A Stitch in Haste

Another example of radical social conservatives switching tactics from "our beliefs" to "nothing" --

Maryland school officials say they will respond as early as this week to a request to stop Montgomery County from beginning sex-education classes this month that include lessons on homosexuality and the use of condoms.
...
"This is part of a growing trend across the country," said Peter Sprigg, a county resident who served on the advisory council and has written two books on the homosexual debate. "Homosexual activists are aggressively promoting full acceptance of their lifestyle in the schools."

And the activists calling for curriculum redaction -- in this instance Citizens for Responsible Curriculum and the (never-boring) reparative therapy peddlers at Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- aren't "aggressive"? What can be more "aggressive" that trying to gain veto power (i.e., a censor's pen) over a school curriculum?

Just as these radical social conservatives try to distort "reframe" the debate over evolution (i.e., science) versus creationism (i.e., religion) in order to give a false sense of legitimacy to their brazenly theocratic agenda, so too do these Maryland redactors try to reframe the debate over sex education from a factual lesson plan (i.e., "some people have same-gender sexual attraction") to a political agenda (i.e., "gay is okay"). That is simply not the case.

The groups "read between the lines and assume the schools are promoting homosexuality," [an opponent] said. "But none of that is actually in the curriculum.

School officials agreed. "Half of what [the groups] are charging is in the curriculum is not in the curriculum," said Brian Edwards, a county public schools spokesman.

Same with condoms: There is a simple, straightforward difference between teaching "condoms prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV," and "premarital sex is okay."

This faux debate and manufactured outrage is not much different from the situation in Massachusetts, where teaching a fact (i.e., "gay marriage exists in this state") is somehow viewed as a political statement (i.e., "gay marriage is okay"). They are simply not the same thing, and no unbiased observer could conclude otherwise.

The most recent example of this bait-and-switch is unrepentant bigot (and perpetual Catholic apologist) Jeff Jacoby:

When school systems deal with issues of sexuality, religion, politics, or the family, there is always an overriding agenda -- the agenda of whichever side has greater political clout. Parents who don't like the values being forced down students' throats have two options. One is to educate their children privately. The other is to find enough allies to force their own values down students' throats.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Again, "gay marriage exists in Massachusetts" is a fact, a politically neutral fact. Teaching facts is the raison d'être of schools and proves nothing relative to radical social conservative indignation.

To insist, with a sweeping generalization, that "there is always an overriding agenda" may say something about Jacoby's worldview, but it does not describe the teaching of objective, neutral facts. (For a real example of a political agenda in the classroom, see here.)

There is something deeply invidious about parents who would rather have their children raised ignorant than taught "evil" facts, such as "gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts" or "condoms work." Facts are never evil, and their suppression is never righteous.