Sir, - In upstate New York where I live and where my three children go to school, results indicate that sex education in schools does not reduce sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancies or promiscuous behaviour. The problem appears to be that sex education in schools (1) does not educate hearts, that is, emotions and sensitivities; (2) does not educate character - that is, it does not convey moral principles and guidance; (3) addresses mostly the intellect in that it conveys sex-related information. Let me deal with each of these points.
(1) Information alone is not enough to change behaviour. Hearts need to be touched. Students need to be inspired by the beauty of a pure lifestyle and by the freedom of uncomplicated relationships. They need to be moved by a vision of the sacredness of sexual union, of the prime importance of begetting and raising children, and consequently approach marriage with reverence and commitment.
To achieve this requires that adults, especially teachers and others in leadership positions, manifest these values in their relationships and lifestyles. It requires that purity as a way of life be publicly upheld in our culture and media. Otherwise, we are talking out of both sides of our mouths. Young people are more likely to follow what is done than what is said.
When teachers and school administrators insist on respectful relationships all around, on high standards of behaviour, on decent dress and language, it educates students. The ethos of schools is more important in sex education than the instruction given in class. The schools in New York that I know best tolerate promiscuous behaviour on their corridors. How helpful, then, is sex education?
(2) So that young people have the inner strength to harness the explosive energy of their awakening sexuality and direct it into creative and constructive channels, they need to be educated in moral principles and be helped to apply them. Beyond law, they need to understand what human life is for and how its purposes are to be achieved. They need to grasp how responsibility for others is inherent to personal freedom, how life is structured so that it functions best for us when we live and act for the good of others. They need to comprehend how unconditional commitment to one's spouse is an inherent requirement of sexual union because of that union's consequences. Deep questions these. Much more than sexual data.
(3) Sex-related information may be helpful in minor ways. Rather than direct their informational efforts towards children, schools could more helpfully, I think, act as conduits of information and support to parents so that parents are empowered to talk about sex with their children.
The RSE programme encourages the use and discussion in class of sex-related language. It would move into public discussion what we normally hold in reserve. Here, RSE seems to commit itself to the view that many of our reservations are culturally determined and that we should simply demolish them by dragging them into public discussion.
A different view is worth considering, in my opinion. It is that we naturally create zones of reserve around the sacred and the most intimate. These zones serve the purpose of protection, and they encourage appropriate reverence. In the sphere of sexuality we used to call it modesty. Without zones of reserve, the precious becomes common, defences are weakened, promiscuity is encouraged. These are the characteristics of our culture - on the streets, in the media and in personal interactions to a large extent.
It's arguable that RSE's encouragement to breach natural modesty could actually promote promiscuity. Certainly in upstate New York where I live, RSE-type programs have not achieved pure lifestyles. On the contrary, many young people are degraded. Ireland is not yet at that point. There is still room to pull back from the brink. - Yours, etc.,
South Circular Road, Dublin 8.