disapproved of by the story as well. I think the important thing parents need to realize about this book and others like it is that the world we live in is not perfect. Kids in our society go through some pretty terrible things. It’s important that literature reflects life in order for anyone to read it and connect to it. We can censor a book, but that doesn’t change the things kids go through as they pass through adolescence into adulthood. We can’t change the world for the child. We have to prepare the child for the world. If parents feel they have not prepared their child enough to read a book in which things they disapprove of are depicted, what faith do they have in themselves or their children? What is going to happen when their kids go to high school, college, adulthood? Eighth graders are old enough and intelligent enough to know that the story disapproves of Charlie’s childhood best friend’s suicide, and of the non-consensual incestuous molestation of Charlie as a child by his mentally unstable aunt. They are wise enough to understand that these events have hurt Charlie so much that he requires hospitalization at the end of the novel, because Charlie is, like they are, an adolescent, and requires help from adults to get better. It is impossible to read this book and see the drug use, the drinking, the violence, and the sex as things that make Charlie any happier. These are all things he (and his friends) use to escape their real problems. It does not work. For any of them. This brings up so many discussion points that parents and teachers can use to talk to their students. 

Perks made me feel like I wasn’t alone in the way I felt. It taught me that even in the worst circumstances, friendship provides a saving grace. I think those are powerful lessons that are covered in a well-written, honest book. I also think teaching Perks opens up an opportunity for dialogue between students and their parents, and between students and their teachers. When a book is covered in school, the teacher is there to help the students glean meaning from the text. When students read it on their own (as is inevitable when books are censored), it becomes something secretive, something they can’t talk about, and for parents, that is much, much worse.

Hi *****,

By way of introduction, I want to share that until August of 2008, I worked full-time in the writing center at Deerfield High School, where I was a member of the English Department. 

• You misread my sentence. I said that no child wants to be isolated, and that Perks tries unsuccessfully to teach that point. I said that Perks is unsuccessful because students who were defending the book at Hadley were ironically bullying the daughter of some of the parents who are objecting to it.
  
  
• I am troubled by your use of the word “censor.” As I wrote in my first article, when teachers decide that a book is “age-inappropriate” and choose not to teach it, they call it “text-selection.” When conservatives decide that a book is age-inappropriate or school-inappropriate, teachers call it censorship.
  
  
• If you think every book that isn’t taught is “censored,” then I guess Angels in America is “censored” in most schools. And since it’s “censored,” I guess students are going to “read it on their own,” and it’s going to become “something secretive” that “they can’t talk about,” which “is much, much worse.” By your reasoning, there is no book that is inappropriate in public schools.
  
  
• No parent thinks the world is perfect, but it is not the job of English teachers to expose their children to every ugly phenomenon that exists. Neither is it the job of English teachers to try to solve the emotional and social problems of teens. English teachers are not experts in those areas, and the classroom is not the place to do it. I would argue that many English teachers are not even experts in the area which they were hired to teach.
  
  
• When you say that “we have to prepare the child for the world,” are you actually arguing that it’s the role of English teachers to “prepare” kids for the ugliest sexual experiences that children may encounter? That’s a remarkable assertion for a teacher to make. Who said that’s the role of an English teacher? In what specific ways are teachers “preparing” students by teaching Perks? And if you think it’s the role of English teachers to “prepare” kids for the possible experience of being ostracized –which I would still argue is not their job — why not choose a book that portrays social ostracism in a less controversial way since these teachers are being subsidized by taxpayers?
  
  
• Some fourteen year-olds may be aware of bestiality and masturbation with food items, but many kids have never been introduced to such ideas and images, and parents shouldn’t have to worry that their public school teachers are going to expose them to such perversity.
  
  
• Many parents, me included, do not want my children discussing incest, rape, homosexuality, premarital sex, bestiality, or masturbation with their teachers or their classroom peers. Having such discussions in school contexts undermines modesty (not to be confused with prudery), which is a virtue all too rare in our culture. Our public schools do nothing to cultivate a sense of modesty and discretion in our students, and many English teachers contribute to an erosion of modesty by teaching books like Perks.
  
  
• I never argued that Perks promotes as positive any of the social ills you mentioned. I am arguing that the obscene language contributes to the desensitization to obscene language that is becoming commonplace. I would argue further that when schools teach such texts, they legitimize the use of such language.
  
  
• To be effective English teachers does not require the teaching of texts about the most dysfunctional, deviant, and evil of life’s experiences, or texts that use the most obscene language, or  texts that include graphic sexuality.
  
  
• You seem to think that the age and intelligence of students is the primary arbiter of whether a particular book should be taught. Did you ever consider that some kids who have been molested might be upset by reading Perks? Did you ever consider that the majority of students have not been molested, and now you’ve exposed them to a compelling narrative that introduces potentially disturbing images to them?
  
  
• Have you considered that some teens may find the sexual scenes arousing? If so, is that problematic? Should government employees be using taxpayer funds to present books with pornographic imagery to other people’s children?
  
  
• I find it a presumptuous  to suggest that parents who are struggling valiantly to limit their children’s exposure to obscene language and graphic sexuality in order to protect their imaginations and moral compasses while they’re still developing have no “faith” in their kids. The issue of faith in their children is wholly irrelevant. The issue is that words and ideas matter, and adolescents are not adults. They lack both emotional and moral maturity.
  
  
• English teachers more than any others should know that language matters, ideas matter, stories matter. They have the power to shape views and elicit powerful feelings. Perks depicts ugliness and deviance using ugly language.
  
  
• While you defend Perks for its disapproval of incest and molestation, you don’t mention its treatment of premarital sex and homosexuality? How are those two phenomena presented in the book? Does Perks make a case that volitional homosexual acts and fornication are inherently immoral?
  
  
• You pointed out what good you derived from Perks as justification for its curricular inclusion. As I have argued many times, for teachers who see themselves as “agents of change,” the beauty of teaching English is that they can defend teaching virtually any text they want to teach because the criteria used to defend texts are almost infinitely elastic. English teachers can say that kids relate to it, that it reflects their lived reality, that it includes “authentic adolescent language,” that it ties thematically to another text they’re teaching, that the author’s tone or use of metaphorical language are particularly effective, and on and on ad nauseum. No one is arguing that Perks is devoid of any value. Many are arguing, however, that the obscene language and graphic and deviant sexuality make it unsuitable for use in publicly funded schools. Those parents who want their children to read it are free to purchase it for their children at their own expense. Kids can purchase it or check it out from the library. They can do that because, even if schools choose not to purchase or teach it, the book has not been censored.
  
  
• Do you actually believe that teachers today are more effective, better English teachers than were teachers forty or fifty years ago when a book like Perks would never have been taught? Do you think today’s English teachers are better at teaching poetry, grammar, and analytical writing? Do you think that as a group, public school English teachers today are better readers of difficult literature? I would argue that as English teachers have presumptuously expanded their roles to include transforming the emotions, morality, and politics of children, they have become—for the most part—worse at teaching literature and writing.
  
  
• It would behoove English teachers to examine closely their unexamined assumptions about what their proper role is as an English teacher in general, and particularly in publicly funded schools.

I hope you get a chance to read all three of these:

Correction and Request Regarding Hadley Middle School

Glen Ellyn Middle School Embroiled in Book Controversy

Challenge Objectionable Texts

**WARNING: the content of this article is not suitable for children.**

Note: IFI contacted the school and left a message for Principal Dransoff prior to publishing this article. He did not respond.

Last December, students in Tina Booth’s 8^th grade literacy class at Hadley Middle School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois were divided into small groups and assigned to choose a book to read. One group chose the infamous The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which set in motion a controversy that persists today.

When students asked Booth about the book, she gave it a glowing recommendation. After parents expressed opposition to it, Principal Christopher Dransoff proposed the option of teachers in the future sending out permission slips about controversial books prior to allowing students to read them, a compromise parents were willing to accept.

Dransoff soon discovered, however, that the majority of 8^th grade literacy teachers would not accept such a compromise, apparently believing that such prior notification and parental permission constituted censorship and an implicit indictment of their expert judgment.

This intransigence on the part of the teachers resulted in parents pursuing the issue with the school board which voted 4-2 to remove the book from the middle school, which, in turn, intensified the community controversy. With two newly elected members, the school board is scheduled to revisit its decision at its next meeting on Monday, June 10.

The board’s decision raised the ire of presumptuous teachers who oppose anyone disagreeing with their assessment of what constitutes “age-appropriate,” an undefined term that Booth and her ideological allies use in their defense of the oft and justifiably challenged book.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a coming of age novel that includes suicide, abortion, drug use, foul language, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual sodomy, masturbation, bestiality, incestuous molestation, and rape—you know, all the topics “progressives” think form the basis for a solid education. Please read these excerpts from the book that Booth believes is a wonderful and “age-appropriate” book for eighth graders. ( **WARNING: Obscene content.**)

In addition to the arrogant unwillingness of teachers to ask for permission to teach such a controversial book, it is reported that three of the teachers, Lynn Bruno, Ali Tannenbaum, and Booth, initiated classroom discussions on the topic, ginning up support for their position among students. It’s reported that Booth suggested to students in her class that the school board vote was unfair, that it was censorship, and that students have a “voice.” Apparently, Booth believes that the voices of 14 year-olds should have greater influence than the voices of parents and school board members. Such use of class time to engage students in a public controversy and attempt to manipulate student opinion is unprofessional and an abuse of their power and role as public servants.

Coincidentally, these three teachers (along with Kelly Coleman) spoke at a subsequent school board meeting in support of the retention of The Perks of Being a Wallflower.* Were there no teachers who supported the school board’s decision? And if there were teachers who supported it, why didn’t they speak up at the school board meeting?

Not surprisingly, students and their voices made an appearance at school board meetings to support the retention of Perks.

But it gets worse. During the recent 8^th grade graduation ceremony, one of the two board members who voted in favor of retaining the book, Terra Costa Howard, abused her privilege of speaking by quoting from the disputed book. Demonstrating both a lack of judgment and sensitivity, Howard transformed a family celebration into a controversial political event, ruining it for the daughter of one of the families who oppose the book.

It should be noted that this brave girl was bullied relentlessly by classmates for two days following the school board’s vote. She was called “snitch,” “tattletale,” and “goody two-shoes.” Kids passing her in the halls said snottily, “Thanks a lot,” and “good job.” And her locker was festooned with post-it notes with flowers (get it—“wallflowers”). Apparently, the book, which was made into a film, hasn’t taught these kids much about compassion, kindness, diversity, or inclusion.

Booth told parents that it is their responsibility to monitor the books their children are exposed to in school. In other words, don’t trust their teachers. So, now parents must read every book assigned or chosen with a teacher’s recommendation, and they must read these books before their children do. For those families who have multiple children this is a nearly impossible expectation.

Thoughts about English teachers and curricula:

1. On English teachers’ hypocrisy: When they choose not to teach a book because they deem it age-inappropriate, it’s called “text selection.” When conservative parents object to a book because they deem it age-inappropriate—or just inappropriate—teachers call it “censorship.”
   
   
2. The nature and extent of obscene language and controversial sexual content can be so egregious as to render a text unsuitable for the purposes of educating young people no matter what positive contribution the text may otherwise make. In other words, sometimes the language is so foul and the depictions of sexuality so graphic (or deviant) as to make the book inappropriate for use in public schools—which is not censorship.
   
   
3. Far too many English teachers view themselves as experts in not only literature-related matters but psychology and morality, and they reserve the absolute right to decide what is and is not “age-appropriate.”
   
   
4. “Age-appropriate” is a tricksy bit of rhetoric from the Left. It is an ambiguous adjective used by the Left to provide cover for whatever they want to present to children in their relentless quest to initiate children into the wacky world of deviant and early sexuality.
   
   
5. What does “age-appropriate” mean? When a teacher uses this term, they should be compelled to provide a definition and criteria that determine “age-appropriateness.” The vast majority of parents who express opposition to a particular book being taught in school are not arguing that their children will be traumatized by obscene language and graphic sexual content. Rather, parents are arguing that such language and sexual content are not decent, not inspiring, not edifying, not beautiful, not necessary, and not healthy. They are arguing that such language and depictions of sexuality undermine modesty and decency. They are arguing that when public schools recommend texts that include egregiously obscene and profane language, it serves to legitimize and desensitize students to offensive language—language that is prohibited by schools, newspapers, in most professional contexts, and in polite company.
   
   
6. Perhaps a better term would be “public school-appropriateness.” Considerations of “public school-appropriateness” should take into account the nature and extent of obscene language and depictions of sexuality. This, of course, is not an exhaustive list of the criteria for public school-appropriateness. It’s a starting point.
   
   
7. One of the teachers defended the book because it helps make students feel better about themselves, presumably including feeling better about their same-sex attraction. When did it become the task of government employees to help students who are struggling with their sexuality? If that’s the government’s role, what specifically does it entail? Surely, it can’t be the role of government employees to help students feel comfortable with their same-sex attraction because that would necessitate the embrace and promotion of non-factual moral beliefs about homosexuality, which is decidedly not the right of paid government employees. There is a case to be made that it is not the task of English teachers to solve the social and emotional problems of students—a task for which they have no expertise.
   
   
8. The deference schools are giving to the strident voices of students in curricular issues is foolish and inappropriate. Students lack the maturity, knowledge, and wisdom to make curricular decisions. It’s ironic that “progressive” teachers would welcome the voices of teens while resenting the voices of conservative parents. While teachers self-righteously assert their own expertise, they welcome the support of the least knowledgeable: their students. It’s understandable, however, because teens, who see limits as anathema, will resist any attempt to limit what they study.

Teachers who teach controversial books like The Perks of Being a Wallflower don’t really care about the feelings, beliefs, or values of conservative parents. They don’t really care about the diminished academic experience of kids who are opted out of reading controversial texts and have to spend time alone in another room reading a different book. They don’t care if they create conflict between conservative parents and their children who may resent being set apart from other kids. And they don’t care how these students feel when isolated.

The emptiness of these teachers’ rhetoric about caring for all kids and honoring “diverse voices” is exposed by their actions. If they truly cared about the feelings and beliefs of all their students and their parents, they would select texts from the countless choices available that provide a solid academic experience and yet are not egregiously obscene, profane, or sexually graphic. Finding such texts is as easy as finding “progressives” in a public school English Department.

Take Action:  Click HERE to contact the school board to respectfully express your opposition to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and if possible, attend the school board meeting at 7:30 p.m. on June 10, 2013 in the Administrative Center at 793 N Main Street in Glen Ellyn.  (Map)

*From the school board minutes, here is a summary of the teachers’ comments—I kid you not:

The district needs to understand how freedom of speech is taught and the board’s decision to ban the book was a violation of the Bill of Rights; students have the rights and they should not be denied for any reason; [teachers] would like to believe that the school board and community will support students and teachers in the pursuit of knowledge.

Each parent should have the right to decide for his or her child.

What will these teachers do when little Johnny chooses—with his parents’ permission—to read American Psycho for his class book report? Oh wait, does he need his parents’ permission? The teachers (erroneously) believe that the Bill of Rights guarantees little Johnny the absolute, unfettered right to read anything he wants in school—a right that cannot be “denied for any reason,” which presumably would include his parents’ objections. 

Read more:  Challenge Objectionable Texts

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

For a second year in a row, Illinois State Senator Kimberly Lightford (D-Chicago) has introduced a bill, SB 1307, to lower the mandatory age for school attendance in Illinois from 7 to 5 years-of-age.   This year, Senator Lightford amended her bill to lower the mandatory age for school attendance from 7 to 6 instead to gain more support.  This bill passed the Illinois Senate last week and is now being considered in the Illinois House, where the chief sponsor of the bill is State Representative La Shawn Ford (D-Chicago).

“The last thing we need in Illinois is more government control and influence in our lives and this is especially true for our young and impressionable children,” said David E. Smith, IFI Executive Director, in response to this legislation.  “We all need to wake up and realize how much indoctrination is going on in our public schools, including the promotion of man-made global warming, Darwinism, LGBT affirmation, population control, feminism, reproductive ‘choice’ and other social and political issues.”

“Moreover, there is absolutely no reason for the government to usurp the God-given authority of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”

Smith isn’t impressed with the idea that the government is going to fix what’s wrong with education by forcing kids to start school earlier.  Fixing schools isn’t about more seat time for kids.  Smith says education will be fixed when we spend more time on the truth.

Veteran and prize winning public school educator John Taylor Gatto asks, “Do we really need school?  I don’t mean education, just forced schooling:  six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years.  Is this deadly routine necessary?”  Gatto goes on to list Americans who were spared the public school routine and nevertheless managed to achieve some modest success in life:  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.  He concludes they were, “Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.”

The truth may be that public schools aren’t about education at all.

Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld an author of eight critical books on education, wrote in 1991, “The purpose of compulsory attendance is not to provide an education for all, but merely to fill classrooms with children for the convenience of the education establishment whose financial benefits depend on deluding the public into believing that education is taking place.”

Parental concern with schools is fueling the homeschool movement.  Illinois’ own homeschooling advocates David & Kim d’Escoto point out in their book Big Reasons to Homeschool,  “Prior to compulsory education, findings show that the literacy rate in America was as high as 90 to 98 percent, a remarkable level that has never been attained since the establishment of our current state-controlled education system.  A recent survey revealed the drastic decline in U.S. literacy:  21 to 23 percent, or some 40 to 44 million of the 191 million adults in the United States, demonstrated incompetence in the lowest level of reading, writing, and mathematical skill.”

The decision of when to start children in public schools, which increasingly serve the political ends of liberals, rests with parents, not school administrators or lawmakers.

IFI is working with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Illinois Christian Home Educators (ICHE) in defense of parental rights and in opposition to this proposal.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to email or fax your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 1307 and the expanding role of government in the lives of Illinois families.  You can also call your state senator through the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

Editor’s Note:  This bill could be called for a vote this week in the Illinois Senate. 
Please take a few minutes to contact your state senator today!

In their relentless effort to rob Illinois communities of the right to choose abstinence-based curricula, the Left once again engages in dishonest, exploitative, and incompetent tactics, tactics that should anger anyone who values truth and sound argumentation.

This time “progressive” promoter of contraceptive-centered sex ed (aka “comprehensive” sex ed), K. Sujata, president and CEO of Chicago Foundation for Women, exploits Elizabeth Smart and  her recent comments about Mormon teaching on rape to promote Illinois’ proposed comprehensive sex ed bill.

Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped from her home at 14 years old and repeatedly raped over the course of nine months, recently spoke at a conference on human trafficking at Johns Hopkins University. Smart shared this:

I remember in school one time I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence and she said “Imagine you’re a stick of gum. And when you engage in sex, that’s like getting chewed. And if you do that lots of times you’re going to become an old piece of gum and who’s going to want you after that?”

Note that Smart did not say that this idiotic comment was part of any abstinence curriculum. She stated that one time a teacher had made this statement.

And here is Sujata’s odd rendering of Smart’s comment:

As part of her school curriculum, Smart was taught that if she lost her virginity before marriage, she would be considered worthless, like a “piece of chewed gum.” (emphasis added)

It would be generous to say that Sujata misrepresented Smart’s statement.  A less generous observation suggests she lied for her political purposes.

Smart was discussing how the teachings about rape and virginity in her conservative Mormon community contributed to her feelings of worthlessness after being raped. As evidence, she told an anecdote about one feckless and destructive comment one teacher had made. And let’s not forget that this one comment made by one teacher was made during a discussion of abstinence which comprehensive sex ed curricula discuss too.

So, by Sujata’s logic, lawmakers would be justified in robbing all communities of the right to choose “comprehensive” sex ed curricula if someone could find one idiotic and inappropriate statement made by one teacher of a comprehensive sex ed class.

Sujata made yet another ludicrous, dishonest, and unsubstantiated claim. She stated that “the lesson [Smart] was taught has been repeated in Illinois classrooms.” Say what?

Have reporters bothered to ask Sujata to provide evidence for that wild accusation? Has anyone asked her to provide proof from multiple “Illinois classrooms” that they have taught that girls who lose their “virginity before marriage should be considered worthless, like a ‘piece of chewed gum’”?  

Sujata then, in effect, told Illinois lawmakers that her misrepresentation of Smart’s anecdote should lead them to vote for Illinois’ proposed sex ed bill (HB 2675):

As Illinois lawmakers prepare to vote on comprehensive sex education for Illinois’ youth (House Bill 2675), they should consider the experience of a young woman who was victimized twice — once by a rapist and again by the inaccurate, ideologically driven, abstinence-only doctrine passed off as sex education in her classroom.

Sujata’s assertion that the teacher’s comment was part of an abstinence-only “doctrine” is almost as foolish as the teacher’s comment itself.

Sujata claims that “piles of studies prove these negative messages are just plain ineffective when measured against the goal of discouraging teen sex,” and then she cites one. And what did the one study Sujata cited from among the piles of studies find? According to Sujata:

A 2007 study commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that abstinence-only programs have had “no impact on rates of sexual abstinence.” “Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” compiled several existing studies and found no strong evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, hasten the return to abstinence or reduce the number of sexual partners.

Here’s what Sujata does not want readers to notice: This study did not prove that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence-based curricula at reducing STD, STI, or teen pregnancy rates—which are the problems the bill’s sponsors cited as justification for the bill.

In fact, from Sujata’s statement, it doesn’t appear that the study even claimed that abstinence-based curricula are less effective than contraceptive-based ”comprehensive” sex ed at delaying sexual intercourse initiation, hastening the return to abstinence, or reducing the number of sexual partners.

So, if the two types of curricula are roughly equivalent in their effect on abstinence and disease and pregnancy rates, how does the Left justify legally prohibiting only abstinence-based curricula?

It’s important to discuss this issue, but such discussions should be informed by logic, evidence, and truth.  So far, we have Illinois representatives voting for this bill that would legally prohibit a type of curriculum these representatives have never read. We have representatives who voted for this bill without ever seeing any evidence-based research proving conclusively that contraceptive-based “comprehensive” sex ed is consistently more effective at reducing STD, STI, and teen pregnancy rates than abstinence-based curricula. And now we have a promoter of this bill exploiting and misrepresenting the statements of a rape victim in order to get this bill through the Illinois Senate.

Illinoisans from both sides of the aisle should be outraged at the incompetence, ignorance, and dishonesty of those who have promoted and supported this bill.

Editor’s Note:  This bill could be called for a vote as early as this afternoon.
Please take a few minutes to contact your state senator today!

As noted in my last article on the comprehensive sex ed bill (HB 2675), no lawmakers in the Illinois House who supported the bill, including the sponsors, provided any research-based evidence during floor debates proving the superior effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed. In response to an inquiry from an Illinois citizen, State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) provided two articles and one study in defense of her support for this troubling and unnecessary bill (currently any school district is free to use comprehensive sex ed curricula). Her use of these particular pieces of evidence demonstrates exactly what’s wrong with both this bill and the sloppy way it’s been promoted in Springfield.

The bill’s supporters cited the high rates of teen pregnancy and STDs as the reasons this proposed law is necessary. If passed this bill would mandate the use of what are called “comprehensive sex ed” or contraceptive-based “Sexual Risk Reduction” (SRR) curricula, while banning the use of what are called “abstinence-centered,” or “Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA)” curricula in any school district that teaches about sexual health, which is virtually every school district in the state.

The two articles cited by Gabel are “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs: Ineffective, Unethical, and Poor Public Health,” and “Review of Key Findings of ‘Emerging Answers 2007’ Report on Sex Education Programs.” The one study is “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.”

In addition to making arguable claims about abstinence education, neither of the articles even claims that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.

And the one study Gabel cites is a deeply flawed study from the University of Georgia (UGA) that addresses only teen pregnancy.

Mary Anne Mosack, National Director for State Initiatives of the National Abstinence Education Association writes this about the UGA study:

This study is a weak attempt to correlate high birth rates in states to abstinence education. Even the most basic understanding of research protocols, cautions against claiming causation based on correlation.  This study draws a very simplistic conclusion to the complex problem of teen pregnancy. There are numerous factors contributing to high teen birth rates not the least of which are family structure, poverty and cultural environment.

However, this study attempts to draw conclusions for a subset of the population (only students in abstinence education classes) by looking at data for an entire state population to establish their findings. This showcases an extremely flawed study design that not only invalidates findings but calls into question the motivation behind a study that purports to seriously inform public policy based on scientific rigor.

By examining state sex education laws alone the researchers make the erroneous conclusion that these laws accurately reflect what is actually being taught in schools and make no mention of the percentage of students in a state who actually received abstinence classes, a serious research error on which to base such sweeping conclusions!

Vast field experience across the country shows that contraceptive-based programs have been implemented in every state regardless of the law. Even the very anti-abstinence Guttmacher Institute concluded that only 25% of schools across the country were receiving abstinence education during the decade examined in this study. In actual practice, no state can be categorized as “abstinence-only.”

Further considerations must note this study does not indicate how a state is trending. Are they moving in the right or wrong direction? It is clear that abstinence opponents would like to take all the credit for the recent positive drop in teen birth rates while disingenuously attacking abstinence education. Producing a flawed study to make that claim is sad commentary on what should be a sincere attempt to effectively reach the youth we are trying to serve.

Here are two lessons we should learn from this embarrassing attempt by Rep. Gabel to justify the legal banning of the use of abstinence-centered education:

1. If the Left introduces, for example, three studies that say something negative about abstinence education and/or positive about comprehensive sex ed, and the Right introduces three studies that say something negative about  comprehensive sex ed and/or positive about abstinence-centered education, it’s a wash. Lawmakers can’t rationally mandate the use of one type of curriculum unless they can provide proof that it is consistently more effective at achieving some particular goal.
   
   
2. The bill’s supporters have told us what their goals are, and they can’t change goals when their lack of evidence for their stated goals is exposed. The bill’s sponsors stated that their goals are to reduce the rates of STDs and teen pregnancies. Gabel produced only one flawed study that addresses only one of those problems [the bill’s House sponsor State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) produced none]. The other two articles didn’t even claim that comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence education at solving the problems of high rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. The articles make the arguable claims either that abstinence education hasn’t achieved its own goals or that it’s no more effective than comprehensive sex ed. Well, if the two types of curricula are roughly comparable, the Left can’t rationally ban only one of the two.

The Left continually misrepresents abstinence-centered (SRA) curricula and even created a term that embodies their misrepresentations: “abstinence-only education.” To those like State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) who admitted he never even looked at an abstinence-centered curriculum before voting to ban them, this title suggests abstinence-centered education addresses only abstinence, which is false. Here is a description of the content of typical Sexual Risk Avoidance curricula:

SRA abstinence education teaches that “having sex” can potentially affect not only the physical aspect of a teen’s life but also, as research shows, can have emotional, psychological, social, economic, and educational consequences as well. That’s why topics frequently discussed in an SRA abstinence education class include how to develop a healthy relationship, how to avoid or get out of a dangerous, unhealthy, or abusive relationship, developing skills to make good decisions, setting goals for the future and taking realistic steps to reach them, understanding and avoiding STDs, information about contraceptives and their effectiveness against pregnancy and STDs, practical ways to avoid inappropriate sexual advances, and why saving sex for marriage is optimal.

Remember, if the evidence provided by our lawmakers doesn’t specifically address STD and teen pregnancy rates, it’s irrelevant. And if the evidence doesn’t prove conclusively that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence-centered education in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, there is no justification for legally prohibiting the use of abstinence-centered curricula.

The evidence on the efficacy of abstinence-centered sex ed is certainly sufficient to allow school districts the right to choose it. For more clarification on the biased and inaccurate claims made about abstinence-centered sex education, click HERE.

Here are two articles of particular relevance on this website:

NAEA Report: Considerations for Protecting Teen Health: Part I will refute point by point the claims from the Guttmacher article on the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed that Rep. Gabel cites.

Correcting Misinformation.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard number at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator’s office or call IFI for their number.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

During the floor debate in the Illinois House of Representatives, supporters of the “comprehensive sex ed” bill (HB 2675), continually stated falsely that this bill mandates nothing. In fact it mandates the use of comprehensive sex ed curricula in any school district that chooses to teach about sexual health, which most districts do. It legally bans the use of what is called either abstinence education or “Sexual Risk Avoidance” (SRA) education.

The sponsors of this bill, both in the House and Senate, cited the problems of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates as the reasons this bill is necessary. In order to justify robbing every school district in the state of the right to choose abstinence-based/SRA curricula, the bill’s supporters have an ethical obligation to provide conclusive proof that comprehensive sex ed curricula are consistently more effective at reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates.

What’s shocking is that during the House debates, no research was provided. State Representatives Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) stated and Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) concurred that “numerous studies show that comprehensive sexual health education that stress abstinence as well as provides information on prevention results in positive health outcomes for teens and young adults,” but neither representative cited any study.

In addition, they didn’t claim that these numerous studies proved that comprehensive sex ed reduced the rates of teen pregnancy or STDs. Even more troubling, neither Gabel nor Lilly claimed that these numerous studies proved comprehensive sex ed is more effective than SRAs in reducing rates of teen pregnancy, STDs or even in “positively affecting health outcomes.”

Lilly claimed that a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study had concluded that “comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence only,” but she did not identify that study. I could find only two CDC studies on this topic, one from 2009 and one from 2012, both of which concluded that there was insufficient data to make a determination about the efficacy of abstinence curricula. In addition, she didn’t explain what the alleged CDC study claims comprehensive sex ed is more effective at doing.

Supporters in the House repeatedly emphasized the requirement in this bill that information in sex ed must be medically accurate. That is a point with which no one disagrees. The concern of many is with the ambiguous terms “age-appropriate” and “complete.” Typical comprehensive sex ed curricula include information regarding sexuality that many parents and educators consider age-inappropriate.

Similarly, the term “complete” is woefully ambiguous. Who decides what constitutes a “complete” curriculum? We now have campus clubs at the University of Chicago and Harvard dedicated to sadomasochism. Does a “complete” curriculum address the importance of “safe” words for those teens who may engage in sadomasochistic sexual activities? After all, some teens are engaging in these kinds of activities, so shouldn’t we ensure their “safety”?

State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) told me that he had not read a single abstinence-based curriculum and that no research-based evidence had been provided to lawmakers proving conclusively that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence-based curricula. And yet he and other lawmakers had the audacity to vote to prohibit the use of a type of curriculum that they have no idea is less effective than comprehensive sex ed.

Last July the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a report that stated that “Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), an abstinence-centered approach to sex education, is the best public health strategy to prevent unintended teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections.” 

This congressional report titled “A Better Approach to Teenage Pregnancy Prevention” is available HERE.

In light of the findings in the congressional report it’s interesting to note that the Heritage Foundation has found that comprehensive sex ed curricula pay short shrift to abstinence as measured by both the number of pages they allocate to abstinence and the tone. In other words, typical comprehensive sex ed is neither positive nor even neutral toward abstinence.

Currently any school district in Illinois is free to use a comprehensive sex ed curriculum, and according to the Chicagoist, “60% of Illinois schools already teach contraception.” Why would supporters of this bill seek to mandate the use of the type of curriculum that most schools already use and seem to be failing? Perhaps comprehensive sex ed contributes to the problems of high teen pregnancy and STD rates.

How many of our lawmakers have read through a typical abstinence-based curriculum? How many have asked to see the research proving conclusively that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective at reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates? How many have spent any time looking at Illinois schools to see if there’s a correlation between the type of curriculum used and teen pregnancy and STD rates? How many have carefully examined the research that demonstrates the efficacy of abstinence-based curricula to see if there’s sufficient justification for continuing to allow communities the freedom to choose this type of sex ed?

The question before the Illinois Senate is whether comprehensive sex ed curricula has been proven to be consistently more effective than abstinence education at reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates. Absent the provision of conclusive research-based evidence proving that, it is utterly unjustifiable and irrational to rob school districts of their right to decide what type of sex ed curriculum best suits their needs and to prohibit by law the type of sex ed curriculum that a congressional committee recommends.

To read more on typical “comprehensive sex ed” curricular content, click HERE.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard number at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator’s office or call IFI for their number.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.