Stop shaming parents who balk at sex education in schools

Ed. here. Parents As First Educators (PAFE) has sent us an excellent piece by a self-described secular humanist, Luisa D'Amato, which appeared recently in the Waterloo (ON) Record. Ms D'Amato is in favour of Ontario's new "dirty" sex education curriculum, about which Walt has written before. (Enter "sex education" in the search window, and you'll see 33 previous posts.)

Ms D'Amato feels, however, that it's unfair for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her sidekick Lez Sandals to demonize those who oppose the curriculum's immoral, pro-queer agenda as religious fanatics or stick-in-the-mud prudes. Here's what Ms D'Amato has to say. We think readers all over North America will find it relevant.

We have long been proud of our multicultural Canadian society. Now we have to do the hard work to actually be good at it. Too many people, inside and outside the teaching profession, are acting in a condescending, know-it-all manner toward families who are legitimately concerned by some of the content of Ontario's new sexual education curriculum.

The religious or cultural beliefs of these families, many of them Asian or Muslim background, sets them apart from the secular, liberal mainstream in the province. And that's a problem for everyone, because the minorities risk feeling isolated when disagreements arise.

The new sex education curriculum is embedded in a variety of other topics about health, including physical movement, social inclusion and healthy eating. The sexual information children will receive is frank and explicit. Children will learn correct names for body parts, including genitalia, by the end of Grade 1. They'll learn about same-sex couples and gender identity by the end of Grade 3. Ahead lay [sic] discussions about puberty, consent, masturbation and contraception.

As a secular, liberal parent myself, I think this is a great development. But there are plenty of caring, thoughtful parents whose cultural background is different. For them, these topics are being introduced in the wrong context, or at much too early an age. That doesn't make them bad parents.

I have the greatest respect for my Record colleague Joel Rubinoff, who wrote a strong defence of the new sex-ed curriculum a few days ago. But I don't think his characterization of these parents' concerns, which he called "a new mantra of fear and paranoia" was reasonable.

Nor was his comment: "It's time for the media to stop giving a platform to a misguided vocal minority whose energy would be better spent searching for a portal back to the 14th century." That's unfair. Make no mistake: the parents who are protesting have their reasons. The sex education curriculum...is not only teaching facts, but also values. [My emphasis. Ed.]

Even the age at which some topics are introduced is a value judgment. In Grade 4, for example, the curriculum has a sample discussion on puberty that suggests students discuss their intense feelings of "liking" or "wanting to be more than just friends" with someone. That's not going to sit well with many parents who don't think their children should date until they have graduated high school.

Some parents have been adamant in their protests. One Toronto-area school is half empty as families pulled their children. [See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" Ed.] In Waterloo Region, a few families have defected to a private elementary school.

Locally, the public board has handled parental misgivings carefully and respectfully, on a case-by-case basis.
Families were encouraged to discuss concerns, first with the teacher and next with the principal. "Each conversation may be very different," said Graham Shantz, superintendent of student achievement and well-being. So far, he said, no family has moved to the next step, which would be using the board's procedure on faith and religious accommodation to have a child excused from certain classes or otherwise accommodated.

We live in strange times. Too often, highly educated liberal elites are busily telling everyone else how to think, instead of valuing dissent and tolerance. [My emphasis, again. Ed.] In a diverse, multicultural society, we have to do better than that. We must find a way to treat everyone's concerns with sensitivity and respect while also moving forward as a group. It's not easy. But it is absolutely necessary.