The letter, from Juneau (Wisconsin) County District Attorney Scott Southworth, is here. The D.A. is complaining about the new state statute on sex education; some of his objections:
[T]he new law … [p]romotes the exual assault of children — §118.019(2)6 requires schools to provide instruction on how to utilize contraception. However, it is a crime to engage in sexual intercourse with any child under the age of 18…. Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender. It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks. While it is true that some children will wrongly choose to engage in sexual behavior before entering adulthood, our school districts should never promote illegal activity.[The new law e]xposes our teachers to possible criminal liability — §948.40 of Wisconsin’s Criminal Code deals with “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Child.” Anyone who intentionally encourages or contributes to the delinquent (criminal) act of a child can be charged under this statute. For example, if a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child — or even where the “natural and probable consequences” of the teacher’s instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child — that teacher can be charged under this statute. The teacher need not be deliberately encourag[ing] the illegal behavior: he or she only need be aware that his or her instruction is “practically certain” to cause the child to engage in the illegal act.
Now I realize that there are disputes about whether teaching high school students about contraceptives might lead to more sex, and even more unprotected sex. I’m inclined to doubt that, since I suspect that teenagers will (or will not) have sex regardless of what they’re taught about contraception in school, but that the teaching might lead them to have safer sex. Still, I’m certainly open to serious debate (preferably with actual social science evidence) on the subject.
But suggesting that teachers might be committing a crime for teaching students about how to reduce risks?
First, teachers can’t be committing a crime for doing something the new statute authorizes. But, second, it just isn’t a crime to teach students about using contraceptives even when one knows the student’s sexual conduct is illegal (let’s even assume that the teacher knows both the student and the sexual partner is underage, so that both are committing a crime).
The relevant state statute, Wisc. Stat. § 948.40, provides,
No person may intentionally encourage or contribute to the delinquency of a child. This subsection includes intentionally encouraging or contributing to an act by a child under the age of 10 which would be a delinquent act if committed by a child 10 years of age or older… Under this section, a person encourages or contributes to the delinquency of a child although the child does not actually become delinquent if the natural and probable consequences of the person’s actions or failure to take action would be to cause the child to become delinquent.
Moreover, under § 939.23,
“Intentionally” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result.
So either the teacher must have the purpose to cause minors to have sex as a natural and probable consequence of his actions — not just view this as a likely but regrettable side effect of his teaching, but actually wish that the minors have sex — or the teacher must be aware that his teaching “is practically certain to cause” their having sex. But even if sex education might increase the probability that some students will have sex, it surely isn’t the case that teaching children about contraceptives “is practically certain to cause” their having sex. And I doubt that teachers are teaching children about contraceptives with the specific purpose of getting them to have sex.
On top of that, the very scenario that the prosecutor first stresses — where the teacher “knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child” — is the one where the claim that the contraceptive teaching is “practically certain” to cause the child to engage in sex is at its weakest. The hypothesis would be that (1) the child is already having sex, but (2) the child was likely to stop having sex because of lack of contraceptive education, yet (3) the teacher’s teaching the child about contraceptives is now “practically certain to cause” the child to continue having sex. Really? How likely is that?
So in fact, teachers are not at legal risk of actually committing a crime, despite what the prosecutor says. Of course, the prosecutor’s letter might suggest (whether sincerely or not) that the teachers are at risk of being prosecuted by this prosecutor. But that’s not because the teachers are actually likely to be violating the law.
And beyond this, note that the statute on contributing to the delinquency of a minor applies to “[a]ny person,” with no exception for parents. So under the prosecutor’s theory, a parent who suspects that his son or daughter is having sex would be committing a crime simply for telling the child how to minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by using contraceptives. And the parent “could face either misdemeanor or felony charges with maximum punishment ranging from 9 months of jail to up to six years of prison,” to quote the prosecutor’s admonition to teachers.
If that’s so, then Wisconsin’s criminal law is seriously broken — though fortunately, I think the problem is with the prosecutor, not with the Wisconsin statutes. Thanks to Connie Conine for the pointer.
Anonsters says:
Chalk it up to standard American retardedness when it comes to anything having to do with sexuality.
April 8, 2010, 3:46 pmAnderson says:
I think if the teacher doesn’t personally roll on the condom or insert the diaphragm, then he or she is probably OK.
April 8, 2010, 3:49 pmToby says:
Soon all activities will be both required and forbidden, and we can allow prosecutorial discretion and political intent govern every aspect of our lives.
April 8, 2010, 3:52 pmMark N. says:
I take this as the DA being politically opposed to the curriculum changes and trying to make noise about them by hyperbolically calling them equivalent to sex crimes. Hopefully someone will remove him, since that isn’t a proper use of the office.
April 8, 2010, 3:54 pmAnonsters says:
I don’t know about you, but whenever I see someone roll a condom onto a banana, I go into insane animalistic can’t-stop-me sex-mode. But-for causation and all that.
April 8, 2010, 3:55 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
Not to mention, teaching about contraceptives is not unlearned on reaching legal age. It can be perfectly all right to teach about contraception so that the student has this knowledge when they reach legal age. Unless the teaching is aimed at getting them to have sex prior to this age (and I doubt that is the case), this DA’s full’o'it. It would be like giving driver’s ed classroom training to people under legal driving age (done all the time): is that an illegal inducement to the students to drive illegally while underage (and thus not legally able to drive)?
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 3:55 pmArthur Kirkland says:
That letter appears to be motivated by religion and moral conservatism (the nanny-state, repressive, superstition-based strain) instead of by anything related to law, reason or the duties of a district attorney.
Twelve-to-one he is a religious nut.
Eight-to-one he is an evangelical crusader (call it a hunch, but that doesn’t sound like the work of a Catholic).
Four-to-one he attended a school of the Liberty-Regent-Ave Maria class.
Two-to-one he is just test-driving his newfound prosecutorial muscles.
Who is electing these goobers?
April 8, 2010, 3:57 pmTev says:
I take it, there is no requirement for Wisconsin DA’s to understand the law.
April 8, 2010, 3:59 pmtarfu says:
As an interesting side note, the DA, Scott Southworth, as a law student, was the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court First Amendment case, Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), in which he unsucsessfully challenged the funding of ideological student groups through mandatory fees.
April 8, 2010, 4:02 pmAnonsters says:
Ave Maria is a Catholic school. ;)
April 8, 2010, 4:02 pmEH says:
Is the prosecutor at legal risk with his rationale here?
April 8, 2010, 4:03 pmAnderson says:
He also thinks that legalizing assisted suicide will lead to genocide. Causation in general seems like a challenging topic for him.
Sweet of him to adopt the disabled Iraqi child, however.
… He’s also not real into abortion, which probably turns out to lead to rape or eugenics:
April 8, 2010, 4:05 pmEugene Volokh says:
Arthur Kirkland: As you can tell, I’m no fan of Mr. Southworth’s work. But why speculate about the school that he attended — whether in the course of casting aspersions on him, or on the school — when you can actually look it up? The answer you’ll find when you look it up, by the way, is that he went to the University of Wisconsin Law School.
April 8, 2010, 4:07 pmTev says:
Also, looks like this same guy, who lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court:
http://openjurist.org/529/us/217/board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-wisconsin-system–v-scott-harold-southworth
(Edit: Oops someone beat me to it.)
April 8, 2010, 4:08 pmAnderson says:
As Tarfu noted above, Tev.
April 8, 2010, 4:10 pmzuch says:
I don’t know. I think that this is far more provocative, nay even coercive. As explained here.
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 4:13 pmAnonsters says:
That’s hilarious.
April 8, 2010, 4:15 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Great question. I want to say it’s “the People,” but I’m also inclined to say it’s “the Parties.”
April 8, 2010, 4:16 pmChris Travers says:
Roll the condom onto what?
However, this reminds me of a funny story from one of hte local docs.
Apparently a different local doc was doing some volunteer work in Mexico and one thing she did was to teach some of the local couples about contraception. One of her patients she demonstrated how to roll a condom on. The demonstration made the appropriate substitution of a broom handle.
Well, a few months, later the couple comes back. The woman is pregnant. They just don’t understand how this happened. Then it becomes obvious that the couple followed the doctor’s example to the letter and in fact put the condom on the broom handle assuming that this would protect them from pregnancy.
Details, details….
April 8, 2010, 4:17 pmShelbyC says:
Well, hopefully stuff like this cools the folks on the cyberbullying thread who were suggesting that we can just outlaw a broad range of legal conduct and rely on procecutorial discretion to insure that the wrong guys don’t go to jail.
April 8, 2010, 4:18 pmmischief says:
And is a moot point anyway. The teacher is a mandatory reporter and must report even the suspicion of child abuse. If the child is underage and the teacher knows of sexual activity, he is already acting illegally by not reporting it.
April 8, 2010, 4:19 pmEugene Volokh says:
Tev: Southworth lost in the Supreme Court, but he won at the district court and circuit court level — the unanimous loss shouldn’t suggest that his claim was somehow legally frivolous.
April 8, 2010, 4:19 pmConnie says:
Reasonable people agree that this guy is kind of an aSS. So what’s the appropriate remedy, other than waiting till the next election? Suppose he brings suit against a district or a teacher of sex ed–we would then have public money pitted against public money to launch and defend such a suit. What a waste.
April 8, 2010, 4:22 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
Southworth is arguing that the new statute is bad policy, but policy decisions are for the legislature. Presumably the legislature considered whether the statute would encourage more underage sex and decided that it wouldn’t. Southworth is trying to win an argument that he knows has already been lost. This is just political posturing. He is using teachers and students in order to advance his own agenda.
Remember that the D.A. is part of the executive branch. Even if he genuinely believes in the arguments he is making, he’s trying to usurp the policy-making role of the legislature. That’s at least arguably a separation-of-powers violation.
Finally, as I understand the statute, teaching this material is mandatory. Threatening to prosecute teachers for doing something the law not only allows but actually requires is demagoguery. Besides, the teachers would be immune from prosecution since they had no discretion to disobey the requirement. Southworth must realize this. That he made these threats anyway does not reflect well on him.
April 8, 2010, 4:25 pmDerHahn says:
Who knew that legislatures might pass contradictory laws? Next thing you know they’ll pass a bill that changes how prescription drug benefits are taxed and wonder why companies have to declare the effect of the change on their earnings!
(Yeah, the DA may be an a@@ but is there any indication that the WI legislature even thought about the repercussions of requiring demonstrations of condom usage to minors? He’s probably letting them off easy with the threat to prosecute under contributing to deliquency. He could probably charge the teachers under a child-p0rn statute if he wanted to.)
April 8, 2010, 4:43 pmShelbyC says:
Sounds like he did a little better than the consortiuum of law profs challenging the Soloman Amendment.
April 8, 2010, 4:48 pmCJColucci says:
But even if sex education might increase the probability that some students will have sex, it surely isn’t the case that teaching children about contraceptives “is practically certain to cause” their having sex.
It certainly wasn’t the case that teaching me how to use contraceptives made it practically certain that I would have sex. Maybe they didn’t teach me right. I certainly tried hard enough.
April 8, 2010, 4:48 pmBruce Boyden says:
I’m pretty sure the doctrine of implied repeal should figure in here somewhere too.
April 8, 2010, 5:03 pmUrso says:
If a teacher warns the class not to drink and drive, is she subtly encouraging underage drinking?
April 8, 2010, 5:06 pmJohn says:
No, the letter has no such appearance. But it is clear that the prosecutor opposes the new teaching requirements, and it looks like his purpose in putting out the letter is to get the school districts to opt out of teaching ANY sex ed. But even though I have serious problems with what the law requires to be taught, I don’t see how that exposes any teacher to crimminal liability.
April 8, 2010, 5:10 pmAnderson says:
is there any indication that the WI legislature even thought about the repercussions of requiring demonstrations of condom usage to minors?
You mean, giggles?
April 8, 2010, 5:13 pmJohn says:
Actually teaching this material is not exactly mandatory. Its mandatory if you want to teach ANY sex ed, but the district can opt out of teaching ANY sex ed. So its basically THIS ciriculum or nothing. The DA is advocating teaching nothing.
April 8, 2010, 5:14 pmAnonsters says:
I wouldn’t really call threatening potential prosecution “advocating” for a particular curricular choice.
April 8, 2010, 5:18 pmsecond history says:
Remember that the D.A. is part of the executive branch. Even if he genuinely believes in the arguments he is making, he’s trying to usurp the policy-making role of the legislature. That’s at least arguably a separation-of-powers violation.
Since the DA is an officer of the court, wouldn’t he be a member of the judicial branch? DAs frequently operate independently of the county governing board and the legislature, witness the campaign by Los Angeles County DA Steven Cooley to persecute medical marijuana dispensaries, irrespective of the fact that the state’s voters feel differently:
Of course, the fact he is a Republican and is running for California Attorney General has nothing to do with it. Fortunately, a state initiative has qualified for the June ballot to legalize marijuana in California.
April 8, 2010, 5:25 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
No. All lawyers are officers of the court, including those in private practice. Being a lawyer does not make one part of the government at all, let alone part of the judicial branch. Those lawyers who do work for the government can be in any of the three branches. Prosecutors are unambiguously part of the executive branch, even where they need not obey the head of the executive branch and/or can set their own priorities.
April 8, 2010, 5:35 pmBlue says:
So, a question from a non-lawyer. What happens to someone if they are caught between two statutes and unable to comply with one without violating the other…and let’s make it a bit more difficult and say that inaction also not an option.
How does the legal system address this?
April 8, 2010, 6:57 pmDr. Caligari says:
1) If it is illegal for a teacher to teach a minor how to use contraception isn’t it also illegal for a parent to impart such information to a minor child? If not, why not?
2) Presuming that Wisconsin sets the age at which one can obtain a learner’s permit at 16 would a teacher in a driver ed class be subject to criminal prosecution for allowing a 15 year old to participate in the classroom portion of driver ed? After all, the teacher is imparting information on how to operate a car, which the 15 year old may not lawfully do.
3) The analogy to mixing drinks seems particularly lame. Here in NY the age to drink is 21 (like everywhere else) but you can legally tend bar at 18. As an under-21 year old bartender may mix drinks it seems to necessarily follow that he may receive instruction in how to do so and that someone may provide that instruction. (I just had an image of a young bartender being asked for a Singapore Sling and using pure guesswork as to what goes into it). Of course, Wisconsin may require you to be 21 to tend bar, but even so I wouldn’t say that the prohibition against under-21 drinking is a prohibition against instruction as to how to make mixed drinks in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
April 8, 2010, 7:12 pmChris Travers says:
In my state, a 16 year old can brew beer for personal consumption without running afoul with state alcohol laws too… Federal laws become more interesting and it may or may not be possible to avoid those.
April 8, 2010, 7:24 pmEllen S says:
What about a physician who prescribes birth control pills to a minor or a drug store that sells condoms to a minor?
In the area of reproductive rights, there is a “mature minor” doctrine where minors have the right to obtain contraception and abortions services.
Presumably, any teen-ager who is mature enough to arrange for contraception in advance is a pretty mature minor.
April 8, 2010, 7:37 pmSk says:
Au contraire-
As presented, the prosecutor’s view makes perfect sense. If it is illegal to have sex with someone under 18, and you teach people under 18 how to (safely) have sex, you are promoting delinquency. I am not being ironic-it is pretty logical and clear.
But I didn’t fully understand the quote. In the state of Wisconsin, is it really illegal for anyone to have sex with people under 18-even those that are under 18 themselves? Is it really illegal for two 17 year olds to have sex? Or is it illegal for someone over the age of 18 to have sex with someone under 18? (the quote from the letter with elipses as presented make it difficult to tell).
The scandal here is the original law. Once that is accepted, Scott Southworth’s view is perfectly logical.
Sk
April 8, 2010, 7:44 pmwhit says:
in many, if not most states, it is perfectly legal for a minor (14 yrs old even) to consume alcohol as long as IT IS PROVIDED BY THE PARENT AND CONSUMED IN THEIR PRESENCE IN THE HOME
so, i guess if your parent provided the mixing ingredients in your presence, and stuff you’d be ok.
i guess
April 8, 2010, 7:53 pmwhit says:
I can’t speak to wisconsin, but i used to work in a state where the age o’ consent was 16. as it was explained to me, two 15 yr olds having sex were essentially MUTUAL felons, since neither could consent to having sex with the other, which seems kind of wacky. needless to say these were not prosecuted though.
the problem came about when ages changed. there was a case of a high school kid who was schtupping his girlfriend. they were both 15. parents of girlfriend hated boyfriend. when boyfriend turned 16, and she was still 15 he became fair game for prosecution until she turned 16. that’s kind of absurd. but these laws are absurd in a “we have to draw a bright line darnit” sort of way…
April 8, 2010, 8:01 pmAlanDownunder says:
Wisc. Stat. § 948.40 is only any kind of problem if one employs a Shariaesque interpretation of the word “delinquency”. Does Wisconsin statutory law contain a Shariaesque definition of that term?
April 8, 2010, 8:22 pmmikeyes says:
WI law allows underage persons to drink in the presence of and with the permission of parents or a spouse of drinking age. This can occur anywhere including a bar.
Also, you can add gun safety classes to that list of illegal acts.
April 8, 2010, 8:23 pmrjs says:
“The state has a strong interest in the ethical and moral development of its children. This state has a long tradition of honoring its obligation to protect its children from others and from themselves.” State v. Fisher, 211 Wis. 2d 665, 674 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (emphasis added).
April 8, 2010, 8:25 pmJust Dropping By says:
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Wisconsin automatically admit you to practice law if you graduate from a state-run law school with a GPA of something like a B+ or higher without having to take the bar exam? Not that the bar exam is an infallible screening device, of course.
April 8, 2010, 8:26 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Professor:
How sad for Wisconsin.
Does this letter sound like the legal work of a Big Ten law grad? Or of the graduate of a non-fringer school with religious affiliation, such as Georgetown or Villanova?
I was proposing wagering lines, propositions based on probability. In this case, the line acknowledged a substantial likelihood (20%) the author attended a legitimate school. Overall, from the available descriptions of the author, the lines were sound. Betting against the house would have been expensive. Had I looked it up before posting the lines, that would have been less than sporting.
Perhaps your response is motivated by objection to stridency, which objection is a good instinct. I place myself in the position of a teacher threatened by this letter — Mr. Southworth may be a kook, but he’s a kook with charging powers — and the abuse of power bothers me. But a reminder about stridency is never out of place.
April 8, 2010, 8:27 pmShelbyC says:
So a 20yo needs their spouse’s permission to drink? Wow.
April 8, 2010, 8:29 pmTev says:
“The state has a strong interest in the ethical and moral development of its children. This state has a long tradition of honoring its obligation to protect its children from others and from themselves.” State v. Fisher, 211 Wis. 2d 665, 674 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (emphasis added).
So, they’re protecting them from the State. ;-) Probably, a good idea.
April 8, 2010, 8:35 pmChris Travers says:
Doing a little research, yes, it does seem that two seventeen year olds having sex is illegal….
However apparently the court has the discretion not to require such teenagers to register as sex offenders….
April 8, 2010, 8:37 pmSupremecourtjester says:
If a teacher gets convicted, must he register as a sex offender and not be permitted within five hundred feet of a school?
April 8, 2010, 8:43 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I gather I should be picking stocks, horses and roulette results, then, because I was able to divine much about the author with no clues.
Care to stake me?
April 8, 2010, 8:49 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Which state does not outlaw possession and/or consumption of alcohol by a federally defined minor? How does that state fund highway maintenance? I am extremely curious and would welcome the information.
April 8, 2010, 8:53 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I have not checked the statutes for years, but I would expect to find that this circumstance would disqualify Wisconsin from federal highway funding. If my expectation is unfounded, it would be excellent to confirm the truth.
April 8, 2010, 8:57 pmIR Student says:
The prosecutor’s analogy that education about how to use contraceptives is like instructing kids how to mix alcoholic drinks is also off-base. If you teach someone how to make a drink, you are teaching them what makes a drink taste good, enjoyable, a nice drunk buzz, etc. The better sex analogy of teaching someone how to make a drink would be if a teacher came into class and showed kids a homemade sex tape on ‘how to have sex.’ Such as movie would teach kids what techniques, language (I won’t go any further, you get the idea) makes the best sex. That’s not what we are dealing with here. It’s a typical moral hazard: once you teach someone how to do a ‘dangerous activity,’ seriously the chances of them engaging in that dangerous activity increase. Though in the case of teenage sex, the increase as a result of sex is rather small and the risks of STIs clearly warrant this sort of education in the classroom.
I suppose this prosecutor would also be in favor of banning alcohol education in schools. After all, if kids find out that drinking on a full stomach is better than drinking on an empty stomach, they’ll be more inclined to binge drink because they know how to do it without getting hurt. And we can’t have that happen!
April 8, 2010, 9:06 pmzuch says:
I think my analogy about offering classroom driver’s ed. training to people before they reach legal driving age is closer. And illustrative. No one complains about that, even when there they’re clearly teaching the tykes how to drive, not just how to protect themselves if they do.
Cheers,
April 8, 2010, 9:26 pmApril 8 roundup says:
[...] Wisconsin D.A. to teachers: if you obey state’s new sex-ed law, I’ll prosecute you [Radley Balko, Reason "Hit and Run"] More: Volokh. [...]
April 8, 2010, 9:46 pmChris Travers says:
In my state (Washington) alcoholic beverages brewed and consumed within the home are exempted from nearly all state regulations concerning alcohol. The sole exception is (get this) laws governing home brewing competitions, since these by definition take place outside the home.
Federal law gets much more interesting, and no, a 16 year old is NOT categorically forbidden under federal law from making homemade alcoholic beverages (provided that no distilling is involved). The major criteria is whether the household has at least one person of drinking age. But to my knowledge the federal tax code has never been enforced against minors in this way.
April 8, 2010, 10:03 pmChris Travers says:
Washington also allows parents to provide alcohol to their minor children anywhere EXCEPT bars, restaurants, and other places that have liquor licenses. Your home is good. Your friends’ home is good. Your front lawn is OK. A picnic on the side of the highway is fine. But a bar is not. Go figure.
April 8, 2010, 10:06 pmShelbyC says:
but not their 18-20yo children? Sounds dumb.
April 8, 2010, 10:14 pmMoneyrunner says:
Meanwhile in Washington DC a certain Henry Waxman is demanding to know why corporations are following the law that requires them to announce earnings adjustments as soon as they become aware of them.
April 8, 2010, 10:31 pmJohn Herbison says:
I wonder. If Mr. Southworth has a teenage daughter, would he prefer that she bang a teenage boy with the proper use of a condom or without?
April 8, 2010, 11:16 pmChris Travers says:
Sorry, “children under drinking age”
Basically the way it works is that liquor control laws recognize a parental exception in these circumstances.
Also “reasonable quantities” in religious ceremonies is another exemption. So my Norse pagan ritual drinking (done as part of most routine ceremonies both seasonal and special) is fine PROVIDED that the quantities are “reasonable.”
April 8, 2010, 11:20 pmChris Travers says:
He’d probably prefer to throw the boy in prison for a class D felony (enticing a minor) and a Class A misdemeanor (having sex with a minor over 16).
April 8, 2010, 11:21 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I think he would punt that one to Bristol Palin, who has become a professional and expert in the advice-giving department.
April 8, 2010, 11:23 pmJohn Moore says:
Research clearly shows that abstinence only sex-ed results in significantly less teen sex than any other form. A teacher aware of that research who was then teaching another form would know that he/she was encouraging sexuality by the students.
In that narrow sense, the teacher may very well be violating the law.
April 9, 2010, 12:10 amDG says:
{I don’t know about you, but whenever I see someone roll a condom onto a banana, I go into insane animalistic can’t-stop-me sex-mode. But-for causation and all that.}
You too? Hey, want to meet up? I’ve got a bunch of chiquitas and I know how to use them…
April 9, 2010, 12:41 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
By definition, yes. It sounds exactly like the legal work of a Big Ten law grad.
April 9, 2010, 1:32 amDougInSanDiego says:
Even more bizarre (and horrific) are the efforts by GLESN to introduce mandatory gay instruction into classrooms as young as kindergarten.
And then, yesterday, the American College of Pediatricians launched their website designed to counter what they call the inaccurate information that has been disseminated to school children:
According to the APC:
Their conclusion:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/
And yet, schools march forward with their GLESN-inspired programs.
No doubt many will rail against this information since, if for no other reason, it contradicts what has commonly been heard and goes against what some would prefer to hear. my point is that schools have very much taken to their new role as our children’s REAL parents, and feel both entitled and charged with making many decisions about their proper upbringing.
This I see as appalling.
April 9, 2010, 2:10 amRicardo says:
Are you referring to this? The effect they found was that among urban, black sixth and seventh graders, 33.5% of abstinence-only students had sex over a two-year period compared to 48.5% in a control group.
Two things to keep in mind: the same results could well not hold for older teenagers. If abstinence education delays kids having sex, that’s obviously good news but if they are more likely to have sex when they are a few years older, the strategy may have to change.
Second, a non-abstinence sex education module reduced the number of sexual partners compared to the control group. So it’s not that easy to say which group is better off once you consider that a third of the abstinence education group are still having sex, some of them with multiple partners.
April 9, 2010, 2:45 amDougInSanDiego says:
EV:
Is there not a plausible theory that in teaching 100 children on xxx, knowing it to be essentially certain 1, or 2 (or more) of the 100 would then act as ‘delinquents’, the triggers of Stat. § 948.40 would be satisfied? Or would it be necessary that each and every taught child be nearly certain to then become ‘delinquent’?
EV:
Only if the child was not yet having sex, and the teaching was likely to alter that (not that this changes the gist of your statement).
April 9, 2010, 3:28 amGordon says:
As a retired maths teacher I am against sex education in schools. Teaching children that 2+2 =4 was difficult enough without some PE teacher suggesting that 1+1 might equal 3
April 9, 2010, 6:36 amBrian Hancock says:
So if you buy your teenage daughter the pill, you could also be guilty of this law according to this D.A.?
If your insurance company provides underage birth control to teenagers, are they guilty as well?
Seems very stupid to me. How about the Governor and the Legislative branch in Wisconsin clean up the law (do what they are paid to do).
April 9, 2010, 7:12 amapodoca says:
What a bigot Arthur Kirkland is!
April 9, 2010, 7:27 amBrett says:
What makes you think the work of “social” “scientists” is of any value?
April 9, 2010, 7:27 amFonz says:
Yes…the the guy is crazy like a fox. He knows they can never be convicted, but if *he* can charge them they end up on a registered sex offenders list and their teaching career is over. Even if they think that is possible, they are likely to run a mile. We have met the enemy and he is us!
April 9, 2010, 7:37 amBryan C says:
The Driver’s Ed analogy misses at least one important distinction. It’s not inherently illegal for a minor to drive a vehicle, so long as they drive on private property. So there’s a loophole, kinda like drinking at home with parental permission, where the knowledge used can conceivably be put into practice without breaking the law.
The current statutes, however, seem to make it pretty clear that if a minor is engaged in sexual activity, they’ve committed a serious crime. It’s just a matter of whether a particular prosecutor decides to charge them. This particular prosectutor has made his priorities clear. If the good people of Wisconsin don’t want him or his office to treat these activities as serious crimes, then they should change the laws.
April 9, 2010, 7:42 amDaveP. says:
So that’s gonna be the new excuse:
April 9, 2010, 7:44 am“Your Honor, I wasn’t molesting those little boys and girls… I was just teaching them to reduce risks. Oh, those pictures? Visual aids…”
rarango says:
What Anonsters said in the very post, except I would include alcohol in his response. Its really all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll (drugs being defined as legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco)
April 9, 2010, 7:52 amdorn says:
First off, when I was in high school, everyone was having sex, second, had it not been for sexual education, there would be a lot more babies born to teenagers. thank you teachers for teaching us how to use contraceptives!!
April 9, 2010, 8:06 amsetnaffa says:
Simple way to determine objectively whether sex education promotes or prevents unprotected sex.
Look at the teen pregnancy rates before and after sex education was taught in school. Ignore personal anecdotes. These numbers are available and quite impressive.
This metric is quite agnostic and, in the majority of cases, shows that sex education is not really helping the problem it is alleged to cure. All it does is drive business to Planned Parenthood abortion centers.
Who, strangely enough, contribute to the production of educational materials. Who would have thought that letting the abortionists teach sex education would create more abortions?
Well, they did, obviously…
Engaging in sex at any age and for any reason is a personal matter that should not be under government control. However, it is grossly unrealistic to assert that teaching children in school how to have sex will make them (a) less likely, (b) more careful, or (c) more open to their parents’ attempts to protect them from sexual predators.
All arguments against religion here are red herrings designed to change the focus. Children should not be having sex with each other or with adults. School Districts that offer “sex education” are failing their charter to act “in loco parentis” and keep the children safe.
April 9, 2010, 8:31 amAnderson says:
The “American College of Pediatricians” is a right-wing advocacy group masquerading as a professional body. Google ‘em and see.
I just had an image of a young bartender being asked for a Singapore Sling and using pure guesswork as to what goes into it).
That is what happens every time I order a Singapore Sling, regardless of the bartender’s age. Really, I don’t think I’ve had the same drink twice when I order that.
… The people most against sex ed, also seem to be the most deluded about when kids have sex. Seventh and eighth graders are doing it, folks, and not just in the ghetto. And if they’re not using birth control, you’re not going to find any misplaced condom wrappers, etc. to tip you off. You’re just going to find out the old-fashioned way.
April 9, 2010, 9:03 amCableGuy says:
Brilliantly put. A government’s got to create laws and regulations, and when it runs wild, it’s only a matter of time before they start criminalizing something they made mandatory in an earlier law. It’s easy to control a population that is all guilty of something (exhibit A is the current tax code.)
April 9, 2010, 9:10 amLegalCritic says:
I vote Setnaffa’s argument as most cogent (April 9 8:31 am). He writes more like a scientist than a lawyer.
Emphasis on laws over morality only shows the weakness of laws, not their strength. If citizens are unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good of all, civilization must eventually decline or even fail.
Has anyone noticed a tinge of arrogance in most of the replies, or is it only apparent to non-lawyers?
April 9, 2010, 9:17 amDan C says:
History repeats itself. The great thing about this medieval scenario is that the Church gets to charge for indulgences to ‘forgive’ you, while you get to do whatever you can afford. It’s just a matter of getting rid of that pesky separation of Church and State….ask Iran about that.
April 9, 2010, 9:31 am(Nowadays, though, the bourgeois pay Greenpeace and the Sierra Club for their indulgences, and still feel really really guilty when they drive their oversexed, ecstasy-pumped kids to soccer practice.) Forgiveness ain’t what it used to be. That Old Tyme Religion just ain’t there.
cboldt says:
– Emphasis on laws over morality only shows the weakness of laws, not their strength. –
April 9, 2010, 9:40 amLawyers are either inclined to believe or are trained that a stable society can be regulated, maintained, and strengthened via the law, and the law alone. To the extent society is weak or not well regulated, the deficiency can be rectified with new or amended law.
I join your recognition of setnaffa @ April 9, 2010, 8:31 am.
DougInSanDiego says:
Thanks, Anderson – appears that may be the case. I see an Amer. Academy of Pediatrics which looks more established and multi-issue focused. Sorry if i inadvertently spammed.
April 9, 2010, 10:12 ammaplestar says:
Forcing our law schools to instruct students on the law encourages law students to practice law, whether as a student or a lawyer. White it is true that some law students will wrongly choose to represent clients and provide legal advice before entering the bar, our law schools should never promote illegal activity.
April 9, 2010, 10:39 amSlow says:
We have way to many laws.
But in Wisconsin teens under 18 can be married with parental consent. And obviously Wisconsin would have to acknowledge most teens under 18 married in other states as well.
So in Wisconsin it is possible to commit a crime by having sex with your husband or wife.
Can the state’s rationale for making teenage sex a criminal act be applied to a married couple of the same age?
This is all just very stupid.
April 9, 2010, 10:45 amKirk Parker says:
Poor Althouse…
Shouldn’t that make us nervous?
April 9, 2010, 10:50 amDougInSanDiego says:
While I agree in principle, I have not yet seen a test design that is clean. In your example, you are of necessity comparing younger (pre-sex-ed) kids with older (post-sex-ed) kids. One would naturally expect older kids to fare worse. Similarly, having the control group at one school and the test group at another school is problematic because of cultural differences between schools. Having both in a single school leads to problems because of social interactions between the groups. It seems only a very large scale investigation (unaffected by Planned Parenthood and other biasing agents)would settle things by averaging out differences.
My concern with all of this is more generic, having to do with the schools assuming the role of parenting. Clearly many parents have been more than happy to abdicate their responsibilities and turn their kids over to teachers for the heavy lifting. That, however, does not mean teachers, who of necessity do not love the children as much as do parents, will do an adequate job.
And then, with teachers in the job as parents, politics can easily enter (as we have seen). The natural result of this is what we see here – attempts to monitor and control ‘teacher-parents’ through the legal process. But while this may seem offensive to many, keep in mind that this entire silliness exists simply because teachers are trying to act in a position for which they are ill suited.
April 9, 2010, 11:07 amWhadonna More says:
If he were a scientist, his argument wouldn’t fail for mistaking correlation for causation. Perhaps the “sexual revolution” in society at large and the increase in sexual content in entertainment would have led to a much HIGHER rate but for the reduction caused by the introduction of sex ed.
April 9, 2010, 11:15 amAnn says:
Now I realize that there are disputes about whether teaching high school students about contraceptives might lead to more sex, and even more unprotected sex. I’m inclined to doubt that, since I suspect that teenagers will (or will not) have sex regardless of what they’re taught about contraception in school
The question isn’t whether or not sex-ed will change the behavior of the average teenager, the question is one of the marginal teen. Will a teen on the margin between a decision to have sex or not have sex, a teen who struggles with the issue and needs only a little push in one direction to make the decision, will that teen be affected by the education they are given in school. It is in these borderline individuals that change happens. Many teens will have sex one way or another, while another cohort will never do it, only the kids in the middle are open to other influences.
The next step is to recognize that much of the behavior of teens depends on their particular subculture. If all the other teens are doing it, or are being perceived as doing it, then it becomes more likely that the marginal teen will also do it. But, by making it easier for the marginal teen to say no, the culture slowly moves in that direction.
The converse is also true. The more you make it easier to say yes, or harder to say no (“come on, baby, it’s safe!”) the more you push the margin in that direction.
Life, in the end, is all about marginal individuals.
April 9, 2010, 11:36 amChris Travers says:
I don’t know about statutory rape (which involves under 16-year-olds). However the statute about having sex with a child over 16 excludes spouses. However, actually having sex with a child between the ages of 16 and 18 is a misdemeanor, and if done by a teenager does NOT necessarily carry with it sex offender status. On the other hand, inviting the teen into a car or building for the purpose of having sex (whether by a teenager or not) is a class D felony, but again courts are allowed to wave sex offender status and indeed encouraged to do so if the perpetrator is a teen.
So I am left looking at EV’s last sentence:
And I am realizing that both Wisconsin’s criminal law is seriously broken and there is a problem with the prosecutor…..
April 9, 2010, 12:01 pmalittlesense says:
The prosecutor in question may have gone to the University of Wisconsin law school, which may be a perfectly fine law school, but I bet he graduated at the bottom of his class. This puts me in mind of the old joke; “What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of his med school class? The answer is Doctor.”
April 9, 2010, 12:25 pmzuch says:
How does that change the logic?
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 12:35 pmrjs says:
The American College of Pediatricians, with maybe about 60 members, should not be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics, with about 60,000 members.
And I think DougInSanDiego means GLSEN, not GLESN.
April 9, 2010, 1:16 pmAG Suthers says Colorado can tax medical marijuana | Comparisons Reviews says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » District Attorney Suggests … [...]
April 9, 2010, 1:19 pmJohn says:
Anonsters says:
“John: The DA is advocating teaching nothing.
I wouldn’t really call threatening potential prosecution “advocating” for a particular curricular choice.”
Did you read the letter the DA sent? Because what he SAYS in it is that they way to avoid prosecution for the sex crime and still comply with the sex ed law, is to NOT TEACH SEX ED at all!
April 9, 2010, 1:37 pmJohn says:
No, you speculated about the DA, you haven’t divined anything from the letter in question.
April 9, 2010, 1:50 pmJohn says:
Research “clearly” shows this? Even though I support abstinence only education, I see the research as pretty thin on this (so far anyway).
April 9, 2010, 1:53 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Yes, thanks. My error was already pointed out by Anderson — but thank you for the correction anyway.
April 9, 2010, 2:01 pmTake My Word For It says:
Research clearly shows that contraceptive-only sex-ed results in significantly less teen sex than any other form. Oh gee, now what do we do?
April 9, 2010, 3:26 pmAdam J says:
Ricardo- Another obvious thing to consider is underreporting will certainly be greater for those who have abstinence only sex-ed. If kids are taught abstinence only sex-ed and then don’t engage in abstinence they would obviously have an increased incentive to lie- they failed to learn what was taught by the course. However kids taught contraceptive oriented sex-ed don’t have the same incentives to lie about having sex- only an incentive to lie about whether or not they used a contraceptive.
April 9, 2010, 3:48 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
Only someone who has been convicted of a sex crime can be added to the list of sex offenders. Your premise that a mere indictment will suffice is incorrect. Southworth surely knows this.
April 9, 2010, 4:35 pmwhit says:
reasonable under what community’s standard?
the place you live in, or that of a norse pagan community?
because every time i go drinking with the norse pagans, those guys drink me under the table. they are worse (or better, depending on your pov) than australians!
April 9, 2010, 5:20 pmNickM says:
What do you expect from a conference of 11 that calls itself the Big Ten?
BTW, the attack on Steve Cooley is dead wrong. As Cooley pointed out in the excerpt, the current CA law (the medical marijuana law passed by the voters) does not permit cash sales by marijuana dispensaries, so when the city council votes to allow cash sales as long as they comply with state law, that’s NEVER (unless the marijuana legalization proposition passes or there is some other change in CA law).
Nick
April 9, 2010, 5:23 pmRandy says:
Doug: “Even more bizarre (and horrific) are the efforts by GLESN to introduce mandatory gay instruction into classrooms as young as kindergarten.”
Um, no. GLSEN has not made any efforts at all to introduce “gay instruction” to any classrooms. What they have tried to do is prevent bullying of any student, of any age, who is *perceived as gay* regardless of actual sexual orientation.
Teenagers don’t engage in sex. They may do things that look, sound, feel, and appear like sex, but they just call it something else. This way they can maintain their virginity for marriage. See “saddlebacking” as an example.
April 9, 2010, 7:00 pmDougInSanDiego says:
I presume from this you are exalting our former fearless leader, William Jefferson Clinton?
April 9, 2010, 7:32 pmRicardo says:
That’s certainly plausible. As I understand it, the module the educators used did not try to shame students into abstaining from sex nor did it even say that students should abstain until they get married. The content was more along the lines of the inherent risks of STDs and the fact that abstinence is the only fool-proof method of avoiding them.
If the researchers made sure that the surveyors were not perceived to have any kind of relationship with the sex-ed teachers or the school administration, I think that minimizes the kind of lying you have in mind.
As a personal anecdote, I remember a survey done at my own school way back about drug use and it caused quite the scandal when the results were reported and showed such high levels of drug use. This was after having gone through all the standard DARE modules. I strongly suspect my classmates were exaggerating their answers to be smart-alecky. While it’s just anecdote, I think kids are more likely to tweak school administrators by over-reporting bad behavior rather than being shamed into under-reporting. Especially rowdy young men.
April 10, 2010, 3:20 amChris Travers says:
I haven’t been able to find any case law on this whatsoever, however there is case law in related areas.
As I have always read the statute in line with the State Constitution guarantee of free exercise (which is very strong), assuming sincerity of the religious practice, I would expect the amount issue to be one which, based on the totality of circumstances (frequency, quantity, etc) did not place the minor in danger of specific harm. Note that there are two basic forms of ritual drinking at Norse Neopagan gatherings:
1) The sumbel (which is routine at most gatherings). This involves a fairly modest amount of alcohol (generally less than one drink over a period of time, perhaps 20 minutes). I have never seen drunkenness result from a sumbel. Though the historical ones used to go on until late in the night (hours on end), used to use much stronger beverages, and probably did include drunkenness….
2) Special occasion rituals hallowed with alcohol. For example, inheritance taking ceremonies might involve the those who have been bequeathed with inheritance by someone who has passed away making an oath to do something significant and then hallowing that oath by drinking a hornful of beer (could be 1 to 1.5 drinks) or mead (could be 3-4 drinks). Generally for a minor, I would prefer to use beer than mead….. However, since these are rare rituals I would feel legally safe having a minor drink during them. However, if one were to supply this sort of alcohol and then let the minor drive home, I think that would be a problem.
In other words I would read the statute to be one allowing non-negligent furnishing of alcohol to minors for religious purposes. Hope this helps :-)
April 10, 2010, 1:46 pmChris Travers says:
Some further notes to whit:
While I don’t believe this has ever been litigated (what constitutes reasonable quantities of alcohol to provide minors during religious rituals), there are a number of related discussions in case law regarding the intersection of state powers and the guarantee of free exercise provided under the Washington State Constitution. I think the matter would be decided as a Constitutional matter, not by reading the statute in isolation.
In general, the Washington State Supreme Court has held that free exercise is entitled to a very high degree of deference, essentially approaching strict scrutiny (I don’t think the scrutiny is quite as high as it would be in core free speech or race discrimination cases, but it’s close). In general the community can provide reasonable requirements on exercise of religion, such as requiring churches to obtain permits before engaging in some activities. However, they cannot generally prohibit said activities (and hence cannot declare moratoriums on such permits even on activities peripheral to religious observance, such as allowing a church to host a tent city for the homeless on church property, nor can they refuse to issue permits unless the church is unwilling to reasonably accommodate the community). Hence the permit process becomes, at its most restrictive, a way for the community and the religious group to arrive at a mutually acceptable form of accommodation.
Similarly, when addressing religious harm in divorce/custody cases, Washington requires a standard of actual or substantial harm before religious activities or views of parents can be considered. This standard, iirc, is seen as mandated by the Washington State Constitution.
Consequently I would assume “reasonable” quantities of alcohol permitted for religious functions would be based on a similar standard, i.e., that quantities that create actual or substantial harm would be outside the safe harbor, but quantities which do not constitute actual or substantial harm would not. I would assume that engaging in specific risky behavior (such as drunk driving) would constitute actual harm whether or not such came to a bad end.
Moral of the story: It’s much better to live in Washington than Wisconsin ;-)
April 10, 2010, 3:18 pmRandy says:
Doug: “I presume from this you are exalting our former fearless leader, William Jefferson Clinton?”
Not exalting, but certainly he’s a good example. And you wouldn’t believe the all the straight men out there having sex with other men, but rationalize that one away. You see, it isn’t sex if you don’t kiss. It isn’t sex so long as you are the penetrating partner. I”m just ‘fooling around’ with a buddy. I have sex with guys, but I’m not gay, because I don’t march in gay pride parades or lead the “gay lifestyle.” Homosexuality is something only whites do, or westerners, and I’m not white, so I can’t be gay. You can’t have sex with another guy, because sex is by definition something you do with an girl.
Believe me, I’ve heard it all. Men will find a way to get their rocks off and will find any rationalization that works for them.
April 10, 2010, 4:26 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Yeah, Randy, the species seems to have a genetic predisposition toward hypocrisy and blame shifting. Naturally, positions of power and influence (i.e., our beloved Capital) attract a disproportionate share of those who are helpless to stand up to this predisposition.
In most all circumstances I could not care less, but when these models of bad behavior influence or devastate other peoples’ lives I start to get saddled onto my high horse. Clinton is one such example: there are few jobs a chief executive actually has, and making the decisions most people ascribe to the president is NOT one of them. If the individual is leading effectively hie/her TEAM will be making most of these. However – in ALL cases (I think) the President is uniquely and singly responsible for defining and establishing a culture. Clinton’s job in THIS area was disaster.
On the topic of THIS thread, my high horse is again trotting. To begin with, it seems to me a social DISASTER that parenting has been moved from the parents to the schools in so many cases and in so many ways. I’m not blaming the schools – clearly many parents are delighted to have their responsibilities removed so they can delight in more golf time. Still, the result is horrific if for no other reasons that teachers/school administrators lack both the love and the time to properly parent each and every kid.
So this opens up the near certainty that schools will be exerting “bad” parenting and that absurd other systems (such as an Attorney General) will latch on to correct what are perceived as bad parenting acts. Personally, I am bewildered that (real) parents will permit a school (or any other outside group) to begin teaching sexual morays – which I think is guaranteed if they are teaching “safe sex”. This goes doubly as the age of the kids is less – even mentioning the topic of sex to kindergarten children by a teacher (in this thread) should be actionable, IMHO. That ‘sex’ is so pervasive in our society is not relevant. Schools ought not be making the problem worse.
April 10, 2010, 5:55 pmRandy says:
Doug:”Still, the result is horrific if for no other reasons that teachers/school administrators lack both the love and the time to properly parent each and every kid.”
I agree with you in theory, but as we all know, theory isn’t always right or practicable. Even if parents took control over the sex education of their children, who is to know that THEY have any idea what a good sex education is? Many adults are clearly whacked in such a basic area, and much of it is, I’m afraid to say, warped by religion. I’m not saying that schools are any better, but for me, that’s all the more reason that kids should have more information, not less, just because some, whatever the source, is inherently biased or even plain wrong.
I agree sex talk is inappropriate for certain ages. But that’s our society nowadays — children DO get molested, raped, touched inappropriately, and we don’t want that to continue. It has always been the case, but nowadays we no longer accept it. (The emerging church scandal has many cases whereby the parents just looked the other way because that’s just the way it is and you can’t fight the church. Fortunately, things are changing for the better now).
April 10, 2010, 6:39 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Randy:
I have a company (high tech) and an officer is stealing IP and passing it along to competitors; has been going on for a long time. This fellow’s supervisor (VP Engineering) has done nothing about it other than to put in place normal encryption standards for the industry; obviously they have proven ineffective. As a result, all shareholders have seen far less gain than they otherwise would have.
Your Solution: Better encryption
My solution: build up the VP’s abilities or replace him.
Sure, adults are at record levels of ‘whacked out’, though we may disagree on just what that means. I’d prefer addressing THAT problem, focusing efforts and resources THERE, rather than shifting ‘parenting’ to some other entity.
Yes, shareholders (our children) are suffering, and that requires a short term focus also. But I see no end to this if we rely on schools to do what they are genetically incapable of doing. Plus, it’s sort of Orwellian.
April 10, 2010, 8:07 pmDougInSanDiego says:
You may wish to take a look at the end of the thread on Amnesty. Child molestations are far worse in schools by school employees than they are in churches by church employees (per capita – i.e., per teacher or per Priest).
Further, schools have been no better historically – and arguably worse – than the Cath. Church in shielding these animals and/or ignoring the actions of the perpetrators.
Fortunately, as with the CC, fear of liability is changing the lack of reaction in schools also.
April 10, 2010, 8:10 pmChris Travers says:
There’s another thing to consider here. While I sympathize with Doug’s point, I think it is not as simple as parents vs school control of information. The basic thing is that kids get a great deal of “sex ed” from other kids and a great deal of it is wrong. One important role that school sex ed programs have is in counteracting some of the errors that circulate among teenagers as rumors.
Also if the measure of education is how well it prepares you for life, well, sex is part of life, and while the parents are the primary educators, I am not sure they should be assumed to be the only educators.
I am not opposed to a school requiring parental permission to teach sex ed, but that isn’t what I see Dough arguing for.
April 10, 2010, 8:18 pmDougInSanDiego says:
I’d agree that one important of a child’s upbringing should be about sex and sexuality. I’d NOT agree that this function should be performed by schools – though I am not arguing with the fact that schools stepped in because there was a vacuum.
Course not. We are arguing over what ASPECTS of a childs’ upbringing and education should be primarily a school vs. parent responsibility. Since sex and sexuality is so intertwined with morality, safety, health – I believe this should lie in the hands of parents – after a 2×4 has been applied to wake them up.
April 10, 2010, 8:34 pmJohn Herbison says:
Despite its ubiquity among defenders of the Roman Catholic
ChurchMan Boy Lust Association, this talking point has always puzled me. That employees of other school systems may also victimize children does not excuse or mitigate the heinousness of pedophilia, no matter who employs the kiddie-diddlers. I realie that religious tribalism exerts a strong gravitational pull, but I remain amazed that parents of young children contribute even a penny to a religious entity that has institutionalized pederasty.For evidence of institutional culpability, just follow the money. Is there any secular school system or district in this country that has paid out billions of dollars in personal injury judgments/settlements because it was unable to keep its personnel out of the children entrusted to its care?
April 10, 2010, 9:43 pmRandy says:
Doug: “Sure, adults are at record levels of ‘whacked out’, though we may disagree on just what that means. I’d prefer addressing THAT problem, focusing efforts and resources THERE, rather than shifting ‘parenting’ to some other entity.”
I agree, but I think that schools should still play a role so that when the kids become parents, they won’t be quite so whacked. Some information is right and some is wrong, and we need clear standards, as devised by the community, as to what they are. As Chris correctly argues, there is a lot of misinformation out there that needs to be corrected.
For me, it’s rather personal, of course. Many parents, and even some schools, both public and private, believe that homosexuality is somehow “wrong” and try to teach against it. This only leads to children who realize that they are gay to hate themselves, and it teaches the straight kids to hate gays. This is why suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and attempts at suicide are much higher than the general population. So no, I don’t trust parents to know how to deal with their gay children, and we need to have schools who can teach about it responsibly.
April 11, 2010, 12:15 pmDougInSanDiego says:
1. It’s a pity you are so consumed with hatred toward …. anything. Whatever the reason that for you it is directed toward the CC – it’s a shame ’cause I doubt they are suffering from this caustic feeling but rather you. And, no – I am neither Catholic nor in any way related to their church.
2. I fear you missed the point. The fact another (or many other) of our institutions has fallen prey to pedophile animals who have targeted them in no way diminishes the culpability of the pedophiles who invaded the CC nor the culpability of the CC in not demolecularizing the pedophiles when discovered. You do not seem to get the point: it is odd that so much attention has engulfed the CC and IT’S pedophile problem, when a BIGGER problem exists in our public (and, probably, private) school system and little to no attention is focused on THEM. The issue is not too much attention has been focused on the CC, but rather the LACK of attention on the other institutions.
3. You assert i”it’s a money thing; follow the money”. I doubt that. IMHO the pedophiles target the OPPORTUNITY – unlimited access to young victims, authority and power over them; cloak of respectability. Priests are not paid well in terms of cash; the pedophile priests are compensated in terms of available victims.
April 11, 2010, 1:23 pmDougInSanDiego says:
I am really, genuinely sad for the devastating impact on you (and, no doubt, many friends) from these things. You and I may disagree about some or much of this topic, but I agree wholeheartedly that no human deserves to be targeted by others for any reason. Bullies just piss me off to no end.
Clearly you don’t trust ‘parents’ in these matters, and feel teachers are more amenable to changing beliefs. I still say that, even though teachers may be more easily changed, the notion that parenting should be done by them is something that leads to many, many other long term catastrophes. If you feel parents are to blame, focus efforts on getting that straightened out, even if that means more and longer efforts. Anyway, that’s my belief.
April 11, 2010, 1:29 pmChris Travers says:
It’s not just a matter of a vacuum though. I think we can argue where the basic lines should be drawn but I think there is a role for schools to cover at least some elements of sex ed. I think it’s reasonable to disagree as to whether contraception should be covered generally (I learned more about contraception from college classes I took on the epidemiology of HIV than I did from either my parents or the middle/high school system). I think at very least certain things should be covered:
1) The basics of pregnancy and adolescence.
2) That certain risks are reduced by using condoms
3) That certain other risks (including some STD’s) are NOT appreciably reduced by using condoms.
4) That certain forms of contraception (any suppositories which are oil-soluble) are incompatible with use of condoms and make them less effective.
5) I think it’s not a bad idea to teach people the best information about how to avoid sexual assaults when off in college.
Whether or not one is concerned about stepping on the rights of parents of teenagers in this area, there are a couple of reasons to try to ensure that quality, peer reviewed information is taught at least to high school students. These include:
1) By pooling resources it’s possible to verify more information and ensure accuracy better than parents individually are able to do.
2) We generally hope that most of the high school students will go off to college where they will not be directly under the control of their parents.
3) The sexual revolution has already more or less meant that most committed relationships among college students will involve sex. More information in this case is better REGARDLESS of what the parents teach.
4) This involves eventually consenting adults anyway (after HS graduation).
5) This helps prevent problems perpetrated on either gender by the other. For example, when I was growing up in the middle of Utah, it wasn’t uncommon for young women (including high school students) to try to trap their boyfriends into marriage by getting pregnant. More information in the hands of young men reduces that problem. Similarly, there are converse problems that can be avoided by giving women more information.
I don’t think the school should be teaching morality. These are areas where people disagree and where peer review is, quite frankly, meaningless. Furthermore, I suspect that the teachers in this area are not strong influences (well behind both peers and parents).
But I don’t think there is any reason not to talk about STD’s and pregnancy in a school curriculum in a purely informative way.
April 11, 2010, 2:43 pmJohn David Galt says:
It seems self-evident to me that teachers who tell kids about contraception are not breaking any law (and are not doing any harm to the kids, either).
A question for the lawyers here: Is there any realistic way to knock a hole in this prosecutor’s immunity and get him put in jail — or at least fired — for malicious prosecution and violating their civil rights?
If there’s no way to do it, then we need to enact one pronto.
April 11, 2010, 4:05 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
Malicious prosecution is not a crime, so no one can be jailed for it. The same is true of most civil rights violations, except those that independently qualify as crimes. Besides, Southworth hasn’t prosecuted anyone for teaching about contraceptives, at least not yet. He hasn’t even threatened to prosecute anyone in particular. Merely stating that people who do something might be prosecuted is not enough to support a malicious prosecution case.
I don’t know about Wisconsin, but in most (and probably all) states District Attorneys are elected. There are various ways to remove elected officials from office, such as impeachment or recall. I don’t know what procedures might be available in that particular county, but I doubt that Southworth’s statements will anger enough people to get him removed.
April 11, 2010, 6:09 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Perhaps you see this as the issue; I don’t. Perhaps this has been discussed as primarily a “rights” issue; I see it as a “responsibilities” issue. The idea is to not surrender the notion that families (i.e., parents) and useless but rather work toward families (i.e., parents)again doing their job. By definition teachers are not, and never will be, in a position to effectively be parents. Then, the preference should be to get the lazy and self absorbed parents to accept their responsibility and act like what they are.
RE: Items 1 through 4: These are best dealt with (by the school) through instructive material SENT TO EACH PARENT along with strong admonition for them to discuss the contents with their kid. If you wish, perhaps, a night school PARENTING class or 2 for parents might be helpful as a way toward getting them off their duff.
RE: Item 5: Great topic for incoming college freshmen IN THEIR COLLEGE.
I respectfully submit this is over stepping the bounds and is not the ‘right’ of a school system
RE: Items 2 & 3: I fully support having sex ed. available in college. Regarding the sexual revolution: as a child of the free love generation, I accept partial responsibility for the results of the ‘revolution’, but do not accept that because of the revolution we should accept a return to ‘free love’. That was fun at the time for us kids, but a disaster for society. We may not have much to resist this, but should still do what we, as adults and parents, can. Simply saying, ‘the genie is out of the bottle’ is atrocious parenting.
RE: Item 4: I thought we were speaking about HS and earlier.
RE: Item 5: Interesting story about intentional pregnancy. Makes me realize how little education exists for parents – and recall when my first came home from the hospital with no Owners Manual. I’m all for info. to help parents keep their kids safe.
Agree – would make a great module within Biology class.
Maybe one idea that would be helpful would be to REQUIRE parents successfully complete a 2-week night course prior to their kids attending the first day in HS.
April 11, 2010, 6:42 pmRandy says:
Doug: ” I still say that, even though teachers may be more easily changed, the notion that parenting should be done by them is something that leads to many, many other long term catastrophes.”
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying teachers should do what the parents should be doing. Goodness knows they have enough on their hands. I don’t really disagree with your points, actually. I just would say that giving kids too much information about sex is probably in the long run better than not enough information. What they don’t get from school or parents they will get from either the locker room or the internet. Kids are curious, especially about sex, and I don’t think that there is any way you can somehow control the information that they search for.
“Maybe one idea that would be helpful would be to REQUIRE parents successfully complete a 2-week night course prior to their kids attending the first day in HS.”
Bingo. IT might actually improve their own sex lives.
April 11, 2010, 7:08 pmreadery says:
Suppose the state of Mississipi circa 1950 were to put out a “safe lynching” education course. The instructor would of course begin such a course by saying that we would prefer it if you didn’t lynch, would you please please not lynch, and by the way it’s illegal, but since of course everyone knows you’re going to do it anyway and the puritanical do-gooders who think that what the government says influences your behavior on such matters are either over-optimistic or simply ought to mind their own business on matters the governemnt shouldn’t be concerned with in ther first place, here are some ways you can conduct a lynching that will lessen the likelihood of disease and environmental contamination from disposing of the body, reduce noise levels from the screams and other bothers that tend to disturb the neighbors, and mitigate other collateral matters that the government might actually be able to influence.
Could we say a state that conducts such a course isn’t promoting lynching? In a society where lynching is done as a matter of course, would such a an educational course be an improvement in the state of affairs? Could a legislator who opposes lynching and thinks such opposition isn’t hopeless (notwithdtanding that “everybody does it”) vote for such a mitigational education course in good conscience?
We get rather crazy ideas about causality when dealing with principles that we disagree with. We’d object out the wazoo to a “how to lynch safely” course because we actually believe, and rather strongly, that people shouldn’t lynch. We don’t believe “everybody does it”, we don’t believe government has no business trying to prevent it, we’re not the least bit libertarian in our attitudes towards it, so of course we see that such a course would tend to promote the further social acceptance of lynching, would tend to implicate government in that acceptance, and would tend to interfere with efforts to eradicate.
Now logically, our view of causality ought not to depend on whether we like or dislike the thing cause. Logically, “safe sex” courses have the same tendencies to promote social acceptance of teen sex as “safe lynching” courses would of lynching, so a person strongly opposed to teen sex logically ought to oppose them to the same degree. Logically, whether the course is a good idea or not ought to depend on how bad we think teen sex is. If we think it’s really really bad, then government ought not to even indirectly promote it. But if we think it’s not really so bad — as Southerners tended to think about lynching in 1950 — then indirxect promotion really isn’t a problem, it’s no more a problem than the thing promoted.
In short, the logical argument ought to be about whether teen sex is really such a bad thing or should be regarded as such a bad thing. That’s the real argument. If it’s not such a bad thing, then indirect promotion doesn’t do so much harm. If is a really bad thing, then it does.
But instead we get an argument about causality — a government “safe A” course isn’t really promoting A, it’s simply accepting existing attitudes about A and working with them as givens. But in teen sex as in lynching (or alcohol, or baker’s hours, or racial discrimination, or rape), if government worked hard enough and had enough popular support it might well be able to eradicate or at least make a big dent in the thing, and to simply to accept the thing as a given and inevitable prevents putting up the fight that might be possible. There’s as much causality in the one as the other.
Thus I think Professor V?olokh is making the wrong argument. His argument should be that teen sex shouldn’t be regarded as such a bad thing and society shouldn’t be making an all-out fight against it in the first place, and hence it follows that it can safely accept certain collateral-consequence mitigating programs despite the fact that they implicitly accept the thing in a way that might tend to interfere with a really-out-for-blood, all-out-fight against the thing. If the thing isn’t so bad in the first place, the consequences aren’t so serious, and the advantages of mitigation might outweigh them.
But to argue that there’s no actual interference is just silly. All one has to do is come up with the idea of the state teaching a course on how to safely do anything one thinks society really SHOULD make an all-out, no-holds-barred, out-for-blood fight against — I think lynching is as good an example as any — and the argument that such a course doesn’t interfere with a truly all-out fight and doesn’t put the state in a morally precarious position simply falls to pieces.
It’s a cost-benefit argument. Of course there will be disagreement about the costs. One can always argue that the costs aren’t as great as other people say they are. One can say it won’t lead to such great harm because the thing it will lead to isn’t really so harmful as others say it is. It’s a values argument and a perfectly legitimate one. But one can’t avoid it by pretending it’s an argument about logic.
April 11, 2010, 11:47 pmChris Travers says:
Doug:
Now we are talking about ideal structure of the proper role, not if there is a proper role. I don’t really object to your proposals. I also think it is interesting to compare where things were when I was in college to the sort of thing Rev. Norman Peale wrote about in “Sin, Sex, and Self-Control” (written during the sexual revolution largely as a sort of partial argument against the sexual revolution). Interestingly some of the things Peale advocated came to pass just in different forms than he had envisioned.
In the end the exact shape of the school’s involvement in sexual education is something which can be open for discussion and I think this discussion is healthy. Furthermore, despite the fact that I envision things differently than you, I think it is important to preserve a general ideological diversity in this country and sex ed has a potential to interfere with that.
April 12, 2010, 1:23 am