Health education is a different matter. As an applied science, it is based on the most current evidence-based data available. It must also be objective: A health educator must not choose to eliminate or slant information -- and certainly not potentially life-saving information -- as a way of proving or promoting his or her beliefs.
Similarly, health educators can't "work backwards." That is, they can't begin with a preconceived notion of what is the right course of action for every person under every circumstance and then create curricula designed to meet that end. An approach such as abstinence-only education -- which dictates the correct answer even before the first question is asked -- is antithetical to the educational process.
Getting the message across: Researchers agree that teenagers should be taught to avoid risky behavior -- but how?
(Gail Burton -- AP)
|
The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.
• Outlook Section
| | |
|
Let's be clear, too, that quality health education is never "values free" -- as if education of any kind could ever be values free. It endeavors to help individuals understand themselves and their personal or religious values, because informed decision-making is never purely about external facts. Good health education strives to highlight and reinforce core moral values, such as honesty, respect, caring and responsibility, as they relate to healthy choices.
There is much concern in the public health community that abstinence-only programs leave those young people who ultimately choose not to abstain in a dangerous information vacuum. I see an equally dangerous moral and ethical vacuum, because they are also left without guidance on how to apply the values they have absorbed to the sexual situations in which they will find themselves. How ironic that in the name of "morality" we may diminish young people's ability to think and behave ethically.
I have no problem whatsoever with the concepts of chastity, religion or religious instruction. Each has its place, and I often bring religious views into classroom discussions because they are essential to understanding ourselves and the cultural and political landscape of American society. My problem is with religion and indoctrination masquerading as public education, and with chastity masquerading as abstinence.
And make no mistake, teenagers have a kind of built-in radar for sensing when adults are trying to manipulate them -- including those savvy 12- and 13-year-olds in my seventh-grade classroom the other day. Once they realize that what adults are telling them is in any way disingenuous, they stop listening, no matter how good that advice may be.
So let's stop calling the federal government's approach to sex instruction "abstinence-only education" and start calling it what it really is: chastity-only advocacy. And let's not expect that it will provide the kind of balanced, accurate information that our children need and deserve.
Author's e-mail:
debbie_roffman@hotmail.com
Deborah Roffman has worked as a health and human sexuality educator in the Baltimore/D.C. region since 1971. She is the author of "Sex and Sensibility: The Thinking Parent's Guide to Talking Sense about Sex."
