Sex education in public schools is a popular issue of controversy in the United States. Do we promote abstinence until marriage as the only certain way to avoid STIs and unwanted pregnancy, or do we expose teens to the idea of sex and teach safe practices? These two opposing curriculums do have one thing in common: they both focus on heterosexual couples. At a crucial time in their development, LGBTQ students are being ignored in the classroom.
 |
(1)
|
This alienation can lead to not only an uncomfortable sense of not belonging, but also misinformation regarding which safe sex practices apply to them. A lack of education perpetuates myths such as “you can only get STIs from the opposite sex” and “lesbians can’t get pregnant.” A study conducted in Masschusetts showed, unsurprisingly, that GLB youth attending schools with gay-sensitive HIV instruction reported engaging in fewer sexual risk behaviors. However, prevention of STIs is not the only goal of sexual education, and acknowledging the risk of HIV in the GLB community does not by any means put GLB adolescents on equal ground with their heterosexual peers. The same study found that GLB youth, even in the presence of gay-sensitive HIV instruction, were still significantly more likely to feel threatened and/or engage in substance abuse, sexual risk behaviors, and suicide attempts than heterosexual youth. (2)
In the last decade, many anti-bullying and awareness programs have been implemented in schools nationwide in an attempt to create a safe environment for all students. But if the equality doesn’t extend to the classroom and sexuality is ignored in discussions, just how safe is this space? How can we really call our heteronormative standard of sex education “comprehensive”?
In fact, there are many examples of activists within the past few years who worked to prevent equality in the classroom. In Chicago, when Katie Cassidy pushed a bill that would require public school districts to move from the Illinois standard abstinence and monogamy based curriculum to one that would teach medically-accurate information about contraception, she was criticized for promoting “homosexuality-affirming elements” in the classroom. Even mentioning the existence of sexual orientations outside of heterosexual is seen as a threat to “traditional family values.” (3)
This is not to say that no progress has been made on other fronts, such as discrimination and marriage laws. But if equality doesn’t exist for adolescents in the classroom, a time when students are vulnerable and struggling with forming an identity, then our educational system has not done its job.
However, there are proposed changes to this faulty system. New sex ed guidelines released by a health and education coalition declared that elementary students should know the definition of sexual orientation as “the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” by the end of fifth grade. By the end of middle school, they should be aware of the differences between sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The goal of these guidelines is to introduce the information early in childhood to provide a safe environment and promote safe practices later on. Unsurprisingly, this movement is under heavy fire for introducing “controversial topics” in the classroom. (4)
Do these new proposed standards have the right idea? Do they address a symptom or the larger problem? What more can we do to bring equality to the classroom and the school environment as a whole?
- Lauren D
Sources:
Internalized homophobia is an issue that is deeply rooted within our culture, for sure. Not only our country is at fault, however, as many other countries exemplify even worse anti-gay sentiments than we do. 75 countries around the world will downright imprison you if you're gay; 50% of African countries and 23 Asian countries have criminalized homosexuality (Dugan). Awareness may help reduce discrimination in America (which is always fantastic), but are we the ones who need the most proactive change? In your opinion, what other actions could be taken to challenge the hetero-normative derived discrimination that affects so many people on the global level?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/more-than-70-countries-make-being-gay-a-crime-2040850.html
-Miggy G-
DeleteI definitely agree that many countries, compared the the United States, have little or no tolerance for the LGBT community. However,on the global scene, the US still is in a position of influence, and making strides towards equal rights and opportunities through policy and the education system is still a very powerful statement. British Colombia, for example, has applied a three step approach that includes a mandatory code of conduct, applying a new curriculum, and passing the "Safe Schools Act" to improve schools.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_files/mcgregor.pdf
There is a strong argument that the public education system is used to impart the national values to youth. It has been used a great deal for assimilation of immigrants and first-generation students, from teaching American myths to enforcing English as the common language. And this application of public education seems to be in play when it comes to sex education.
ReplyDeleteWhile the U.S. is at least progressed far enough to acknowledge a heteronormative view, we undoubtedly do hold a heteronormative view as a national value. This makes teaching anything else a matter of something larger than medical accuracy. Sadly, the people protesting for the sake of their values are old enough to access medical information on their own. My question would be, to what extent can people pursue their moral values at the risk of harming their children?
-Joey E.
I think having a science based sex ed program is a difficult message to get across. These abstinence only/heteronormative sexed programs reflect the culture that they are taught in. Many Christians believe that sex should only occur between a man and a woman in a committed marriage. I know that this is not the general belief of the Kalamazoo College campus, and it is definitely not my view, yet you can't just tell millions of people to abandon their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to forget that we are "crazy" liberals and are "going to hell." With time and effort, people will change, and liberals will no longer be "going to hell.". The population will cycle through, and progressive ideas will just become accepted ideas. What I have a problem with is bullying and hate. Love and acceptance is an American (USA) value that should be taught in all schools no matter the curriculum.
-Katherine S.
I think the definition of sexual orientation was spot on. It is a good basis for all future sexual education courses. Not only does it provide a more well rounded education, but it would be inclusive to everyone in the class, whatever their sexual orientation may be. In some ways I think that classes that only teach from a heteronormative point of view aid in making people who may not identify as heterosexual feel as though they are abnormal and sick which can result in self harm, and in extreme cases, suicide.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason the sexual education classes in America is so strict is beacuse most of the programs are based off of Christian beliefes, and Christians sure aren't going to teach a class about embracing sexuality and being sexually free since those are sins. I am not certain what will bring about the change, but I think that sex ed porograms should be from a liberal point of view. I know this is easier said than done, but it could happen. However, I think that a lot of other issues need to be resolved before we can make changes in sex ed courses because American culture is still strict in a lot of ways varying from religion to economy.
In class, one of the students mentioned that in his high school, they started a petition and got more equality in the sex ed classroom. Maybe if the students become aware and demand it, they can get it. They know what kind of education they deserve and no one can tackle these issues better than the students with help from people like us, fellow students.
I absolutely believe that these proposed standards have the right idea in promoting a more open minded approach towards sexual education. As a generally progressive person I believe in trying to help everyone fit in regardless of their sexual orientation, and early sexual ed classes are a good place to start. It won't be easy though, I find even myself accidentally slipping into heteronormative colloquialisms and assumptions, even though it is not my intent, simply because that is the world as I experience and keeping an open mind about those unlike me does not yet come naturally. It's usually little things like what I'm talking about how boys should treat their "girlfriends" right, rather than their "significant others" or some other more open minded term. Still it's something I strive to improve on, and something I think will come easier to kids that are exposed to the idea of different sexual orientations earlier on.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was extremely well-written and spot on. I definitely think it is true that hetero-normative sex education can make LGBT youth feel isolated and "abnormal". I'd also like to point out another reason for changing our sex education programs to be more welcoming for LGBT youth. I think the new proposed standards kind of start to get at this point.
ReplyDeleteBecause our entire society is still very hetero-normative, many people (at least) first learn about homosexuality almost accidentally, or casually. Children in the U.S. assume everyone they meet is heterosexual until they meet someone who isn't and only then is the concept of homosexuality explained to them. After reading about this I thought about how I learned about homosexuality, and I realized that my mom explained it to me once I got old enough to realize that our good family friends, Renee and Ingrid, live together and sleep in the same bed. I don't want to make assumptions about other people, but I can see this process being fairly common at least. Therefore, as the new proposed standards might assist with, younger children will learn at an earlier age the very existence of homosexuality and start to cultivate a tolerance early on, which will eventually lead to the phasing out of homophobia. However, I also think that it's important for youth to understand homosexuality in order to better understand themselves. Discovering your sexual orientation can be a confusing experience, especially if you realize that you don't follow hetero-normative trends. I think youth need to be taught that homosexuality is an option, and that it is ok, to better help young adolescents understand themselves and not be so confused about seemingly "bad" thoughts they may be having during their development.
This brings up an important aspect that is quite often overlooked by many sexual education courses. I would very much like these exact sort of ideas put in classrooms but it continues to be a topic of great controversy among the states, though educational coverage for the LGBT as a subject varies greatly within them. Lack of education can be increasingly hazardous for anal sex among gay men because STIs can be passed much more easily than via other sexual activities. This is especially so with teenagers who have not been exposed to facts about safe-sex practices (i.e. barrier protection).
ReplyDelete