On the farm, where kids see bulls “servicing” cows and the like and witness animals being born, sex ed from a young age is a natural part of life. My Colorado grandparents kept cows and other livestock when my parents were kids.
These days, though, some conservatives pretend there’s something ominous about children learning the basics of human anatomy. Even as many conservatives worry about sexual abuse of children (and some even spin wild conspiracies about alleged abuse), some conservatives undermine the very sorts of sexuality programs that are proven to help children avoid sexual abuse.
On August 11, the Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to Roaring Fork Schools, which “serves over 5,300 students across 14 schools in the communities of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Basalt,” complaining about sex ed materials there. But, in making its threat to pursue potential “legal action,” the letter rips quotes out of context to feed alarmism.
Quality Sexuality Education Helps Prevent Abuse
The evidence is clear and compelling: Quality sexuality education gives children the tools they may need to recognize sexual abuse, take actions to potentially avoid it, and report it where it does occur. Conservatives who actually care about curbing sexual abuse of children, rather than fighting culture wars for political ends, will support such programs, not try to undermine them.
A 2021 metastudy found “that school-based child abuse prevention programs are effective in increasing child abuse-related knowledge and self-protection skills of children.” The study “found that several program components and techniques were associated with greater program effectiveness, including increasing social–emotional skills of children, avoiding self-blame, using puppets, and using games or quizzes.”
The study described examples of “essential components” of effective programs such as “teaching children how to identify and resist inappropriate touching, reassuring children that abuse is not their fault, and learning the proper names of their genitals.”
Why specifically does learning the names of genitals help? Children who see such language as taboo or embarrassing may be less likely to report sexual abuse. A 2023 paper suggests that children may not be willing or able to clearly report abuse and may instead (when they do report) resort to “unclear terms” out of “embarrassment” or “ignorance.” An older DOJ report finds that “children may not report sexual abuse” because (among other things) they lack “knowledge of terms to describe event(s)” and “may be embarrassed of the terminology used in describing sexual acts.”
ADF’s Alarmist Letter
ADF, the conservative and explicitly religious Arizona-based legal nonprofit, has involved itself in various other Colorado matters, including the Masterpiece Cakeshop, 303 Creative, and Chiles cases. As I recently wrote, ADF also has involved itself in the Elizabeth School District’s efforts to suppress various books, including some portraying gay relationships and one, “Speak,” with an explicitly anti-rape theme.
Part of ADF’s complaint is that parental opt-out information was not consistently sent, nor were opt-out requests consistently honored. Because those claims depend on reports from “several” parents in the area (presumably a tiny minority), I can directly neither confirm nor disconfirm them. The letter describes specific complaints. I agree with ADF that parents should be able to opt-out of controversial sex-related lessons. If it’s true the district is not adequately allowing that, it should change its practices (and I suspect already has done so if necessary).
What I can review are ADF’s claims about the materials in light of publicly available documents. On review, it becomes obvious that ADF took quotes out of context to substantially distort the meaning of the original documents. Thus, to a substantial degree, ADF’s letter is about fear-mongering rather than making measured recommendations based on the facts.
As ADF reviews, “In May 2023, Roaring Fork Schools adopted the 3Rs (Rights, Respect, and Responsibility) curriculum,” a “free curriculum created by Advocates for Youth.”
In its letter, ADF complains about the contents of the material, not just the opt-out processes. It describes “graphic visuals and ideologically driven content” as an “offense.” ADF does not merely ask for better opt-out policies. The letter demands “that Roaring Fork remedy them [constitutional deficiencies] by abandoning the 3Rs curriculum altogether,” or “at minimum,” implement opt-in policies rather than opt-out policies.
What that would mean, in practice, is that any child whose parents simply neglected the paperwork would be pulled from class — an administrative nightmare. But, ADF unreasonably asserts, “Anything less perpetuates Roaring Fork’s parental-rights violations.”
ADF accurately states, “In kindergarten, children learn to identify “at least three body parts of the female namely the nipples, vulva and anus,” along with identifying the “nipples, penis and anus” for the male anatomy.” And… so what? Why would anyone want a child to remain ignorant of the names of visible body parts?
At one point, ADF mischaracterizes what the materials say. ADF: “Roaring Fork recognizes that these [Kindergarten] slides are ‘controversial,’ yet the lesson plan directs teachers to show even ‘more detailed anatomical drawings’ from a book called ‘Not the Stork’— when ‘possible.’ Parents never see that book.”
But the materials do not call the slides in question “controversial;” they say “providing more detail might be controversial at this grade level.”
The materials suggest that teachers use the “It’s Not the Stork” book “if you are in a setting where using more detailed anatomical drawings is possible for kindergarten.” By the way, my family has “It’s Not the Stork” on our bookshelf; our child has read it, and it’s a great resource.
There is a line from this kindergarten-level guide for teachers that seems overly detailed for this level. Strangely, ADF did not complain about it. However, the line is put in this context: “It is up to each teacher to determine the amount and detail of information to share with their students in ways that are age appropriate. This sheet is for the teacher’s use only, and is not to be distributed to students.” Here is the line: “The vagina has great elasticity, and can adjust to the size of a penis or allow a fully developed fetus pass from the uterus out of the body.”
ADF substantially misrepresents, through misleading juxtaposition, the materials when it writes: “Along with these graphic illustrations, the children learn that there are ‘some body parts that mostly just girls have and some body parts that mostly just boys have.’ And teachers are expected to help their students figure out ‘how they like to be touched.'”
ADF’s paragraph erroneously suggests, but does not outright state, that the line “how they like to be touched” pertains to sex-related genitalia. But that’s not remotely the right context. The line in question instead pertains to snuggling, wrestling, kissing (such as a kiss from “relative”), tickling, and holding hands.
By taking the line out of context, ADF makes it seem like perfectly sensible discussions about boundaries somehow are about sexual contact. You’d think a Christian organization would take seriously the Bible’s exhortation against bearing false witness.
A bit later, ADF claims, “As is common throughout the 3Rs, the second-grade lesson plan cautions against a ‘binary construct of gender.'” What the lesson plan for teachers actually says is that it does use a “binary construct” for sake of simplicity. The materials state: “You will notice that this lesson refers to ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ when identifying body parts. The use of a binary construct of gender as well as using gender (boys and girls) rather than the more accurate biological sex (male and female) is purposeful given the developmental stage of students.”
The materials do allude to exceptions. Here again, ADF quotes the materials out of context to make them sound more controversial than they actually are.
Next ADF says, “The 3Rs has third graders create a ‘family pride flag’ in a lesson that celebrates same-gender parents.” True, the materials mention the existence of “same” and “different gender parents,” as well as the possibility of “living with grandparents, foster families,” etc. And … so what? The “family pride flag,” an “optional homework” assignment, just asks students to “represent pride in who their family is.” The lesson does also explicitly mention the “rainbow flag” associated with “gay and lesbian people” (and, again, so what?).
After correctly noting accurate information that the fourth-grade materials convey about puberty, ADF returns to its fear-mongering: “Fourth graders … also learn that most abusers are men whom the child knows, a message that could plant distrust towards male family members in the minds of nine-year-olds, again without parental consent or involvement.”
The materials do correctly say that, of “the people who sexually abuse others,” “most are men.” That’s just an unassailable fact. As the U.S. government confirms, at least as far as criminal sentencing is concerned, “93.6% of sexual abuse offenders were men.”
But then the materials explicitly suggest that teachers say the following: “I want to say again that just because most sexual abusers are men, that does NOT mean that ALL men are or will be sexual abusers. It’s really important that you don’t walk away scared of the men in your life.” Here, the nature of the materials is the opposite of what ADF suggests.
The materials do have an error, though, that ADF does not mention. They correctly say that, among “people who sexually abuse others, “most are people the child knows, not strangers.” But then the materials also claim “most have jobs where they can spend time around kids.” That’s just not true, unless it’s trivially true in the sense that nearly all jobs involve some contact with children.
Then ADF summarizes various materials that are friendly to LGBTQ people. I have no problem with the materials here, although I recognize that parents who are bigoted against LGBTQ people may wish to irrationally shield their children from such discussions.
ADF claims, “High schoolers . . . are also told that they should not use words like ‘homosexual’ or ‘straight.'” Not quite. The lesson does “yellow flag” various terms, with a yellow flag indicating “probe for ‘caution.'”
The lesson recommends the terms “gay or lesbian” rather than “homosexual,” yet says “homosexual … is also an accurate category of sexual orientation that some people still use.” It favors “heterosexual” over “straight” because “the opposite of ‘straight’ is ‘bent’ or ‘crooked,'” which “can imply that there is something wrong with someone who is not heterosexual.” I agree this is stupid language policing. Other antonyms of “straight” are “curved” and “wavy.” Hassling people because they say “straight” is not doing LGBTQ people any favors. GLAAD uses the term “straight.”
ADF’s claims that the materials are “highly sexualized” and “vulgar” are just ridiculous, obviously intended to inflame passions rather than illuminate facts.
I agree that parents deserve clear opt-out policies. But basic sexuality education, including clear language about genitals, is important for preparing children for adulthood and for helping them understand and seek to avoid sexual assault. The 3Rs materials are pretty good along those lines (although they could be improved), and ADF’s misleading claims about the materials do not help improve sexuality education.
Header image by David Clode on Unsplash
