Montogmery County Sex Ed Program Under Attack Again
The People’s Republic of Montgomery County School Board is under attack again for its sex education policy.
A parents group is asking a judge to halt an explicit sex-education curriculum implemented by a Maryland school board that teaches homosexuality is innate and provides depictions of “erotic” sex techniques.
Brandon M. Bolling, of the Thomas More Law Center, told Judge William J. Rowan III that state law requires that information presented in public schools be supported with evidence, and the teaching that homosexuality is “innate” lacks that support.
“The Maryland law says you have to teach something that is factually accurate,” he told the judge. “They are not doing that. That is illegal.”
The group is also attacking demostrations of condom use as portraying “erotic techniques of sexual intercourse.” The last, while probably not appropriate for class, is a bit of a stretch. Further:
Declaring homosexuality to be ‘innate’ is a direct attack upon the ex-gay community and the possibility of changing one’s sexual orientation,” said Peter Sprigg, a Montgomery County resident and board member for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. He also served on the Citizens Advisory Committee that reviewed the curriculum.
“This statement was inserted into the curriculum at the last minute and was never reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. It also directly contradicts the statement elsewhere in the curriculum that ‘sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors,'” he said.
Bolling said the Maryland State Board of Education had abdicated its responsibility by allowing Montgomery County arbitrarily to decide that classroom discussions of oral and anal intercourse did not violate a state law against discussions of such “erotic” techniques.
Montgomery County educators have defended their decision to present the explicit sexual instruction to students. They also say any criticism of the curriculum “intrudes” into their right to teach children.
This last statement by the Montgomery County school board goes to demonstrate just how large their moral superiority extends. The School Board is elected-therefore under the political philosophy of our nation, their power and “right” to education is delegated to them by the people–the voters. They have no more “right” to teach than I have. In fact they have less right, since I have the right to teach my children as I see fit. They do not have the right to teach children in any manner they see fit.
Like it or not, a curriculum is, in part, a political document. It is the public expression of what we as a political body determine to be important to teach our children. Criticisms of curricula are just as valid as criticism of the school board’s decision to draw school assignment lines–and even more important. The mindset of “we are educators and we know best” must be challenged at every opportunity.