To the Editor:

We support abstinence education and are writing in response to the Town Topics’ article, “Five Year Strategic Plan Outlined at Sexuality Education Fundraiser” (Town Topics, Oct. 17, p. 7).

The article reports on Elizabeth Schroeder’s rather tendentious and completely one-sided defense of the so-called “comprehensive” sex education approach that has been adopted by organizations such as HiTOPS and Answer. Ms. Schroeder accuses critics of this approach of “keeping young people in the dark” and “making young girls feel worthless.” These are gross mischaracterizations of the abstinence-until-marriage view. We are prepared to prove that in an open public debate.

Because no approach to sex education is value neutral, the tensions between the methods and the ancillary goals of sex education programs result in morally-charged debates about what is best for our teens.

People who support abstinence education often claim that “comprehensive” sex education curricula are not based on scientific evidence and teen sexual health but are used to promote an ideology of sexual freedom that puts teens’ physical, psychological, and intellectual well-being at great risk. Those who support comprehensive sex education often assume that abstinence education is based on an ideological commitment to an outdated and archaic view of virtue and morality that has little relevance to the latest scientific findings or the realities and temptations that teens face in today’s sex-saturated culture. People on both sides of the debate accuse the other side of politicizing, suppressing, and manipulating scientific evidence and peddling medically inaccurate information to unsuspecting and vulnerable teens.

We believe that it is important to foster respect and understanding between people who have different viewpoints on sexual morality and sex education. One of the ways to foster tolerance and mutual respect for diverse views is to give parents and students the opportunity to hear the best arguments on competing sides of an issue presented by thoughtful, well-informed people. It is important for all of us to acknowledge that there are intelligent and reasonable people of good will on different sides. Sometimes this acknowledgment requires that we reopen and judge anew a matter that has been treated as if it were settled or beyond dispute.

In the spirit of civil engagement and public deliberation, we propose a public debate focusing on what can validly be taught on the basis of truly sound science between experts on teen sexual health with different perspectives. We respectfully invite Ms. Schroeder and her colleagues at HiTOPS and Answer to work with us on this project. The goal would be to give our community an opportunity to hear two recognized experts who represent different views about the scientific soundness of claims made in competing approaches to sex education in our schools. We are prepared to have our view publicaly challenged by Ms. Schroeder herself or any expert favored by her organization. We hope that she and her colleagues are no less prepared to have their views challenged by an expert on our side.

Wai Far Bazar

Greenbrier Row

Aileen Collins

Guyot Avenue

Sarah Schemmann

Erdman Avenue