Recently, the Ontario Government has introduced a new curriculum which includes revised sex education teaching. It replaces a curriculum that virtually everyone agrees was out of date, but has become a source of a great deal of controversy. I've watched the debate with some interest. Most of the opposition has come from what would be called the conservative religious movement - and if the new curriculum has accomplished nothing else, it has given conservative Christians and conservative Muslims a point of connection, which has some value I suppose. But what bothers me - based on reports I've seen in the news media, signs I've seen held aloft at protests and postings I've seen made on various social media sites - is that so much of the opposition to the new curriculum seems based on misunderstanding, misinformation or downright deceit. There seems to be an "ends justifies the means" approach being taken. "I'll say anything - no matter how much it stretches the truth - to derail this." From a Christian perspective that bothers me. Honesty and truth should be at the heart of what people of faith stand for. That has been discarded by too many people in this debate.
I admit that I have mixed feelings about the curriculum. Most of the content I have no problem with, but I concede that it's imperfect and needs some tweaking. There are some legitimate concerns being raised about the age appropriateness of certain topics that are introduced in certain grades - although I'm not sure I understand the concern about teaching young children the proper names for body parts. (Should schools also dispense with singing "head and shoulders, knees and toes"?) But that really is tweaking. It doesn't require throwing the whole thing out, nor does it really seem to justify the rabid anti-curriculum protests that have been spawned. Make no mistake - I support people's right to protest, and I support people using their democratic right to try to get the government to change course. But such attempts should be based on honesty - on serious criticial evaluation of the curriculum, not on knee jerk reactions based on questionable interpretations.
I've read the curriculum, and as I said I've seen the basis of at least some of the protests. Here are just a few observations of where the protests seem unfounded:
Opponents of the curriculum have claimed that it encourages children to consent to sex. It doesn't. It teaches the concept of consent, so that they will know that it's wrong for anyone to touch them sexually without their consent, even if the person is in a position of authority: pastor, priest, teacher, police officer, parent - anyone else. If you don't give consent to be touched, then you shouldn't be touched. I think children should be taught this from a very young age.
Opponents of the curriculum have claimed that it teaches and encourages masturbation. It doesn't. It merely points out that masturbation is normal activity.
Opponents of the curriculum have claimed that the new curriculum encourages anal intercourse. It doesn't. It includes anal intercourse in a section dealing with STDs and it actually points out that abstention from all sexual contact is the only way to avoid STDs. It's mentioned, I assume, because I have read over the years that some teenagers engage in oral/anal intercourse in order to avoid pregnancy, but not thinking of the risk of STDs.
Opponents of the curriculum claim that it "promotes" or offers graphic information about homosexuality. In fact, it teaches respect for those who come from same sex families or who question their own sexual orientation. I should think that being respectful of those who are different is in keeping with the example of Christ.
Opponents of the curriculum claim that it was designed by a pedophile. While Ben Levin was the Deputy Minister of Education for part of the time that the curriculum was under development (and he left office in 2009, before it was completed), the reality is that the Deputy Minister would not be directly involved in such work. He wasn't sitting at his desk writing the curriculum. There were literally thousands of people involved in the work. Levin would have been one very minor voice with lots of eyes looking at it as it was developed.
Opponents of the curriculum claim that parents were given no input into the development of the curriculum. In fact, each school in Ontario has a school parent council, and every school parent council was encouraged to offer input.
Opponents of the new curriculum claim that it takes away the right of parents to be the ones who teach their children about sex. In fact, parents have the right to opt their children out if they so desire. And the curriculum encourages children to seek out guidance from parents, doctors, religious leaders, etc.
In general, there's all sorts of misinformation about the ages at which concepts will be introduced, and there's the continuing barely disguised smear about "Ontario's lesbian premier" - which is trying to fear monger among the religious right: "the gays are coming to get your kids." Interesting that in the previous dispute and protests over the curriculum, when Dalton McGuinty was premier, no one complained about "Ontario's straight premier."
As I said, I fully support the right of parents or anyone else to protest the new curriculum, and there are aspects of it that could be improved and should be tweaked. But continuing to base the protests on groundless accusations serves no productive purpose, and - speaking from a Christian perspective - gives no honour or glory to Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment