FMP: Video: Activists Take Over Colorado Education

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273008/video-activists-take-over-colorado-education-sean-fitzgerald

Imagine a government prohibition against teaching children that male and female are the sexes of the human species. The video at the link above claims it is happening in Colorado.

6 thoughts on “FMP: Video: Activists Take Over Colorado Education

  1. The video is admittedly passionate and speculative, but after reading the proposed legislation itself:

    https://www.leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1032

    I think the concerns the video raises are valid. The text specifically prohibits:

    • endorsing “sexual abstinence as the primary or sole acceptable preventive method available to students” and
    • teaching male and female sexuality to children in isolation from other forms of sexuality.

    In other words, the requirements mandate the presentation of a subjectively-defined fact set. You might argue that the facts themselves are true and useful, but that, too, is a subjective determination. One can just as validly argue the subjective case for teaching sexual abstinence or male and female sexuality in isolation from other forms.

    Which brings us to the crux of the matter. It is true as the video warns that the bill would create an unelected “oversight entity.” Instead of democratic checks and balances on potential abuses of authority, the oversight membership must conform to demographic standards, of which only two are specifically relevant to expertise in the science of human sexuality or to professional expertise in education. By my count, there are more demographic requirements than the number of overseers.

    Thus, we see here an all but inevitable consequence of government engagement in education. Even if you believe that government has a valid interest in public safety and health — that being the bill’s self-justification — Colorado is pursing that interest through the mechanisms of selective indoctrination and the separation of authority from direct public influence.

    I can understand why some people might prefer this approach to governance and education, but I sure don’t.

    Like

  2. This video is a good example of how “conservatives” distort things to set hair on fire.

    For example, schools do not have to have a comprehensive sexuality curriculum but if they do it must be comprehensive and scientifically accurate. THAT is the context for the prohibition of teaching abstinence as the ONLY way to prevent pregnancy. There is no prohibition against teaching abstinence nor of teaching how it is the most certain way to avoid pregnancy. What is prohibited is keep the students ignorant of other ways to prevent pregnancy. Ignorance is not bliss and children kept ignorant are at great risk for preventable tragedies.

    The “oversight entity” is NOT to oversee all the schools in the state. It has to do with the oversight of the state’s existing grant program for the funding of comprehensive sexuality education.

    Here is the current draft in its entirety and in it you will find in SECTION 1. Legislative declaration the many sound reasons for the legislation . .

    https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019A/bills/2019a_1032_ren.pdf

    Like

    1. The text looks the same as the link I posted. Why don’t you address my comments in substance? For example, I wrote: “You might argue that the facts themselves are true and useful, but that, too, is a subjective determination. One can just as validly argue the subjective case for teaching sexual abstinence or male and female sexuality in isolation from other forms.”

      Like

  3. You posted to the summary. I simply posted a link directly to the actual text which was linked to quite a ways down the page on that summary. Just trying to be helpful.

    There is no need to rebut the claim that facts are subjective or that omitting highly relevant facts from the curriculum is just as valid as including them. These are absurd propositions that fail of their own weight.

    As a matter of public policy this is important legislation addressing many of the social ills that arise from sexual ignorance. In such matters Ignorance is a very bad thing and very dangerous.

    https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/paa387/huh-another-study-says-abstinence-only-sex-ed-doesnt-work

    Like

    1. I made no “claim that facts are subjective”. I wrote that the subjective argument for abstinence-only sex reduction is just as valid as the subjective argument for the Colorado curriculum you seem to prefer.

      I don’t prefer the Colorado approach, but that’s not even my objection to it. My objection, as stated, is that Colorado is pursing governmental objectives in education through the mechanisms of selective indoctrination and the separation of authority from direct public influence.

      Now that I have repeated my comment for your benefit, I hope you will able to see that I am not concerned about the content of the curriculum, but with who creates it and why.

      Like

      1. You made no claim that facts are subjective?

        Except when you wrote . . . “You might argue that the facts themselves are true and useful, but that, too, is a subjective determination.”

        Your referring to Colorado’s commitment to provide children with “medically accurate information” as “selective indoctrination” says everything one needs to know about where you are coming from.

        Like

Leave a Reply to Chesapean Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s