SIECUS Addresses NYT Misrepresentations
Somebody just sent this to the TTF Yahoo group. It is a statement by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) referring to the document referred to in the previous post here. I'll just copy and paste without editing:
A story in today’s New York Times made a number of misrepresentations regarding the publication of the International Guidelines on Sexuality Education: An Evidence Informed Approach to Effective Sex, Relationships, and HIV/STI Education by the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO).
The International Guidelines are an important development in advancing comprehensive sexuality education and HIV/STI-prevention efforts around the globe and UNESCO should be applauded for its leadership on these important issues.
The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, SIECUS, has been extensively involved in the development of this document, fully supports it, and would like to help clarify a number of points.
First, the story vastly overstated the extent of criticism directed at this ground-breaking document, quoting an extreme, right-wing organization as well as an obscure local organization in the state of Maryland in the United States as sources of this disapproval. The latter organization was formed to address a very local issue and does not represent a significant or noteworthy constituency. The other is a fully discredited extremist organization whose theories on population are best suited for science-fiction novels, not the pages of the New York Times.
While giving too much weight to critics, the article also vastly underestimates the support for this important publication among agencies of the United Nations system. There are on-going discussions and processes working themselves through the UN system. We have every confidence that at the end of the day, the International Guidelines on Sexuality Education and the implementation of comprehensive sex education will be fully supported by all UN agencies whose mandates guide them to promote adolescent health. We call upon the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the agency cited in the article, to clarify its support both for efforts to expand comprehensive sex education globally and for these Guidelines as an important step in toward that goal.
Finally, the story erroneously reported that the Guidelines were to be released this week at a meeting in Birmingham, England and suggested that this event was cancelled as a result of criticism. In fact, no such release was ever planned and UNESCO already released a draft version of the document in June 2009 which is currently circulating in the public realm. Ongoing input to create a stronger and more effective document is, as always, welcome. The hope is that the document serves as a model for further adaptations to regional and country-level contexts.
In fact, this week a meeting is being held in Mexico City where technical experts – including numerous representatives from the same agency that the New York Times asserts does not support this effort – met to discuss how these Guidelines can be helpful in advancing comprehensive sex education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Sex education works and is supported by every major public health agency around the world. Efforts to provide comprehensive sexuality education as part of HIV/STI prevention are moving forward around the globe aided by key resources such as the UNESCO’s Guidelines. Manufacturing controversy by misrepresenting the support among the United Nations agencies and by citing fringe American groups fails to reflect the genuine consensus and reality of global movement that is now heading in the right direction. SIECUS Statement on New York Times Article’s Misrepresentation of New International Sexuality Education Guidelines
posted by JimK at 3:15 PM
36 Comments:
oh, great
now we have the objective SIECUS view
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 3) - Even as liberals urge President Barack Obama to demand bold, far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, the White House signaled openness Thursday to compromises that might attract moderate congressional Democrats as well as some Republicans."
that's what I'm talking about!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
There is a topic to discuss here, Anon. Discuss it or go away.
JimK
I thought the wonder of Obama was a regular topic here.
It's not. I am willing to give the new guy a chance, especially after the last guy, but we are not a political site.
This post has SIECUS refuting the New York Times' biased and incorrect reporting of a story that involved them. It is related to the previous post, which pointed out that the NYT story was biased and incorrect. Perhaps you have something to say about that.
JimK
that guy's best chance is to listen to the critics
it worked for Clinton
just stay away from the interns
Joe Biden said yesterday that the stimulus plan is working in excess of expectations
hate to imagine what they were expecting:
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 4) - The unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since June 1983, as employers eliminated a net total of 216,000 jobs."
maybe if we enact all the SIECUS suggestions, we could stimulate the economy
Really poor attempt to link your post about Joe Biden and the topic of this blog posting. But then, civilized rules of behavior and discussion seem to be beyond your simple comprehension. STICK TO THE TOPIC
who's speaking?
this last commenter hypocritically makes off-topic remarks about others making off-topic remarks
enough, already!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546680,00.html?test=latestnews
this guy still retains a penis I believe, and is being transferred to a prison full of women because he feels he is a woman.
And what he is in prison for ?
RAPE.
Lovely.
When he rapes one of his female inmates, I hope they sue the heck out of the idiot british govt.
An off-topic post complaining that a post about an off-topic post was off-topic.
Where will the madness end?
Anyway, Jim, I missed the link to the NYT article. Did they quote CRC? Why in the world? I have always considered the NYT an excesssively conservative media outlet (not as bad as the Washington Post, though), but that's ridiculous.
Is this what they meant in our history texts by "yellow journalism?"
rrjr
Robert, the NYT article is HERE. Yes, they quoted Michelle Turner of the CRC, "an obscure local organization in the state of Maryland in the United States..."
JimK
try a google experiment, Robert
try "Michelle Turner, CRC"
then, try any TTF officer and "TTF"
CRC gets four times as many hits
kind of like Bill O'Reilly gets four times as many viewers as Chris Matthews
Michelle's a significant national figure with unique accomplishments whose views are shared by most Americans
her campaign to stop the unconstitutional Fishback revisions was a textbook example of grassroots action being studied by activists across America to this day
robert.
If you consider the NYT to be conservative, what do you consider to be liberal ?
Just curious.
oh, Robert thinks the Blade's a right-wing rag because they dissed gay pride parades and transvestites romping in fountains
Anonymous...you are becoming increasingly delusional.
"Michelle's a significant national figure with unique accomplishments whose views are shared by most Americans" "significant national figure"? "unique accomplishments"? "Most Americans"? Perhaps you could elucidate on these unique accomplishments and cite some data to support your insane obwervation that most Americans agree with Ms. Turner's views? My guess is that most Americans haven't the foggiest notion of who she is.
"her (failed) campaign to stop the unconstitutional Fishback revisions was a textbook example of grassroots action being studied by activists across America to this day." Are you referring to the raving loonies and ignoramuses who have torpedoed the recent Town Meetings around the country?
Please elaborate on Mr. Fishback's "unconstitutional revisions". A review of the events surrounding the creation and adoption of the revisions to the curriculum will show them being voted on and adopted by a majority of the committee, presented to the Board of Education and adopted (and later supported by the State Board of Education). Because you don't like this democratic process doesn't mean that the Committee's revisions were "unconstitutional".
Also tell us which chapter of this textbook discusses the repeated failure to overturn legally-adopted procedures, policies, and even laws? Which chapter discusses an effective strategy for overruling a decision by Maryland's highest court by resorting to continued bellyaching and threats?
Is it the same or another chapter in this "textbook of grassroots action" that outlines tactics on how to obtain forged signatures, fashion incorrect language as to the purpose of a petition, induce non-county residents to sign a petition, and engage in harassing behaviors in order to obtain signatures?
Ms. Turner, like the CRC, is indeed obscure...last year's stale news. Time to move on to newer crybaby projects.
Citizen
"Ms. Turner, like the CRC, is indeed obscure"
If it wasn't for CRC, there would be no TTF.
TTF was formed by the MCPS to fight this opposition group who did what no one had dared to do in years: resist the liberal political machine in MC.
Ask yourself why TTF has a permanent seat on the sex ed committee.
Their greatest victory was to uncover the unconstitutional nature of the Fishback revisions to the MCPS sex ed curriculum and force a rewrite that delayed a new curriculum for two years.
Surprised you would bring up the transgender bill. This was not TTF's finest hour, nor MC's. A TTF officer, on the payroll of the author of that bill, harassed petitioners and business owners who allowed petitioners on their property and told petitioners they were engaged in illegal acts. This was an abuse of a government position.
Back to the original topic, the NY Times is asking Michelle for a quote and not TTF. That says something.
Stop whining and maybe someone will put you in the paper someday.
"Anonymous" - you give real meaning to the word "whining"...that is your specialty, your forte, your reason for stroking your ego here on a non-ending thread of whining and negativism.
The NYT is known for seeking quotes from people who have gained notoriety for misdeeds and inexplicably dumb publicity-seeking stunts...such as threatening to override the highest court in Maryland's slap-down of CRC/CRW.
As to TTF's presence on the Board's committee...there is no duoubt that reasonable, educated, elected Board members seek reasonable, educated citizens to represent the majority viewpoints of residents of Mongtomery County. CRC's presence on the committee could be seen as placating a noisy, obstructionist, obscure faction by giving them some responsibility to participate in the accepted democratic process, knowing full-well what chaos and disruption this would cause.
So...what's your next stunt to gain 6 minutes of fame?
Citizen
try a google experiment, Robert
try "Michelle Turner, CRC"
then, try any TTF officer and "TTF"
CRC gets four times as many hits
Wow! That's an important argument right there, Anon!
< eye roll >
MT has her infamy on the Internet while TTF rests assured that MCPS students are taught the best sex education program.
You might try a little experiment too, Anon. Google Adolf Hitler and then Oskar Schindler and see who gets five times as many hits as the other, the villain or the rescuer.
Here comes another empty argument:
harassed petitioners and business owners who allowed petitioners on their property and told petitioners they were engaged in illegal acts. This was an abuse of a government position.
Right, so where are the charges or the lawsuits alleging any such "harassment" or "abuse?" [Hint, they're in the same place as MT's "great victory," that is, in your imagination.]
Enjoy googling MT and living in your fantasy land that she had a "great victory" - "for two years" - and forget the reality that she has now lost her battle with MCPS. The sex education curriculum revision MT wanted to stop has now been adopted and is in use in every school in the district.
Yay TTF!
"The sex education curriculum revision MT wanted to stop has now been adopted and is in use in every school in the district."
No, it hasn't.
It was thrown out and rewritten.
The governmental attack on traditional religious groups is not in the new curriculum.
You may think the defense of the Constitution is grounds for notoriety but the citizens of MC appreciated her effort.
It's another instance showing that lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups believe attaining special privileges for homosexuals is more important than democracy.
Use the school curriculum to attack any religious group that doesn't affirm homosexuality.
Have a governmental agent harass citizens petitioning their government.
Try to take the few voting rights D.C. citizens have away from them.
Basically, a secular Taliban.
As for Michelle, TTF is the one who brought up her quote in the NYT. The resentment and hatred for anyone who would dare to talk back to the gay agenda is apparent.
"The sex education curriculum revision MT wanted to stop has now been adopted and is in use in every school in the district."
No, it hasn't.
It was thrown out and rewritten.
The governmental attack on traditional religious groups is not in the new curriculum.
That's either a nice attempt at revising the historical facts or you are really so uninformed that you do not know what the CRC stood and still stands for.
They didn't want ANY revision of the out of date sex education curriculum. They wanted no condom demonstration video. They liked the status quo.
Since the very beginning, CRC was all about stopping the revision of MCPS's sex ed program. They liked the old program and wanted no changes to it.
From the CRC's press release on April 29, 2005:
"CRC members ... oppose the Board of Education’s decision to replace the current sex curriculum with a more progressive and pro-homosexual program.
And long after the first revision was discarded by the County, on February 7, 2007, CRC put out another press release explaining their opposition to the second curriculum revision, the one that is now used in all MCPS schools:
CRC "...petitioned Maryland’s State Board of Education, asking it to reverse a recent decision of MC’s Board of Education to pilot a controversial sex ed curriculum in 6 schools at the 8th and 10th grade levels this spring. The curriculum was developed by the Montgomery County Public School staff which reports to the county’s BOE. The board approved the new curriculum on January 9th [2007]...
...CRC is claiming the lessons still violate students’ Constitutional rights including freedom of speech and the right to exercise one’s religion freely.
Today, the CRC is still collecting signatures on a petition asking the MCPS BOE to rescind the revision that's currently in place. Their petition reads:
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland to rescind their January 9th 2007 approval of the flawed Family Life and Human Development curriculum (the sex education curriculum).
Nice try at spin, Anon, but the facts speak for themselves. CRC can celebrate the *two year delay* all they want. Those two years are over and the curriculum has been revised to include discussions of sexual orientation and a demonstration of proper condom usage.
Hey..."Use the school curriculum to attack any religious group that doesn't affirm homosexuality."
Great idea...let's do it!
"Great idea...let's do it!"
They did.
They were stopped by CRC.
The system worked.
brilliant anon said:
"It was thrown out and rewritten.
The governmental attack on traditional religious groups is not in the new curriculum."
lying anon-B said:
"That's either a nice attempt at revising the historical facts or you are really so uninformed that you do not know what the CRC stood and still stands for."
Anon-B, we were discussing what they accomplished not bickering over what they may have wished for instead. You claimed that the curriculum they originally opposed is now being taught.
You're a liar. That curriculum's implementation was delayed by a judge because of constitutional problems.
The county threw it out and started the process over with a guarantee for a CRC seat on the committee as part of the legal settlement.
The county knew they had violated the Constitution so they settled.
gee, no wonder the legendary New York Times is quoting Michelle Turner
she's a profile in courage
defender of the Constitution
I am glad to see that the SIECUS takes its work seriously and that it´s addressing the horrid anti-education efforts of groups like the CRC.
We have a huge Gay-Straight Alliance this year at my High School... over 85 members!
When I saw this story, as I wrote, the first thing that struck me was its overall weirdness. They linked to the wrong thing, the document they were talking about had been taken offline, and then to top it off they interviewed Michelle Turner, of all people. She has a right to her opinion, and she can express it in public, we have no problem with that, but as a source of information she is not the quality you expect in a publication like the New York Times. If there is actually a conservative backlash against the UN recommendations, as the article asserts, then there should be senior officers in the Family Blah Blah organizations offering quotes and sound-bites, prominent conservative politicians and religious leaders. Michelle Turner is just a suburban mom who presided over a rightwing group in a progressive county. The group won one temporary restraining order and lost all its other cases, even with the help of teams of out-of-town lawyers. The school district negotiated its way out of the restraining order by re-writing the curriculum, pointedly making it more inclusive, explicit, and liberal than the one that had been thrown out. She may be your hero, Anon, but the New York Times should interview leaders and experts for a story like this. The whole thing is just weird.
JimK
I actually don't know that much about her except that the very mention of her name seems to set off a Pavlovian response among the extreme liberals in MC, like TTF.
I've always found classical conditioning to be a fascinating phenomenom.
the very mention of her name seems to set off a Pavlovian response among the extreme liberals in MC, like TTF.
No, Anon, we opposed her group and we do not agree with her beliefs but I believe some of our members are friends with her, or at least are on speaking terms.
My point is a simple and straightforward one. The New York Times is a major newspaper. If they assert that there is a conservative reaction to a document, then they should be able to quote conservative leaders. When they do not, and instead quote the leader of a tiny rightwing cell in Montgomery County, Maryland, their credibility is questioned.
SIECUS defense of the material makes the same point; the NYT exaggerated the backlash, or fabricated it.
JimK
You claimed that the curriculum they originally opposed is now being taught.
Oh brother. You've really got to work on your reading comprehension.
FACTS: The first MCPS sex education curriculum revision was approved in November 9, 2004. The second MCPS sex education curriculum revision was approved in January 7, 2007.
I pointed out that "long after the first revision was discarded by the County", the CRC issued a press release claiming there were violations of "students’ Constitutional rights including freedom of speech and the right to exercise one’s religion freely" in the curriculum that the "board approved...on January 9th [2007]". The curriculum approved by the BOE on 1/9/07 is the one that's now being used in sex education classes throughout MCPS, and the CRC still objects to it on the basis of "Constitutional rights" issues.
The fact that the 1/9/07 approved curriculum is now in use in all MCPS schools means that the CRC's claims of such "Constitutional rights" violations in it had no merit. Two boards of education and a Maryland court failed to determine in the CRC's favor about this curriculum. And we all noticed that even Liberty Counsel did not agree to help the CRC with their second attack on MCPS's next curricular revision. Apparently they knew too that the second revision would withstand legal challenge, and it did. The second revision is the MCPS curriculum remains in use throughout the county.
Back when MCPS announced the settlement with the suers, John Garza, then CRC's VP and lawyer said, at the June 27, 2005 BOE meeting:
"...It was our goal one to stop the curriculum, two disband the citizens advisory committee, and three convince Dr. Weast and the members of the Board to eliminate all discrimination in future curricula. Having achieved goals one and two, we turn our attention to goal three.
The Reverend Martin Luther King said quote we must first love those who we would change. We will now lovingly help develop a curriculum that is not offensive to all..."
Well, they stopped the curriculum, temporarily, and they disband the CAC that included Michelle Turner and Rhetta Brown, the "Fishback CAC." They also reduced the number of community members on the Citizens Advisory Committee from 27 to 15, which is **not** a good way to involve the community in important school decisions IMHO.
But as CRC's press release noted above indicates, they did not attain their third goal. I suspect they're like the birthers, no sex education curriculum will ever satisfy them. But you go right ahead, Anon, and celebrate your two year delay as a "victory."
The rest of us have moved on, satisfied in our knowledge that MCPS has revised their sex education curriculum to include information about sexual orientation and a video demonstrating proper condom usage. Our students who receive parental permission to take these classes, over 90% of them, will learn about respect for individual differences and how to protect themselves and each other, lifeskills that will serve them well.
"The sex education curriculum revision MT wanted to stop has now been adopted and is in use in every school in the district."
Anon-B's lie. It's a direct quote.
That curriculum was thrown out.
It was recognized that it was discriminatory and a new committee was set up with a CRC seat guaranteed by a legal settlement and a new curriculum written that didn't violate the Constitution.
Can't change history.
"The rest of us have moved on"
Apparently not.
Jim sees MT quoted in the NYT and starts salivating like one of Pavlov's dogs.
The way these newspapers work, MT will now be on a short list of people called for quotes on stories like this.
Nobody cares about an organization designed to support a vastly wealthy city hall.
MT and the CRC wanted **both** MCPS sex education curriculum revisions thrown out, as the CRC press releases I quoted and linked to above demonstrate.
The second MCPS sex education curriculum revision the CRC objected to because they said it violated "Constitutional rights" is now in use, countywide. This curriculum revision was found to have **no** "Constitutional rights" problems by the Montgomery County Board of Education, the Maryland State Board of Education, and the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
Facts are facts. All the spin in the world won't change them.
The way these newspapers work, MT will now be on a short list of people called for quotes on stories like this.
You think so? Then make note each time MT's quoted in the "newspapers" (not right wing websites) about sex education curricula so you can determine if this claim of yours is true or spin.
Anonymous is like Regina at PFOX, trying to spin defeat into victory.
Robert, the first curriculum attacked religious groups who taught that homosexuality is wrong.
CRC sued and, as a result, it is not being used and the new one doesn't attack those religions.
Why is that not a victory?
No, Anon, the first curriculum did not attack any religion. There were some background materials listed that were used in developing the curriculum and could have been available for teachers' references but never would have been used in class. A couple of those documents mentioned that some religions are opposed to homosexuality more than others, and some even named names, e.g., Baptists tend to be opposed to it. It was inappropriate material, and should have been removed sooner but nobody even knew it was in there.
There was no mention of religion in the classes themselves.
Of course it would have been much easier to cross a couple of titles off a list than to start curriculum development from scratch, but the CRC wanted to go back to the old way and their out-of-town lawyers were able to negotiate redevelopment.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home