The devolution of sexuality education in Michigan.

Like many states throughout the country, Michigan continues to fight legislative battles over the content of sexuality education. Historically, decisions about sexuality education were left to local school districts. In recent years, however, opponents of comprehensive sexuality education have made numerous attempts to undermine local control in order to guarantee that schools take a strict abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.

The latest round of legislative challenges to sexuality education in Michigan sought to require an abstinence-only approach but, when the battle was over, fell just short of that goal. However, legislators were able to pass amendments to the law, which will have an effect on sexuality education.

Michigan legislators know that they do not yet have the votes to get an abstinence-only curriculum codified by law, and if they did, our progressive governor would veto the measure. However, we lose a little more ground every time this battle is waged.

With the most recent amendments, the law governing the sexuality education curriculum now mentions six times that "... the teaching under this section shall stress that abstinence from sex is a responsible and effective method ... and is a positive lifestyle for unmarried young people." The new rules affect curriculum advisory boards, the definition of a class, and the role of controversial topics such as condoms and abortion. In addition, for the first time rules include penalties for schools that do not comply.

THE NEW RULES

Curriculum Advisory Boards. The new legislation changes the composition of Sexuality Education Advisory Boards, which are mandated in every school district. The changes now require each committee to have two co-chairs, at least one of whom is the parent of a child in the school district; at least one-half of the members must be parents of children in the school district; the majority of the parents on the committee shall not be employees of the district; and, members shall include students in the district, educators, local clergy, and community health advisors.

The original bill required that the chair of the advisory board be a parent in the district. We fought hard for the "co-chair" compromise because the advisory board can greatly influence the direction of the curriculum and it must be led by someone who has a sound understanding of not only the issues, but the legal duties of the district. For this reason, most advisory boards are headed by a professional educator specializing in health curriculum development.

Defining a Class. Another amendment caused substantial concern because it expanded the definition of "class" to include an instructional period, an assembly, and a small group presentation. The apparent intent of the new definition is to prohibit school counselors from giving information about birth control options or pregnancy advice to students who request help in private. Very often, a scared teen facing the possibility of being pregnant will turn to a school counselor or favorite teacher. This change in the law may make school employees reluctant to meet with students, leaving many teenagers with no one in whom to confide.

Medical Accuracy. We were able to retain the requirement that curriculum materials and instruction be "medically accurate." Medical accuracy causes battles each time attempts are made to change this law. Those two little words, "medically accurate," are critically important because of the proliferation of inaccurate information claiming that birth control medication and devices, such as condoms, are either ineffective or actually dangerous. In some districts, advisory committees become contentious because a strong group of members with an 'agenda' insist that medically inaccurate information be included in the curriculum. This requirement prohibits that from happening.

No Condoms. As is the case in many states, Michigan law prohibits anyone from dispensing or otherwise distributing in a public school or on public school property a family planning drug or device. So, no condoms. In addition, clinical abortion may not be mentioned as an option for a pregnant woman. These prohibitions discourage taking a comprehensive approach to sexuality education.

Penalties for Violations. A follow-up bill (SB 944), working its way through the legislature, would penalize schools for violating any of these provisions. According to the proposed law (which is expected to pass), any parent who believes an employee of the school district has deviated from the mandated state requirements may file a complaint with the school district. The complaint has to be investigated and a determination made within 30 days. The complainant may then appeal either to the Intermediate School District or to the Department of Education, whichever is the next rung on the chain of command. A district found to be in violation of the law stands to lose 1% of its state aid and the Department of Education can assess a fee for the cost of the investigation. In Michigan, public education is largely funded through the state; a 1% reduction from the state will force any afflicted Michigan school district to cut programming.

THE FUTURE OF SEXUALITY EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

What is most unfortunate about the devolution of sex education in Michigan is that, sooner or later, schools will simply choose not to offer sex education because of the many restrictions placed on them. This response is not merely sad; it is also potentially dangerous. For many students, school is the only place they get vital information about their reproductive health.

As states increase restrictions on curricula, districts lose their ability to determine which curriculum is best for their particular population. The sexuality education curriculum in an urban district focuses on widely different issues than that of a rural school district. As states enforce restrictions through punitive means, and sexuality education programs become a financial liability, districts will have little choice but to cut them. In this battle between abstinence-only programs and a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum, the students are the only victims.

The book was on the school district's list of approved materials and had been taught the previous semester with no complaints. The teacher defended the book's value saying "a healthy, well-adjusted 14- or 15-year-old would not have any difficulty handling the scene" and that he is concerned that "the expertise of the districts' top professionals has been trumped by a narrow viewpoint." (8) The district review committee rejected the parents' challenge citing the novel's "artistic merit" and "sensitive treatment of sexual content." (9)

The decision, however, was overruled by the super-intendent and the book was pulled from the 9th grade reading list. The superintendent also ordered all reading lists for the 2004-05 school year to be presented to the school board for advance approval and sent to parents before the school year begins.

In addition, the school is still deciding whether to implement a "decency policy" to prohibit sexually explicit material in the classroom as well as to prohibit school personnel from being "vulgar, lewd, obscene, plainly offensive, or sexually explicit." The parent who originally complained pulled her son from the class and filed a complaint against the teacher.

In Wilmington, NC, the controversial book was written for young readers. The parents of a first-grader at Freeman Elementary School filed a complaint with the school after their 7-year-old daughter brought King and King home from the school library. The book, written by two Dutch authors for ages 6 and up, tells the story of a character named Prince Bertie who falls in love with a character named Prince Lee. The book ends with the two princes kissing, their lips obscured by a picture of a heart.

The father said his daughter is "not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs." (10) "If this book is going to be allowed," he argued, "I believe it ought to be allowed on more of a high school level." (11) The school principal countered, saying "We have a lot of diversity in our schools ... What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing." (12)

An additional complaint was filed by another family, and a school committee ultimately voted 8-3 to put the book under lock and key so that only adults, including parents and teachers, are allowed to check it out.

Not everyone agreed with the ruling. One committee member said, "I feel like it's my responsibility to make it clear that these things exist. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. It's not about right or wrong ... It's just different." (13)

Due to the widespread media attention about the controversy, people from around the country donated additional copies of the book to the school. In fact, the attention has prompted a second printing of the book and a sequel is expected later this spring.

Extracurricular Activities Contested

Parents' efforts to shield their children from information about homosexuality extends beyond banning books. This year, students in Coconut Creek, FL almost had their class trip canceled because some parents were upset that the trip to Disneyworld coincided with scheduled "Gay Day" festivities at the park. "Gay Days," are advertised as "creating a gay and lesbian atmosphere," and planners describe the days as a time for gays and lesbians and their families to be them-selves on vacation. The "Gay Days" were expected to bring about 140,000 people to the area in early June.

One parent of a child at Lyons Creek Middle School said that she was in Orlando during a previous "Gay Days" event and was offended by what went on. In a televised interview on the O'Reilly Factor, she explained, "I just don't feel it's an atmosphere that our kids should be subject to." (14) The same parent also said that, "Because our society is so lenient with the gay lifestyle, they just feel like it's not that big a deal to put our kids into that situation." (15)

The principal offered refunds for the trip, explaining that she had been unaware of the timing when it was scheduled. However, she felt that parents shouldn't be concerned. "We plan this trip every year, and it's pretty much at the same time, and we've never had any problems," she said. (16)

In Wake County, NC, parents complained about a family diversity photo exhibit. The exhibit displayed 20 photos of different types of families. Although the Beaverton School District had originally contemplated creating its own exhibit ultimately they decided to use one created by Family Diversity Projects of Amherst, MA, a non-profit group. A group of parents, led by a local minister, protested the exhibit largely because it included three photos of gay and lesbian families.

More than 20 parents attended a school board meeting to demand the exhibit be canceled. One parent explained, "I'm here to voice my outrage and sadness at this ridiculous idea of forcing this agenda on our children ... I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. You will not teach this to my kids. I will opt out. It just boils my blood, to be honest." (17)

Many of the people who attended the meeting, however, supported the exhibit. One parent, who is also a school psychologist, said that he felt there was a painful silence on the issue at the school. "When we start picking on one group, every group is vulnerable. This is not a gay issue, it's a people issue," he said. (18)

Despite the opposition, the school district went ahead with the exhibit. The chair of the board said, "I don't think it's right to focus on any one piece of the overall project. It doesn't bother me at all. It is truly a very broad quilt of what makes a family." (19)

Restrictive Programs Challenged

Some parents, on the other hand, believe their children should be exposed to a more comprehensive form of sexuality education and have worked to remove restrictive programs from their schools.

In Eau Gallie, FL, a number of parents were upset about a five-day abstinence-only-until-marriage program conducted in the high school by First Defense, an anti-abortion organization. First Defense is part of Pregnancy Resources, Inc. a Christian organization that offers pregnancy testing and counseling and operates programs in six public high schools and a number of public middle schools in the area.

The group's director, a former youth minister, said, "It gives us the opportunity to share truths we've come to believe based on our faith, but not have it be offensive to those who might not be of Christian faith." (20) The program is taught at the request of the life management teachers in the schools. One teacher explained, "The kids hear it, they get it. If they hear it from me, they're not listening." (21) The school district has also approved a program called Choices, which is affiliated with First Baptist Church of Merritt Island's Alternative Pregnancy Center.

Many parents expressed concern at the role of such religious organizations in the schools. One parent explained, "A religious-based group has no business in the public schools, period.... That information should be disseminated by medical professionals or teachers who have been trained." (22) Although teachers say they monitor the presentations to make sure they are appropriate for schools, many parents remain upset because the contact information for these organizations is given out to students as a resource. In addition, many feel that the program relies on scare tactics.

In Albuquerque, NM, a group of parents has been very involved in working to prevent a crisis pregnancy center from teaching abstinence-only programs in the city's public schools. The program, which is run by Best Choices Education Services, has been in twenty-five Albuquerque public middle and high schools for the past three years. The parents are not only concerned with the content of the program, but they also question the organization's affiliation with Care Net, a Christian evangelical anti-abortion group. According to Care Net's literature, the group is committed to its principles, one of which is the "commitment to testify of Christ through the witness of our lives, service and words." (23)

The parents feel the program's lessons reflect this philosophy. One of the lessons in the five-day lecture series on sex education, for example, presents a graphic picture of a fetus and a detailed lecture about the abortion procedure. An Executive Director for the group replied, "We only present the facts. It's up to the students to decide what's best." (24) Many people disagreed. One parent said the workshops contain "distorted, inflammatory, anti-abortion language." She said, "These talks are just a cover up for the anti-abortion cause." (25)

The parents scheduled a meeting with the Albuquerque Public Schools' Del Rio Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss their concerns. This action prompted a second meeting with various community groups and school officials to discuss how to balance the district's health curriculum better. In addition, one of the controversial speakers from Best Choices was removed after district officials expressed concern over the content of her remarks. A health summit was scheduled for the fall of 2004 to further discuss the district's health curriculum. SIECUS will continue to monitor this controversy.

Administrative Policies Debated

Regardless of the nature of the sexuality education in the classroom, one way parents have worked to influence what their children are exposed to in school is by making sure schools adopt or enforce certain enrollment policies. Often school districts must choose between an opt-out policy, under which students are automatically enrolled in sexuality education unless the parents say otherwise, and an opt-in policy, under which students can only be enrolled once parental permission has been received. Educators and administrators often argue against opt-in policies on the grounds that these require a great deal of administrative resources, parents may never see the forms that their children bring home from school, and ultimately students who need sexuality information may never receive it.

In the Westminster, CA school district, a debate erupted between parents and the school after a new state law (SB 71) went into effect. The debate was about whether an opt-in or an opt-out policy was mandated. The new legislation was intended to bring all laws regarding sex education and HIV/AIDS education under one title. Under the new law, districts are required to inform parents of the content of classes and allow parents to remove their children from the class if they would like. This is commonly referred to as an "opt-out policy." The Westminster School District's policy, an opt-in policy, caused disagreement between the district and some state education officials.

The author of the state law, Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), felt the policy violated the law. "It was the intent of the law to have all districts adopt an 'opt-out' policy ... There is no authority in the statute to permit this," she said. (26)

In early May, the Westminster School District Board held a meeting to discuss the issue, and over 100 parents, residents, and teachers attended. Many people attending the meeting supported the state law and voiced opposition to the school board's decisions to defy it. One school board member who preferred the district's opt-in policy said she wanted to determine if this policy complied with state law. Four additional board members said they plan to abide by state law and would vote to revise the district's policy if ordered to do so by the state. The district is currently investigating whether their policy is in compliance. SIECUS will continue to monitor this situation.

Parents are and ought to be the primary sexuality educators of their children. Therefore it is not surprising that they often are the most vocal participants in community debates about sexuality education.

TEACHERS FEEL THE IMPACT OF CONTROVERSY

Teachers all over the country are quietly implementing high-quality comprehensive programs. Unfortunately, teachers often only get attention when something they've said or done becomes controversial.

A teacher in Sag Harbor, NY, for instance, received a great deal of negative attention after bringing in an educator from the Suffolk County Health Department in late 2003 to talk to her 6th grade skills class about HIV/AIDS and related risk activity. The presenter noted that one could contract HIV from sexual intercourse or oral sex. Several parents became very upset about the incident and a virtual witch hunt resulted.

The descriptions of what occurred intensified and many stories were made up. According to some stories the teacher gave step by step instruction on "how to give a blow job." Another rumor suggested that the teacher had told students to "have a few drinks and lay back and enjoy it." In a school meeting, one parent said that her child's "innocence" was lost. The local newspapers had a field day with this story, running headlines such as "Sexth Grade Education" (27) on page one. The teacher was silenced by school officials who told her not to speak to the media or parents about what had happened.

She was removed from teaching the sixth grade skills classes, and continues to have problems with the school almost a year after the incident.

A teacher in Wilmington, DE, decided to fight back after she was fired from her teaching position at a Catholic school for her pro-choice beliefs. The teacher was fired after school officials saw her name on a list, compiled by the Coalition for Choice, commemorating Roe v. Wade. She sued the school in fall of 2003.

The former teacher filed a federal lawsuit claiming that she was illegally fired for supporting abortion rights because she is a woman. She claims that the church and the school have not taken the same action against men who do not follow church doctrine.

The suit also claims that the former teacher's rights to freely express her views on abortion, as protected by the Civil Rights Act, were violated and that by speaking publicly about the firing the school violated her privacy rights as well. The school asked the judge to reject the claim. A final decision has not been reached.

Teachers are under increasing pressure from all sides. Clearly they have an obligation to their students, who often ask questions or request information about sexuality. While teachers want to provide students with potentially life-saving information on such topics as contraception and disease prevention, they are also under pressure from parents and school administrations to keep what they say to a minimum. Fear of controversy and strict abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines have effectively silenced many teachers.

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION WEIGH IN

The roles that school boards and administrations play in sexuality education are often clear: they set policy, and they act as intermediaries between parents, teachers, and students. We have seen the importance of their involvement in sexuality education over the past year in a number of different areas.

Strict Abstinence Policies Implemented

After years of debate among parents, educators, community members and advocates, it was ultimately the school board who decided the fate of sexuality education in Wake County, NC. A community-wide effort over the past few years had resulted in an expanded sexuality education program for students. In January, 2004, however, the Wake County School Board voted 5-3 to pass a restrictive abstinence-only policy.

The adopted policy requires that all sexuality education classes in grades K-12 teach that abstinence-only-until-marriage is the expected standard and that a "mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage" is the best way to prevent STDs, including HIV/AIDS. (28) The adoption of this policy eliminates many comprehensive components that had been recently added to the school's curriculum, including lessons on using contraceptives and showing tolerance for all sexual orientations. Now, discussions of contraception must focus on failure rates and teachers will not be allowed to answer students' questions about where or how they can obtain contraception or seek abortions. In addition, all discussions of sexual orientation and tolerance will now be made part of character education classes.

Not everyone is pleased with this policy. One teacher said, "I hope at one point we can expand what we teach. We have ninth graders who come in pregnant. We have ninth-grade fathers." (29)

Sexuality Education Programs Expanded

Not all school boards seek to restrict sexuality education. In fact, school boards sometimes initiate attempts to revise and expand curricula. In Battle Creek, MI, the school board became concerned about the city's high teen birth rate, which is double the state average. An advisory committee suggested adding new lessons to the current abstinence-only curriculum that would teach students about avoiding risks associated with sex, including lessons on the use of contraception. The advisory committee also suggested that the school make the seventh-grade program an opt-out rather than opt-in program, so that all students will be automatically enrolled unless their parents choose to take them out of the class.

The new curriculum was passed in February 2004, and is being taught in the required freshman personal fitness class and the two elective courses that began in Fall 2004. The board president said, "It's pretty groundbreaking. This is the first time the curriculum has been modified to the extent that pregnancy prevention is included." (30) In addition, a new health course will now be taught in the fourth-grade classes. Previously, sexuality education did not begin until the fifth grade.

STUDENTS TAKE SEXUALITY EDUCATION INTO THEIR OWN HANDS

Students are in a unique position as they are clearly the most affected by decisions about sexuality education. They are also in the best position to know what their peers need. When talking to classmates, many students realize that information about sexuality is desperately needed, if only to correct the myths being passed in the hallway.

New Programs Created

In recent years many students have gotten directly involved with decisions about sexuality education in their schools. For example, a group of students at Chicago, IL's Curie High School, all of whom were involved with The Forefront Program, a leadership and political action training course, took it upon themselves to improve their school's sexuality education curriculum. They began challenging their school's policies in September 2003, after conducting a survey with the help of their social studies teacher. The survey was given to 3,000 students to determine what they knew about sexuality. After reviewing the 1,500 surveys that were returned to them, the Curie student group discovered that the teens in their community were not nearly as knowledgeable as they should have been about issues of pregnancy, disease prevention, and sexual health. The survey also revealed a large number of teen mothers among the student body, especially those living in minority and low-income communities.

The Curie student group presented their results to their school principal and pushed for a more comprehensive sexuality education curriculum. The students also proposed a project to distribute free condoms to students during lunch hours. When the principal rejected their proposal, the students took their concerns to the school board. During their presentation to the Chicago Board of Education, the student group emphasized the need for more thorough and comprehensive sexuality education. The presentation impressed the board president and the school CEO, who vowed to work with the group to make improvements.

A former student at Washington High School in Washington, IL took similar

action when she became frustrated with the focus her alma matter places on abstinence in its sexuality education courses. She recruited fourteen like-minded recent graduates and parents, who joined her in passing out what they called "prom packets," which included condoms and information.

In a news release, the recent graduate said: "subjects like contraceptives are not approached unless brought up by a student raising his hand and asking himself." She went on to say that the teachers are trained to respond in a way that always leads back to abstinence.

The school superintendent responded to the criticism saying, "That's pretty far out that we would try to influence ... a teacher to say don't talk to anybody about anything but abstinence .... where would that come from?" (31)

Attention Attracted

Two female students in Clarksville, MD, began their protest in a very different way--they decided to fight homophobia by publicly kissing in the lunchroom. The two girls stood on a table in the lunchroom of River Hill High School, yelled "End homophobia now!" and kissed on the lips for about 10 seconds. Shortly thereafter, they were suspended.

The two girls, one junior and one senior, said they are heterosexual and that they staged the kiss as part of their English class assignment which required them to perform a "non-conformist" act. The girls decided on the kiss to draw attention to gay and lesbian students who are mistreated in schools. One girl's mother said she was aware of her daughter's plans and was fully supportive.

School officials said that the two girls were suspended because they had caused a "disruption," not because it was a homosexual kiss. The school principal said, "What it was is there was a disruption of the operation of my school ... I think that, whether it was two girls, or two guys, or a guy and a girl standing on a cafeteria table, I'm real confident that any high school principal in the country would have said the same thing." (32)

The two girls are good students: one earned a perfect 1600 on her SATs and the other has a 3.88 grade-point average. Nonetheless, their guidance counselor said they will likely be denied entrance to the National Honor Society because of the suspension.

Still, the girls do not regret their actions. One of them explained, "I lost a few friends over what I stood for, either because they're religious or have very strong views, and for that I'm sorry. But I had to do what I felt I needed to do. I don't regret it, even after the disciplinary action." (33)

GSAs Demanded

Though not many students kiss in lunchrooms as a means of protest, a number of students across the country are publicly pushing for an end to homophobia through the formation of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Unfortunately, many students who start Gay-Straight Alliances on campus are finding that it may not be as easy as they had hoped.

In Colorado Springs, CO, a group of Palmer High School students represented by the Colorado American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in the US District Court against their school for refusing to recognize their Gay-Straight Alliance on campus. The lawsuit charged that the school had repeatedly refused to recognize the school club since it was first formed by students in January 2003. As a result, the club was not allowed to meet on school property and could not post information on school grounds. It also could not be included in the yearbook or on the official list of student-organized activities.

The group's purpose, according to the Legal Director for the Colorado ACLU, is to "promote a safe and supportive environment for all students." (34) He said that there are more than 50 Gay-Straight Alliances in Colorado and pointed out that the federal Equal Access Act bars schools from discriminating against clubs based on the content of their speech. Any school that allows clubs must follow this statute.

The school principal said that it was the school district's decision not to allow the club. A school district spokeswoman refused to comment on the lawsuit, but said that a district policy does not recognize groups if they are not directly linked to school curriculum. (35) However, the lawsuit pointed out that other groups that have been recognized by the school were not related to the curriculum, including the Sci-Fi club and the Mountain Bike Club. (36)

In response to the lawsuit, the school decided in April 2004 to reclassify the nine student clubs that were not directly related to school curriculum as independent student organizations. These organizations will now be subject to the same limitations the Gay-Straight Alliance had been.

High schools are not the only places where these controversies are occurring. In April 2004, students at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, IN staged two protests as a result of the university's decision to deny club status to Notre Dame's recently formed Gay-Straight Alliance. The club, called Unity in Diversity, was founded by a group of students with the goal of creating a welcoming atmosphere for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and employees on campus. However, Notre Dame's Office of Student Activities rejected the group's request for official recognition as a student organization, which means the group is not allowed to advertise on campus or receive any funding from the student activities fees.

The Office of Student Activities said they turned down the request because the administration and Campus Ministry are already undertaking efforts to provide educational programs and support regarding sexual orientation, including a university-sponsored Standing Committee for Gay and Lesbian Student Needs. The director of student activities said. "It's a complex issue, and having students out on their own dealing with it is not the best way ... We prefer that students talk with faculty, administrators and ministers in dealing with these issues." (37)

More than 2,000 Notre Dame students and staff wore orange t-shirts with the phrase "Gay? Fine by me" to show support for the school's Gay-Straight Alliance in late April 2004. A previous protest in March had more than 1,600 student participants. (38) The group says they will continue to work as an unofficial club and may apply for official university recognition in the future.

OUTSIDE GROUPS PLAY AN EVER-INCREASING ROLE

Parents, teachers, school boards, and students are players that one might expect to get involved in sexuality education controversies because they are all, to some degree, personally affected by these decisions. One might be surprised, however, by the ever-increasing role that outside organizations are playing. Groups representing all sides in the ongoing debate over sexuality education have stepped in to influence communities in making decisions or settling controversies. Conservative organizations and advocacy groups often spearhead attempts to implement changes in sexuality education programs. Once controversies have erupted, legal groups on both sides of the issue often get involved in attempts to litigate a final outcome.

Events Protested

Conservative groups like the John Birch Society have been protesting sexuality education since the 1950s and 60s. However, instead of arguing against sexuality education altogether, as they did in those days, conservative groups now push for certain messages, such as abstinence-until-marriage, to be promoted in school settings. Sexuality education is often used to debate other issues, such as the question of whether Christian morals and virtues should be extolled in the schools, and how abortion should be presented. As previously mentioned, in communities like Albuquerque, NM and Eau Gallie, FL, anti-abortion organizations are actually going into the schools to teach young people abstinence-only programs, often bringing their anti-abortion agenda with them.

Conservative organizations also are working to oppose comprehensive sexuality education programs. A controversy in Waco, TX gained national attention when Pro-Life Waco, a local Christian group, called for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because the local Bluebonnet Council of Girl Scouts supports Planned Parenthood's annual sexuality education seminars. "I encourage you to join me in abstaining from Girl Scout cookies," the director of Pro-Life Waco said in public service announcements that ran on a local Christian radio station for several weeks. (39)

According to the executive director of the Bluebonnet Council of Girl Scouts, they do not take any stance on abortion or sexuality education, and none of the money from the cookie sales goes to Planned Parenthood or any other organization. They do, however, allow the national Girl Scouts logo to be put on posters for Planned Parenthood of Central Texas' summer sexuality education seminar, which is held annually for fifth- through ninth-graders. More than twenty other groups sign on to these posters as well; however Pro-Life Waco has yet to go after any of the other groups as aggressively.

The director of Pro-Life Waco explained that he thought of the boycott when the Bluebonnet Council honored the Director of Central Texas Planned Parenthood in May, 2004. "When I saw the head of Planned Parenthood held up as a role model to little girls, that was a great irritation to me." (40)

The communications director of the Circle T Council, which serves more than 1,200 Girl Scout troops in four counties, remarked, "I think it's unfortunate that the girls have gotten caught in [this] agenda...." (41)

Two of the 400 Girl Scout troops in the Central Texas district have disbanded as a result of the Planned Parenthood connection. However, the boycott did not seem to work as Pro-Life Waco had hoped. The executive director of the Bluebonnet Council of Girl Scouts said that there were few reports of adults turning down cookie sales because of the boycott. In fact, in Waco, the boycott seemed to have resulted in increased cookie sales.

Conservative groups also actively oppose programs and events that are working to end homophobia. One conservative group that has become practically legendary is the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, KS. The group, run by Rev. Fred Phelps, travels around the country protesting the "homosexual agenda." They have protested productions of The Laramie Project in schools across the country, as well as any other event they feel promotes "dangerous" diversity.

In Bellmore, NY, for example, several members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside Mepham High School because they claimed the school's Gay-Straight Alliance was the inspiration for a recent hazing incident.

At a summer football camp in Pennsylvania, members of the Mepham High School Football team were involved in a "hazing incident" that allegedly included sodomy. Westboro Baptist Church blames the incident on the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance at Mepham High School three years ago. The organizer of the church said, "If you tell all those kids that it's OK to be gay, that is why you end up with a group of children treating each other this way." (42)

Many people disagreed with the church's views and more than 300 students, community members, and advocates came out to protest the group's arrival outside the school. A spokesperson for Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth, a local group, responded, "Anybody who has a pulse in their body would realize that that is absolutely ridiculous. And there is no connection between sexual assault, which is about power, and one's sexual orientation." (43)

Restrictive Textbooks Disputed

Groups that advocate for comprehensive sexuality education are also playing an important role in local controversies. Often state and local groups are working together to push for improved sexuality education in the schools.

A number of groups in Texas, for example, joined together to work against the health textbooks proposed by the state. In June 2004, a panel appointed by the Texas Education Agency recommended four health textbooks for the Texas schools, only one of which mentions condoms in the actual textbook. The other three only discuss condoms in the teacher editions and supplemental sections.

Many people criticized the lack of information on contraception in the textbooks and argued that it violated Texas education code. The state curriculum standard, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that students need to "analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods." (44)

A group calling themselves the "Protect Our Kids Campaign" formed to advocate for the textbooks to contain more information on contraception. Some of the organizations involved include Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Texas Freedom Network, Planned Parenthood, Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, and League of Women Voters. They argue that having information about contraception only in supplemental sections does not adequately provide the necessary information. The Lifetime Health textbook published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, for instance, doesn't mention condoms in a list of 10 ways to protect from STDs, but does suggest "get plenty of rest." (45)

The 15-member Texas Board of Education held two public hearings to discuss the textbooks. Over 100 people signed up to testify about the textbook decision at the first hearing. The majority of the teachers, parents, religious leaders, and other activists who spoke voiced their opposition to the sex education section of the textbooks.

A doctor who works with a local teen pregnancy prevention program pointed out that the reality is that more than fifty percent of Texas high school students are sexually active. "Sometimes abstinence intended is not abstinence achieved," she said. (46) A student who testified against the books said, "As a high school student, I am aware that abstinence is the best choice, but by not stating other options as well, students are not prepared to responsibly decide what's best for their own health." (47)

A few of the speakers, however, supported the textbooks. One woman representing the Texans For Life Coalition, a state-wide anti-choice group, voiced support for the textbooks. "By putting it in the hands of the teacher and in the teacher's edition, then parents and schools can work with kids in a family-friendly way," she said. (48)

This controversy gained national attention, in part because of the effect it may have on the rest of the country. Texas is the second-largest purchaser of textbooks in the United States and the books they adopt are often marketed in other states.

The State Board of Education approved the textbooks which will first be used in the 2005-06 school year.

Conservative Agendas Represented

When controversies get complicated, those involved often turn to the courts for assistance and legal groups step in. Conservative legal groups across the country, for example, are involved in a number of cases related to students' rights to express their anti-abortion stance and opposition to homosexuality on-campus. They also are arguing for students to have the right to express religious beliefs at school.

In Fort Myers, FL, a Cypress Lake Middle School student's request to distribute anti-abortion pamphlets at school was turned down by a federal judge during a preliminary injunction hearing. The eighth-grade student wanted to hand out anti-abortion pamphlets during non-class time on the "Day of Remembrance" for aborted fetuses. Her request had been denied the previous year because of the school's blanket policy prohibiting student distribution of pamphlets. As a result, the student and her mother filed a lawsuit against the Lee County School Board in late March 2004. They asked for a court order to prevent the school from enforcing this policy.

The Liberty Counsel, a national law firm based in Florida that works on religious rights issues, represented the student in court. This group gained national attention earlier this year when they organized Purity Day, on which students handed out materials on abstinence-until-marriage to their classmates.

The US District judge turned down the student's request, explaining that although students have the right to free speech, school officials are also entitled to "prescribe and control conduct in the schools." (49) The school board attorney, who was pleased with the decision, said, "We felt our position with respect to distribution of materials was appropriate and legally defensible. We think this order establishes that." (50) The mother and student, however, were disappointed with the ruling and are continuing with the litigation.

Parents in Novato, CA, are also involved in a lawsuit. A group of eight parents sued the Novato School District for allowing their children to see a play discussing homosexuality. The play, Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry was presented by Fringe Benefits, an LA-based theater company, at two elementary schools. The play tackled the issue of stereotypes and discrimination based on many factors, including sexual orientation.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal defense organization, represented the parents in the lawsuit. The parents claimed that they filed "opt-out" forms excusing their children from school activities that would conflict with their religious beliefs. The lawsuit also claimed that the parents had not been notified about the play. "It just seems like there's no room for any parents who don't agree with the school district's social agenda.... That may be fine for Hitler's Germany or Stalin's schools, but it's not fine for schools that are in a democratic country," the president of Pacific Justice Institute said. (51)

In response to the initial lawsuit, the school principal said, "This district is promoting a safe campus for every kid to come to school and for every family to participate.... We are promoting tolerance for all groups; that includes every segment of our community." (52) Several legal organizations stepped in to represent the school district and the theater group in the lawsuit, including the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). In September 2004, the lawsuit was dropped. "This outcome is a great victory for parents and students in Novato and for anyone concerned about fostering tolerance in their community.... The plaintiffs' decision to walk away at this stage of the case shows that their claims were baseless. It shows that schools have the authority to require attendance at tolerance-building and diversity education programs that include teaching tolerance for lesbian and gay students," a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California said. (53)

The Pacific Justice Institute, however, also expressed victory at the recent decision to drop the lawsuit. They said that parents had dismissed the case after the school district "vacated its original position, replaced its outgoing superintendent with a parent-friendly administrator, and adopted a parental opt-in policy." (54)

Progressive Legal Groups Called Upon

Progressive legal groups, such as the ACLU, often get involved in cases regarding sexuality education. Such groups are frequently called upon to protect gay and lesbian students who have faced barriers and discrimination in school. The ACLU, for example, filed a lawsuit on behalf of an eighth-grader in Jacksonville, AR after he suffered severe harassment in school based on his sexual orientation.

The student claimed he suffered repeated harassment from school officials during the past year. According to the student, the harassment began when a teacher overheard a conversation in which the student refused to deny that he was gay. The teacher sent him to the principal's office where the assistant principal insisted he tell his parents that he was gay by the end of the day, or she would. According to the student, that was only the beginning of harassment by school officials that continued over the next year. Under a settlement, the student will receive $25,000 and an apology from school officials, and his disciplinary record will be cleared.

The ACLU and LAMBDA Legal Defense have both been very active in fighting for the rights of students to start Gay-Straight Alliances in their schools. As discussed in the GSA section of this report, Gay-Straight Alliances have continued to expand this past year but unfortunately they remain controversial. In Lubbock, TX, after the Gay-Straight Alliance was not allowed to meet on campus, LAMBDA Legal Defense sued the school on behalf of the students. They claimed that the district violated the students' constitutional rights as well as federal law by refusing to allow the group to meet at a high school in late 2002.

A federal judge who ruled in favor of the school system said, "the local school officials and parents are in the best position to determine what subject matter is reasonable and will be allowed on LISD campuses." (55) He ruled that the decision not to allow the group to meet on-campus is "an assertion of a school's right not to surrender control of the public school system to students and erode a community's standard of what subject matter is considered obscene and inappropriate." (56)

The GSA members were disappointed with the ruling. A founding member said, "The longer it takes with the legal process, the longer we are without our rights." (57) However, the school board president was pleased. He said, "It confirms our policy as a district, and I think it accurately reflects the community perspective as a whole." (58)

A similar conflict in Ashland, KY, had a very different outcome, however. The Boyd County Gay-Straight Alliance has been trying to form at the high school for many years. In February 2004 the GSA was finally allowed to meet, following the settlement of their year-long lawsuit against the Boyd County School District. The ACLU brought the lawsuit against the school on behalf of the students in January 2003 and the school agreed to settle the lawsuit in order to avoid the trial that had been scheduled for April 2004. As part of the settlement, the school agreed to allow the GSA to meet. Administrators also agreed to hold anti-harassment training with an emphasis on sexual orientation for all district staff as well as middle school and high school students.

An attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said, "The Boyd County Public Schools wasted over a year's time and a lot of taxpayer money to try to stop these students from having their club, when a federal judge had already made it clear that the district was breaking the law by trying to silence students who wanted nothing more than a place to talk about how to stop anti-gay harassment and discrimination at school and in the community." (59)

One student member of the GSA said, "I'm just excited that it's over ... I'm glad we're finally coming to a resolution." (60)

However, not everyone in the community supports the school's decision to settle. As a result of the decision, the pastor of a local Baptist church who led the opposition to the GSA is forming a new group to "protect the civil rights, personal health and safety of students, staff and citizens" in Boyd County. The group will include educators, students, business leaders, pastors, and parents. (61)

THE FUTURE OF THE PLAYERS

The controversies we have tracked during the 2003-04 school year truly show the tremendous power of an individual to effect change. Margaret Mead was right when she said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The vocal parents, committed students, strong teachers, and organizing groups are all great examples of the incredible impact people can have when they work together to advocate for improvements.

Advocates for comprehensive sexuality education can and must learn a very simple lesson: if more people spoke up to demand better sexuality education in their local schools, more students would receive it. It was not enough just to vote on November 2nd. We must continue to work with those around us to advocate for improvements on the local level. Together, we can make a difference.

References

1. Sara Diamond, Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1998), p. 83.

2. L. Pearson, "Parents Want Lesson Pulled," Bristol Press (CT), May 6, 2004.

3. Ibid.

4. P.A. 79-463, S. 1., Sec. 10-16c.

5. "Venice Parents Sound Off--Again," Venice Gondolier Sun (FL), June 2, 2004.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. J. Barker, "Sex In Literature--Who's to Judge How Far to Go?" The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 22, 2004.

9. "A Fine Novel Gets Mistreated in FWay School Reading Flap," The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA), May 12, 2004.

10. S. Scott, "Book from School Jolts Parents," The Star News (Wilmington, NC), March 18, 2004.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Channel Transcript, May 4, 2004.

15. J. Brown, et al., "Mom Protests Middle School's Orlando Outing During 'Gay' Pride Week," Agape Press, April 30, 2004.

16. J. Malernee, "Field Trip Schedule Concerns Parents; Visit to Orlando Theme Parks Will Coincide With Gay Days," Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), May 6, 2004.

17. D. Anderson, "Minister Decries School Exhibit," The Oregonian, December 10, 2003.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. J. Dean, "Faith-based groups tout abstinence to students," Florida Today, February 7, 2004.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. R. Contreras, "APS Sex Ed Lectures Questioned," Albuquerque Journal (NM), February 25, 2004.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. J. Rubin, "Westminster District Braces for HIV/Sex Education Fight," LA Times, May 5, 2004.

27. "Sexth Grade Education," The East Hampton Independent, December 24, 2003.

28. Wake County Public School System. "Healthful Living Education Policy Updated," accessed March 15, 2004 <http://www.wcpss.net/news/health-ed-update>.

29. T. Keung Hui, "Sex Ed May Be Revised Today," News and Observer (NC), January 6, 2004.

30. N. Jacques, "BCPS Adopts Sex-Ed Program," Battle Creek Enquirer (MI), February 17, 2004.

31. L. Michels, "Student Criticizes School's Sex Ed Program," HOI19, accessed online on April 28, 2004.

32. B. Anderton, "High School Kiss Draws Worldwide Attention," Houston Voice.com, November 21, 2003.

33. "Girls Kiss, Get Suspended," 365Gay.com, November 14, 2003.

34. J. Hughes, "Teens Sue in Favor of Gay/Straight Alliance," Denver Post, December 13, 2003.

35. "ACLU Sues Colorado Springs High School," Associated Press, December 13, 2003. Accessed on Lexis-Nexis, January 22, 2004.

36. J. Hughes, "Teens Sue in Favor of Gay/Straight Alliance." Denver Post, December 13, 2003.

37. M. Fosmoe, "ND Students Don T-Shirts to Support Gay, Lesbians," South Bend Tribune (IN), March 19, 2004.

38. "Some ND Students Supporting Gay Club," WNDUTV, April 21, 2004.

39. J. Milligan, "Waco Group Urges Boycott of Cookies," Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX), February 21, 2004.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. L. Pulitzer, "L.I. Teens Brawl Over Grid 'Hazing'" New York Post, October 28, 2003.

43. D. Windsor, "Phelps Protest Outnumbered By Enraged Community," 365Gay.com, October 27, 2003.

44. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Health Education, Texas Education Code, [section]28.002, Chapter 115, Subchapter C, High School, accessed 15 November 2004 <http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter115/ch115c.pdf>.

45. R. Proctor May, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Know at the SBOE," Austin Chronicle (TX), July 23, 2004.

46. K. Adler, "Textbooks Fire Debate at Hearing in Austin," San Antonio Express-News (TX), July 15, 2004.

47. Ibid.

48. B. Hawkins, "Sex-Education Textbook Hearing Draws Varied Opinions" WFAA-TV (TX), July 14, 2004.

49. M. Hoyem, "Teen Loses Lee School Board Suit," News-Press, April 15, 2004.

50. Ibid.

51. E. Sorokin, "Gay-Themed Plays Prompt Suit; Parents Litigate for Right to Shield Public School Students," The Washington Times, February 21, 2002.

52. "News in Brief from California's North Coast," Associated Press, February 6, 2002, accessed October 3, 2003 through Lexis-Nexis.

53. "Anti-Gay Group Drops School Suit,"" 365Gay.com Newscenter, September 5, 2003, Accessed on September 5, 2003.

54. Pacific Justice Institute, Email Update, "Novato USD Case Resolved--Parents Declare Victory," Received September 25, 2003.

55. B. Blaney, "Judge Rules Against Gay Students in Lubbock," Associated Press, March 3, 2004.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. "Youth: ACLU Wins Settlement for Ky. Gay-Straight Alliance," Windy City Times, February 25, 2004, accessed March 21, 2004, <http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4184>.

60. P. Mark, "Gay-Rights Club's Supporters Praise Decree: Boyd Group Allowed to Meet at School: Some Foes Stunned." The Courier-Journal, February 4, 2004.

61. "Regional Briefs: Group forms after Boyd school decision," The Courier-Journal, February 14, 2004.

Shelli Weisberg

Legislative Director

American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan

Detroit, MI