The Debate over Sex Education

                My group presentation was on sex education in the U.S., and we discussed the problems with the current political and education landscape that make it difficult for schools to find sex ed. programs that work and fund them. Of course most of the research that we saw was very much pro-comprehensive programs as well as anti-abstinence-only programs. But our most interesting findings showed that, though the political and moral landscape may be strongly divided over the issue of sex. ed, most people (parents included) take a middle ground position, and it’s been found that the programs that also take a middle ground do the best in terms of lowering teen pregnancy rates as well as STI rates.

                Though we didn’t have much time to discuss the reading, I thought that the article by Amy Sullivan, “How to End the War over Sex Ed.” was really interesting. However, I didn’t agree with the New York Times op-ed article by Ross Douthat, “Sex Ed in Washington” as much. I think Duthout brought up some good points – one being that a lot of sex education programs don’t work unless they are long term and also very comprehensive in the sense that they apply to all areas of a student’s life by teaching life skills and relationship skills as well. His main point, though, was that the war over sex education is one of regional values, and that to be fair each community should have the right to decide how to teach sex education in their schools, or to not teach sex education at all. It is, Duthout says, a “debate that should remain intensely local.” But there are a lot of issues with not having some general standards for sex education.

                One of the issues my group focused on in our paper was, “is sex education a question of ethics?” Is it ethical to withhold potentially life-saving information about contraception and STIs to adolescents in a course that is supposed to help them have healthy sex lives? Whether the sex life is in marriage or outside of marriage isn’t part of the question – even married people have to deal with STDs. A lot of the articles we found on ethics show that, yes, it is unethical. Health educators must actually educate their students about potential health risks. It would be just as unethical to not inform students that eating junk food or trans fats can cause heart problems. Giving them the knowledge does not make them more likely to have sex; in fact many comprehensive programs have been shown to delay the age of onset of sexual activity in adolescents. With that knowledge, students can better protect themselves and know what the (realistic) risks are when it comes to sexual activity. What Duthout is saying is that it is not unethical, but a matter of community opinion. I don’t believe that when it comes to health education, the political bent of the region should determine what students are told or not told. Students should be given accurate information to help them make the right choices, not “scared straight” or forced to conform to the political views of their community. Comprehensive programs or abstinence-plus programs offer options and information for every student, including those who wish to save sexual activity for marriage as well as those who are currently sexually active. It isn’t a matter of opinion as much as it is a matter of obligation and ethics.