By JOSHUA LYNSEN
Jan 10 2007, 11:46 AM |
|  | 
Montgomery County Public Schools officials unanimously approved a controversial new gay-inclusive sex education curriculum this week, but omitted five positive messages about homosexuality, including a note that gays can live happy lives.
Officials with the Maryland school district opted to omit the messages at their meeting Tuesday despite an advisory committee’s recommendation that the material be included.
Officials said the messages, which were designed to complement the district’s new sex ed curriculum, were controversial and unnecessary.
Among the omitted messages were notes that most health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, and that gays can live happy and successful lives.
Gay activists and others who’d hoped the new curriculum would include the positive messages criticized the board’s decision.
“It’s certainly disappointing that while the curriculum provides a good starting point dialogue on these issues, the school board and school officials felt they couldn’t present a more comprehensive, quality curriculum,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland.
Jim Kennedy, a member of the citizens advisory committee, said school board members likely didn’t want to antagonize conservative groups that are poised to challenge the new curriculum in court.
He said the proposed list of positive gay messages could have ignited that battle.
“They’re trying to avoid the appearance of taking a position on what is a moral issue,” Kennedy said. “I think that’s really what they’re trying to avoid.”
Some board members attempted to push through portions of the omitted messages, but those efforts were defeated at Tuesday’s school board meeting.
Board member Patricia O’Neill wanted to grant teachers the ability to say that homosexuality is not a disease rather than refer any such inquiries to a doctor. The board voted against the proposal.
Another member sought to include a note that “fleeting same-sex attractions” do not mean a person is gay. That change, sought by the board’s student member, Sarah Horvitz, also was defeated.
Despite the omissions, Kennedy said the revised curriculum remains gay friendly because it uses non-judgmental language in discussing sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I really wanted to have those messages included,” he said, “but it still is a really good curriculum the way it is.”
The curriculum, titled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality," explains concepts like sexual identity and orientation using nonjudgmental language.
Students in eighth grade are taught to recognize healthy relationships, and how to define human sexuality, gender identity and other terms. Students in 10th grade receive a more robust curriculum, including an examination of topics like coming out. It also asks students to consider the challenges a transgender student might face.
‘Biased information’
The curriculum approved Tuesday represents the district’s second attempt to rewrite its sex education program.
An earlier rewrite triggered a courtroom showdown in 2005 when conservative groups objected to the new content. To settle the lawsuit, school officials agreed to restart the process.
The culmination of that effort came in November, when the citizens advisory committee tasked with reviewing the curriculum for eighth and 10th grade students approved it. But the decision was not unanimous, and opponents moved quickly to lobby against the new lessons.
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, a group that opposes the rewrite, submitted a 12-page report to the district Dec. 12 faulting the new curriculum.
The document says the lessons use “biased information,” contain false information and “faulty definitions,” and don't sufficiently warn students about the dangers of anal sex.
Group spokesperson Michelle Turner — one of six people who spoke against the curriculum at Tuesday’s meeting — said the lessons could ultimately do more harm than good.
Dr. Ruth Jacobs, a group affiliate, agreed. She said the curriculum was written not to advance healthy living but rather political correctness.
“It is wrong to use the lives of our children as political footballs,” she told the board while holding a football and U.S. flag.
Other curriculum opponents also argued the rewritten lessons are fundamentally flawed. One man told the board a “curriculum that promotes anything other than abstinence until marriage is irresponsible.” Another man criticized school officials for “making sodomy acceptable.”
Four people spoke in support of the curriculum changes. David Fishback, a board member of Metro D.C. PFLAG who has two gay sons, said the new lessons were rooted in “very good material," but he implored the board to include the five positive messages, noting the harm caused by their omission was “cruel and unnecessary.”
Matt Murguia, who is gay, also noted the messages were “important concepts to convey,” and should be told to students because the information “could benefit them.”
Kennedy, the final public speaker, said that even without the messages, the curriculum is a good reflection of what medical professionals understand. He noted the included lessons of empathy and equality also reflect the values of Montgomery County.
A unanimous vote
Board members agreed, and after extended discussion voted unanimously to accept the revised curriculum.
Nancy Navarro, the board’s president, said the lessons would help prevent sexually transmitted diseases by teaching students abstinence and proper condom use.
“I know there are many in the community who want to teach our students more,” she said, “and many who want to teach them less.”
O’Neill also recognized the new curriculum is a contentious subject.
“I believe, though, that this is a wonderfully, medically correct lesson,” she said. “It is the 21st century.”
Although the final vote was unanimous, the discussion was not always amicable. O’Neill’s proposed amendment — to clarify that homosexuality is not a disease — was vehemently opposed by board member Steve Abrams, who said the addendum was a “deal breaker,” and proposed that students likewise be told about a recent study that showed “homosexual behavior between animals can be changed.”
Abrams did not make the proposal as a formal motion, though, and ultimately voted to support the curriculum as presented.
“I think the balance that was reached was an appropriate one and a good one,” he said, “at least for starters.”
‘Litigious whiners’
In an unusual move, several board members noted the district is facing legal threats from conservative groups that oppose the new curriculum.
Abrams encouraged the board to unanimously support the curriculum as presented. He said the unity would benefit the district from a “legal standpoint.”
But board member Sharon Cox appeared less concerned about the potential lawsuit.
“I believe that regardless of what we put forward, we will be sued,” she said. “That’s fine. Bring it on.”
No group or individual has publicly announced an intention to sue the district to prevent the new curriculum from being implemented, but a lawsuit could come with
|
