When it comes to sex education–especially appropriating federal money for it–one word can set off a firestorm of debate: abstinence. The right thinks that schools should only teach (preach to?) students not to have sex until marriage and it threw plenty of money at it during the Bush administration. The left, on the other hand, believes that instructing adolescents on safe sex methods is paramount (or at least tantamount) to the abstinence message.As noted on Newsweek‘s The Gaggle blog, the Obama administration, in a 2010 appropriations bill, wisely dodges the controversy about how to teach sex education and focuses on results. In a version of No Child Left Behind, the emphasis will be on statistics, specifically, a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies (which has risen the last two years) and decreasing the spread of STDs.Thus, any program, provided it can prove its efficacy, is eligible for federal funding.I agree with the Newsweek post that this is a clever sidestep. It’s also one that shows some sensitivity to the fact that different parts of the country have different risk levels for teenage pregnancy and STD transmission, allowing each of these to be addressed by initiatives that can be tailored to specific communities. While a stats-based focus isn’t appropriate for all sorts of education, it seems prudent when it comes to this particular type of education.Image via Flickr user abuzavi.
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

