The following excerpt is from a policy paper that I wrote several years ago when beginning my doctoral studies. Times have changed for the better in some instances. Still, I should definitely reacquaint myself with changes and challenges still facing this important issue...
Evaluation of the Policy
The U. S. federal government currently spends million of dollars to fund AOE programs, programs which present little or no scientific evidence related to efficacy. In other words, taxpayer dollars are being used to fund programs that have not been proven effective. The U.S. continues to lead the industrialized world in teen births and in STD infections for youth. Studies conducted on AOE curricula have found false and/or misleading information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, false information about abortions, blurred the distinctions between religion and science, reinforced gender bias, and lastly contained erroneous scientific information. Sexually active teens and youths identifying as GLBTQ are discriminated against through the goals of AOE programs. There is another way. Balance is the key.
Abstinence defined as a behavioral goal is not the same as AOE. Comprehensive sexuality education presents abstinence as an attainable goal while still preparing and informing youth about the real world. Albert (2004) polled parents in a national survey concerning issues related to teen pregnancy. Opinion polls suggested overwhelming support for abstinence as a health goal (e.g., 91%) but at the same time, strong support (e.g., 75%) existed for educational efforts informing adolescents about abstinence and birth control methods. Many in the scientific community and prominent national organizations (e.g., American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Human Rights Campaign, Society for Public Health Education) support comprehensive sexuality education. For a complete listing of these organizations please Advocates of Youth (2001), particularly pages 25 to 27.
To give incomplete or misleading information to teens compromises their abilities to protect themselves from STD and pregnancy. This can only limit their decision-making skills, and it is an active form of censorship. Wiley (2002) discusses ethical implications in regard to AOE programs. He posed several questions. Is it ethical to intentionally withhold sexuality information from adolescents? Is it ethical to discuss contraceptives only in terms of failure rates? What are the implications inherent of educating students that heterosexual marriage is the only morally acceptable choice for sexual expression (it will be interesting to see how things change given the recent Supreme Court decision on marriage equality)? What are the ethical implications of using curriculum approaches that lack scientific data and methodology?
Wiley further suggested that the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence are violated in AOE programming. To not supply teenagers with potentially life saving information harms students thereby violating nonmaleficence requirement to "do no harm." Secondly, beneficence obliges teachers, health educators, and program directors to positively contribute to the welfare of students. Students benefit from having comprehensive and scientifically accurate information.
Presenting heterocentrist views on marriage as the only acceptable form of sexual expression is also problematic. As previously mentioned, gay and lesbian youth cannot conform their behavior to this definition, as this option is not open to them, and lead relational, authentic lives (Eskridge, 2002). Labeling these youth as abnormal, perverse, or deviant does nothing but marginalize them and makes them invisible in health outreach. The aggressive promotion of marriage, while discouraging other forms of sexual behavior through fear and false information, is an imposition of conservative social and sexual morality. Political ideology is prevalent in these programs. The subject of ideology is too vast a subject to be tackled by this paper; however, it is sufficient to say is that AOE is heavily biased in favor of promoting a very narrow and conservative version of the Judeo- Christian values concerning sexuality and marriage.
AOE has postulated a recycled up-to-date, hipper, version of the old sex hygiene programs that were propagated throughout the early 20th century. Those old propaganda films posited the horrors of syphilis and gonorrhea in gory detail. However, they failed to reaffirm the pleasures of sex or teach basic human anatomy. Marriage is held to be the "all or nothing" prize, yet the divorce rate among heterosexuals is epidemic. Moreover, as Eskridge (2002) points out, the emphasis for marriage itself has shifted from procreation to pleasure and personal fulfillment. The U.S. Supreme Court has even affirmed this transition; for example, Justice Sandra O'Connor rendered a decision where the Court defined heterosexual marriage as "expressions of emotional support and public commitment"; "spiritual significance"; "sexual consummation" and "government benefits" (Eskridge, 2002, p. 275). The surprising aspect of her version was that procreative sex was not a main element in her definition of marriage.
Children enrolled in AOE programs also come from all types of families (e.g., mom and dad, one parent, unmarried couples, gay and lesbian). In fact, the nuclear family with the working father and stay-at-home mother is no longer how the majority of U.S. families can be described (Eskridge, 2002). Therefore, educational efforts should be geared to be more inclusive of the myriad of family types throughout the United States .
Comments
Post a Comment