Refine Search

Sex Education in Schools​—Good or Bad?

A RAGING battle is being fought from coast to coast in North America by advocates and opponents of sex education in schools.

Who is involved in this struggle that causes such sharp divisions even in small towns and some churches? What is behind the furor? How will it affect you and your family? And since it is taking place in a land that is supposed to be Christian, what position should the true Christian take in the matter? Is it a good thing, or bad?

Who Is Involved

After the dust of the initial skirmishes settled, the battle lines were sharply drawn. The proponents make up a formidable army: The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), the American Medical Association, the National Educational Association and the National Council of Churches.

Mobilized to object to it, in one way or another, are various social organizations, religious groups and an increasing number of local and national parent organizations and citizens’ committees. Among those resisting are some who were former advocates until they saw what were to them disturbing effects. The backlash seems to be growing.

The Canadian Institute of Public Opinion reports that 73 percent of Canadians endorse sex education in public schools. A Gallup poll says 71 percent of American adults want it for their children (and perhaps 60 percent of the schools in the United States have some form of it). Yet it is interesting that due to opposition there are now at least twenty states that have acted upon or have bills before their legislatures to curb or prohibit such instruction in schools.

Why the Fight

Generally, there seems to be some agreement between these enemies that some form of sex education is needed for the youth of this generation. The disagreement lies in when it is to be started, the extent of information at certain ages, who teaches it and the source and content of material.

A primary cause for the eruption of intense opposition to it seems to be the recent move to teach it in elementary or grade schools. Some parents were shocked at the language that very small children were beginning to use and the attempt on the part of some children to ‘practice’ on younger family members what had been taught or demonstrated in classes. Such parents feel it is a case of “too much too soon.”

Some of these parents do not object to suitable instruction in higher grades, but even then they feel they have cause for concern about who teaches the classes and whether they are qualified. They claim excesses by some teachers, such as the incident where a teacher asked students to copy obscene words off rest-room walls and then define them in class. There was the case of a teacher who asked students to relate their own experiences with masturbation, homosexuality and sexual experimentation with animals. Parents fear the effect of teachers who may have their own sexual ‘hang-ups.’

Opponents feel strongly that sex education in the schools is a form of invasion and usurpation of parental rights. To them this is a subject that should be left mainly to parental and religious training, at least in its more intimate details. They also object to group or coeducational instruction in many cases.

But the outstanding objections that have caused the bitterest exchanges are that the courses omit instruction on morals and that this is related to the aim of “leftist” groups who push sex education to weaken the moral fiber of a nation so as to make it an easy mark for communism.

Is It Needed?

Advocates counter that the opposition is prodded by ‘extreme right-wingers’ and by fundamentalist sects that are blinded by an outdated moral code. They argue that neglect and abandonment of parental responsibility to teach their own children have produced a growing rate of promiscuity and illegitimacy and spreading venereal diseases among the young. Also, youth has little protection against the continual stimuli of advertising, literature and movies and the bad example of some adults. These things, they say, have brought on the drive for sex instruction.

In Ontario the rate of unwed mothers giving birth is twice what it was ten years ago. Some feel that as many as 50 percent of teen-age brides are pregnant on their wedding day. One newspaper claimed that ten Toronto girls a week go to Quebec for abortions. In the United States it is reported that 6,000 babies were born out of wedlock last year to girls under fifteen. One doctor lamented the fact of twelve-year-olds coming to him who did not know how they got pregnant. Another deplored the “absolute ignorance” of patients with sexual problems. And statistics prove that many nations are experiencing an alarming increase in venereal diseases among young people.

There can also be no doubt about the influence for bad upon youth by the way sex and nudity are used in movies, TV, books, advertising and newspapers. Even modern music’s lyrics make illicit sex seem to be the ‘in thing.’ Commenting on the early exposure this gives to children, a physician said: “My 9-year-old knows what a lesbian is from movie ads.”

Hence, proponents call for sex education from kindergarten on in the schools.

Solutions

One can understand the desire of educators to fill in the gap left by unwise parents and supply the young with needed knowledge. However, in the frantic rush to do so they must be careful that they do not blindly trample upon the natural and obvious relationship between parent and child. If educators feel that parents are not now equipped to teach their own children or will not take the responsibility to do so, then why not deal with this cause rather than coping only with the effects?

Why not educate parents on what and how to teach their own children? Many parents would welcome this. It would maintain the important parent-child relationship, preserving the structure of the family unit. It would also make possible the suiting of the instruction to the child’s individual needs, something the parent would understand better than someone who has not lived with the child. The ideal place to teach these matters is in the home.

The privacy of the home would eliminate possible embarrassment before strangers and possible abuses by any with improper motives​—teachers or other students. It would keep the discussion in the atmosphere of a ‘family matter,’ which it is. Even proponents of sex-education courses in schools like to call them courses in ‘family life.’

To those who complain that parents feel too embarrassed to discuss these matters with their children the answer is given that they would not, once taught and trained what to say and how to handle the situation. “But parents aren’t teachers, aren’t prepared to cope with the situation, would be too emotionally involved to do well,” claim some. The observation of Dr. David Reuben is appropriate: “The schools are even less prepared than parents to offer sex education. The programs are ‘Mickey Mouse’ and the kids know it. What is needed is an entirely new approach: Education in sexuality for adults.”

Yet, even if programs were instituted for teaching parents how to cope with sex education for the young, there would be serious drawbacks. It is not likely that there would be any more moral balance in such courses than there is now in courses for the young. Nor is it at all likely that God’s laws as outlined in his Word, the Bible, would be highlighted to give the course its necessary moral balance. Why not? Because many educators have little respect for the Bible. And most churches have failed to inculcate in adults a real sense of moral responsibility. Not only do many clergymen downgrade the Bible; they embrace the ‘new morality’ code.

Thus, many are the views regarding sex education in schools. In the face of these conflicting opinions, parents are wondering what they should do.

[Picture on page 5]

Sex-education courses in school usually do not highlight sound moral principles