Advocates of New Sex-Ed Curriculum Admit They Are NOT Educational Experts, Decline to Answer Reader's Questions

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum was recently carbon copied (cc'd) on an email message to a group that promotes the new MCPS Sex-Ed curriculum. The message from Mr. Brandon Cotton was also cc’d to; the Washington Times, the Washington Post, Advocates for Youth, the Gazette newspaper, recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, the MCPS Board of Education, and Mr. David Fishback, the MCPS BOE’s current Sex-Ed Committee Chairman.

Mr. Cotton's original letter asked the pro-curriculum group questions about homosexuality. A co-founder of the group declined to answer his questions stating, "The members of Teachthefacts.org are "just parents"". However, Mr. Cotton's perception was that they are educational experts since they promote the new curriculum (their website states: "Who we are - We are parents, teachers, students, clergy, health professionals, scientists, and journalists...").

Below are three messages: the first is Mr. Cotton's reply to Teachthefacts.org, the second is Teachthefacts.org's response to Mr. Cotton's questions, and the third is the original email message from Mr. Cotton to Teachthefacts.org after viewing their website. Mr. Cotton has granted CRC written permission to post his correspondance. If you would like to provide answers to any of Mr. Cotton's questions please write us, we have agreed to forward them to him.

--------

Dear [TeachTheFacts.org],

Your response is enlightening, although not in the sense I was expecting. The fact of the matter, is that high schools in the United States are not providing students with the hard science and math skills they need in order to compete in the World economy. We are 14th among industrialized nations in this area, and that does not include China and India. In fact, every year India produces 250,000 engineering bacheloriates while the U.S. only produces 70,000. As a manager in the tech sector I can tell you that your children are not going to provide nearly the value to tech companies that overseas candidates will. And if the fate of your children is not enough to force you to reassess your priorities then think about how this will affect you when you are relying on assisted living. How will you pay for your care or buy your medication if your money is worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it is today?

And why are we failing to do our duty in educating our children? Because many people are more concerned with a political agenda than ensuring the nation's students are equipped to function in the modern age. There are those that seem to be think that teaching pseudoscientific facts to students will produce better social harmony or tolerance of others. If you honestly look to the future you'll have to recognize that the ultimate consequence of this equation is that jobs will be moved overseas, our economy will suffer, Americans will have to be more competitive for every dollar, and as a result cultural harmony will be much less important than getting a paycheck. The education dollars you fight for now to prove your point may very well come two or three fold out of your wallet in 10 or 20 years.

The questions below were about statements made by TeachTheFacts.org on your web site; I think they were reasonable in light of your many bold assertions. If you propose to "teach the facts" then I think it is fair to want know how you got your facts. I don't pretend to be qualified to determine what children should learn, but you do. You should not make assertions you cannot back up, so if you cannot respond to a few logical questions about your policies then I have to conclude that you are either naively unconcerned with logic and science, or do not have the capacity to formulate rational arguments in the face of critical questions. In addition, a couple of my questions were not scientific, but about your views on religion and morality (and by proxy what you intend to teach children), and yet you choose not to defend your position. Therefore, besides making baseless scientific claims, from the statements made on your site it appears you are bigoted against religious people and are unremorseful for your prejudice. Therefore, I find it hard to understand how you can view yourself as an enlightened advocate for social harmony.

It is unfortunate for all of us that your organization feels that it is acceptable to achieve your political agenda at the expense of your and others' children. Considering the statements made on your site, in combination with your response, I believe that anyone who would listen to you on questions of importance is a fool. I am baffled as to how you can expect any intelligent person to take you seriously.

Thanks,
Brandon Cotton

"Our education system is obsolete, and we should be ashamed."
- Bill Gates in a speech made on 2/24/05 to the National Governors Association

PS: If anyone who has read this CAN answer my questions I would appreciate it very much. [As noted above this message was cc’d to the Washington Times, Washington Post, Advocates for Youth, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, The Gazette, recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, the MCPS Board of Education, and Mr. David Fishback, the MCPS BOE’s current Sex-Ed Committee Chairman]

--------

On Feb 25, 2005 [TeachTheFacts.org] wrote:

Thank you for your inquiry at Teachthefacts.org. I'm afraid your presumption ("I presume that since your organization promotes an educational curriculum that you are experts on the subject.") is incorrect. The members of Teachthefacts.org are "just parents" of Montgomery County Public School students. We are working to support the MCPS Board of Education's sage decision to modernize the health education curriculum at the request of MCPS health educators.

If you want to learn more about your roommates' lives, a simple search at http://www.google.com for the topics you seek to learn about will generate thousands of websites containing related information.

Best of luck to you as you seek answers to your questions.

Sincerely,
[co-founder of TeachTheFacts.org]

--------

From: Brandon Cotton
Subject: Homosexuality Questions
Date: February 24, 2005
To: [TeachTheFacts.org]

After reading an article in the paper on sex-ed in schools I have a few questions I hope you can help me with. To preface this I have two gay roommates, although I myself am straight. I've lived here for going on 7 years. We've had many discussions about the topic, and obviously I respect their right to do what they please, but I have never received a clear answer to many of my logical questions. I presume that since your organization promotes an educational curriculum that you are experts on the subject. Please see if you can help me find solid answers to some of my critical questions so that I can present these facts to people who argue against me:

1) I am aware of the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-III in 1973. However, I have been unable to find the scientific basis for this. People constantly tell me this was a politically-motivated decision. Could you point me to the resource that explains the scientific basis for this decision?

2) You have on your site a reference to statements made by the APA released in 1994. I have questions about the basis of these statements. I do not accept, and certainly nobody I debate will accept, that simply being presently the top authority on a subject endows one with all the knowledge that will come from research in the future. In other words, if the APA cannot back up it's statements, it is no more impressive to me than policy statements from any other organization. The APA's policy statement says: There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. If the APA uses the term "most likely", doesn't that mean they do not know for sure? And if they are the foremost expert organization on the subject, then doesn't that mean that NOBODY knows for sure? I am hoping you can illuminate the reasoning for these statements without just referring me back to the APA policy statements:

i) The research on homosexuality is very clear. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Critical Comment: This is not logical. This statement implies that because other behaviors of homosexuals are normal that homosexual behavior itself is normal. The same statement can be made about most alcoholics who, in every respect, live productive, normal lives - even to the point of no one even suspecting they are an alcoholic. But when it comes to alcohol they cannot regulate their drinking as normal people can. To a certain extent, this same statement can be made in reference to all forms of sexual activity including bestiality, incest, and pedophilia. This same statement can be made about many, many disorders that we know are, in fact, mental disorders.

Question: What solid, peer-reviewed studies can I point to in my discussions with others on this point? How does one counter such an argument?

ii) Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity.

Question: What is the definition of morality outside of the Bible? What other document or book defines morality? When is it a moral act to kill and why? Who or what is it immoral to have sex with; or for that matter participate in any other controversial activity such as using drugs. What is your position on who or what is the final authority on these questions?

iii) It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.

Critical Comment: This is untrue. In ancient Roman society, for example, homosexuality was considered normal and practiced by the majority of the population. In ancient Greek society homosexual behavior was thought to be due to immaturity, and therefore the majority of youths and young adults participated in this behavior. In prisons homosexual behavior is much higher than in the general populace. In fact, in some countries, like South Africa, virtually 100% of the prison population engages in homosexual behavior. If you took both this assertion as fact and put them together you would realize that if the German population in 1933 was about 57 Million, and homosexuals constituted about 10% of the population, it would mean that 5.7 Million gays should have been rounded up and executed. According to documents I have read on the Holocaust Museum's website it says that only 15,000 men were targeted for homosexuality. It also states that the estimate of gays in the German population at that time was only about 100,000. The only reference I have been able to find that supports the 10% argument is the Kinsey study which has been discredited in several publications most notably "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People" by Judith A. Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, J. Gordon Muir, John H. Court, J. H. Court. I have read most of the book and am personally convinced the Kinsey study was highly flawed. To be sure, people I am debating will not accept the Kinsey study as scientific fact.

Question: What other scientific sources, besides the Kinsey study, can I reference to support this argument?

3) In David Fishback responds to PFOX letter:

i) "The teacher resources offered to the Committee by the dissenting members all were premised on the proposition that homosexuality is sinful and/or is a mental illness. As to the former, the proposed revised curriculum, properly, takes no theological position, and makes no religious reference, other than in the material I have just noted."

Question: The primary source of the religious controversy is found in the book of Leviticus which a common document to all monotheistic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a fact that intelligent people should be aware of. Why should teachers NOT point this out? They don't have to condone the statement, but students who do not learn this at that time will eventually learn it, and then they will feel betrayed. Isn't it prudent to get this into the open in the first place?

ii) That "religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression" is an unfortunate historical fact.

Critical Comment: It is also an unfortunate fact that many evil dictators such as Nero and Caligulous used sexuality for humiliation and control. It is also a fact that Communist governments have killed more people than all religious wars combined. And, of course, by far the #1 reason for death has always been disease. Religion has been used for hatred and oppression, but you would have to take all religious wars, pogroms, the Inquisition, and all other religious persecution and multiply those numbers by millions to account for deaths outside of religious causes. It is only within the past few thousand years that it has played any part at all in human suffering, and wars of all kinds have erupted during this period as well. The Black Plague killed many times the numbers of people than were killed during the Crusades. For the past 8,000 years in Asia wars and oppression have been about land and domination of one culture over another. In fact, driving to and from work is far more dangerous today than the possibility of an individual being killed for religious reasons even during the Inquisition (especially considering that the Catholic Church did not operate in the majority of the World). Of the ~100 Billion homo sapiens that have lived and died, religion simply cannot be considered a huge factor in overall death, oppression, or any other human tragedy. I am concerned that there is a theophobic element being introduced by this curriculum, and not informing students of both sides of the arguments will have only temporary success in influencing them. I have learned these facts in online discussions, and the students you are teaching now will become aware of them much sooner than I did. Eventually they will end up in a debate, be shown new evidence, and become cynical about what they were taught in school.

Question: No extreme is good, and if we are going to be fair and intellectual shouldn't we point out such facts? Aren't you concerned that if people feel that you are laying the majority of the blame for human oppression, hatred, tyranny, and death on religion that you may not be considered objective?

Thank you for taking the time to read through my questions. I hope that you can help me because I am constantly being countered on these things.

Very Best,
Brandon Cotton

[For the referenced Washington Times article] See http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050209-113152-2518r.htm

- posted by MrADMN @ 11:30 AM