Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
December 18, 1969
NUMBER 33, PAGE 1-3a

Classroom Sex: A Review Of Parade's Special Intelligence Report

Jimmy Tuten

The November 9 edition of "Parade" (a special Sunday edition carried in many newspapers) contains an article on sex education in public schools. Since its Editor (Lloyd Shearer) says he cannot answer queries about the column ("Intelligence Report"), it will be fruitless to write him. There are, however, several things mentioned in the column that need clarification.

Imprimaturs And Blessings

In spite of wide spread opposition from various organizations and local groups whose impact is being felt across the nation, amorality (non-morals) is being taught under the guise of "Family Life Education." The principle promoter of the sex education that sees nothing immoral about sexual activity, regardless of how obscene is Sex Information And Education Council of The United States (SIECUS). It has received the blessings and imprimaturs of many councils (National Education Association, etc.) and religious organizations (National Council of Churches, etc.). When one looks beneath the veneer of respectability given to the SIECUS type of education in sex, one finds an absence of human and social responsibility, as well as a lack of moral standards (most sexologists consulted do not believe in sex education with moral indoctrination). Lloyd Shearer's "Parade Special" is another example of placing no difference between the holy and the profane (Ezek. 22:26).

That 71 Percent

"Parade" said that a "recent Gallup poll showed that 71 percent of the adults questioned favored sex education." The implication is that the present SIECUS type of sex education is approved by a vast majority of adults. I doubt that this is so. Shearer himself admits that "four years ago almost half of U. S. schools added sex education to their curricula." Now 15 percent of them have either abolished completely or curtailed their sex education (those who have not are considering it). The type of classroom sex education most people approve of is that which is taught by competent teachers to the proper age levels in conjunction with parents' approval; that which does not eliminate, but includes religious and moral principles. The present adoption of mandatory mass sex education programs in the classroom is an "attack on our parental authority and prerogatives." Sex education is the primary duty of the home. Religious and moral guide lines are being destroyed by most so-called sex education programs.

Opposition Only By Rightist Radicals?

"Parade's" "classroom sex" article does the same thing that Life and other endorsers do: cast a reflection on the opposition by making it appear that only paranoid radicals on the far right oppose sex education. Now there may be some who are ignorant, wild-eyed and who "froth-at-the-mouth" in their opposition. But there are by far many myriads who presently oppose the type of sex education now taught in most schools; who are sane, intelligent and whose objections are well-documented as they appeal for vital moral concerns.

Staples Of Propaganda Diets?

"Parade" accuses people who have used two common instances of abuses and drastic results of sex education of deliberately engaging in falsification. There is no doubt that some things may have been added to the accounts, but this does not destroy the fact of their occurrence. "Parade" tells us that the story of the 12 year old attacking his 4 year old sister after he learned about sexual intercourse originated with an emotionally unstable woman. The truth of the matter is this: "The Weekly American" (Nov. 27, 1968) carried the entire letter written by the very mother whose children were involved in this sad affair. The letter has been reproduced in Phoebe Courtney's book, The Sex Education Racket, pp. 35-36. Another booklet, "A Parent Looks At Public School Sex Education" (by Barbara Richards, Jan. 1969) added the following footnote.

"Upon correspondence with the mother, she willingly let us have permission to reprint her letter in the hope that it might help someone else. The boy tried it again with his sister and is now under the care of a psychologists. The mother hopes that he can be helped but feels perhaps he will never recover from what the school has done to him."

"The second story" says "Parade," "tells of a teacher who illustrated a lesson by undressing in front of her class." No attempt is made to deny the fact of its occurrence. "Parade" does try to soften the blow. The "report" says that "the teacher did not remove her underclothes, simply changed her dress to illustrate a point about body perception" to an all girls class. Documentation? "Parade" gives none, but here it is: St. Michael's News, Sept. 1968, Zerephath, N. J. (Vol. 2, No 5, P. 3). Also an account of it was carried by Paul Harvey News, May 22, 1968. The story is true! Friend, do you think it is ethical and modest for a teacher to disrobe down to "underclothes"? There is no way to hide the shamefulness of this deed.

Objectors Motivated By Fear?

The article under review further says that the "core of the protest is often fear," that "the attempt to link sex education with communism is both foolish and illogical." This writer is motivated not by fear but by concern. I do not want my boys taught any form of sex education that leaves out moral and religious responsibility. To teach a child biological facts about reproductive organs and their functions is a most dangerous aspect of sex education. The subject is deeply rooted in privacy, modesty and intimate emotions which have not been developed in younger children.

When the U. S. Supreme Court created the doctrine of secularism that excluded all religious values in education (The 1963 School-Prayer Decision), she created a dilemma: sex education cannot be separated from morals and religion. Since it is to be taught in public schools, it has to be without moral and religious implications. This is the very thing that is objected to, i.e., sex education without moral and religious responsibility.


Sex education is not the answer to the increasing numbers of unwed mothers, veneral diseases, etc. It is not necessary to document the areas where sex education has failed to stem the tide. Without exception, it is on the increase in those areas where such programs have been in operation for months.

"We urge concerned parents to remember that your school boards are the ones who control the curriculum and they are elected officials. Elect the right public officials and exert your influence." Stand up and be counted. Take a sound, sane, intelligent position that is well documented with facts. Some will not listen, but we must be just as inflexible in our stand for righteousness and godliness.

— 6316 Penrod, St. Louis, Missouri