Teaching ‘good sex’ in the classroom

November 19, 2011 By

It’s nice to see Rod Dreher blogging away again this fall, especially since he kind of wrote a GetReligion post for us. In a recent post, he argued that the New York Times Magazine is obsessed with sex and sexuality, especially from a progressive/liberation angle. As he points out, here are a few of the sex-related stories they’ve done this year (with links to some GetReligion responses).

Dan Savage on What Gay Open Marriages Can Teach Straight America about the Virtues of Infidelity (June 30). (Cover story).
(GetReligion’s take)

Nicholson Baker: The Mad Scientist of Smut (sympathetic profile of novelist) (August 4)

My Ex-Gay Friend (June 16)
(GetReligion’s take)

How Hugh Hefner Got His Groove Back (February 3)

The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy (a sympathetic cover story about people who exercise choice through selective abortion) (Aug 10)
(GetReligion’s take)

If nothing else, maybe the magazine exists to give GetReligion fodder, or something. The latest piece is a profile of Al Vernacchio, who teaches sex education at a Quaker school in suburban Philadelphia.

In its breadth, depth and frank embrace of sexuality as, what Vernacchio calls, a “force for good” — even for teenagers — this sex-ed class may well be the only one of its kind in the United States. “There is abstinence-only sex education, and there’s abstinence-based sex ed,” said Leslie Kantor, vice president of education for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “There’s almost nothing else left in public schools.”

To give you a sense of how he teaches, in one class, Vernacchio provided a worksheet with the five senses and asked the students to try to list sexual activities that optimized each. Here are other kinds of materials he draws on in his classroom:

The lessons that tend to raise eyebrows outside the school, according to Vernacchio, are a medical research video he shows of a woman ejaculating — students are allowed to excuse themselves if they prefer not to watch — and a couple of dozen up-close photographs of vulvas and penises. The photos, Vernacchio said, are intended to show his charges the broad range of what’s out there.

On the religion front, we learn about a tiny little detail in the middle of the piece that seems terribly relevant for the rest of the piece to continue.

Vernacchio is aware that his utter lack of self-consciousness in conversing about sexual matters is unusual. “When God was passing out talents,” he likes to say, “I got ease in talking about sex.” But any plan of God’s, whom Vernacchio, a practicing Catholic, often references, was nudged along by two earthly happenings. “As a little kid,” Vernacchio said, “I got pegged as a good public speaker, so I started narrating all the school plays and reading at church; I got over the fear of speaking really early.” Then, around age 12, he started to research sex, having known from kindergarten that he was different in a “way that had to do with boys and girls.” He looked up homosexuality in the family dictionary, then took to going to libraries and planting himself in the sexuality section of the stacks. “I used to have the Dewey-decimal number for homosexuality memorized.” He was entirely on his own. There was no discussion of being gay at Vernacchio’s all-boys school; none from his parish priest, who at the end of sermons offered a prayer for “veterans of foreign wars, people who live near nuclear power plants and homosexuals”; and not from his parents, either, even after he came out to them at 19.

Did you catch it? The mention of Vernacchio as a practicing Catholic was merely in passing, as though it was the color of his hair or the type of jacket he had on. His faith is relevant only in how it didn’t prevent him from exploring his own sexuality. That detail made me wonder whether the reporter explored this side, whether Vernacchio sees how he lives or what he teaches as any contradiction of Catholic teaching.

The piece as a whole is worth reading just to see how sides are presented or whether there are any sides. On Dreher’s post, commenter Conradg discussed whether this was appropriate journalism.

As for the journalism issue, the job of journalists is to report on what is going on, not to give philosophical, religious, or moral opinions about everything they report. The NYT is simply reporting what is actually going on in some schools with sex education, and the fact this is a Quaker school, and thus with some religious orientation, makes it even more interesting.

The notion that the NYT is supposed to act as some kind of moral police force ferreting out moral degradation in the world confuses newspapers with churches. The are supposed to report what is going on in society, and give some kind of accurate reality-based foundation for discussion of these issues. It’s not their sex ed program, after all.

Part of me wanted to affirm his point, assuming this piece had been one of thoughtful, balanced jouralism. But the piece doesn’t really go into the Quaker details, ignoring history or any context that religion might provide. This isn’t simply reporting “what is going on,” this is creating a rosy profile out of a fairly polarizing way of teaching sex education. The piece makes lots of assumptions about the role of sex, the role of education, the role of morality and the role of ethics with a resounding view of one side. No, the Times won’t act as some moral police, but some might consider it its own religion. The writer presents the issues without really examining the potential downsides to this kind of teaching, creating a one-sided puff piece. I don’t know if anyone could call this piece “reality-based,” since the whole premise is that it’s unusual and provocative.

Photo of sex education via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Marriage & family, People, Religion, Sex, Social Issues
  • Dave

    I don’t agree with the criticism of lack of religious information. It’s not what the article is about. Sex education should not be for any particular religion, and the author had a lot of secular ground to cover.

    I especially commend the article for pointing out that most sex education is (I paraphrase) aimed at producing abstinent teen-agers rather than sexually informed future adults, an orientation unlike any other school instruction.

  • MJBubba

    The first half seemed like cheerleading for the subject and his class. The class seems to be an indoctrination to moral relativism in sexual relations.

    “I don’t necessarily see the decision to become sexually active when you’re 17 as an unhealthy one.” His goal is for young people to know their own minds, be clear about what they do and don’t want and use their self-knowledge to make choices. To that end, he spends one class leading the students through a kind of cost-benefit analysis of various types of relationships, from friendship to old-school dating to hookups.

    The reporter refers to “monogamous” relationships among the kids in the class. Well, the girlfriend-of-the-month plan is not monogamy to anyone but the NYT.
    The second half of the article seemed more solid, getting in to the difficulty of traditional sex ed in trying to counter the horrible messages kids get from internet porn.

  • Peter

    Sarah, thanks for discussing this article – I hadn’t caught it elsewhere. While I agree that the lack of critiques of Mr. Vernacchio’s method was a little surprising, as was the gloss of his Catholic faith, I don’t see how you can argue that the piece is not “reality-based”. What is the author doing if not attempting to present an honest portrait of a sex education course unlike most others in the nation? That seems to be its purpose, and unless you have evidence that the author is deliberately concealing relevant information and/or grossly distorting the facts, I don’t think that particular criticism is warranted.

    As for the previous commenter’s charge of “indoctrination to moral relativism”: that criticism presumes that sex education ought to be built on a foundation which views open discussion of human sexuality as inherently negative or morally reprobate. The pragmatic method of the abovementioned course seems like a much healthier, relevant, and, in my own view, morally coherent approach for an increasingly pluralistic American society. The longer we avoid grappling with real problems and situations – and teaching kids to do the same, with regard to sexuality or anything else – the more ill-equipped we’ll all be to grow together productively as a society.

  • Jeffrey

    The fact that people are doing this at all in the current climate seems to be the point of the magazine piece. That it is effective and parents are pleased makes it newsworthy in a time where dads are taking their daughters to chastity balls and the GOP field is falling over themselves to appease the religious right. That makes this newsworthy, and not a puff piece ( which is code for they didn’t agree with me).

  • sari

    One thing that was alluded to but not discussed was the school itself. It’s private, expensive(gr 9-12 tuition, $27.5K), competitive, and though Quaker in name and orientation, educates a religiously diverse group of students. It is not representative of Philadelphia’s public schools, since nearly all its students come from very privileged, educated homes. The course would not be taught if the majority or even a significant minority of parents disapproved.

    I didn’t see the piece as unbalanced. Perhaps the reporter could have pressed Vernacchio about how he reconciles his sexual orientation, teaching non-abstinence based sex-ed, and practicing Catholicism, but imo it would have been tangential to the story, which was to present an alternative to the more well-known (and usually ineffective) sex-ed curricula in use today. I’d have preferred it to what’s taught here, abstinence-only scare tactics in a state with one of the highest teen and repeat teen pregnancy rates in the nation.

  • Stan

    I wonder if the problem here might be with GetReligion rather than the NYTimes? What you call cheerleading, I see as a sympathetic portrait of an interesting person. I think you are placing a burden on journalists to create a kind of manichean view of the world: if a journalist says something positive about sex education (or same-sex marriage), you seem to think they have an obligation to quote someone on the other side of a cultural divide. This is a profile of someone who teaches sex education, it is not a story about the culture war over whether sex education should be taught at all.

  • http://elizabethharlanferlo.com Elizabeth Harlan-Ferlo

    I also noticed a missing opportunity to share how Mr. V reconciles his own tradition and its doctrines about sexuality with his teaching and beliefs. That could have been a great chance for the reporter to explore how students are encouraged to understand their own religious training/ideas in relationship to their sexualit(ies). I’d like to know if that discussion happens in his class and what it looks like–in part for my own teaching practice at a similar school.

  • Dave

    Elizabeth, the joint UUA/UCC course mentioned has sections about how the values taught in the course cohere with the principles of the sponsoring churches, one for Unitarian Universalism and one for the United Church of Christ. Both are omitted from the version offered to secular schools because most of those classes are neither UU nor UCC. It can be done. I would not expect the reporter to go into this kind of detail, there is so much ground cover.

  • Will

    But is he a DEVOUT Catholic?

  • Colmar

    Peter,

    As for the previous commenter’s charge of “indoctrination to moral relativism”: that criticism presumes that sex education ought to be built on a foundation which views open discussion of human sexuality as inherently negative or morally reprobate.

    Couldn’t we expect from a “healthy” and “pragmatic” sex education that it teaches some ethics, rather than just the mechanics? You don’t need to sympathize with the Religious Right to find something problematic with hookup and sex-as-shake-hands and not wanting your kids to engage into that.

  • Ed Mechmann

    Can anyone, anywhere, even imagine the Times Magazine doing a similarly laudatory story on an abstinence-only education program? Or about a religious-based program that encourages chastity? Or about one run by actual practicing Catholics who agree with the teachings of their Church? Or one that works with kids who are not from the upper economic classes?

    Wouldn’t that kind of story make for more interesting reading? Maybe a bit of a challenge to the presumptions of the readers?

    Hint: they don’t even have to go to Pennsylvania to find one — there a great one in the Bronx, called “Corazon Puro“?

  • bharper

    A practicing Catholic can be homosexual. It’s homosexual acts that are considered sinful.

  • sari

    Ed, If they haven’t, it’s because the data suggest that they don’t work. Our Texas school district uses the Scott & White Worth the Wait curriculum, abstinence-only by law. Texas has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation and the highest number of repeat teen pregnancies. The data suggest that parents impact teens’ behavior much more than any curriculum, and that abstinence-only programs aren’t getting the job done.

    Our district starts good/bad touching programs in kinder, adds body changes of puberty in fourth/fifth, and implements the WTW program in grades 6-8. Unlike many parents, I took the time to read through each year’s curriculum. Misinformation? Omigosh! I pulled my child, not because I was worried about exposure (we have had age-appropriate discussions since my kids first asked), but because s/he’d be forced to answer incorrectly in order to pass. Very skewed, very biased, and not terribly informative. High school is no better; coaches present the unit as part of a required Health class. You can imagine that they are paragons of sensitivity.

    My biggest problem with the article under discussion had nothing to do with religion or using graphic pictures to make a point, and everything to do with presenting data. Is this program more or less effective than others in preventing pregnancy (thus eliminating the need for termination), STDs, and rape? Does it leave boys/men more respectful of a woman’s right to say no? If it is more effective, can it be adapted for use in public schools, so that children who lack involved parents can benefit from it?

    To those who haven’t done so already, several of Mr. V’s students have posted comments on the NYT website. He sounds like a great teacher, one who always has time to listen without judgement.

  • Ed Mechmann

    The point here isn’t the merits of abstinence programs, although I’ll note that the data isn’t as clear as you think — there are many studies that indicate the successes of abstinence only programs.

    The point is, would the Times ever present that side of the story? Would they ever do so in the same kind of glowing terms as this article?

  • Elise Nixon

    One approach to sex education is to view it as necessary to reduce risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    DAN:

    Can you imagine The Times running a story about a Southern Baptist ministry on this kind of issue without the voices of those opposed? How about an ex-gay ministry?

    Me neither. Debates are good. Basic journalism is good.

  • R.S.Newark

    Am I the only person who believes the NYT is in a long running attack on all religions using the Roman Catholic church as synecdoche. What the NYT fails at is having humility concerning what they don’t know, or prefer to misuse with regard to theology. NYT is at least in my eyes guilty of the sin of Pride…how normal in this information age. How sad…the most important point is, of course, however successful they might be, they will not successed.

  • Daniel

    At Dave: “most sex education is (I paraphrase) aimed at producing abstinent teen-agers rather than sexually informed future adults, an orientation unlike any other school instruction.”
    You haven’t obviously been exposed to the degree of explicitness of the sex education I received at Village School in the Rincon Valley of Santa Rosa CA in 1972, at Herbert Slater Junior High in 1973 through 1975, or at Montgomery High School 1977 through 1980. If courses were explicit then, you surely seem poorly informed as to their explicitness today. Any kid who is taking the courses may or may not be reading some material on abstinence, but that doesn’t mean pupils and students aren’t being exposed to any sexual information. Have you, or any of the journalists, actually read today’s California standards for sex education?
    at Colmar: “Couldn’t we expect from a “healthy” and “pragmatic” sex education that it teaches some ethics, rather than just the mechanics?” I agree.
    Films can be and are shown to supplement curriculum. Extra books and articles are used in courses to supplement the basic guiding curriculum. The article addressed a private school, but this debate seems to rage across all children and students in all schools, and of course journalists need to handle such stories in that context. If the kind of standard requirements I was exposed to in the 70′s was going to have any impact on decreasing undesired sexual consequences, they should have had the opportunity to do so by now. Is anybody seriously arguing that the California standards of the 1970′s worked? Please link to that, if you can find it.
    I have always thought that kids should be taught consequences of their behavior. But I realize that although kids know the likely consequences of their behavior, they don’t weigh these consequences, and the problem is they need to be taught how to weigh and evaluate the consequences they want to avoid, and philosophical and ethical means of engaging these consequences are the best ways of changing behavior. Giving people information on sexual consequences has had little impact on behavior. Trends on the undesired behavior are up, and the availability of explicit sexual information is up. We ought to make a call on journalists to talk about effective programs to give kids tools to make these kinds of decisions.
    Again, failure to read these standards and the kind of materials being used is a kind of bias. Unless these facts are borne in mind in discussion of this topic, failure to read the materials carefully is a form of prejudice.