Teacher escorted off campus for opposing Planned Parenthood
[Apparently], it is much more important for the school to have Planned Parenthood at Benson than it is to have a teacher teach computer science and math.
~ High school teacher Bill Diss (pictured), who was escorted by police out of his classroom at Benson High School in Portland, Oregon, last week because of his opposition to Planned Parenthood’s presence on campus, as reported by Christian News Network, March 22
[HT: Barb and Brian; photo via Catholic Sentinel]
Mar.25, 2013 6:00 am |
Free Speech, Industry watch |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How else do the yahoos and other liberals deal with demography? Conservatives have more babies so Planned Parenthood must aggressively propagate and proselytize.
Forget education, children, immediate sexual gratification is what life is all about. Look at President Obama! He didn’t need any math skills. Debt is too abstract; let Planned Parenthood tell you where the rubber meets the flesh.
More evidence that Planned Parenthood is really a religion:
a distinct legal existence – PPA and legal affiliates
a recognized creed and form of worship – choice, choice, choice & sex at any expense culminating in abortion, Repeat. Often.
a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government – directors move up to national level
a formal code of doctrine and discipline – abortion always, no exceptions.
a distinct religious history – Margaret Sanger, eugenics, need I say more?
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination – might be problematic due to Democratic party affiliations, Communist Party of China et. al.
an organization of ordained ministers – abortionists & their salespeople
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies – both abortionists and salespeople have prescribed tracks of study and indoctrination
a literature of its own – does including the head-splitting non-sense of Amanda Marcotte count, or only official flyers from national and affiliates?
established places of worship – abortion clinics
regular congregations – DNC, every 4 years
regular religious services - wednesdays and saturdays (includes regular street-side mantras whenever called for by leadership)
Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young – as evidenced by the above article
school for the preparation of its ministers – Yale, Harvard, any med school where godlessness and focus on radical feminism prevails.
Well done, Mr. Diss!
“Planned Parenthood of Columbia Williamette is behind a youth sex campaign called “Take Care Down There,” which includes a website that features a warning that the content is for “mature” viewers before guests are allowed to enter. The site includes such controversial skits as “Hot and Heavy,” “Bring Your Sister,” “Threesome” and “The Down There Song,” as well as other titles that are too graphic for Christian News Network to repeat.”
Horrifying. What is wrong with these people?
How can the school justify being a part of this?
Are there no parents in that school who will stand up and scream about this? Are there no administrators left anywhere with a backbone? Is there NO ONE with any courage who can comprehend the madness of this and stand up to it???
PP is quite literally taking over the public school system. Add to that thought the reality that Obama and his regime do NOT believe parents have any legal right to educate their own children, and we should be very, very alarmed. Wake up, people.
“Bring Your Sister,”
Please tell me this isn’t about incest.
Unless he was acting in an unprofessional manner or in violation of his teaching contract (which it did not specify) while expressing his opinion on Planned Parenthood’s presence, did they have just reason or legal grounds to have him escorted & removed from campus? At first glance, this does look like censorship, but I will hold my opinion until we know more.
““Bring Your Sister,”
Please tell me this isn’t about incest.”
I cringed at that too, who knows.
Messages
January 25, 2013
Public
Marantha Spring and Shrine holylove.org
Blessed Mother says: “Praise be to Jesus.”
“I invite the world population to see that man’s departure from God’s Divine Will is the cause of all his woes. Nothing bespeaks departure from God’s Will as much as abortion. God creates new life in the womb and man destroys it. How clearly this rebellious act of disordered self-love illustrates man’s inability to discern good from evil. How definitive this act of abortion is in illustrating mankind’s need to transform what is in his heart to Holy Love.”
“Dear children, until hearts reconcile with God’s Divine Will through Holy Love, you will not be at peace or have peace in the world. Willingness to support abortion, either by active participation or by your silence, is the sign of your disregard for God’s Commandments – the embrace of which is Holy Love. The more you separate yourselves from God’s Will, the less His Providential Care rests upon you.”
Some more details:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/10046/opposing-planned-parenthood-gets-math-teacher-escorted-off-campus-by-police/
A couple things I see in some articles: apparently he is also accused of telling students to shut their mouths and telling them that they would end up on an area known for frequent prostitution. It seems like he might be doing more than just opposing PP. Who knows, we’ll see how it all shakes out.
If the government dedicated as much money and effort into classical music programs from pre school, because contrary to government belief, we are rhythmic creatures, we would have a country full of geniuses. Instead, we are creating masses of instant gratification, self absorbed and self indulgent idiots.
Chris A.
A religion?
Food for thought. Hmmmmmm.
Their priorities are clear. Start em young. Encourage promiscuity and ensure years of customers. All about the $$$$$$$$$$.
A couple things I see in some articles: apparently he is also accused of telling students to shut their mouths and telling them that they would end up on an area known for frequent prostitution.
Jack-
That wasn’t about the prostitution. The local abortion mill happens to be located there, which is to what he was alluding. Figures they’d both be close to each other though, abortion and sex trafficing go together like peanut butter and jelly.
” Jack-
That wasn’t about the prostitution. The local abortion mill happens to be located there, which is to what he was alluding. Figures they’d both be close to each other though, abortion and sex trafficing go together like peanut butter and jelly. ”
Ah, some biased reporting going on there apparently. the article I read didn’t even mention where the clinic was located. I guess it sounds better for them to claim he was calling teenagers prostitutes than to admit he was worried about them getting led into a bad decision.
I applaud this teacher! He cares more about the students than any PP person ever could. Where is his union??? Oh, wait, they support a woman’s right to CHOOSE. I wonder how many students we would have now if we hadn’t killed 50 million children. Maybe I would still be teaching. Schools need to stop “educating” kids in the sexual area and start educating them in logical consequences and thinking. Bill Diss may be our first (and not last, unfortunately) casualty in the war for our childrens’ minds.
“What is wrong with these people?”
The easier question to be answered would be:
What, if anything, is right with these people?
…”abortion and sex trafficing go together like peanut butter and [spermicidal] jelly.
An interesting fellow is our Mr. Diss.
“In a letter from the district he provided to The Oregonian, officials say they suspended him in the past for multiple reasons, including “unprofessional, intimidating and/or harassing behavior.”
“Diss was reprimanded in September for stopping employees from giving a presentation about the program in his classroom, according to a letter he provided to The Oregonian. They eventually finished their presentation, but district officials said he interrupted them”
“In one of the suspension letters he provided, officials accuse him of trying to stop students from attending the program because of his religious beliefs, as well as telling students to “shut (their) mouths.”
“The letter included statements from another teacher in the classroom, who said Diss frequently yelled and confronted students. It also told Diss it was inappropriate to discuss chastity, purity, premarital sex, abortion and religion in his math, computer science and study hall classes.”
“District officials have also accused Diss of inappropriately talking about premarital sex, sexual purity, abortion and religion in his math and computer science classes — and in study halls.”
Perhaps if he stuck to maths and computer science rather than proselytizing…..
Maybe the school should also stick to academic subjects instead of proselytizing about casual sex and “hooking up.” Maybe if students learned how to earn a living instead of how to stay in school until their mid-30’s, they’d get jobs and be able to buy their own reproductive products. Instead, Planned Parenthood is working hard to create even more bimbos and mimbos.
Obviously Reality prefers that we graduate students who know more about Dirty Sanchez than Cesar Chavez.
“proselytizing about casual sex and “hooking up.” – sorry, that’s not part of the program being delivered :-)
“Maybe if students learned how to earn a living instead of how to stay in school until their mid-30?s, they’d get jobs and be able to buy their own reproductive products.” – yes ‘less education for all!’
“Instead, Planned Parenthood is working hard to create even more bimbos and mimbos.” – sorry, that’s not part of the program being delivered.
Obviously ninek prefers that we graduate students who know, well…very little about anything.
” Perhaps if he stuck to maths and computer science rather than proselytizing…..”
Why maths? Are you from the UK?
Anyway, you are probably right. I see no need for a computer and math teacher to be discussing religion with students. I would be annoyed if my kid were in high school and their teacher was pushing religion (or atheism, or anything like that) on them when they were supposed to be learning mathematics or something like that.
But this goes for the PP representatives who apparently did a presentation in his classroom. Why would a math or computer class have to be interrupted for this? Don’t they have health classes and such?
Gosh, R, you’ve just proved me right AGAIN. Don’t you get tired???
Wait, I just realized, that these students will be well-groomed for jobs in the abortion industry. Great news, kids, Gosnell’s 15 year old assistant is in trouble, which means job opening in Pennsylvania!
“Why maths? Are you from the UK?” – ha, no Jack, just a finger slip. ‘s’ being adjacent to ‘a’ – “mathsand” :-)
“Why would a math or computer class have to be interrupted for this?” – was it? Or was he the teacher who was there when the allocated time arrived?
“Gosh, R, you’ve just proved me right AGAIN.” – glad you think so, pity you’re wrong.
“Don’t you get tired??” – never.
Jack,
PP should NOT be in public school teaching “safe sex”(promoting promiscuity) to children.
Helloooooooooooooo Portland parents??? Time to WAKE UP!!
“was it? Or was he the teacher who was there when the allocated time arrived?”
Dunno. If it was his classroom being interrupted I can see why he would be upset about it though.
I do think that if Oregon insists on using PP as their sexual health resource, they should keep it to the health classes. I am probably in the tiniest minority out of pro-lifers because I really wouldn’t give a flying fig if PP worked with schools as long as they didn’t do abortions. As long as they do, however, as a parent (or in some alternate universe where I taught), I couldn’t in good conscience be cool with them on campus.
“PP should NOT be in public school teaching “safe sex”(promoting promiscuity) to children.”
I’m fine with safe sex education. I don’t think it promotes promiscuity. I do believe parents should be able to opt their children out of the subject if they have objection. I don’t believe that PP, as long as they do abortions (and a few other objectionable things I have seen from them), should be in schools at all.
I very much doubt that this was an unscheduled interruption to another class under way Jack.
Teaching safe sex does not promote promiscuity.
including “unprofessional, intimidating and/or harassing behavior.”
Puhleese. Bringing garbage to students with names like, ““Take Care Down There, “Hot and Heavy,” “Bring Your Sister,” “Threesome” and “The Down There Song” is the ultimate in unprofessional, intimidating and harassing behavior towards children.
Parents sign the parental slip thinking their children are being taught about human reproduction in “Health” class. The slip doesn’t list the truth about PP and the smut they promote. More parents would object if they knew the truth.
The parents that know the truth need to spread the word to the parents that don’t. Then they all need to storm their school boards. Or pull their children out of the class. No audience. No class.
“I very much doubt that this was an unscheduled interruption to another class under way Jack.”
It was probably scheduled, would be my guess. Let me ask you though, do you think that teachers should have freedom of conscience? Should teachers be able to remove themselves from a classroom/event or protest to their administrators if they feel subject matter is offensive or don’t agree with their class being interrupted for something they find highly objectionable? There needs to be some way to protect people’s rights to object to things they find immoral or offensive (we can’t not teach kids evolution because a teacher doesn’t like it, but we can have a substitute cover that lesson). I am sure this guy felt as though his freedom of conscience was being infringed on.
This kind cow-towing to PP could never happen in a school in Texas! They know how to deal with this PP scum. They would flush PP into the sewer with the rest of the ….
“Bringing garbage to students with names like, ““Take Care Down There, “Hot and Heavy,” “Bring Your Sister,” “Threesome” and “The Down There Song” – so you’ve viewed the material?
“is the ultimate in unprofessional, intimidating and harassing behavior towards children.” – oh yes, can’t be teaching facts’n’stuff when there’s an opportunity to proseltyze now can we.
“Planned Parenthood is a partner in the Portland school district’s Teen Outreach Program, aimed at preventing teen pregnancy, and funded by a federal Department of Health and Human Services grant, according to the Oregonian.”
“The program focuses on preventing teenage pregnancy and drug use, as well as reducing dropout rates”
“In Portland, letters from former students and families supported TOP. In a letter, Laura Day and Patrick Learned, parents of a Roosevelt High School student, wrote that the class does give advice about sex education, contraception and family planning. But its larger context has led to “healthy communication with parents, guardians and peers on relationships in general.”
“William Toffler, a professor in family medicine, (and well known for his views) admitted he had not seen the curriculum when he testified, but said he supported Diss for his “convictions” and “conscience” for not allowing the employees in his classroom.”
Jack, if a teacher has an objection to what is being taught then they probably shouldn’t be forced to be present.
If the material they object to is part of the particular field in which they teach (evolution in science for instance), then a problem arises.
“This kind cow-towing to PP could never happen in a school in Texas! They know how to deal with this PP scum. They would flush PP into the sewer with the rest of the ….”
Right, along with the state’s biology and evolution textbooks. Freedom! Progress!!!1
I think in a public education system there should be no sex education classes. Just like teaching Christianity is prohibited, sex ed should also be prohibited as well. Too many families have different views about what constitutes sex ed. No one group should be able to impose its view of sex onto all students in a pluralistic society. The government should respect the differing views of the people it represents. Sex education should be left to families and parents to teach. I don’t think this is an unfair proposal.
“I think in a public education system there should be no sex education classes. Just like teaching Christianity is prohibited, sex ed should also be prohibited as well. Too many families have different views about what constitutes sex ed. No one group should be able to impose its view of sex onto all students in a pluralistic society. The government should respect the differing views of the people it represents. Sex education should be left to families and parents to teach. I don’t think this is an unfair request.”
This is an idea that deserves consideration, I don’t think this particular culture war will ever be won. I don’t know exactly what you would consider sex ed though. Would teaching basic human reproduction be considered sex ed, in your mind? Just the facts? Basic reproductive anatomy? I do think it’s pretty tricky to avoid teaching on particular school of thought in regards to sex, but I think basic facts don’t have to be avoided.
I think it’s probably more feasible to have it decided at a district or school level, where parents can more easily involved, what curriculum sex ed would cover.
I would say nothing about sexual intercourse or its derivative formations. I would like to say “the facts” could be taught but, in my opinion, that would just open another can of worms as to what constitutes “the facts.” So when I say no sex education I mean no education about the human reproductive system. In my opinion, the human reproductive system doesn’t need to be taught at school either because the subject is not that difficult for a parent to teach, especially for parents with access to a library or the internet. So I think the only fair thing to do is to ban even teaching “the facts.”
In my opinion, the district or school level should not be permitted to determine what the curriculum sex ed should cover. No child/student should be subjected to be taught another person’s view of sexuality, aside from their families view.
What do you think? Do you think this is too restrictive? I don’t see how people will really be able to complain when religion is already restricted.
While we all acknowledge that there are flaws Tyler, schools are the best equipped and soundly based sources of knowledge provision for students.
School based sex education is far and away the most reliable and accurate delivery method of the requisite knowledge.
Failure to teach the truths of human sex is ignorant and dangerous.
“I think it’s probably more feasible to have it decided at a district or school level, where parents can more easily involved, what curriculum sex ed would cover.” – I fear that would perpetuate the current dilemma Jack.
Teaching about christianity is not prohibited. Proselytizing is. Plus sex-ed is based on facts.
Carol Everett, a former abortion clinic owner who now reveals the secrets of the abortion industry, used to visit classrooms in her area of Texas. Under the guise of sex education, she would secretly hold as her goal 3 to 5 abortions for girls between the ages of 13 and 18. She’d get the students to laugh at their parents’ values, she’d break down their natural modesty by talking about sex in mixed-gender groups, and would offer girls a low-dose birth control pill with instructions no teen was capable of following. Pregnancies, and their profitable abortions, were guaranteed.
“No child/student should be subjected to be taught another person’s view of sexuality, aside from their families view.” – given you think the ‘facts of life’ should be taught by whatever various parents come up with rather than actual factual information, should that apply to biology and astronomy too?
Jack, I appreciated how you associated sex ed with the culture war. That made think that banning sex education might actually end this culture war, or at least mute it somewhat, and remove some of the stridency coming from both sides on some of the issues surrounding sexuality.
given you think the ‘facts of life’ should be taught by whatever various parents come up with rather than actual factual information, should that apply to biology and astronomy too?
As Jack’s observed there is a link between sex ed and the culture war. There is no culture war about astronomy.
Biology is fine to teach as long as it does not discuss the human reproductive system.
I don’t see the removal of this subject area as being very complicated to implement or greatly impairing the education of the youth.
“I would say nothing about sexual intercourse or its derivative formations. I would like to say “the facts” could be taught but, in my opinion, that would just open another can of worms as to what constitutes “the facts.” So when I say no sex education I mean no education about the human reproductive system. In my opinion, the human reproductive system doesn’t need to be taught at school either because the subject is not that difficult for a parent to teach, especially for parents with access to a library or the internet. So I think the only fair thing to do is to ban even teaching “the facts.” In my opinion, the district or school level should not be permitted to determine what the curriculum sex ed should cover. No child/student should be subjected to be taught another person’s view of sexuality, aside from their families view. What do you think? Do you think this is too restrictive? I don’t see how people will really be able to complain when religion is already restricted.”
It would seem too restrictive to me to completely refrain from mentioning human reproductive anatomy and reproduction itself. It’s really just biology, teaching that it exists doesn’t have a moral value on it. Teaching just the facts (for human reproduction, penis goes into vagina, sperm meets egg, conception occurs, etc) in a health class that teaches about anatomy and human function in general doesn’t seem to carry with it the issues people have with “sex ed”.
Basic math probably isn’t too difficult for many parents to teach but that doesn’t mean we don’t teach it. :)
We don’t teach Christianity as the One True religion in public schools in the US. I don’t think many people have a problem with it being presented in a historical context or in a factual way in a comparative religion course.
” As Jack’s observed there is a link between sex ed and the culture war. There is no culture war about astronomy.
Biology is fine to teach as long as it does not discuss the human reproductive system.
I don’t see the removal of this subject area as being very complicated to implement or greatly impairing the education of the youth.”
Of course there is a culture war about astronomy and biology (as in evolution, the big bang theory, the age of the universe, etc). Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t teach the scientific consensus in a factual manner though.
What say you to “sex-ed” being an optional course of which parents can review the curriculum and choose to remove their child if they believe it’s inappropriate or something against their beliefs?
@ Carla: I heard from someone else about the low-dosage versions of the Pill, deliberately given because they knew the girls wouldn’t take them right and would come in for abortions. However, this is almost diabolical. Just hearing a story can’t mean that this is a common practice.
To me, biology is a much bigger subject than simply learning about the human reproductive system. The human reproductive system is only one system within the human being.
Furthermore, teaching human reproduction does touch on moral issues. All subjects touch on morality, including math. For example, in the subject of math I would say that a teacher should not teach addition by taking private stuff from the students or by having the students add obscene items, and a math teacher should also ensure that they teach 2 + 2 = 4 and not that 2 + 2 = 5. Morality exists and surrounds everything and every subject. Thankfully, on most subjects humans agree what is considered moral or immoral. However, subjects like math are not controversial, but sex education is controversial just like religion is controversial.
What say you to “sex-ed” being an optional course of which parents can review the curriculum and choose to remove their child if they believe it’s inappropriate or something against their beliefs?
I don’t think this is sufficient because it subjects children from religious families to persecution by militant “sex educators.” It is also risks having these students being further ostracized by their classmates as being prudes, etc…. We shouldn’t want to make it easy for kids to be labelled by other kids.
Under your proposal Tyler, biology had better be abandoned altogether. As it stands, biology is rather pointless unless the various reproductive cycles of both plants and animals are included.
This would provide a few clues to students. Some would start to ask questions.
There’s also the fact that young people ‘compare notes’. So if some parents are imparting inadequate or inaccurate information then its all going to get rather messy.
And while claims are made that if students are taught sex then they’ll go straight out and do it, they’ll find out anyway, and if they aren’t informed then we will see worse outcomes.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Carol Everett, professional liar.
“To me, biology is a much bigger subject than simply learning about the human reproductive system. The human reproductive system is only one system within the human being.”
Yes, human biology is bigger than the human reproductive system. But it’s still a part of human biology. You’re leaving a huge gap in knowledge if you completely pretend it doesn’t exist.
Am I seriously the only person who thinks learning basic facts about reproduction is just a thing, not a big deal? Sometimes I feel like that.
“Furthermore, teaching human reproduction does touch on moral issues. All subjects touch on morality, including math. For example, in the subject of math I would say that a teacher should not teach addition by taking private stuff from the students or by having the students add obscene items, and a math teacher should also ensure that they teach 2 + 2 = 4 and not that 2 + 2 = 5. Morality exists and surrounds everything and every subject. Thankfully, on most subjects humans agree what is considered moral or immoral. However, subjects like math are not controversial, but sex education is controversial just like religion is controversial. ”
Teaching 2+2=5 isn’t a moral misstep, it’s a factual one. If a teacher taught math by using obscene objects or whatever, it doesn’t make the facts of math a moral problem, it means something is up with the teacher. Facts are simply facts. The earth going around the sun is a fact. There’s nothing moral or immoral about teaching that. Humans reproduce when they have intercourse and sperm meets egg. Nothing moral or immoral about that fact. I don’t understand this way of thinking at all.
I see your point when it comes to things like condoms, birth control, sexual relationships, sexual orientation, etc. That’s why I think a good compromise would be an optional sex ed class, with material that could be examined by the parents.
” I don’t think this is sufficient because it subjects children from religious families to persecution by militant “sex educators.” It is also risks having these students being further ostracized by their classmates as being prudes, etc…. We shouldn’t want to make it easy for kids to be labelled by other kids.”
Maybe a non-optional anti-bullying class should be in order.
It is also risks having these students being further ostracized by their classmates as being prudes, etc….
This is exactly what happens. A few students opt out and the others think they are religious zealots.
Some public school health classes show a video of a live birth. If PP is invited in, let them show exactly what they provide. Bring in the condoms, diaphrams, IUDs, etc. But make sure you also show this:
herestheblood.com
After all, it’s just he birds and the bees. And the dead babies.
Reality, the fact that some parents may not educate their children to the same level as you would like is precisely the point of having it taught by parents. Under this system, at least every parent would understand and know that the education in this area is up to them. There is no way to create a perfect way to educate children about sex. And as you are already admitted the current sex education system has it flaws. The question is which flaws are we willing to live with.
Biology would not have to be abandoned all together as you imply. Biology is a vast subject area: for example, plant reproduction could easily be discussed and would not generate the same level of controversy as a class on sex education disguised as a discussion on human reproduction.
All the benefits of sex education are hotly disputed and many disadvantages have been noted. Certainly the success that was envisioned for sex education has not been achieved.
Its hard to know what’s truth these days in the media. I’m with Jack in waiting to see what shakes out.
I def do not think an organization with partiality in ideology and politics, not to mention a financial stake in the amount of “unplanned pregnancies” ending in abortion, should be presenting their theories on sex ed in our “neutral ” public school systems.
Jack, those anti-bullying classes are already being mandated in some school systems. But is it really a good example to mandate a non-optional class about bullying – it seems a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? Furthermore, what would be taught in the anti-bullying class? We have to ensure that it is not a vehicle to teach sex ed!!! The militant sex educators, unfortunately, are a very sneaky, and often duplicitous bunch.
Sorry about the bold there everyone.
How is it hypocritical to mandate an anti-bullying class? Tons of classes are mandated.
“Furthermore, what would be taught in the anti-bullying class? We have to ensure that it is not a vehicle to teach sex ed!!! The militant sex educators, unfortunately, are a very sneaky, and often duplicitous bunch. “
I was envisioning teaching kids that words and hitting hurts, it’s not okay to be mean to or hurt anyone because they look, act, or believe differently than you, etc etc etc.
Teaching 2+2=5 isn’t a moral misstep, it’s a factual one. If a teacher taught math by using obscene objects or whatever, it doesn’t make the facts of math a moral problem, it means something is up with the teacher. Facts are simply facts. The earth going around the sun is a fact. There’s nothing moral or immoral about teaching that. Humans reproduce when they have intercourse and sperm meets egg. Nothing moral or immoral about that fact. I don’t understand this way of thinking at all.
Excuse me Jack I forgot to add the word “intentionally” in my original argument. So to clarify, my point is that intentionally teaching 2 + 2 = 5 is both a moral misstep and a factual misstep. In short, intentionally teaching error is immoral – is that a fair statement in your opinion Jack?
If you agree that intentionally teaching error is a moral misstep then I don’t think it will be too hard for you to see that every subject matter creates and has moral implications. Indeed, every subject or area of life hopefully contains facts or is factual. For example, stealing is a factual event just as much as it is a morally relevant event. Indeed, without facts, the subject of morality would be a bit absurd, don’t you think?
Facts are always situated in a context of morality. And the subject of human reproduction even more so.
” Excuse me Jack I forgot to add the word “intentionally” in my original argument. So to clarify, my point is that intentionally teaching 2 + 2 = 5 is both a moral misstep and a factual misstep. In short, intentionally teaching error is immoral – is that a fair statement in your opinion Jack?”
Sure. It’s basically lying to intentionally teach something incorrectly. I see what you mean now, I didn’t get it before.
“Indeed, without facts, the subject of morality would be a bit absurd, don’t you think?”
It seems to me that morality is dependent on many different things, facts being one of them (doesn’t mean that facts depend on morality though). Facts mean nothing to morality if disregarding them doesn’t have any consequences, so it’s not just facts that make up morality in my opinion.
How is it hypocritical to mandate an anti-bullying class? Tons of classes are mandated.
I guess the first thing you would have to do in that class is dintinguish between mandating and bullying!
“Under this system, at least every parent would understand and know that the education in this area is up to them.” - so why not toss in other factual topics such as geology and astronomy? What about history?
“And as you are already admitted the current sex education system has it flaws.” – er, no. What I said was “While we all acknowledge that there are flaws Tyler, schools are the best equipped and soundly based sources of knowledge provision for students.”, not just sex-ed. It applies to all topics. Still, parents simply aren’t as capable as schools.
“Biology is a vast subject area: for example, plant reproduction could easily be discussed and would not generate the same level of controversy as a class on sex education disguised as a discussion on human reproduction.” – what about animal reproduction? And do you really think that the mention of reproduction at all isn’t going to elicit questions?
Taking sex-ed out of schools and handing it to parents would very likely result in an increase in teen pregnancies.
Well, Jack, it seems you would be ok with prohibiting sex ed classes but feel that it is ok to teach the biological aspect of human reproduction, or at least, allow parents to opt their kids out of sex ed classes. At what age to do you think these classes should be taught or offered to students? Also, do you think the age of consent laws should factor into the consideration of when sex ed classes should be taught?
Anti-bullying classes? I am certainly against bullying and thus pro-anti-bullying (?), but it’s just pitiful that it’s come to this buzzword – treat people nicely and don’t be a jerk should be taught by everyone everywhere, not relegated to a public service announcement or 42 minute periods in your daily class schedule. As families and faith fizzle away, public schools scramble to replace their positive societal products, but fail to understand or outright disown the values from which they originate.
I say teach biology of reproduction in science class leading into human development, not “applied reproduction,” which, yes, does imply that YOU should be having sex.
“And as you are already admitted the current sex education system has it flaws.” – er, no. What I said was “While we all acknowledge that there are flaws Tyler, schools are the best equipped and soundly based sources of knowledge provision for students.”, not just sex-ed. It applies to all topics. Still, parents simply aren’t as capable as schools.
I am not sure if this is a factually true statement by you Reality. I believe home-schooled children on average fair better on their SATs than do children who have been taught at public schools.
“Well, Jack, it seems you would be ok with prohibiting sex ed classes but feel that it is ok to teach the biological aspect of human reproduction, or at least, allow parents to opt their kids out of sex ed classes. At what age to do you think these classes should be taught or offered to students? Also, do you think the age of consent laws should factor into the consideration of when sex ed classes should be taught?”
I’m not “okay” so to speak about prohibiting sex ed, it was an interesting argument that you made though. I do think there is no need to censor mention of human reproduction and anatomy in biology or other science courses. Parents should have the option of opting their kids out of sex ed.
I don’t know about ages. I’ve never been to school, I don’t know the “normal” ages these things are taught and I’m not entirely sure about child development to know what would be appropriate.
What does age of consent have to do with teaching basic reproduction and anatomy. I would hope that people have some good information before they hit puberty, at least.
” I am not sure if this is a factually true statement by you Reality. I believe home-schooled children on average fair better on their SATs than do children who have been taught at public schools.”
Home schoolers do better on reading and writing, other language skills. School taught children do better in science I believe. Except for me, I was opposite for some random reason.
“I believe home-schooled children on average fair better on their SATs than do children who have been taught at public schools” – what Jack said. My – admittedly very anecdotal – observation is that in the US a very large proportion of home-schooling is done because parents don’t want their children to learn evolution, sex-ed, whatever and wish to use the bible as the core resource whereas in other countries it is because the child is intellectually advanced or for medical or geographical reasons.
If parents are left to teach sex-ed then some children will be handed a copy of the Kama Sutra while others will be told “If you touch or get touched in any way before marriage you’ll go to hell so you don’t need to find out until your wedding night!”
I don’t know about ages. I’ve never been to school, I don’t know the “normal” ages these things are taught and I’m not entirely sure about child development to know what would be appropriate.
What does age of consent have to do with teaching basic reproduction and anatomy. I would hope that people have some good information before they hit puberty, at least.
I was wondering if you think age of consent laws should impact the consideration of when “sex-ed” should be taught. To me, it seems a bit hypocritical for society to teach sex ed to people are not old enough to legally engage in the activity. It almost be like teaching them how to break the law. For example, it seems hypocritical to teach a 12 or 14 year-old about sex if they are not legally permitted to have sex until they turn 16. I don’t think any state teaches a kid how to drive before they reach the age they are permitted to drive.
Surely, you would agree with confining any sex-ed class to the later grades in high-school?
If parents are left to teach sex-ed then some children will be handed a copy of the Kama Sutra while others will be told “If you touch or get touched in any way before marriage you’ll go to hell so you don’t need to find out until your wedding night!”
Not getting too deep into the histrionic quality of your statement, but what, in general, is wrong with kids having different views/understandings of sex? Don’t people in society already have different views about sex? Why should the libertine view of sexuality prevail over the puritanical view of sexuality? Who is in a position to say which view of sexuality is correct and should be taught to children? Ideally, the Puritan’s and the libertine’s view of sexuality should remained unchanged and unmolested by each other’s view. Teaching the facts, as Jack would like, should leave these two views on sexuality unaltered.
Now if Mr. Diss had only looked at porn on the job, his job would be secure. . . .
http://www.newstalk1130.com/pages/common_sense_central.html?article=9844551
” I was wondering if you think age of consent laws should impact the consideration of when “sex-ed” should be taught. To me, it seems a bit hypocritical for society to teach sex ed to people are not old enough to legally engage in the activity. It almost be like teaching them how to break the law. For example, it seems hypocritical to teach a 12 or 14 year-old about sex if they are not legally permitted to have sex until they turn 16. I don’t think any state teaches a kid how to drive before they reach the age they are permitted to drive.
Surely, you would agree with confining any sex-ed class to the later grades in high-school?”
Well, I do think that some forms of “sex ed” aren’t appropriate until older ages. I just personally don’t think it’s hypocritical to teach basic reproduction and anatomy at earlier ages. Kids have genitals, they sometimes have younger siblings and wonder how they and their siblings get there. My four-year-old had all kinds of questions when I changed his little sister’s diaper when they were younger, I answered them as factually as possible (she has a vagina and vulva, that’s what girls have, you have a penis and testicles, that’s what boys have, etc). He knows basics about babies growing in their mother’s bellies. He hasn’t asked yet how the babies get in the bellies in the first place, and I see no need to go into it until he’s a bit older.
When kids are eleven, twelve, thirteen or so I would think it’s appropriate to discuss relationships, condoms, and other aspects of human sexuality. Before they are in a situation where they might have sex and not understand what’s going on, how can you decide if you are ready for something if you haven’t been taught about it?
That’s just my opinion on how I will teach my kids though, I honestly am not sure how in my perfect world this would be incorporated into curriculum in a public school.
Praxedes @12:20am:
I have no idea how that wasn’t considered sexual harassment of both the teachers and students who were subjected to that behavior. That man shouldn’t be teaching if the accusations against him are true.
Ah, good. You’re getting there Tyler. As Jack has quite rightly pointed out, teaching the purely anatomical and factual aspects of sex/reproduction is paramount. Everything else is views and understandings, as you say. The point I was making is that parents will bring views and understandings which could, in some cases at least, negate the delivery of the necessary and accurate facts. Schools are much less likely to do so.
”I don’t think any state teaches a kid how to drive before they reach the age they are permitted to drive.” – they get to observe plenty of others doing so though ;-)
(and in some places it is taught before driving age. Then there are motorsport activities like 5 year olds riding motorbikes and driving karts)
Agree, Tyler @ 12:13am.
Otherwise, if they’re gonna let folks from PP come in and talk sex ed., then at least let folks like me teach it, too. Require the children to take both classes.
Oh, and for those who may worry, I would be able to teach sex ed. without ever bringing up Jesus, religion or Christianity.
“Ah, good. You’re getting there Tyler. As Jack has quite rightly pointed out, teaching the purely anatomical and factual aspects of sex/reproduction is paramount. Everything else is views and understandings, as you say. The point I was making is that parents will bring views and understandings which could, in some cases at least, negate the delivery of the necessary and accurate facts. Schools are much less likely to do so.”
Well there isn’t any way to completely prevent this, and I’m not sure that it’s the state’s place to teach every single thing ever, regardless of parental wishes. There has to be a line somewhere. For example, it wouldn’t bother you if abortion was taught as “birth control”, however “factually” but I would not want my children taught that at all. I wouldn’t be bothered by a factual teaching of condom use for my high school aged kid but a Catholic parent would probably be quite upset about that.
When kids are eleven, twelve, thirteen or so I would think it’s appropriate to discuss relationships, condoms, and other aspects of human sexuality. Before they are in a situation where they might have sex and not understand what’s going on, how can you decide if you are ready for something if you haven’t been taught about it?
You can’t. But you can teach your children about peer pressure (in addition to everything you have and will teach them) and how people have been taught different things than your children will be taught and that they will believe different things than what other people believe, and that they will have a different understainding about the consequences of their actions than other people will have about the consequenes of their actions.
That’s just my opinion on how I will teach my kids though, I honestly am not sure how in my perfect world this would be incorporated into curriculum in a public school.
Agreed…this is the problem…and that is why no sex education classes in public schools is an appropriate solution.
” You can’t. But you can teach your children about peer pressure (in addition to everything you have and will teach them) and how people have been taught different things than your children will be taught and that they will believe different things than what other people believe, and that they will have a different understainding about the consequences of their actions than other people will have about the consequenes of their actions. ”
Which is all true, and stuff I will go over with them. I always wonder if people that believe that saving sex for marriage (which is a perfectly valid and healthy goal, I’m not knocking it at all. People who wish to teach their children that are doing good) teach their kids about how powerful their own sex drive might be, how it can be overwhelming, and how to avoid situations where you might be “tempted” into doing something regardless of the consequences you were taught about. The couple people I know who were raised very “pure” weren’t warned about that aspect and ended up having issues dealing with it. *shrug* I’m sure people teach their kids different things.
” Agreed…this is the problem…and that is why no sex education classes in public schools is an appropriate solution.”
This would work if all parents were involved in their children’s lives and were teaching them something about sexual morals. As it stands now, a huge chunk of kids aren’t getting any education about these matters. And I do wonder about kids who have well-intentioned parents who just don’t feel comfortable discussing sex.
Reality, the problem I have with your view is that you seem to look at “school” as a monolithic institution. School is made of people, teachers to be precise, and these teachers are human beings, they are parents, and they are single, some are old, and some are young. No two teachers are going to teach sex-ed the same way. This is a problem – too many teachers and individuals feel they have a right to impose their view of sexulaity on other people’s children and don’t confine themselves to just teaching ”the facts.” It is truly unfair to parents that teachers, strangers to the children, are supposed to teach children about the most intimate experience of life. A class room setting is not an appropriate setting to teach sex education. (By the way, I have focused on sex-ed in this comments because I did not want to mix it with the factual teaching of human reproduction.) Teach sex in a classroom setting automatically conveys a wrong perspective about sexuality – it demeans it.
This would work if all parents were involved in their children’s lives and were teaching them something about sexual morals. As it stands now, a huge chunk of kids aren’t getting any education about these matters. And I do wonder about kids who have well-intentioned parents who just don’t feel comfortable discussing sex.
I accept that there is the problem of some kids not getting enough information but given the dynamics of our culture I would say that this is not the main problem for most kids today. I suspect the problem for most kids today is an overexposure to ideas about sexuality. That is just my take.
” I accept that there is the problem of some kids not getting enough information but given the dynamics of our culture I would say that this is not the main problem for most kids today. I suspect the problem for most kids today is an overexposure to ideas about sexuality. That is just my take. ”
Eh, cultural osmosis might teach them about sex in some ways, but sex ed might be the only chance they have to learn anything about protecting themselves. One of my friends tells me that her sex ed went over the possible emotional consequences of promiscuity, the possible consequences of teenage pregnancy, STD prevention. That stuff doesn’t seem prevalent in our culture, quite the opposite in fact. Porn, sitcoms and movies aren’t going to teach them that.
Jack, in my previous comments I raised the point that it may be hard for people to agree on what the facts are with respect to sexuality now I would like to raise the concern that most people bring a certain “view” or perspective on the “facts.” I am concerned that teachers/educators with more libertine views of sexuality are more hesitant to check their perspectives at the door before teaching their sex ed classes. I think schools need to be more vigilant that sex educators are not promoting their “views” on and value judgments about sexuality.
So are you now saying that its ok for schools to teach the mechanics of reproduction, just not ‘sexuality’ Tyler?
One way or another kids will find out how to ‘do it’. Most will act on that knowledge at some stage. It makes sense that they also learn the various means of how to prevent reproduction. This would include abstinence, condoms, the pill etc. They also need knowledge of non-heterosexuality because it exists.
Each teacher is not responsible for setting the topic content. If, while delivering the predetermined content, a teacher expresses ‘libertine’ views; the howls of outrage would be deafening. Teachers don’t usually like losing their job.
“Jack, in my previous comments I raised the point that it may be hard for people to agree on what the facts are with respect to sexuality now I would like to raise the concern that most people bring a certain “view” or perspective on the “facts.””
Oh yeah, I do agree people can spin facts, they even do it unconsciously. I do it, you do it. You and I would probably teach some of the exact same facts about sexuality with a different spin because of our own personal biases, morals, and opinions, and both of our ideas would probably have merit (though I fully admit my understanding of sexuality is probably skewed from the way I was raised, but I try to be aware of that and notice what’s more normal). Some facts are harder to skew than others though, and are more resistant to personal bias, however. It’s hard to skew the fact that humans make more humans by intercourse. It’s easier to skew other facts about sexuality (condoms might prevent conception, but I would say that’s fine and you would argue that’s damaging).
”I am concerned that teachers/educators with more libertine views of sexuality are more hesitant to check their perspectives at the door before teaching their sex ed classes. I think schools need to be more vigilant that sex educators are not promoting their “views” on and value judgments about sexuality.””
I think that “libertine” people are not more susceptible to this bias than someone with a more conservative view on sex is. People are people. I do think some things are important and can be at least mentioned. Getting pregnant in high school, unmarried, generally has adverse consequences. Getting an STD is much more common if you have more than one partner and condoms are not 100% effective.
Other things are a bit more complicated, I would worry about how to introduce them without personal bias. It’s a fact that humans tend to bond when they have sex, but that would be a hard thing to talk about without introducing personal bias. It’s true that promiscuity can have adverse consequences, but there are many ways to introduce bias into that topic.
Your friend’s sex ed class sounds like one of the better classes. I have heard horror stories of classes simply reinforcing the ignorant things they have learned through culture. I also went to the PP site to see what kind of stuff they were putting out – it is pure crap and very misleading information. It definitely doesn’t follow your “just the facts” method, however, it does try to tell everyone it is just telling the facts!
From what I can tell from the PP site they have a some facts with a ridiculous amount of opinion. It’s problematic in the classroom especially when it comes to stuff like abortion.
Reality I am not going to be pigeon holed into a final view at the moment. I haven’t thought about the idea enough. However, some ideas are taking shape around which topics should be banned and classified as sex-ed classes as opposed to biology class. For example, any discussions that do not simply explain the pure scientific mechanics of how the human reproductive systems works should be prohibited.
Discussions about STDs and contraception would constitute a sex-ed class and not biology class and therefore should not be taught in school. It should be the Parent’s right and responsibility to nform their children about the subject of STDs and contraception.
I think that would create a high risk situation Tyler. They’d soon find out from other sources anyway, just not as accurately as would be beneficial.
“District officials have also accused Diss of inappropriately talking about premarital sex, sexual purity, abortion and religion in his math and computer science classes — and in study halls.”
To sum up…
A teacher who discusses premarital sex and abortion in his classroom is out of line.
A Planned Parenthood chapter that discusses the very same topics in the very same classroom in front of the very same students? A-OK.
“A teacher who discusses premarital sex and abortion in his classroom is out of line.” - ‘discuss’ isn’t what he did.
Reality, I think you are assuming parents won’t talk to their kids about sex. I don’t think that assumption is well founded.
I also thought of what I think could be a democratic and fair alternative to Jack’s suggestion that a parent have the right to opt-out their child from sex ed classes. The alternative idea would be to not have any sex-ed classes but to provide the curriculum to the parents. With this alternative the parents would know what the school board thinks is important for the student to know while giving the parent the ability to teach the subject from the perspective they want to teach it. This alternative has the added benefit of not requiring any student to be publically ostracized by the school board.
“I also thought of what I think could be a democratic and fair alternative to Jack’s suggestion that a parent have the right to opt-out their child from sex ed classes. The alternative idea would be to not have any sex-ed classes but to provide the curriculum to the parents. With this alternative the parents would know what the school board thinks is important for the student to know while giving the parent the ability to teach the subject from the perspective they want to teach it. This alternative has the added benefit of not requiring any student to be publically ostracized by the school board.”
This might be an option. There’s still the issue that there are a lot of parents, maybe even the majority, who would just ignore it.
Just wondering, do you consider it publicly ostracizing if a parent opted their kid out of, say, biology while they were teaching evolution? And do you think a better way to try and counteract kids getting picked on or shunned because of their opt out of sex ed is to work on the issues that cause kids to think that behavior is cool, rather than get rid of a class?
““A teacher who discusses premarital sex and abortion in his classroom is out of line.” - ‘discuss’ isn’t what he did.”
You don’t know what happened, though. Neither does anyone else on this blog. All we have are a bunch of allegations, some of which this guy disputes.
I’m not Tyler. I just think that some parents views would be so colored as to render the imparting of accurate knowledge impossible. Even with a curriculum in their hands.
Was he asked to deliver any teaching on or ‘discuss’ premarital sex, sexual purity, abortion and religion in his math and computer science classes Jack?
He doesn’t seem to be so much disputing what it is said he did, just whether it was right or wrong.
You just moved the goalposts. You told bmmg that “discuss” isn’t what he did. You could be right, he could have been teaching or being aggressive rather than “discussing”. I answered by saying you didn’t know exactly what went on (which you don’t, neither do I). It does seem that he’s not denying saying things about premarital sex, sexual purity, etc but he does seemed to be defending himself against some allegations.
Good grief Jack, that’s why I said ‘discuss’ rather than just discuss. After I had said “deliver any teaching”.
“It does seem that he’s not denying saying things about premarital sex, sexual purity” – exactly. And was he supposed to be doing this in math or computer science class?
Just wondering, do you consider it publicly ostracizing if a parent opted their kid out of, say, biology while they were teaching evolution? And do you think a better way to try and counteract kids getting picked on or shunned because of their opt out of sex ed is to work on the issues that cause kids to think that behavior is cool, rather than get rid of a class?
These are fair questions. First, I do believe that taking a child out of a class (even at the parent’s discretion) is an unwitting way of ostracizing the child by both the school board and his classmates. (Obviously the degree to which this is felt is going to vary amongst each particular child, and some children may not feel anything.) Even though the school board doesn’t intend for this to happen it does happen. It is a factual reality that occurs when someone is excluded from something – similar to the phenomon of being picked last to join a team. However, if there are enough parents withdrawing their children the children who will be ostracized will change and instead will be the children who stayed in the class (if the other kids know who). Second, the ostracizing behaviour is being committed by the school and the class mates. The behaviour may be able to be corrected in the children but the school’s endorsement of this segregation is systematic and can’t be corrected unless it is stopped. Furthermore, I imagine that getting kids to stop bullying other kids has been a goal of schools (and parents) since schools (and siblings!) were first conceived. Not sure if this problem can ever be gotten rid of entirely. I think bullying is an aspect of human nature, or rather is one of the weeds that is grown in the soil of human nature, as soon as you pull out this particular weed of bullying you notice another twenty sprouting up elsewhere.
I would add though that in some situations and in some classes the best thing is to take the child out no matter what. So I am not opposed to this idea completely.
“exactly. And was he supposed to be doing this in math or computer science class?”
I don’t think he should be. I don’t actually know the specific rules on that though. Are teachers in public schools allowed to share views like that in the classroom, especially if it’s not remotely related? If they are I don’t think it should be allowed.
I thought he is in trouble for trying to stop PP presentations rather than his views being expressed in class. I’m seriously tired though, might be wrong about that.
Trying to stopp PP presentations was the final straw Jack, he’d been in trouble previously for his ‘discuss’ episodes.
Fair enough Tyler, I was just wondering how you saw the issue of opting kids out of class in general, not just with sex ed.
Btw thanks for the pleasant discussion. Probably the most polite one we’ve ever had lol.
“Trying to stopp PP presentations was the final straw Jack, he’d been in trouble previously for his ‘discuss’ episodes.”
Oh I see, that’s what I was missing. Bedtime for me.
Sleep well Jack.
Have a good night Reality.
“Trying to stopp PP presentations was the final straw Jack, he’d been in trouble previously for his ‘discuss’ episodes.”
If he discussed something unrelated to his subject area that was nevertheless in line with school and secular ideology, they’d be giving him an award. Maybe that’s what you sign up for when you teach public school, but let’s not act like straying from math was his downfall. It was straying from the school’s master plan for indoctrinating students.
I’m not Tyler. I just think that some parents views would be so colored as to render the imparting of accurate knowledge impossible. Even with a curriculum in their hands.
Thanks for sharing your views and the above views in particular. I find the above view, and I realize you think this view is helpful, is very frightening. I find it frightening because it seems to me that in order to hold such of view a person would have to be willing to assume the worst of parents and be willing to override a parent’s natural right to educate their child. It appears to accept the idea that is better to ignore the parents rather than to help them become better parents or to dialogue with them. It seems to reflect a willingness to embrace an oppressive form of goverment intrusion.