Facing the facts about abstinence-only education

This past December, as we were finishing up our final papers and exams, the staff of Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was putting the final touches on a report of its own. The Waxman report describes how scientifically invalid information is included in sex-education programs that are funded by the federal government.

Among the statements highlighted by the Waxman report: various abstinence-only curricula taught students that mutual masturbation can cause pregnancy, that 50 percent of gay teens have AIDS, that HIV can be transmitted by tears and sweat and that condoms fail to prevent transmission of HIV 31 percent of the time.

Others claim that "a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms." While this isn't true, the research from which it is derived does show higher levels of condom failures when condoms are not used properly. Since abstinence-only education programs don't teach proper condom use, they are only increasing unexpected pregnancies. And those are just a few examples of false and misleading statements subsidized by your federal government.

The goal of these programs is clearly to scare teens into abstinence, a goal that to some justifies teaching distortions and outright lies. Why people think fear is a particularly effective tool with high school students, too often deluded with a sense of invulnerability, is beyond me. In fact, abstinence-only education does not work better than other programs in accomplishing its stated goals. According to the Waxman report, Columbia University researchers found that virginity pledge programs did help delay teen sex, but when participants became sexually active they were less likely to use contraception or be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

These problems arise when moral beliefs are substituted for scientific facts. Both have their place in our public life, but only the latter has a place in our public schools. Constitutional issues aside, basing public policy off of what is deemed by some to be morally appropriate instead of what works to combat social ills like STDs and teen pregnancy is an approach that's bound to fail, particularly when the moral approach in question is "Let the sinners be damned."

The matter at hand, after all, is not whether it is good for teenagers to remain abstinent; it is that given the fact that so many do not, should we teach students how to stay safe? However, abstinence-only education disregards the well-being of individuals who stray from the moral course. Inherent in these policies is the belief that sinners deserve consequences of their sins, even if they could have been protected with education.

But the most troubling aspect of this policy is not only that it teaches falsehoods but that it seeks to deny basic realities. In this, the Waxman report fits into a larger critique of the conservative movement outlined by writer Ron Suskind in a pre-election New York Times Magazine feature. He distinguished the "reality-based community" of rational thinkers from the "faith-based" world of the Bush Administration that does not rely upon facts but rather upon instinct to make decisions. But to call this faith-based is inaccurate and unfair. Faith is a powerful belief in something bigger than oneself and fundamentally is both humble and humbling.

By contrast, these policies show the height of human hubris. So supremely self-confident, proponents of abstinence-only education believe they remake the world -- not in their own image, but in the way they imagine themselves to be -- simply by ignoring the fact that many teens have sex, and do so despite abstinence-only education.

It's roughly the public-policy equivalent of a 5-year-old who squeezes his eyes shut, clamps his hands over his ears and shouts "BLAH BLAH BLAH" at the top of his lungs until his parents agree to what he wants. They believe that simply by asserting their vision of reality, they can make it so, regardless of the facts of the matter. When facts are irrelevant, the distortions revealed in the Waxman report are hardly surprising at all.

It is telling that Congressman Waxman's report came not from a science or education committee, but from a committee on government reform, and it raises important questions about how our government operates.

Do we seek practical measures that can reduce disease, unwanted pregnancies and abortions, or do we follow narrow ideologies no matter the social cost? Do we rationally analyze and respond to real situations, or are we so smugly self-confident that we ignore the facts in favor of what we wish were true? Will humility or hubris guide our public policy?

Kevin Collins is a junior Political Science major from Milwaukee. ...And Justice For All appears on Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.