yax-1019 Education Ministry suspends AWARE's sexuality education program

Yawning Bread. 7 May 2009

Education ministry suspends AWARE's sexuality education program

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has suspended the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) Package of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), now that the some people are writing in to complain about the sexuality module.

Our government tends to jump when Christian conservatives shout. Less charitable observers would say our ministers dance to their tune.

AWARE had trained instructors to deliver CSE to schools in Singapore. As of November 2008, the CSE program has been delivered to about 500 students -- yes, only 500 -- in 12 schools in Singapore, according to this website.

Wayangparty.com said in their article LEAKED: Supporters of old exco continue to lobby MOE to review Aware’s CSE:

It appears that supporters of the [now deposed Josie Lau exco] still hasn’t quite given up their hidden agenda to hijack a secular NGO with the aim of propagating their religious beliefs and values in mainstream society even after their representatives were booted out rather unceremoniously from the leadership of Aware.

A few emails have been circulating around, allegedly written by supporters of the old exco, urging Singaporeans to sign the online petition to MOE to review the CSE.

It was interesting how the MOE seemed have changed its position. Just slightly over a week ago, the MOE had said,

6. The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students who attended the workshops and talks or their parents.

-- Paragraph 6 from the media statement by
the Ministry of Education, 28 April 2009

On 6 May, MOE released a new statement:

4. MOE has examined AWARE’s "Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide". The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However, MOE’s assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.

5. In view of this, AWARE’s programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.

-- Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the media statement by
the Ministry of Education, 6 May 2009

You would have noticed the words "promote homosexuality" in the statement above. The MOE does not want content in the schools that promote homosexuality.

But does AWARE do that? Not at all. AWARE's CSE manual calls for instructors to approach the subject in a neutral, non-judgemental way:

There have been concerns raised about the fact that the CSE programme is promoting homosexuality, or more specifically, lesbianism amongst our young girls. Homosexuality is a complex issue, and there is no consensus as to what causes it. What we do know is that many young women suffer in silence and in shame because they fear social ostracism. They may also engage in unprotected sex and are more likely to have sexual health problems. In teaching about sexual orientation, we are hoping to dispel myths with accurate information, and to protect young women from the risk of violence, discrimination, depression and self-destructive behaviors.

We have therefore chosen to list homosexuality as a neutral issue in an exercise which helps young women understand all the different aspects of their sexuality. The objective of this exercise is to help young women understand that their views are determined by culture, law, mass media, religion, peers and education, amongst others. At no point does the programme try to challenge existing values; it only helps people understand themselves better and be more aware when they take decisions. The ability to rationalize and think through their decisions is one that most parents would want their children to have.

Our programme has been well received by the students in Singapore. The majority rated the programme above-average or excellent.

-- About AWARE'S Comprehensive
Sexuality Education (CSE)

An all-Chinese group from from Hwa Chong Junior College bagged the gold prize in the Singapore Youth Festival Indian Dance Competition. Singapore encourages understanding across ethnicity and culture, but not sexual orientation. Picture from Straits Times, 25 April 2009, All-Chinese group bags Indian dance gold

To whom can homosexuality be "promoted"?

So, what does the MOE mean when they allege that AWARE's CSE "promote(s) homosexuality"?

In fact, the term itself points to a sectarian starting point. Who uses the term "promoting homosexuality"? You will find that it is overwhelmingly a usage of the Christian rightwing of America. Few others even frame the issue like that. For MOE to adopt the same framing and attempt to cleanse its programs of such allegations, is to submit itself to the judgement of the Christian rightwing, and to concede that religion trumps its secular mission.

Secondly, it is evident that adopting a neutral, non-judgemental position as AWARE's CSE does is to be guilty of the "offence" of promoting homosexuality. This means that the only way an education program can meet the MOE's and Christian rightwing's test is to condemn homosexuality.

Can we stop for a moment, think intelligently and ask: What purpose does this serve? It would seem to me that the only plausible justifications are:

A. Many Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality and want their children to share the same views

B. Discourage the next generation from turning gay.

We should ask:

Re (A): Is (A) education or the perpetuation of prejudice and stigma? Some would argue that education includes the transmission of values. Yet, not all values are legitimate. We wouldn't want our schools to transmit certain values that many adult Singaporeans hold, e.g. racial prejudice, sexist attitudes or a selfishness that breeds inconsiderate social behaviour. Generally speaking, a value is illegitimate if it serves to discriminate against a class of people or if it tends towards a culture of disrespect towards others.

Is not the promotion of heterosexism and condemnation of homosexuality likewise unacceptable?

AWARE's CSE takes this position: "The objective of this exercise is to help young women understand that their views are determined by culture, law, mass media, religion, peers and education, amongst others." This surely is a better approach to take when we're trying to EDUCATE young people. Surely we would want people to be aware of where their ideas, attitudes and biases come from, than just be mere robots parroting unexamined slogans?

If the MOE thinks this approach does not serve the purposes of education, then the problem lies at MOE, not AWARE.

Now, I come to (B). One thread running through the entire Christian rightwing's discourse on homosexuality is the belief that people are born straight but influenced to turn gay. Homosexuality is LEARNED BEHAVIOUR, in their view; it is behaviour that should be quarantined by social disapproval and eradicated through criminal law. If the MOE accepts the argument that sexuality programs should not "promote homosexuality", it is effectively buying into this perspective.

But is this grounded in evidence?

Resoundingly, no. On the contrary, there is a mass of evidence for the opposite case: Sexual orientation is innate and immutable. It is not acquired behaviour at all; it is a characteristic central and deep to a person's sense of self. Over the last 30 years, an enormous amount of research has pointed to biological origins of homosexuality; at the same time, there has been zero evidence -- I stress, zero -- for sexual orientation as something acquired.

In the case of (A), the MOE puts it euphemistically as:

2. MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.

-- Paragraph 2 of the media statement by the Ministry of Education, 6 May 2009

I won't bother to go into the details here, since I have written on this subject so many times before. A simple websearch will also suffice, though I would caution readers to ignore any web material with the imprint of NARTH. See box alongside.

It is therefore meaningless to proceed on the belief that we can encourage or discourage people from "turning" gay. It is also absurd for a teacher to assume that all teenagers in front of him or her are uniformly heterosexual and that a teacher's job is to keep them so.

In virtually every class some teenagers are gay just as there are minority-race students. What is a teacher's responsibility to gay students? Should he go out to subvert their self-esteem by telling them that their very nature is wrong? Should he reinforce the heterosexual students' disdain for their classmates? Is that the proper role for an educationist?

What values should schools teach?

Of course, schools do not exist in a vacuum. Pupils come from all sorts of families with all sorts of religious and cultural views. Some parents would want their children to grow up homophobic like themselves -- though of course they would disagree with this description, but I would maintain that it is an accurate characterisation just as I would say some parents are racist.

Other parents would want more liberal and progressive values.

What should schools do? Should schools teach values at all? Yes and no. Some values are universal; it would be uncontroversial to teach them, e.g. honesty, courtesy, punctuality, hygiene. In other areas, different segments of society hold such differing values there is no consensus. Is there a god? If so, how many, and what kind? Does respecting a deity require one to take off one's headgear or put it on? What about footwear? Is eating pork a neutral or proscribed value? What about alcohol? Divorce? Abortion?

NARTH

NARTH stands for the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, an outfit that pretends to be scientific, but as its very name reveals, its "science" is distorted to serve the a priori assumption that homosexuality is a disease that needs treatment. NARTH has very little respect from scientific and professional bodies; it is seen as a religious outfit in secular clothing (something hat Thio Su Mien might have intended for AWARE).

It has a lot of money though, and you will be amazed at how much web-share it has. But quantity and large numbers of hits do not mean scientific validity or recognition.

Homosexuality is very much one those things. In such a situation, the appropriate course of action is for educators to teach the scientific and social facts, and let families do their own value inculcation. Which means:

Familiarise teenagers with scientific discoveries to date as to the biological origins of sexual orientation (whether gay, bisexual or straight)
Make them aware of the many and differing religious and cultural perspectives on homosexuality
Get them to weigh in their own minds their own opinions on the subject in the light of scientific fact, personal experience, awareness of social constructions and their own family's values.
And basically give them the tools to decide for themselves, and even revisit the issue in their own minds as they grow up.

Gee, doesn't that sound awfully like what AWARE"s CSE was trying to do in the first place? And which the MOE now says it disapproves?

Big Bang and Plate Tectonics

Do you know that the Big Bang theory for the formation of the universe, and the Plate Tectonics theory of continental drift is only about 40 – 50 years old?

Yet we teach these in schools and refer to them as the fundamental processes for the world as we know it. We resist the Christian rightwing's attempt to introduce creationism and its associated idea that the universe was made by this chap called Yahweh over a seven-day period.

Scientific research into sexual orientation is not much younger, and just as there is virtually no competing evidence against plate tectonics, there really is no competing evidence against the view that sexual orientation has, fundamentally, a biological basis. So stop treating it like some wild hypothesis, best not mentioned to students lest it riles the churches.

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None