Posted by Eugene Volokh:
School District Trying to Spread False Information About
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_01-2005_05_07.shtml#1115401487
Homosexuality, Using Illogical Arguments, and Violating the
Establishment Clause: Yes, that seems to be so, if [1]the facts
described in this opinion are accurate. The Montgomery Count Public
Schools are apparently trying to adopt a "Revised Curriculum" for sex
education classes, aimed at rebutting hostility towards homosexuality.
Unfortunately:
1. The curriculum involves the public school unconstitutionally taking
a stand on theological questions (as the court correctly held).
Consider this excerpt from a "Myths and Facts" handout that was part
of the curriculum:
Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.
Facts: The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual
behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning
heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue
to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one
thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about
homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are
adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of
fiber, and earing shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.
Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression.
Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in
this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was
condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to
homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after
the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate
generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would
condemn heterosexuality as immoral -- despite the high incidence of
rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity,
and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within
organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the
church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist
Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal
Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil
rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.
This material, which the school would apparently be conveying as its
own views,
1. Describes one interpretation of the Bible as "myth."
2. Suggests that the most important question in interpreting the
Bible is what Jesus said, and that the Bible's use of
"abomination" in different contexts should lead us to think that
the items thus labeled are morally equivalent -- not implausible
claims about Scriptural interpretation, but nonetheless claims
about Scriptural interpretation.
3. Implicitly -- but I think quite strongly -- suggests a particular
reading of the Bible is theologically correct.
4. Condemns particular religious groups by name, not just as part of
a discussion of history, but in an attempt to discredit the
present religious teachings of at least some religious groups
(quite possibly the same ones).
5. Specifically praises by name certain denominations -- again, not
just in a context which seems to be describing the facts, but one
which suggests that their theology is more sound.
The Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause bars
public schools from endorsing and disapproving of theological beliefs.
Schools are quite free to express the view on whether homosexuality is
wrong and on whether hostility to homosexuality is wrong; that some
view on a secular topic corresponds to or is opposed to a religion's
view doesn't keep the school from teaching that view. But schools are
not free to express views on how the Bible should be interpreted, what
is or is not sin from the Biblical perspective, and which religious
groups have good interpretations of the Bible and which have bad ones.
The curriculum contains at least one factual error, and quite
possibly others (though as to the others the matter is more complex).
The curriculum says that "a significant percentage of the population
is gay, lesbian or bisexual (Approximately 1 in 10)." Earlier, the
curriculum makes clear that it treats whether "a person is a
homosexual" as a matter of what constitutes his "long-term sexual
orientation," not whether someone has had at least one same-sex
attraction or experience. Under that definition, the best evidence is
that the [2]about 2-3% of all U.S. residents are homosexual; the
number might be somewhat different in Canada, but I suspect not
vastly. The 10% estimate has long been discredited.
More importantly, the curriculum is chock full of unsound reasoning,
the very sort of thing we shouldn't be teaching kids. For starters,
labeling moral claims as "Myth" (e.g., "Myth: Children raised by gay
men and lesbians will be exposed to an 'immoral' environment") and
"Fact" (e.g., "Fact: Morality is concerned with principles of 'right'
and 'wrong' behavior") strikes me as erroneous and unhelpful. Even if
one believe that certain things are objectively immoral, one should
recognize that such a judgment is not the sort of thing that one
should label "fact"; if anything, we should be teaching students to
better distinguish facts from value judgments, even while recognizing
that value judgments may be very important and even objectively right.
Moreover, consider this item: "Myth: If you are 'straight,' you can
become a homosexual." "Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded
that sexual orientation is not a choice." That "most experts" conclude
something doesn't make it a fact; one would think that the fact that
some experts conclude the opposite should be occasion for students to
express some doubt and healthy skepticism, but the curriculum tells
them that, no, most experts say it, so it's a fact.
Or how about this? "Myth: Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals do not make
good parents." "Fact: One out of four families has a lesbian, gay or
bisexual in the immediate family. Heterosexual parents are
consistently not found to be more loving or caring than gay parents."
I'd hope that any teacher who teaches logical reasoning would give a
pretty low grade to a paper that says that. The first part of the
"Fact" is a non sequitur (even if it's factually accurate, which I
doubt); whether or not a family has a lesbian, gay or bisexual "in the
immediate family" tells us nothing about whether lesbians, gays, and
bisexuals make good parents. The second part is at least logically
related to the attempt to rebut the "Myth" -- but how? Even if it
true, it merely shows that heterosexual parents are not more loving or
caring than gay parents (which is a somewhat imprecise way, I take it,
of saying "lesbian, gay male, or bisexual parents"); but there are
lots of other ways in which people can be not very good parents than
by being un-loving or un-caring.
There's more of the same, but let's leave it at that for now.
I should say, as I've generally said before, that (1) I don't think
homosexuality is morally wrong, (2) I would want to teach my children
to be tolerant of homosexuality, (3) schools inevitable teach some
non-universally-accepted moral values, (4) schools should teach
children to be tolerant of homosexuality at least to the extent that
students don't beat up or taunt others based on their homosexuality or
perceived homosexuality, and (5) there's a perfectly plausible
argument for schools teaching children tolerance of homosexuality more
broadly. (I'm more tentative as to item 5 simply because while I think
that values teaching is inevitable, which highly controversial values
should be taught in a public school is a complex question.)
But such teaching should at least comply with the Constitution, avoid
falsehoods, and avoid fallacies. Good motives don't justify bad
teaching.
References
1. http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/CRC050505.pdf
2. http://volokh.com/2002_04_21_volokh_archive.html#75753666
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
