Kevin Ryan

Why are American students failing? Look at the elephant in the living room: sex

Kevin Ryan
By Kevin Ryan
Image

January 22, 2014 (MercatorNet) - Over the last three decades, social scientists, educational researchers, and pundits have probed for the reason why educationally the US on the fringe of being a Third World country. In particular, why does the academic achievement of American students begin to fall off during junior high and plummet during the high school years?

The “failure theories” are many: our schools are too big; our schools are too small; our school year is too short; our school day is too long; our teachers are too dumb or too lazy or under paid; our parents don’t care; we don’t give the schools enough money. Critics endlessly opine that our students don’t have enough arts, enough sports; enough science, enough math. They don’t have enough homework; they have too much homework. What is being missed from the analyses is the teenagers’ elephant in the room, their Kim Kardashian at the Sunday school picnic: sex.

In the pre-Big Media era, young people learned about the “birds and the bees” and how to make their way sexually in the world from their parents, the church, their friends, the surrounding culture and schools. However, in the US today, parents, for a range of reasons from overextended single mothers to golf-distracted fathers, are having a limited impact on their children’s sexual education.

Our churches are still there, but fewer and fewer young people are attending. Also, most pulpits speak to the young with diminished authority. Their friends are swimming in the same sexual soup of confusion and misinformation as they. Today the “surrounding culture” is a mix of TV, the Internet, and various “i” devices. The dominant message from these media to young Americans is the modern variant of “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” Or, more like, eat, drink and, by all means, express yourself sexually early and often.

The dispensers of sexual wisdom

With two key “teachers,” parents and churches, hobbled on the sidelines, the primary influencers are the media and the schools. Our media moguls, free speech warriors all, long ago learned that the best way to attract customers’ eyes in order to sell soap, cars and beer is to show a little skin. As a result, today’s screens are a variable torrent of naked flesh. To learn the exquisite secrets of the female body, boys no longer have to read National Geographic by flashlight under the bedcovers. Galaxies of porn sites are just clicks away.

So, for most American children, this leaves our schools as the institutions best set up to pass on the community’s sexual wisdom. After all, schools have trained “learning specialists.” And they have a captive audience during youth’s formative years. How, then, are our schools doing?

First, the surface symptoms and, then, the results. A casual stroll through the halls of many high schools or a conversation with an experienced teacher will provide myriad indicators of the sexual environment within which we are raising our children. The cafeteria, halls, and locker rooms ricochet with f-bombs and sex-laced taunts. Nuzzling at lockers and fondling in the school’s dark corners is a staple. Girls appear to be competing in a stripper’s fashion show. Boys look like they are trying out for 1930-ish gangster movies.

Meanwhile teachers and administrators drift through the halls like those see-no-evil-hear-no-evil monkeys. However, teachers and students alike are well aware of the sexual bullying, the swopping of electronic porn sights, cell phone cameras flashing in the locker room and quickly sexting around the school,

How sexually active are US students?

Short answer: Plenty active.

  • In 2011, 47 percent of US high school students surveyed reported having had sexual intercourse. A third of that group said they had had sex within the last 3 months. 15 percent had had four or more different partners so far.
  • 750,000 teens become pregnant each year – the vast majority (82  percent) of these pregnancies are unintended. By comparison, the United States’ teen pregnancy rate is over three times that of Germany (19 percent), almost three times which of France (26 percent).and is over four times that of the Netherlands (14 percent).
  • Thirty percent of teens watch porn at least once a week.

Providing a young person with information is the way Americans have been responding to what is clearly a devastating problem of irresponsible sexual behavior. For thirty years or more, schools have been teaching something called “comprehensive sexual education,” a fact-based program that now starts its informational campaign in many states at age five and runs through 12th grade. Promoted vigorously and effectively by Planned Parenthood, the program’s mantra is “safe-sex.” The keys to “safe-sex” are birth control pills and condoms, items which research shows are largely ignored by teens.

A veteran Boston teacher pin pointed the reason for the failure of comprehensive sex education and its “safe sex” campaign.  “Why all this wasted time and graphic demonstrations on how to use condoms. My 10th graders can’t even remember to bring a pencil to class and we expect that in the high heat of lust that they’ll remember how to correctly use a condom!”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

It is nothing short of a masterful grasp of the obvious to say that this current situation is unhealthy for our kids’ futures and harmful to our country’s future. Also, it is difficult enough to run a school, but to try to run a school that is a sexual playground is simply doomed. Nevertheless, in the US we have local control of the schools. If a school board wants Chinese to be taught in the middle school, it happens. If they want to deemphasize football and focus on soccer, it happens. School boards are, of course, political bodies and they typically response to the will of the community. If not, board members are replaced. Still, except for some myopic civil libertarians and aging free love apostles, most adults are stunned when they discover the sexual climate of so many of our junior and senior high schools.

What can be done?

Parents and taxpayers, who pay for public education, can find their voice and again insist on sexual sanity in our schools. A few suggestions:

  • No hugging, no kissing, no fondling, and no holding hands anywhere on school grounds.
  • Establish and enforce a strict language code. Cursing, swearing, calling another a bitch or a “ho” is forbidden anywhere on school grounds. Period!
  • Dress codes should prohibit overly tight, provocative clothes. Where there is enough parental will, school uniforms are an excellent solution.
  • Review the school’s sex education curriculum to ensure that it offers an intelligent and ennobling vision of sex, one that appeals to students’ best moral selves. For example: “Sex is most meaningful and fulfilling when it’s part of something bigger—a continuing, serious relationship between two human beings. You know. Like a marriage.”
  • Teach the straight facts about condoms: They allow a false sense of safety. They reduce but don’t eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STD.
  • From junior high forward, sex education classes should be single sex.
  • Pornography on one’s cell phone or tablet or computer means immediate dismissal.
  • Provocative displays of one’s gender or sexuality, whether hetero, homo, bi, or trans, won’t be tolerated and will, also, lead to dismissal.
  • Teachers’ sexual views and private lives are to be just that: private. On the other hand, all educators are expected to enforce school rules and promote abstinence.
  • Finally, the school community, through dances, proms, drama and music productions and sports, should foster and promote a healthy and protected environment for young people to grow in understanding of human sexuality, but grow slowly.

While transforming the behavior of teenaged students may appear to many as an impossible task, those who have service in our military will disagree. Military boot camps are designed to modify the behavior of teenagers and our services have a long and distinguished history of transforming self-indulgent and disorganized teenagers into productive, disciplined human beings.

However, Marine drill sergeants aren’t required in schools. Rather, schools need teachers and administrators with a clear awareness of their authority and the conviction that the community is supporting them. Key, too, is the educators’ realization that these changes will improve not only life in their classrooms, but the academic performance of their students. While the idea of a kinder, gentler boot camp may offend the sensibilities of some, take a hard look at what we have now.

Reprinted with permission form MercatorNet

Red alert! Last call.

Please support fearless pro-life and pro-family reporting. Donate to our summer campaign today.


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Brian Brown

,

Supreme Court betrays us with illegitimate marriage ruling

Brian Brown
By Brian Brown

June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Though expected, today's decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today's ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law."

Today's decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has issued an immoral and unjust ruling. In 1857, the Court ruled in the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford case that African Americans could not become citizens of the United States and determined that the government was powerless to reject slavery. In 1927 the Court effectively endorsed eugenics by ruling that people with mental illness and other "defectives" could be sterilized against their will, saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough." And in Roe v Wade, the Court invented a constitutional right to abortion by claiming it was an integral element of the right to privacy. Over 55 million unborn babies have died as a result.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

We urge the American people and future presidents to regard today's decision just as President Abraham Lincoln regarded the Dred Scott ruling when he said in his first inaugural address that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Today's decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term. Specifically:

  1. We call on Congress and state governments to move immediately to protect the rights of people who believe in the truth of marriage from being discriminated against by passing the First Amendment Defense Act through Congress, and similar legislation in the various states.
  2. We also call on Congress to advance to the states for consideration a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for the entirety of our nation's existence – the union of one man and one woman.
  3. We call on the American people to make the definition of marriage a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential contest and to elect a president who will be a true champion for marriage, one who is committed to taking specific steps to restoring true marriage in the law including appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who will have the opportunity to reverse this decision.
  4. NOM will work tirelessly along with allies to help change the culture so that Americans have a better understanding of the importance of marriage to children, families and society as a whole.

While today's decision of the Supreme Court is certainly disappointing, it is not demoralizing to those of us who fervently believe in the truth of marriage and its importance to societal flourishing. Indeed, the decision will be energizing. Just as the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade infused the pro-life movement with new energy and commitment, so too will the decision today reawaken the American people to join the marriage movement.

Our prayer for America is that today's injustice can be corrected quickly, sparing the nation decades of anguish of the kind that has followed the Court's decision in Roe.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justices

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Supreme Court's conservative justices lambasted today's majority opinion that the U.S. Constitution grants an inalienable right to same-sex “marriage,” emphasizing the threat the opinion poses to religious liberty, the democratic process, and the institution of marriage even as it is redefined.

In a series of scathing dissents, each of the High Court's four conservative justices took apart Justice Anthony Kennedy's Obergefell v. Hodges decision piece-by-piece.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, wrote that “the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining” how the 14th Amendment applies to redefining marriage.

“The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” he wrote. “There is, after all, no 'Companionship and Understanding' or 'Nobility and Dignity' Clause in the Constitution.”

Instead, the court ignored its own precedent in the 1972 Baker v. Nelson case, which ruled there is no constitutional right to homosexual “marriage.”

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

In a separate dissent, Justice Scalia called the decision a “judicial Putsch” that is “lacking even a thin veneer of law.” He described the majority's often flowery language as “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Roberts said the opinion took an “unprincipled approach” that he likened to the Dred Scott decision, which ratified slavery on the eve of the Civil War.

While all of the dissenting justices warned that the decision usurped the role of the people in a democratic government, each made his own distinctive critiques, as well.

Justice Roberts warned that today's ruling was not comparable to striking down laws against interracial marriage, because at no time was the ethnicity of the spouses considered a defining factor of marriage itself.

He also warned that by changing the fundamental definition of marriage, the justices had opened the door to redefining other vital components of matrimony. “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage,” he wrote.

Justice Thomas wrote that the opinion holds “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” Recognizing the threat that the government may revoke the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, Thomas added that “the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious property.”

The traditional American view of limited government was another casualty, he wrote. “Our Constitution — like the Declaration of Independence before it — was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from — not provided by — the state.”

Justice Samuel Alito alone said that marriage existed for the sake of procreation and child-rearing. The majority opinion is based on ideas of romantic love, he wrote. “This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate.”

All of the justices had a similar concern, though: The decision substitutes the views of five unelected justices for the democratic process, much as Roe v. Wade did for abortion in 1973.

“If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

He concluded, “All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pro-traditional marriage activists march to the Supreme Court at the annual March for Marriage in Washington D.C. on March 26, 2013. American Life League
The Editors

, ,

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human nature

The Editors
By

LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen, who also co-founded the international organization Voice of the Family, released the following statement today in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to require states to uphold same-sex "marriage".

Today, the Supreme Court undermined marriage, effectively making it open season on religious liberty in America -- and providing the Court's blessing to a redefinition of marriage that is opposed to the Will of God, basic human nature, and the U.S. Constitution.

With its decision, the Court has found a "civil right" where none exists. Thanks to the Supreme Court's majority, LGBT activists and their allies are now free to continue their state-sanctioned discrimination against social conservatives. In fact, they have been empowered to do so. This is no surprise, however, as such policies have become the norm in the Obama administration and in states across the nation, where state-sanctioned discrimination against religious and social conservatives is fully accepted.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the Court's decision is its promotion of damaging sexual relationships -- which are, like discrimination, now empowered all across America. Contrary to what the Court's liberals and many other judges believe, opposition to redefining marriage is based upon love -- the kind of tough love that requires a parent to tell their child to not play in traffic, or to get good grades.

Urge Congress to pass a marriage protection amendment now. Sign the petition!

Science has proven that sexual relationships between persons of the same-sex, as opposed to the God-ordained man-woman marital relationships, cause terrible harm to those in them. To quote former leading Canadian LGBT activist Gens Hellquist, speaking to government officials a few years after marriage was redefined in Canada:

We have one of the poorest health statuses in this country. Health issues affecting queer Canadians include lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS.

There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community. We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer.

Hellquist closed his testimony by saying that he was "tired of watching my community die." In this country, the Centers for Disease Control has shown that while men who have sex with men are perhaps two percent of the U.S. population, they make up nearly two-thirds of all HIV/AIDS victims.

Similarly, social science -- especially the work of Dr. Mark Regnerus and Dr. Paul Sullins -- has shown that children raised by same-sex parents are more emotionally damaged than their counterparts raised in homes led by a mom and a dad.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook