Trends 2002-03: a tug-of-war between abstinence-only and comprehensive sexuality education.

The SIECUS community Advocacy Project has Monitored sexuality education controversies across the country for the last ten years in an effort to identify trends and assist advocates in states and communities. During the 2002-03 school year, SIECUS documented 100 controversies in 39 states. This was a significant increase over the number of controversies in each of the past two school years, but still less than was seen each year during the early and mid-1990s.

The controversies that occurred during the last year illustrate a tug-of-war between those who wish to restrict what young people learn about sexuality and those who want to offer information and skills on a broad range of topics. Individuals and organizations working to restrict sexuality education attempted to institute strict abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, remove "explicit" materials, ban books, and silence classroom discussions. In contrast, others worked to institute comprehensive sexuality education programs, remove abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and speakers, allow more freedom in classroom discussions, and permit condom demonstrations in schools.

This tug-of-war was particularly evident in controversies involving issues of sexual orientation. While many communities struggled with decisions about whether to allow in-school plays and lesson plans on this topic, others worked to establish gay straight alliances (GSAs) and add sexual orientation to the schools' anti-discrimination policies.

This 10th annual review of controversies will provide examples and analysis of each of these trends.

ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT PROGRAMS

This year, individuals and organizations worked to restrict school-based sexuality education in two primary ways. The first is simply to institute a strict abstinence-only-until-marriage program either as a replacement for an existing curriculum or as the first exposure to sexuality education in a school. The other is to restrict programs incrementally by preventing teachers from using certain terms in class discussions or banning materials deemed "too explicit" from classrooms and libraries.

Attempts to Institute Abstinence-Only Curriculum

The most drastic restriction of sexuality education is changing the entire curriculum to an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach. During the past school year, many parents and community members have attempted this.

A proposal by a school board member in Waterbury, CT, for example, recommended replacing instruction on birth control with discussion about the physical, social, and emotional damage that can result from teen sexual activity. "I feel like I've got dirt on my hands if I tell/teenagers] to use a condom and you'll be safe. That's a lie. That's a flat-out lie. We need to be telling them the truth of what the consequences are if they make the choice to be sexually active," the school board member said. (l)

The current sexuality education curriculum consists of eight hours of classroom instruction in each grade, including 45 minutes focused on contraception. The school board is currently working with members of the Waterbury board of health, many of whom support a more comprehensive curriculum, to discuss possible changes. SIECUS will continue to monitor this controversy.

Santa Ana, CA has been mired in a similar controversy since 2001 when a group of young people from Camp Fire USA's Speak Out! program approached the school board and asked that the district alter its curriculum to include more information about contraceptive use and relationship issues. The debate increased when another group proposed using Game Plan, a strict abstinence-only-until-marriage program as a supplemental curriculum.

Hundreds of members of the community and representatives from various organizations attended a school board meeting on this proposal. Ultimately the board voted 3 to 2 to reject Game Plan because they felt it did not meet state requirements. (2)

Efforts to Ban Books

Books often become the subject of controversy when attempts are made to ban them from classrooms, school libraries, and public libraries because they are deemed too sexually explicit or graphic.

In Montgomery County, TX controversy began when two children's books, It's Perfectly Normal and It's So Amazing by Robie H. Harris, were removed from the county library after parents complained of their "pro-homosexual stance" and sexual content. Not everyone agreed with their decision. Some members of the community formed a grassroots organization called Mainstream Montgomery County to fight "the imposition through public policy of one religious tradition over others." (3)

Partly due to community response, the library review committee voted to restore both books to the library shelves. The panel felt strongly, a spokesperson said, that the library should provide a wide variety of books and that parents should determine what is appropriate for their children to read. (4)

In Riverside, CA, a fictional book about teen pregnancy entitled Too Soon for Jeff came under fire from two school trustees who opposed its use in ninth-grade psychology classes in alternative high schools. One trustee felt that a passage in which Jeff suggests that his son use a condom if he has intercourse may lead students to believe that condoms can prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) all of the time.

Despite opposition, the book was approved by the majority of the trustees. School administrators considered placing a label on the book about condom failure rates but later decided against it. Instead, according to the assistant superintendent, teachers will be asked to "emphasize that abstinence is the only effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of diseases." (5)

A similar request to remove the book Everything You Need to Know About Teen Motherhood front the local middle school library was recently denied in Panama City, FL. The parent who made the proposal felt the material was inappropriate for young people because it contained, among other things, descriptions of child-bearing and a list of agencies that offer financial support for pregnant teens. The school board disagreed. One school board member said that he didn't believe the book encouraged teens to have children and that it could benefit pregnant teens in the future. (6)

Efforts to ban books also occurred in Fairfax, VA (7) and Dyersville, IA. (8)

Brochures Banned for Being Too Explicit

Like books, materials used in sexuality, education courses, such as brochures, are often deemed "too explicit" and become targets for removal.

In Bullitt County, KY, a group of fifth-grade parents were upset when their children brought home a brochure that discussed topics such as masturbation and changes to genitalia during puberty. Although parents had signed permission slips for the program run by the local health department, some felt they had not been made aware of everything that would be covered. According to the health department, this program, which includes these pamphlets, has been in fifth-grade classes at schools' requests for the past seven years.

This is the first complaint they have ever received. Nonetheless the pamphlets were pulled from the program while health department staff look for other resources. (9)

A brochure was also removed from an eighth-grade sexuality education class in Kohala, HI after the content was criticized by parents. The brochure "Discovering Your Sexuality," is a four-page supplement to the Weekly Reader Series, Current Health. It describes "how children mature sexually, talks about crushes, and summarizes research on sexual orientation." (10) Some parents described the materials as "lewd," "licentious," and "pornographic." (11) They also strongly objected to those organizations cited as resources, which included SIECUS and Planned Parenthood. The state school superintendent said the department will review the issue but also stated that existing parental notification policies regarding potentially objectionable materials should have been used to prevent such a controversy.

Condoms Cause Controversy

Condoms appear to be one of the most controversial items a teacher can bring into a classroom. Over the past ten years SIECUS has documented numerous condom controversies, this year is no exception.

In one incident, a high school health teacher in Naples, FL was fired after at least one student complained about a condom demonstration in which students used a banana to practice putting on a condom.(12)

Similarly; in Stevensville, MD a science teacher left his job after parents complained about his in-class lesson on how to put a condom on a banana. The school superintendent commented on the event saying: "This was a mistake by a teacher, plain and simple. He went beyond the curriculum and perhaps he used what he was taught in a class... All I can do is apologize." (13) It was unclear whether the teacher had been forced to leave or left voluntarily.

Student Surveys Not Allowed

Sometimes asking for information from students is as controversial as providing it. Although survey information is vital in planning appropriate curricula, it remains controversial. Surveys are often cancelled on the grounds that they are invasive.

Schools in Fairfax County, VA cancelled a ninth-publicized student survey that included, among other things, questions about students' sexual behaviors. Although many criticized the survey as being too invasive, supporters argued it was needed to discover what sorts of risk students were taking and what, in turn, could be done to protect them. They pointed out that county officials often rely on survey results to focus on health curricula and apply for grants. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and only high school sophomores and seniors were going to be asked questions about sexual behavior.

The school board voted to continue with plans for the survey, but it was ultimately cancelled after the company hired to administer the survey backed out for fear of being sued. (14)

WORKING TO EXPAND SEXUALITY EDUCATION

Like attempts to restrict sexuality' education, expanding these programs can be accomplished through a series of small steps or by entirely changing the curriculum. This year, communities established comprehensive sexuality" education programs, overturned abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, cancelled abstinence-only speakers and presentations, helped teachers gain more freedom in classroom discussions, and supported condom demonstrations.

Establishing Comprehensive Sexuality Education Programs

This year, the school board in Wake County, NC decided to expand the sexuality education curriculum to include more information about contraception, STDs, and tolerance for people of all sexual orientations. This decision brought an end to a debate that has raged in the community since the existing comprehensive sexuality education curriculum was changed to an abstinence-only-until-marriage program in 1995.

Since then, North Carolina law has required schools to follow an abstinence-only-until-marriage focus unless the school board holds public hearings and the community consents to providing comprehensive sexuality education.

Community members in Wake County actively debated the expansion of the school system's sexuality education curriculum and over 600 people attended a public hearing in October 2002. Much of the public debate centered on the issue of encouraging students to show tolerance for all people, including those of different sexual orientations.

The new curriculum ultimately passed and was sent to a medical review panel which removed the medical inaccuracies. In the process, however, they also removed most of the information about homosexuality, including suggested classroom activities to promote tolerance of people with different sexual orientations. In addition, they replaced the broad phrase "homosexual activities" with specific phrases such as "oral sex" and "anal sex" and added information explaining that these activities are felonies in North Carolina. The assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction denied accusations that the changes were made in response to those who said Wake County was promoting homosexuality.

Parents of students in seventh through ninth grade will receive letters inviting them to review the curriculum before the material is taught. They will have the option of removing their children from the class if they prefer. (15)

Harford County, MD serves as another example of a successful curriculum change this year when the board of education approved a number of improvements to the middle school sexuality education curriculum. The board voted to revise the curriculum--which had not been updated since 1983--to include information on HIV/AIDS, STDs, teen pregnancy, and sexuality; and to start the program in eighth grade rather than in high school.

This decision was based on the Family Life Committee's findings in the fall that the school district lagged behind others in the area. One committee member said they discovered that "Harford County is the only county... that has not included information about STDs-except for HIV/AIDS--or teen pregnancy in the middle school curriculum." (16) Committee members also noted that instruction had suffered because of the district's policy, which limited discussions on topics such as STDs and teen pregnancy and forced teachers to answer students' questions in an "around-the-barn kind of manner?" (17) The revised curriculum is being written and will be brought to the board for approval in 2004.

Rejecting Abstinence

While some communities have expanded their sexuality education program by implementing comprehensive sexuality education curricula, others are still working to end strict abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Advocates are accomplishing this either by working to abolish a curriculum or cancel abstinence-only speakers and presentations.

A parent in Mt. Diablo, CA is working to end CryBabies, an eight-day abstinence-only program in the

area middle school. She felt that the program was biased, inaccurate, and did not include sufficient information on how to prevent pregnancy or STDs. She pointed to one activity in which her son was asked to list "advantages and disadvantages" of abortion. Her son had written "killing a child" as a "disadvantage."

Two years ago, CryBabies faced similar criticism from a parent in the Oakland (CA) Unified School District. Although the program was initially pulled from the schools, it was reinstated in 2001 after the curriculum materials were reportedly revised and updated. The Mt. Diablo school district assembled a task force to review the health curriculum. (18) SIECUS will continue to monitor this controversy. [See "How Will We Teach Our Children" on page 17]

Board members in Allentown, PA cancelled a presentation by national abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker Pare Stenzel after viewing her promotional video. Stenzel was scheduled to address students at Liberty and Freedom High School but board members and administrators said they found her messages offensive and felt she came across as too harsh. They were particularly upset with her suggestion that students "will pay" if they have sex before marriage. The school director said, "I found that offensive. That doesn't sound very loving to me." (19)

A group of parents asked the school board to reconsider. The superintendent clarified the district's position and said that the school board did not disagree with the premise of Stenzel's program but rather with certain parts of the presentation. He went on to say that: "Public schools are not in the business of morality." (20)

In another incident, the New Jersey Education Association (NJ-NEA) canceled three sexuality education speakers after discovering they had an abstinence-only-until-marriage focus. The three speakers were scheduled to make presentations to teachers at the organization's annual conference in November 2002. The NJ-NEA replaced the scheduled workshops with alternate presentations by staff members from the Network for Family Life Education at Rutgers University, a comprehensive sexuality education group that trains teachers. The cancelled speakers and other conservative leaders criticized the decision. (21)

In the past, abstinence-only speakers were able to make one-time presentations without being subjected to the strict scrutiny that curricula and sexuality education resources often are. It is encouraging to see school administrators and other school personnel taking an increased interest in these presentations and what they are teaching young people.

Smaller Changes For The Better

Comprehensive sexuality education supporters often take smaller steps to expand programs. Some of these changes have included allowing teachers to use previously banned phrases and allowing condom demonstrations in the classroom. Though these changes may not completely revamp a program they are a positive step toward providing students with important information.

The school board in Leander, TX recently voted to allow teachers, beginning in eighth grade, to discuss oral and anal sex with students when teaching about STDs and to use the specific phrases "oral sex" and "anal sex." The changes were first proposed by teachers who became frustrated with their inability to address these topics with their students, despite what they perceived as students' ignorance about the inherent risks of such acts.

District officials debated the issue for months. They were concerned about a belief among students that these acts do not pose health risks and do not constitute sex. At the same time, many parents and school board members feared that discussions of these acts would create graphic images in the minds of young people and introduce new ideas to the teens.

In December, the school board proposed finding a sensitive way to teach the subject that would not use the actual phrases. However, the health advisory committee stood by its decision that teachers need to use the words in order to fully inform students about the health risks. The school board eventually agreed. (22)

Another vote to expand the sexuality education curriculum took place in Montgomery County, MD when school board members voted to allow condom demonstrations and discussions of homosexuality and nontraditional lifestyles for certain high school classes as part of a pilot program. Montgomery County is now one of four counties in Maryland to provide condom demonstrations to their students in the classroom.

The condom demonstration is likely to be brief segment (less than 10 minutes) of a school system-produced video shown in the tenth grade comprehensive health education courses at three to five high schools next year. In order to watch the video, students will be required to obtain permission from their parents or guardians.

In addition, the pilot program will allow more open discussions about homosexuality and nontraditional families. The school system's coordinator of health education said students' sexual orientation and sensitivity" toward it is a daily issue in the schools. Before this ruling, discussion of sexual orientation was allowed in the classroom only if it was brought up specifically by a student. Lengthy discussions were discouraged. The new curriculum will remove that restriction, and replace it with specific instruction to help reduce verbal and physical attacks against gay, lesbian, and bisexual teens. Students will need their parent's or guardian's permission to participate in the classroom discussions. (23)

Students Fighting For Change Themselves

Students themselves continue to fight to expand sexuality education each year. Young people are directly affected by curricular decisions and have shown their desire for more information in school about STDs, HIV/AIDS, and other sexuality-related topics.

Students in Lubbock, TX have been working to make their schools' sexuality education curriculum more comprehensive for a number of years. The Lubbock Youth Commission made a proposal to the school board in late January asking it to change the current abstinence-only curriculum to a more comprehensive approach to sexuality education that includes information on contraception and STDs.

In their presentation they pointed out that the teen birth rates in Texas are above the national average and that STD rates in Lubbock County are consistently one of the highest in the state. They made a number of suggestions including having health professionals speak in classes about HIV, forming a committee to review sexuality education curricula, and administering a youth risk survey. The proposal was not passed and so the efforts continue in Lubbock. (24)

A high school junior in Central Village, CT was so inspired by her English class project on the need for improved sexuality education that she decided to take her report to the school board. She described her school's current program by saying that "there's nothing about abstinence-nothing about prevention. It's just very basic. I think we should have, at least, some part of it on abstinence and prevention. We have thousands of girls getting pregnant each year [in the region]." (25)

As a result of her presentation, the school board voted unanimously to have the curriculum reviewed by two subcommittees. They will also invite the student to provide input. The subcommittees will report to the entire school board with their findings by October 2003.

Finally, during the annual meeting of the Hawaii Secondary Student Conference, students from every public school district and private school in the state came up with a list of resolutions for the new year. Among others, the group resolved to advocate for better sexuality education in the schools, including access to condoms in school health offices and peer education programs to help stop teen pregnancy. (26)

While abstinence-only-until-marriage continues to be prevalent, it is encouraging to see so many young people getting involved in their education and so many communities working together to change this trend and to implement comprehensive sexuality education.

INCREASE IN GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER CONTROVERSIES

A number of controversies during the 2002 school year revolved around the subject of sexual orientation as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students, teachers and staff. In fact, this topic clearly illustrates the tug-of-war in communities as they fight to alternatively restrict and expand how sexual orientation is dealt with in schools.

Many communities dealt with intense criticism of lesson plans and plays that address sexual orientation and GLBT students and staff faced continuing harassment and controversy. In contrast, however, we saw a rise in the number of Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) in schools as well as an increase in the number of schools that worked to add sexual orientation to their anti-discrimination policies.

While a lot of progress has clearly been made, sexual orientation remains a divisive issue in communities.

Protesting School Plays That Address Sexual Orientation

This year, a number of plays that focused on sexual orientation came under fire from those who feel this topic should not be discussed in schools.

A play about a teenager coming to terms with his sexual orientation received mixed reactions when it ran in schools in Ithaca, NY. The plat, entitled Josh Keenan Comes Out to the World, was staged by the Hangar Theater and funded by the Gill Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Colorado.

While most students supported the play, a group of a dozen parents and ministers asked the school board to cancel it. They felt that the play mocked Christianity, was filled with profanity, and falsely portrayed adolescent sexual activity. One student responded, "I hate to open their eyes, but those hormones, those actions are happening in high school. The play doesn't tell you how you should think or feel. You can feel for or against homosexuality. But the play just says what's going on. (27) Despite the protest, the play continued. Parents were, however, given the option of keeping their children from attending the performance.

Similarly, On the Down Low, a play that depicts true stories of "the crisis of bullying and anti-gay harassment in schools," received criticism when it was performed at a Dubuque, IA school Thirty-five members of a local church presented the school board with a petition asking that the play not be performed during school hours. In addition, many members sent letters of complaint arguing that the play teaches acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle.

School officials disagreed. The Superintendent said that the play was in line with the district's nondiscrimination and harassment policy, which includes sexual orientation. He went on to say: "We believe that understanding discrimination as it applies to the experience of someone who is homosexual is fully within the intent of the board's policy. As a school district, we teach about many things but do not endorse them." (28)

In Danville, KY a few members of the community were also vocal about their opposition to a production of The Laramie Project, a play about the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard. The play was performed at an area high school. While the majority of the community appeared to support the play, a group of area ministers, calling themselves "Fellowship of One," claimed that by allowing the performance, the school would cross the line between informing about hate crimes and teaching about the gay lifestyle. (29) A small group of protestors picketed the play. In order to attend the play, students had to obtain parental permission. Three hundred students, approximately 6(3 percent of the student body, attended.

GLBT Teachers and Students Under Attack

In addition to classroom lessons and plays, members of a school community, have found themselves at the center of controversy. Over the years, there have been numerous cases of teachers and students being harassed or treated differently because of their perceived sexual orientation and, unfortunately, this year was no exception.

A teacher in Beaverton, OR was ordered by school administrators to remove a sign advertising a county-run support group for gay teens after some parents complained. The teacher, who is openly gay himself and serves as the advisor to the school's GSA, accused the district of discrimination and refused to remove the sign.

School administrators claim to have based their request on a new school regulation forbidding teachers from displaying posters that do not directly relate to material taught in the classroom or school-sponsored clubs. The teacher and the Beaverton Teacher's Union, however, argued that administrators were showing a bias against gay teachers. They pointed out that the school allowed 30 other teachers, mostly heterosexual, to keep the same sign in their classrooms. The school later suspended the regulation and allowed the teacher to display the sign. (30)

A controversy that began in 1997 when a teacher in Spanish Fork, UT revealed her sexual orientation was finally resolved tiffs year by the Utah Supreme Court. Shortly after revealing that she was gay, the school ended the teacher's volleyball coaching position and instructed her not to discuss her sexuality with anyone in the school community, including students, parents, and staff2 In response, the teacher filed a federal lawsuit against the Nebo school district for violating her First Amendment rights and won.

A group calling themselves "'Citizens of the Nebo School District for Moral and Legal Values" filed a lawsuit to have the teacher's credentials revoked. They argued that Utah state law requires teachers to be good role models for their students and that the teacher failed to fulfill that requirement because her private sexual activity conflicted with state laws prohibiting sodomy.

The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the teacher, saying her opponents "lack a legally protectible interest in this controversy." (31) Any complaints against teachers, the court ruled, "must be taken before the only bodies authorized to act in this regard: the local school district, the commission, or the state board of education." (32) Despite the legal battles, the teacher continues to teach classes in the district; however, she has not been able to regain her coaching position.

Teachers are not alone in facing harassment based on sexual orientation. This year the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of an eighth-grade student in Jacksonville, AR who claimed he suffered repeated harassment from school officials during the past year. According to the student, the harassment began after 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. The student said: "I was too upset to sit through eighth period so I went to the guidance counselor, and she made the call. Later, the science teacher wrote me a fourpage handwritten letter about the Bible's teachings on homosexuality, telling me I would be condemned to hell. I threw it out." (33)

According to the student, harassment by school officials continued over the next year. Incidents included: a choir teacher telling him that homosexuality was "sick" and "unnatural"; an assistant principal making him read out loud passages from the Bible that condemned homosexuality and praying for him to be "saved"; and a two-day suspension from school when he voiced complaints about his treatment.

In April, the ALCU filed a lawsuit against the school on behalf of the student. A settlement was then reached under which he will receive $25,000, an apology from school officials, and his disciplinary record will be cleared.

Forming Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs)

One way many school communities are working to put an end to harassment based on sexual orientation is through GSAs, alliances formed by a coalition of students who wish to fight homophobia and encourage tolerance for all sexual orientations at their school. Unfortunately, these groups are often met with a harsh response from classmates, school administrators, and parents. In many instances, school administrators have done everything in their power to prevent the clubs from meeting. As a result, national legal groups like the ACLU and LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund have become increasingly involved in helping students form GSAs.

In fact, a debate over a GSA in Boyd County, KY during this past school year ultimately resulted in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

School officials twice turned down proposals from students to start a GSA. They changed this decision in October 2002, however, after receiving a letter from the ACLU explaining that not allowing the club would be a violation of the Equal Access Act, a federal law that bars schools from discriminating against clubs based on the content of their speech. (34)

The approval of the GSA caused an outcry, including protests, from parents, students, community organizations, and local churches. In response, the Boyd County Board of Education cancelled all clubs rather than allowing the GSA to be established on the high school campus.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the school in January on behalf of the club charging that school officials had permitted some clubs to continue to meet, despite the ban, which the lawsuit charged was a clear violation of the Equal Access Act and the Kentucky Education Reform Act. (35) In April, a U.S. District Judge issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the high school to allow the club to meet while the suit is pending. The judge also ordered the two sides to attempt to settle the lawsuit in mediation. As part of settlement negotiations, the judge asked the ACLU to draft a school club policy for the district. The ACLU gave their club policy proposal to high school administrators in June.

In mid-July, the Boyd County school board approved a new set of school club policies. Under the new policies, non-curricular clubs, including the GSA, will be allowed to meet after school. Access to school property during school hours will be limited to groups related to academics, including athletic and academic teams. The board must vote on the new policies a second time in order for them be adopted. (36)

In a similar case, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Klein Independent School District (TX) Superintendent and the high school principal for refusing to allow a GSA to form on campus.

Students charge that in response to their application to form a GSA, school officials changed the requirements for school clubs. The students resubmitted their application but had still not heard from school officials halfway through the year. The president of the ACLU's Houston chapter and the student's lawyer said that legal action was necessary because the school failed to act on the application and was thus, in erect, denying it. The lawsuit accused the district of violating the students' First Amendment rights and the Equal Access Act. (37)

District officials said that they would have fought the lawsuit if they thought they had a chance of winning the case. Instead, they said that the decision to allow the club was out of their control, as it is governed by the federal Equal Access Act. In order to join any club at the school, including the GSA, each student must now obtain written parental permission.

Students have encountered similar barriers to running gay straight alliances all over the country in cities such as Rockford, MI (38), University City, MO (39), and Lubbock, TX (11).

Adding "Sexual Orientation" to School Policies

Communities have also worked to prevent harassment in schools by including "sexual orientation" in school districts' anti-discrimination policies.

In March, the school board in Palm Beach, FL voted 5 to 2 to add "sexual orientation" to the anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies that cover students. This is the third time the proposal has come before the school board in the past 12 years. In the past, the school chose to maintain a general policy that didn't specify, gays and lesbians as a protected group.

In the weeks leading up to the meeting, a vocal group of opponents started a letter-writing campaign that warned that adding "sexual orientation" to the school policy would "promote the idea that homosexual and other bizarre sexual behaviors are acceptable, respectable, and healthy." (41) Supporters of the policy, however, argued that gay and lesbian students suffer bullying and intimidation in school every day and that adding "sexual orientation" to the anti-harassment policy will give it more teeth.

Most board members agreed with this proposal. One board member commented: "I received numerous calls and e-mails about this, and those who called expressing opposition to it are the ones who made the case for me that it is necessary. It was frightening to me to hear their cold words. (42)

The school board in Fairfax County, VA considered a similar proposal to add the phrase "sexual orientation" to the district's nondiscrimination code for students, employees, and job applicants. The proposal for this change had been brought to the attention of the Fairfax County School Board after several staff members complained that they were being harassed and felt their jobs were being threatened due to their sexual orientation.

The Culture and Family Institute, a subgroup of Concerned Women for America, a national conservative organization, helped establish an active community campaign against this proposal. They published a list of 15 reasons to oppose the change ranging from "homosexual activities are unhealthy" to the possibility that this would lead to "escalating homosexual activism in schools." (43) They also helped orchestrate a rally before a recent school board meeting.

The school board postponed the decision in order to check with the attorney general's office about the legal issues. The attorney general's office responded that the county did not have the legal authority to adopt the policy. As a result, the policy has not been implemented. (44)

GLBT students, teachers, and staff continue to face harassment and communities continue to debate how students should learn about this topic. However, recent successes in forming GSAs and adopting improved anti-discrimination policies can be seen as a promising trend.

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT IN THE FUTURE

The tug-of-war between comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs shows no sign of abating. With the current administration's views on reproductive health and sexuality education, it is doubtful that federal mandates and national funding will support comprehensive sexuality education in the near future.

At the same time, on a local level many positive changes have occurred. In some communities sexuality education is being expanded and many communities are working towards a more comprehensive approach to sexuality education.

The struggle for improved sexuality education for our nation's young people continues. Comprehensive sexuality education advocates must continue to stand united and share resources. Supporters need to continue to get involved by fighting restrictions while at the same time proactively encouraging the implementation of comprehensive sexuality education curricula. By working together to challenge abstinence-only-until-marriage policies and fighting to implement comprehensive sexuality education, we can look forward to more successes like those that we have seen in the past year.

References

(1.) Associated Press,"Push On To Teach Abstinence, Rather Than Birth Control," The Advocate (CT),June 27, 2003.

(2.) D. Bonilla, "Orange County; Santa Ana School Board Rejects Abstinence-Only Curriculum," Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2003. p. B3.

(3.) "News Briefs for October 7, 2002," American Library Association, www.ala.org/alonline/news/2002/021007.html, accessed on October 7, 2002.

(4.) B. Kuhles, "Battle Over Book-Banning Grows; Another Sex-Education Volume in Library at Center of Storm," The Houston Chronicle, September 10, 2(302, accessed on September i2, 2002; S. Thackeray, "Library Book Containing Sexual Content Banned from County Library," The Courier, August 27, 2002.

(5.) M. Garcia, "Book Choice Causes Concern," Press Enterprise (CA), May 7, 2003, p. B01.

(6.) "Bay County Will Keep Teen Pregnancy Book on School Shelves," The Associated Press, October 17, 2002.

(7.) "School Board Vote on Witch Baby," PABBIS News, March 14. 2003, http://www.pabbis.com/news.htm, accessed on March 18, 2003.

(8.) M. Leitsinger, "Banned in Iowa,", CBSNews.com, July 23, 2002, www.cbsnews.com, accessed on September 16. 2002; National Campaign Against Censorship, "How You Can Respond to the Removal of Sari Says," August 9, 2002, www.ncac.org/action/sarisaysaction.hmd, accessed on September 17, 2002.

(9.) T. Holbrook, "Bullitt Agency Withdraws Sex-Education Pamphlets," "/*he Courier-Journal (KY), March 16, 2003, p. 1B.

(10.) S. Essoyan, "Sex Education Brochure at Middle School Protested," Honolulu (HI) Star-Bulletin News, November 22, 2002.

(11.) H. Bishop, "Sex Ed Furor Erupts at Middle School," Hawaii Tribune Herald, December 1, 2002.

(12.) Associated Press, "Florida School Board Fires High School Teacher Who Gave Condom Demonstration" CBSNews.com, January 31, 2003.; "Sex Education Teacher Fired Over Banana Lesson," Ananova, January 3 I, 2003.

(13.) E. Kelly, "Sex-Ed Teacher Leaves School," 771e Capital (MD). July 18, 2003, p. B1.

(14.) J. Ward, "Fairfax Pulls the Plug on Sex Survey," The Washington Times, April 24, 2003.

(15.) T. Keung Hui,"Sex Ed Lessons Amended," News and Observer (NC), February 11, 2003, p. A1.; "12 Keung Hut, "Dueling Messages on Sex," News and Observer, October 22, 2002, p. B1.; T Keung Hut, "Wake Board Votes 5-4 to Expand Sex Education," News and Observer, November 6, 2002, p. A1.

(16.) L. Brown, "Harford School Board Eyes Sex Ed Change," Sunspot (MD) January 14, 2003, p. 2B.

(17.) Ibid.

(18.) S. Pardington, "Parent Files Complaint Over Sex Education Program," Contra Costa Times (CA), December 23, 2002, p. A3.; "News Ira Brief from the San Francisco Bay Area," The Associated Press, December 23, 2002, accessed on January 6, 2003; E. Hayt, "Surprise, Morn: I'm Against Abortion," The NewYork Times, March 30, 2003, Section 9, p. 1.

(19.) G. Marshall, "BASD Approves Tentative l-Mill Hike; Parents Protest Board Decision to Cancel Pro-Abstinence Speaker," Morning Call (PAL May 20, 2003, p. B1.

(20.) Ibid.

(21.) Associated Press, "Sexual Abstinence Speakers Canceled; Teachers' Union Drops Workshops," The Record (NJ), October 17, 2002, p.A04.

(22.) M.B. Taboada, "Leander Board OKs Revision to Sex Ed Class: Talks About Oral, Anal Sex Now Allowed Starting in Eighth Grade Curriculum," Austin American-Statesman (TX), April 18, 2003, p. B7.

(23.) C. Purtill, "Most Say Sex Ed Changes Overdue," The Gazette (MD), November 20, 2002; S. Sedam, "Sex Education Talks Expand for Students," The Gazette (MD), November 20, 2002.; E. Kelderman, "Schools OK Discussion of Condom Use, Homosexuality," The Gazette (MD), November 13, 2002.

(24.) C. Connolly, "Texas Teaches Abstinence, with Mixed Grades," The Washington Post, January 21, 20(13, p. AI.; "Bringing More Sex Ed into Lubbock Schools," KCBD.com, January 10, 2003, accessed on January 13, 2003.

(25.) M. Lemanski, "Teenager Embraces Abstinence," Norwich (CT) Bulletin, Tuesday, February 25, 2003.

(26.) J. Hiller,"On Campus," The Honolulu (HI) Advertiser, January 2, 2003, p. 7B.; J. Hiller, "Student Leaders Tackle School Issues," The Honolulu (HI) Advertiser, December 6, 2002, p. 2B.

(27.) M. Claiborne and A. Ju, "'Josh' Getting Mixed Reviews - Play Sparks Controversy in ICSD," Ithaca (NY)Journal, October 24, 2002, p. 1A.; M. Claiborne, "'Keenan' Goes On Despite Protests," The Ithaca (NY)Journal, October 23, 2002, p. 1A.

(28.) D. Heldt, "Church Expresses Concerns over Scheduled Play Performances; Homosexuality: Dubuque School Officials Say the Focus Is on Preventing Discrimination," Telegraph Herald (IA), March 23, 2003, p.Al7.

(29.) Associated Press, "Danville Pastors Protest School Play: 'Laramie Project' Said to Promote Gay Lifestyle," The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer, February 12, 2003.

(30.) P Parker, "Poster Aimed at Gay Teens Stirs Storm," OregonLive.com, February 14, 2003, accessed on February 14, 2003.

(31.) CNN Student News, "Utah Court Rules in Favor of Lesbian Teacher," April 5, 2003.

(32.) Ibid.

(33.) T. Lewin, "Arkansas School is Accused of Harassing a Gay Student," New York Times, March 25, 2003, p. AI0.

(34.) "ACLU Files Lawsuits Against Schools in KY and TX for Discrimination Against Gay-Straight Alliances," American Civil Liberties Union, http://www.aclu.org/news/ NewsPrint.cfm?ID-11683&c-106, January 22, 2003, accessed on January 23, 2003.

(35.) Ibid.

(36.) A. Mead,"Boyd Clergy Sponsor Gay Club Protest," Lexington (KY) Herald-Ledger, November 11, 2002, p. A1.; "Superintendent Upholds Decision to Permit Gay-Straight Group to Meet," Associated Press, November 27, 2002.

(37.) S. Greenhouse, "Texas School District is Sued Over a Gay Straight Club," The New York Times, February 2, 20(13, Section 1,p. 20.

(38.) M. Vanderbunte, "Gay Straight Alliance Plan Meets Opposition," The Grated Rapids (evil) Press, February 3, 2003.

(39.) G. Jonsson, "High School Students and Parents Debate Gay-Straight, Diversity Club; Harsh Words and Tears Mark Forum in U. City," St. Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch,January 9, 2003.

(40.) "Court Fight a Possibility for Lubbock District, Gay Students," Associated Press, November 15, 2002.

(41.) K. Miller,"School Board OKs Protection for Gay Students," Palm Beach (FL) Post, March 25, 2003, p. 1B.

(42.) Ibid.

(43.) E LaBarbera, "15 Good Reasons to Oppose 'Sexual Orientation' (Homosexuality) Codes in Schools," Culture and Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, July 19, 2002, www.cultureandfamily.org/library/papers/23tpOOT.shtml, accessed on September 26, 2002.

(44.) V. Honawar, "Fairfax Schools Defer Vote on Gays," The Washington Times, July 26, 2002. p. B2.

A TREND TO WATCH: STATE LEGISLATORS GET INVOLVED IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

Colleges and universities are considered one of the last bastions of free speech: students are able to research and discuss many issues, even controversial issues, openly without fear of censorship. Over the past few years, however, some state legislators have become increasingly interested in what happens on college campuses and we have seen a number of attempts to restrict sexuality- education and reproductive health services at the university level. One example of this took place in Kansas this year where a professor of human sexuality was the target of attempts by the state legislature to limit the scope and content of his class. (For a first hand account of this controversy see "Facing Controversy After 25 Years" on page 15.)

In one such incident, the adamantly anti-abortion Virginia state delegate Robert G. Marshall worked this year to prevent emergency contraception from being distributed on college campuses in Virginia. The state delegate sent letters to ten state-supported universities in March asking officials to explain why their schools were giving out emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill," to students. In his letters, he said the pills are a form of abortion because they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. He also wrote that the distribution of the drugs violates state law which requires that women seeking abortions receive information about the procedure and other alternatives and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure.

In response to these letters, the state attorney general sent a memo to the schools in question stating that they were not violating Virginia's informed consent law by dispensing "morning after" birth-control pills to students. The pills are taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, and thus do not constitute abortion. (1)

As a result of Marshall's letters and accusations, a number of schools have reexamined their emergency contraception policies. It remains to be seen how much of a lasting impact the state delegate's actions will have. (2)

Marshall's disapproval of campus activities related to sexual health didn't stop with emergency contraception however. He also voiced opposition to James Madison University's recent "SexFest 2003." He was particularly upset by the demonstration of condom usage and how it can be impaired when under the influence of substances such as alcohol. The university president defended the event, saying that it was intended to teach students about safer sex. (3)

(1.) B. Lewis, "Colleges Don't Break Informed Consent Law With 'Morning-After' Pills, May 9, 2003.

(2.) L. Sessions Stepp, "Ban on Morning-After Pill Spurs Protest," Chicago Tribune, May 7, 2003.

(3.) J. Ward, "Lawmaker Tells Colleges to Curb Sex Education," The Washington Times, May 18, 2003.

ABSTINENCE SUPPORTERS IN LAS VEGAS 

In June 2003, 750 people attended the Abstinence Clearinghouse's seventh annual convention held in Las Vegas. The conference made national headlines in part because of their surprising choice of venues--Las Vegas, often referred to as "Sin City"

The theme was "Beyond the Neon: Creating a Culture of Character," and included workshops on topics such as the history of abstinence, the consequences of premarital sex, and how to win federal and state grants for abstinence-only programs.

During the conference, participants passed out "good-girl cards" to people on the street. The cards were similar to the ads for strip clubs that people often pass out on the strip, but instead of scantily clad strippers the cards featured modestly dressed virgins with information on the back about remaining abstinent.

The conference drew more than twice as many participants than the organization's first annual event and garnered a great deal of media attention. It provides an important illustration of how the abstinence-only movement has grown in such a short time. (1)

References

(1.) J. Babula, "Avowed Virgins Target Strip Porn Scene" Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 27, 2003; S. Russell, "Abstinence Backers Convene inVegas: Concept Has Friend in White House," San Francisco Chronicle, June 27, 2003; "Not Your Typical Vegas Convention: This One Promotes Abstinence," Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2003; H. Stuever,"Viva LasVirgins! Elvis Does the Abstinence Convention, at Least From the Waist Up," Washington Post, June 29, 2003.