April 2004 letter I sent to Gazette Education Reporter Sean Sedam, which sets forth a full description of the Committee's activities up to that point, in response to an unpublished letter to the Gazette criticizing the Committee:
Dear Mr. Sedam:
Thank you for forwarding to me the March 25, 2004, letter from five members of the Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (CAC), and for giving me, as Chair of the CAC, the opportunity to comment.
In November 2002, the Board of Education voted 5-1 to have the staff of MCPS develop
"revisions to the health education curriculum in Grades 8 and 10 to include information about
sexual variation." See Discussion/Action Item 8.0 from the Board's November 12, 2002,
meeting, at p. 8. This step was deemed necessary because, in part, the then-extant policies
mandated that issues regarding homosexuality could not be discussed, except in response to
specific questions by students, and then only in a perfunctory manner. The Board's action was in
response to a recommendation from the CAC. In making this recommendation, the CAC
recognized "the concept of sexual orientation as an essential human quality[, stated its belief] that
individuals have the right to accept, acknowledge, and live in accordance with their sexual
orientation, be they heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian," and noted that its recommendation
was "in harmony with recommendations for comprehensive sexuality education" endorsed by the
Surgeon General of the United States in 2001 and by "a coalition of 120 national organizations
including the American Medical Association, the National Medical Association, the American
School Health Association, [and] the American Public Health Association." Id. at pp. 5-6. This
report from the CAC was initially presented to the Board in March 2002, prior to my
appointment to the CAC, but was deferred to permit time for a comprehensive response from
the MCPS Staff, which was provided at the November 2002 meeting. Id. at p. 6.
The old policy, while it might have made sense to some people years ago, was simply unsustainable in today's world. Indeed, for more than three decades, groups like the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other mainstream medical and mental health organizations have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or mental disorder. MCPS had acted wisely in teaching about the importance of relationships and the development of families in ways that convey values of caring and responsibility. But the exclusion from that discussion of the fact that not all people are heterosexual, and that non-heterosexuals can have healthy and happy lives, was, in my opinion, destructive to the mental health of students who were not heterosexual. Moreover, in my view, that deafening silence may have fostered and certainly did not combat (to use the words of the Staff Response), "the emotional distress and physical violence displayed toward them by some students and adults in the general population." Because we want ALL of our children to grow up to be emotionally and physically healthy adults, I believe the Board acted wisely in acting to change the policy and develop curriculum revisions.
Under state law, all matters relating to mention of sexuality in the curriculum must first be passed upon by a local Board's citizens advisory committee, the task of reviewing the proposed curriculum changes developed by the MCPS staff pursuant to the November 2002 decision came to the CAC.
At the outset of this discussion, I want to note that if parents do not want their children to take portions of the Health Curriculum dealing with sexuality, they have the option of having their children study other health-related materials instead. It is also important to note that the MCPS Staff recommendations which have been reviewed by the CAC over the last several months incorporated appropriate discussion of topics relating to sexual orientation in the context of the broader units on sexual development and family life.
The process for developing the curriculum changes referenced in the March 25 letter began with a Working Group set by the MCPS staff, composed of teachers and others from the community, including members of the CAC. As Chair, it was my responsibility to appoint the CAC members to the Working Group. I appointed CAC Member Henrietta Brown (who volunteered) because she appeared to be one of the more socially conservative members of the CAC, and I wanted to assure that a range of views were considered by the Working Group. Ms. Brown represents the Daughters of the American Revolution on the CAC. I also appointed CAC Member Sheron Rosen, who represents PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). When Ms. Rosen found that she was unable to attend every meeting, I agreed to attend the meetings that she could not attend, and we each attended about half the meetings.
The Working Group worked every day for three weeks last summer reviewing materials, exchanging ideas, and coming up with a draft proposal. There were vigorous discussions during these sessions, many of which were prompted by Ms. Brown, who (in my view) gradually made it clear that she was opposed to any effort to suggest that being anything other than heterosexual was acceptable. The Working Group reviewed materials from the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other mainstream medical and mental health organizations which, as I noted above, for more than three decades have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or mental disorder. Ms. Brown, as was, of course, her right, took a contrary view -- in support of which she presented "reparative therapy" materials from groups advocating the proposition that homosexuals could "change"their sexual orientation. After close examination of these materials and considerable discussion, Ms. Brown was the only member of the Working Group who believed that these materials had merit.
Because the use of "reparative therapy" approaches were potentially very dangerous, the consensus was that discussion of such approaches to homosexuality should not be included in the revised curriculum. In my view, this consensus developed because the other members of the Working Group learned that the approaches set forth by advocates of "reparative therapy" were, at bottom, all premised on the proposition that homosexuality is a "disease" -- a premise completely at odds with the mainstream scientific/medical consensus. Indeed, efforts earlier in the last century to "change" homosexuals through psychotherapy and other techniques typically resulted in extremely bad outcomes. It was such bad outcomes (suicide, depression, alienation from families and society, etc.) that led American mental health groups to reexamine the conventional wisdom, and ultimately conclude that being gay or lesbian was just another way to be, and not itself a mental disorder. My understanding of the views of all but one member of the Working Group was that for any school system to suggest that homosexuality is, itself, a mental disorder and to suggest that, through extraordinary efforts, people can change their sexual orientation, would not only be destructive, but could even open up the school system to legal liability.
I personally do not question that there may be some people who may have been confused about their sexual orientation, and eventually concluded that they were heterosexual, rather than homosexual or bi-sexual. But the materials presented by Ms. Brown took the position that there is no such thing as healthy sexual orientation that is not heterosexual. Because these materials are in direct conflict with all modern mainstream learning, and because application of these materials would very likely (or almost certainly) severely damage people who happen to be homosexual, I believe the Working Group wisely chose not to recommend their use in MCPS.
These issues have been discussed extensively in the CAC's deliberations, as well. While Ms. Brown and Member Jackie Rice have one view, they have been unsuccessful in convincing very many other members of the CAC of their view. The idea that "all we want to do is offer an alternative" may have a surface appeal, but examination of the details suggests otherwise. For example, at the February 2004, meeting, Ms. Rice offered a pamphlet from PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), that, on its face, contained simple generalities; prior to that meeting, I examined the websites presented on the pamphlet's last page for finding more information. Every single site was premised on the proposition that homosexuality was a disease and/or that homosexuality was forbidden by scripture. None of these sites presented credible scientific or mental health studies to support their contentions that homosexuality is a defect and a defect that is "curable." I reported my perspectives to the committee members (all of whom also had the opportunity to examine the websites.) The CAC voted to reject the pamphlet as a teacher resource by a vote of 18-3. (All FIVE signers of the March 25 letter were present at that meeting.)
Which brings me to the letter sent by five CAC members to The Gazette on March 25, 2004. I will take their statements one by one:
1. "The term 'sexual variations' [in the proposed curriculum] will include heterosexual,
homosexual, bisexual, transgender and paraphilias." What is a "paraphilia"? Sure sounds
scary. Essentially, that term means activity that leads to abnormal, unhealthy sexual arousal.
While those opposed to acceptance of homosexuality lump that sexual orientation into the
category of "paraphilia," that is not how science and mental health professionals see it. See, for
example, the discussion of "paraphilias" at
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html .
Disorders like fetishism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadomasochism, and pedophilia are, indeed, problems. But they are not, as Ms. Brown would have it, part and parcel and integral to
homosexuality. Indeed, Ms. Brown has been the person who repeatedly has sought to introduce
these issues into the discussion. As the votes at the meetings have demonstrated, the vast
majority of the CAC do not believe that paraphilias are relevant to the issues at hand. So I must
set the record straight that the CAC has NOT voted to recommend inclusion of anything
concerning "paraphilias" into the curriculum.
The proposals we have overwhelmingly approved have included a brief mention of transgender people in the 10th (but not the 8th) Grade curriculum. Medical science has concluded that some, albeit very few, people's gender identity does not match up with their biological anatomy. This is a very difficult problem for people in that situation. There is nothing wrong with informing older students about this reality.
2. "The Committee is controlled by pro-gay activists." Apart from the idea that there is something "wrong" about being "pro-gay" seems a bit odd in Montgomery County in 2004 (should we have "anti-gay activists" on the CAC?), let me provide some numbers. At the moment there are 24 adult members of the CAC: 3 are parents of gay or lesbian children and 2 are gay or lesbian. That leaves 19 other adult members. And that hardly amounts to "control" by a supposed "special interest."
3. As for the allegation that the majority of members "continually vote for factually incorrect information that puts students' health at risk," this is simply incorrect. Every statement in the proposed curriculum has emerged from study of mainstream American medical and mental health organizations and from other well-respected groups who advocate for the health of our children. Those materials are available for examination in Mr. Henke's office. I understand that some people take the view that any discussion of sex or sexuality (or condoms) will lead to promiscuous sexual behavior that will put our children at greater risk than if these discussions were not done at all. People are entitled to have that opinion, but it is plainly not the opinion of the Board, the vast majority of the CAC, or, in my view, most citizens of Montgomery County. Moreover, as the student members of the CAC have conveyed to the rest of us, the MCPS health curriculum is filled with repeated warnings about the dangers of sexual activity, "protected" as well as "unprotected." We are trying to provide our children information that will help them to become happy, healthy adults. We cannot do that by ignoring the fact that a certain percentage of our children are not heterosexual, or by conveying the message that people who do not happen to be heterosexual cannot lead happy, health, fulfilling lives.
4. "These biased activists shut out factually correct information (i.e., from medical journals and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control) and other viewpoints (i.e., those of individuals who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle)." Please allow me to take these one at a time:
a. "Medical Journals." I am not certain what they are referring to here, but I believe the only material from a medical journal offered by any of the signers of the letter were (1) a short excerpt from an article written by Dr. William Holmes, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, and (2) an article by Dr. Robert Spitzer, a professor at Columbia University Medical School. The offered Holmes material was taken out of context to suggest that homosexuality equaled pedophilia. I contacted Dr. Holmes, who sent me the full article and explained that the portion quoted did not suggest that at all, and further stated his view that the efforts of the majority of the CAC to destigmatize homosexuality were worthwhile. When Ms. Brown offered the excerpt to the CAC, I reported on my discussion with Dr. Holmes, and read a summary of my conversation with him that I sent to him for confirmation that my assessment of his views of the excerpt was accurate. Ms. Brown did not pursue the issue further. The Spitzer article was a review of extant reports from ex-gay groups, and concluded that it was possible that some motivated people might be able to change their sexual behavior through programs offered by such groups. A CAC member trained in epidemiology examined the Spitzer article, and explained to the group that none of the reports, which were based on self- selected samples from "ex-gay" advocacy groups, could be deemed valid science, as Dr. Spitzer himself seemed to understand. This fact, as well as the factors discussed earlier in this report, left most CAC members unimpressed with the usefulness of Dr. Spitzer's paper.
b. "U.S. Center for Disease Control." Ms. Brown repeatedly has sought to include in the Teacher Resources for the Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit items dealing with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) - but only those dealing with same sex transmission, not those dealing with heterosexual transmission. In the course of the discussion, it was explained that all CDC materials are available to the teachers, and that materials regarding STIs are included in the Resources for the units on STIs (which, as the CAC student members reported, is very extensive. So, contrary to the letter, no CDC materials were "shut out." This selective use of materials covered in a different unit of the Health Curriculum leads me to believe that Ms. Brown was simply seeking to demonize homosexuals. When the matter came to a vote, ONLY Ms. Brown and Ms. Rice voted in favor of including the materials in this part of the Teacher Resources. (Of the other signatories of the letter to the Gazette, Ms. Turner and Ms. Eader abstained from that vote, I believe. Ms. Urquhart was not at that meeting; indeed, the only meeting she has attended was the January 2004 meeting.)
c. "[O]ther viewpoints (i.e., those of individuals who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle)." First, the issue isn't "the homosexual lifestyle." The issue is living as a homosexual. This sort of language is constantly used to try to marginalize our fellow citizens who happen to be homosexual. One of the CAC members has been with his partner for twenty years, and lives quietly in a suburban neighborhood, raising two children. Is he living a "homosexual lifestyle"? No. He and his family are living a life. But I do not want to ignore the assertion that the CAC, in its voting on curriculum and teacher resources, has been unfair in not, as of yet, accepting any of the ex-gay materials offered by Ms. Brown and Ms. Rice. Other members of the Committee must speak for themselves, but I have yet to see materials that do not suffer the defects I set forth earlier in this letter.
So, contrary to the letter, there is no "[w]rong information and bias" being presented by the CAC. We have heard differing opinions, and nothing the CAC has done or will do is "blocking" differing opinions. As Mr. Henke announced at the April meeting of the Committee, members are free to present minority views, if they so wish.
It is easy, as the letter-writers have done, to make conclusory statements attacking the decisions (and the good faith) of the other members of the committee. It takes more time to respond point by point and to tell the whole story. I hope this will be useful to you. I will be available to discuss these matters further, if you wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment