FouCULT Anna Chavez/Wyatt

From UTNIF Disclosure Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


1AC[edit]

      • 1AC***

Advantage Funding for comprehensive sex education is low now—federal direction is important because it sends a MESSAGE about priorities to all levels of the government. Donovan 3/30/2017 (Megan K. Donovan, Guttmacher Institute, “The Looming Threat to Sex Education: A Resurgence of Federal Funding for Abstinence-Only Programs?”, March 30, 2017, < https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/03/looming-threat-sex-education-resurgence-federal-funding-abstinence-only-programs>)//PS Over the past two decades, the United States has spent approximately $2 billion on ineffective and stigmatizing programming for adolescents focused on promoting abstinence from sex outside of marriage. Funding for these programs was reduced significantly while President Obama was in office, shifting in large part to support more comprehensive, medically accurate and age-appropriate programs. Now, with social conservatives in Congress emboldened by the 2016 elections and a new federal administration that includes proponents of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, we are again at a crossroads when it comes to federal support for sex education. Although federal spending in this area represents just a fraction of the total amount invested annually by state and local governments, it has a significant impact on the development and implementation of sex education standards and curricula at all levels and sends an important message about our priorities as a nation. Abstinence-only programs violate adolescents’ rights, ignore their needs and do not work. Adolescents have a basic human right to complete and accurate information about their sexual and reproductive health.1,2 The abstinence-only-until-marriage approach withholds comprehensive information on effective ways to reduce the risks of unintended pregnancy, HIV and other STIs, which violates adolescents’ right to information and also requires educators to disregard basic ethical standards by providing incomplete and potentially harmful information to students.3 Programs that seek to stop adolescents from having sex before marriage are also out of touch with the lives and needs of young people. Ninety-five percent of Americans have sex before marriage and, on average, adolescents in the United States have sex for the first time at about age 17 but do not marry or begin having children until their mid- to late 20s.4,5 During this long interim period, they may be at heightened risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs. Yet abstinence-only programs denigrate sexual activity before marriage as shameful and ignore the needs of sexually active adolescents. Such programs have also been found to reinforce gender stereotypes and exclude or stigmatize individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.6–9 Given this reality, it is especially alarming that the federal government continues to spend money on programs that simply do not work. Although a small number of abstinence-only programs have shown limited effectiveness, the weight of scientific research indicates that strategies that solely promote abstinence outside of marriage while withholding information about contraceptives do not stop or even delay sex.10,11 To the contrary, abstinence-only programs can actually place young people at increased risk of pregnancy and STIs once they do become sexually active.12 Although federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding has dropped since its peak at $177 million in fiscal year (FY) 2008, recent appropriations indicate it is on the rise once again (see chart). For FY 2016, Congress raised annual funding for abstinence-only programs from $55 million to $85 million. The bulk of this money—$75 million—is allocated for the Title V abstinence education program, a grant program for states that contains an eight-point statutory definition of an eligible “abstinence education” program. Among its points are teaching that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects” and that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.”13 The remaining $10 million is directed to a grant program for community-based organizations recently repackaged as “sexual risk avoidance” education, which seeks to teach adolescents how to “voluntarily refrain from non-marital sexual activity” and avoid “youth risk behaviors…without normalizing teen sexual activity.”14 Federal policy should focus on comprehensive, medically accurate and age-appropriate programs. Strong evidence suggests that comprehensive approaches to sex education help young people to delay sex and also to have healthy, responsible and mutually protective relationships when they do become sexually active. Many examples of comprehensive programs have resulted in delayed sexual debut, reduced frequency of sex, fewer sexual partners, increased condom or contraceptive use, or reduced sexual risk-taking.15 More generally, population-based studies have found that reproductive health outcomes improve when adolescents receive formal sex education that includes information about contraception and abstinence.16,17 Accordingly, leading public health and medical professional organizations support a comprehensive approach to sex education—stressing the need for medically accurate, age-appropriate curricula that include information about both abstinence and contraception.18 Although there is no federal funding stream dedicated to promoting truly comprehensive sex education, federal funding for teen pregnancy prevention has largely shifted away from a focus on abstinence-only programs to a more comprehensive approach that educates adolescents about contraception in addition to abstinence. Of the $176 million provided for more comprehensive programs in FY 2016, $75 million went to the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), a grant program that mainly provides funds to states for programs that educate adolescents about both abstinence and the use of contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and STIs. The other $101 million funded the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, a competitive grant program geared toward community-based groups to support evidence-based and innovative teen pregnancy prevention approaches. Recent evaluations of programs funded under this initiative showed that roughly one in three had successfully demonstrated a positive impact—a larger proportion than typically found in evaluation efforts of this nature and thus an impressive result.19,20 These federal initiatives are far from perfect. Their focus on reducing teen pregnancy without distinguishing between intended and unintended pregnancies reflects an assumption that young people should not become parents. Moreover, the primary goal of these policies is not to support adolescents to have healthy relationships and lead healthy lives; instead, they were designed to achieve specific outcomes: reducing the incidence of pregnancy, HIV and other STIs among young people. Nonetheless, these two funding streams place emphasis on scientific evidence, medical accuracy and information tailored to adolescents’ specific age and needs, and the programs they fund can implement elements of comprehensive sex education. Fully supporting adolescents requires making these federal initiatives better.9 One vehicle for improvement is the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act (REHYA), sponsored in the 114th Congress by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), which sets out a holistic vision for comprehensive sexuality education nationally. REHYA would ensure federal funding for programs that provide adolescents and young adults with “the information and skills [they] need to make informed, responsible, and healthy decisions in order to become sexually healthy adults and have healthy relationships.”21 These programs would address a range of topics, from anatomy and physiology to healthy relationships, dating violence, and gender roles and identity. They would also provide information about the importance of abstinence and contraceptive use for the prevention of unintended pregnancy, HIV and other STIs. Programs that benefit adolescents are at risk. Members of Congress must soon turn their attention to the task of funding federal agencies and programs for the remainder of FY 2017 and all of FY 2018. Given current conservative pressures to drastically cut domestic spending and taxes across the board, and with a like-minded administration now in the White House, social conservatives will likely press forward with efforts to significantly reduce or eliminate funding for the more comprehensive programs that currently serve adolescents: the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and PREP. In particular, Congress must reauthorize PREP for the program to survive beyond FY 2017. At the same time, Congress will have the opportunity to reauthorize the Title V abstinence-only program and to set new funding levels for it as well as the smaller grant program for “sexual risk avoidance” education. Despite the current emphasis on reducing spending levels, proponents of abstinence-only education may seek to ramp up funding in this area without affecting overall spending by diverting money from the more comprehensive programs. Congress and the Trump administration are facing a significant choice: whether to promote ideology over the health and rights of young people, or direct federal investment toward more comprehensive programs in support of their sexual and reproductive health and well-being. Federally funded programs play a key role in guiding the standards and curricula developed and funded at the state and local levels—fundamentally shaping the definition and scope of sex education nationwide. At this critical juncture, how our country chooses to spend federal dollars will speak volumes about our priorities as a nation.

Federal action is key to coordination—status quo implementation results in a patchwork of inconsistent practices. JAH 16 [Journal of Adolescent Health Editorial. “The State of Sex Education in the United States.” Journal of Adolescent Health 58 (2016) 595-597. SH.] At the federal level, the U.S. congress has continued to substantially fund AOUM, and in FY 2016, funding was increased to $85 million per year [3]. This budget was approved despite President Obama’s attempts to end the program after 10 years of opposition and concern from medical and public health professionals, sexuality educators, and the human rights community that AOUM withholds information about condoms and contraception, promotes religious ideologies and gender stereotypes, and stigmatizes adolescents with nonheteronormative sexual identities [7e9,11e13]. Other federal funding priorities have moved positively toward more medically accurate and evidencebased programs, including teen pregnancy prevention programs [1,3,12]. These programs, although an improvement from AOUM, are not without their challenges though, as they currently operate within a relatively narrow, restrictive scope of “evidence” [12]. At the state level, individual states, districts, and school boards determine implementation of federal policies and funds. Limited in-class time and resources leave schools to prioritize sex education in competition with academic subjects and other important health topics such as substance use, bullying, and suicide [4,13,14]. Without cohesive or consistent implementation processes, a highly diverse “patchwork” of sex education laws and practices exists [4]. A recent report by the Guttmacher Institute noted that although 37 states require abstinence information be provided (25 that it be stressed), only 33 and 18 require HIV and contraceptive information, respectively [1]. Regarding content, quality, and inclusivity, 13 states mandate instruction be medically accurate, 26 that it be age appropriate, eight that it not be race/ethnicity or gender bias, eight that it be inclusive of sexual orientation, and two that it not promote religion [1]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2014 School Health Policies and Practices Study found that high school courses require, on average, 6.2 total hours of instruction on human sexuality, with 4 hours or less on HIV, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy prevention [15]. Moreover, 69% of high schools notify parents/guardians before students receive such instruction; 87% allow parents/guardians to exclude their children fromit [15]. Without coordinated plans for implementation, credible guidelines, standards, or curricula, appropriate resources, supportive environments, teacher training, and accountability, it is no wonder that state practices are so disparate [4].

Abstinence-only sex ed contributes to disproportionate rates of teen pregnancy and STI’s, and perpetuates gendered stereotypes LeClair 06 [Danielle. J.D., University of Wisconsin. “LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX HONESTLY: WHY FEDERAL ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GIRLS, ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY, AND SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.” Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 21, 291-322. SH.] 1. Abstinence-only programs do not adequately address issues that disproportionately impact girls, including STIs and unwanted teen pregnancy. In most cases, girls have higher rates of sexually transmitted infections than boys. 72 Additionally, although teen pregnancy rates for girls in the United States are declining, they are among the highest in the industrialized world.73 Because abstinence-only programs do not teach about contraception, they are doing a disservice to girls by withholding information that could, at the very least, ensure safer reproductive health for the girls and might even save their lives. a. Sexually Transmitted Infections Sexually transmitted infections harm both sexes, but girls often have higher infection rates than boys.74 While incidences of HIV among women overall have decreased in the past two decades, among heterosexual women between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, the rates have more than doubled.75 Girls also have higher rates of infection for other STIs. For example, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) type sixteen, which accounts for about half of all cases of cervical cancers worldwide, was over twice as prevalent in U.S. women as in men.76 Fifteen- to nineteen-year-old girls also have the highest rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia.77 These disturbing facts demonstrate why girls need information to protect themselves from contracting these diseases. Abstinenceonly programs do not provide this information, and this omission puts girls' health unnecessarily at risk. Biological reasons explain why girls are at greater risk of contracting an STI than boys.7 s Young women and female adolescents are more susceptible to STI, (sic) compared to their male counterparts, due to their anatomy. During adolescence and young adulthood, women's columnar epithelial cells-which are especially sensitive to invasion by sexually transmitted organisms, such as chlamydia and gonococcus-extend out over the vaginal surface of the cervix, where they are unprotected by cervical mucous, but recede to a more protected location as women age. STIs are more likely to remain undetected in women than in men, resulting in delayed diagnosis and treatment, and untreated STIs are more likely to lead to complications in women, such as pelvic inflammatory disease and cervical cancer.79 Educators should provide girls information about contraception, especially condoms, which can prevent or at least reduce the risk of contracting most STIs.80 This information is necessary to protect their health and even their lives. b. Unwanted Teen Pregnancies Girls are more negatively impacted by unwanted teen pregnancies than boys. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, the United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births in the developed world.8' Moreover, teen pregnancy places a financial burden on the United States, costing at least $9 billion annually.8 2 Although teen pregnancy rates have decreased in the past fifteen years, unwanted pregnancies are still a serious problem for girls, emotionally and financially. 8 3 Therefore, teen pregnancy is a serious problem for both girls and the United States government. Abstinence-only programs do girls a disservice by not allowing funding recipients to teach contraception, thereby preventing girls from receiving important information they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and also, therefore, abortions).84 Teen mothers and their children suffer disproportionately from unintended pregnancies. For example: * Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school (only one-third receive a high school diploma) and only 1.5% have a college degree by age 30. * Teen mothers are more likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80% of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare). * The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. * The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent (sic) more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent (sic) more likely to become teen mothers themselves. 85 Although unintended pregnancies can also affect teenage boys both financially and emotionally, they do not face the same impact as girls. This is because only a girl's physical health can be put at risk due to pregnancy and because this author believes a higher emotional toll results from carrying a baby than from being a sperm donor. c. Abstinence-only programs promote harmful sex stereotypes Abstinence-only programs also enforce and promote harmful stereotypes about male and female sexuality and particularly outdated and insulting stereotypes about girls. This type of biased education is unethical and even illegal.86 Federally-funded abstinence-only programs use curriculum that contains the language such as: "'Because they generally become aroused less easily, females are in a good position to help young men learn balance in relationships by keeping intimacy in perspective."' 87 Another example is: "'A woman is stimulated more by touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted by a man's personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted."' 88 Also, "'Watch what you wear, if you don't aim to please, don't aim to tease.' 8 9 Finally, "'The liberation movement has produced some aggressive girls today, and one of the tough challenges for guys who say no will be the questioning of their manliness."' 90 A radio advertisement by Nevada's abstinence-only coordinator even stated that "girls would feel 'dirty and cheap' when they 'lose' their boyfriends after having [premarital] sex."'" Other such programs diminish girls' professional and academic accomplishments, stereotype girls as weak and in need of protection, and reinforce male sexual aggressiveness.92 The above information is further proof of the importance of preventing teen pregnancies. Abstinence-only programs not only do a disservice to girls by putting their unique health needs at risk (denying them information on STIs and pregnancy prevention), but also create greater risks to them than they create for boys. By denying girls information on contraception, abstinenceonly programs harm girls' physical and emotional health more so than boys'. Abstinence-only programs also disproportionately negatively impact girls and perpetuate outdated stereotypes. Therefore, opponents of abstinence-only programs should repeal them in favor of comprehensive sex education programs that teach both abstinence and contraception as important components.


And historically, US sex education has reinforced hegemonic forms of heteronormativity, racism, classism, and ableism. Both status quo versions of abstinence only and comprehensive sexual education entrench these paradigms by focusing on preventing sex and sexually transmitted diseases rather than investigating the complex social and political factors that influence sexuality. Elia and Tokunaga, 2015 [John P. Elia, Jessica Tokunaga, (2015) "Sexuality education: implications for health, equity, and social justice in the United States", Health Education, Vol. 115 Issue: 1, pp.105-120, https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1108/HE-01-2014-0001. SPS] While school-based sexuality education has been taught in the USA since 1913, there have always been problematic aspects. Hegemonic or dominant ideologies have shaped sexuality education in the schools making the educational experience inequitable and discriminatory. In this conceptual, theoretical paper, we identify the dominant teachings and practices that have guided sexuality education for about a century. We use a critical pedagogy (connecting learning and reflection on power, authority, and privilege to constructive action) and an anti-oppressive educational theoretical framework (education that works against various forms of oppression) as anchors to trouble and interrogate what has become the status quo of sexuality education. Due to longstanding curricular thinking and practices, this status quo has ended up being mostly heteronormative, sex negative, ableist, and discriminatory, and in consequence deleterious. We examine some of the so-called progressive sexuality education models (e.g. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a national organization dedicated to comprehensive sexuality education efforts). We show how, despite some progress, more needs to be done to address issues of inequity and discrimination that are reinforced in the majority of school-based sexuality education efforts. We will also argue that the ways in which school-based sexuality education has been delivered have been inadequate and in some cases even degrading to the sexual and general health and well-being of school-aged youth. Drawing on the theory of intersectionality (looking specifically at the interconnectedness of race, class, sexuality, gender, ability and nation) and the ecological model of health (which originated in the late 1980s and addresses public health issues on individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and policy levels) (see McLeroy et al., 1988), we propose a school-based sexuality education that addresses the multidimensional approach to sexual and general health along physical, social, mental/emotional/psychological, intellectual, and spiritual aspects. Such an approach is critical of current school-based sexuality education that is not inclusive and proposes a way of thinking about, and carrying out, a more democratic form of sexuality education in schools that is responsive to a diverse student body and offers more-effective sexual health promotion. School-based sexuality education is a critical aspect of the educational experience for young people. Although sexuality education in one fashion or another has been a regular feature of schooling in the USA for a little over a century, it is important to take a close look at the ideologies and practices that have been the basis for most school-based sexuality education efforts to provide an analysis of what it has accomplished in terms of promoting the sexual health of school-aged youth. To attempt such an analysis, we begin with a brief historical analysis of school-based sexuality education. Next, we turn to a description of prominent national sexuality education models and programs and less well-known approaches, with close attention to the degree to which these forms of sexuality education have been inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the needs of youth. What follows is a description of critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education, along with an argument for why these will offer a more equitable and just foundation for offering sexuality education. Finally, we close with a discussion of ways in which sexuality education might be offered to enhance the socio-sexual health of a diverse student population not only by integrating critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education, but also by using the lenses of the ecological model of health and a holistic view of health. This broader-based approach allows sexuality educators to work both within and outside of the schools to optimize the sexual health of their students and communities. Historical overview of sexuality education in the USA Sexuality education was first offered in US schools in 1913 (Moran, 1996). This educational enterprise grew out of the social hygiene movement during the First World War era, and its primary purpose was to prevent diseases and promote Victorian sexual morality (Brandt, 1987; Carter, 2001; Morrow, 1907). As sexuality education became more widespread in the early to mid-twentieth century, it was offered through biological science, health, and physical education curricula. From its earliest days, sexuality education was narrowly focussed on the physical and moral aspects of sexuality. It concerned itself with reproductive anatomy and physiology, emphasized prevention of venereal diseases (VD, currently referred to as sexually transmitted infections (STIs)), and focussed on hygiene. Given that most of the focus was on prevention of disease, the biomedical teachings of sexuality, complete with religious and moral trappings, were in full swing. It is worth noting that a “sex negative” approach − albeit with the good intentions of preventing illness and creating a sexually moral citizenry − prevailed during the early days. Various sexual activities were seen as potentially ruinous. The overarching message of sexuality education was that sexual activities were reserved and best suited for married individuals for the express purpose of procreation (Jones, 2011). There was considerable fear and anxiety about sexuality in the early twentieth century. There was fear of prostitutes spreading VD (Moran, 2000); there was fear of masturbation and its potential ill effects on health; and there was general fear about the potential unraveling of the moral fabric of American society due to sexually “acting out” (Strong, 1972). This is not surprising given that the inception of school-based sexuality education took place shortly after the official end of the Victorian Era, a period noted for extolling sexual prudery. Sexuality was considered dangerous, and the job of sexuality education was to tame and contain it to its “rightful place” in American society − the marital bedroom. This necessarily meant that sexuality education focussed heavily on the virtues of reproductive sexuality (Strong, 1972), and all else was mostly ignored. A careful examination of the historical aspects of sexuality education uncovers the realities that the curriculum was heteronormative, exclusionary, and negative in tone (Moran, 2000). Ironically, even though a fair amount of sexuality education was offered in the health and hygiene curricula in schools, many efforts to promote sexual health, or health in general, were hampered due to the approach school personnel had toward sexuality. Sexuality education efforts did not include sensitivity to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer (LGBTQ) individuals, the racial and ethnic issues, socioeconomic class, ability, and other identities of difference. Perhaps even as remarkable is the fact “[…] that both attitudes about sexuality education as well as curricular content have remained remarkably constant for nearly a century” (Elia, 2009, p. 33; also see McKay, 1999; Moran, 2000). An examination of current sexuality education programs illustrates the many limitations and problems that are in serious need of reconceptualization and reform to better serve the sexual health needs of youth (Thomson, 1994). Current sexuality education programs Brief overview of comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only education Currently, there are two main routes that school-based sexuality education follows in the USA: comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only sexuality education. Comprehensive sexuality education is defined as education that includes human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, reproductive rights and responsibilities, abstinence, and contraception, with a focus on youth decision-making and autonomy (Boonstra, 2009). Abstinence-only sexuality education programs convey the overarching message that abstinence from all sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard for youth and emphasize the social, physical, emotional, and mental benefits of abstaining from sexuality until marriage. Comprehensive sexuality education has been proven to be more effective than abstinence-only education in delaying sexual activity and increasing safer sexuality behaviors such as increased contraceptive use, fewer sexual partners and reduced frequency of sexuality. The overarching goal is to lower rates of teen pregnancy and STI contraction (Advocates for Youth, 2013; Stanger-Hall and Hall, 2011; Williams, 2011). Federally defined abstinence-only sexuality education must be scientifically accurate, but many of these programs are not evidence-based and rely on religion and fear as primary curriculum components in teaching about sexual health and sexuality to youth (Boonstra, 2009; Malone and Rodriguez, 2011; McKeon, 2006; Stanger-Hall and Hall, 2011). Not all programming, however, falls into these two distinct categories. Some education programs that fall under the “abstinence-based” category also offer some factual information about contraceptive methods (Elia and Eliason, 2009; Wilson, 2000). In fact, most programs and educators fall somewhere on the spectrum between comprehensive and abstinence-only education (Kelly, 2005). Largely missing from many of these educational programs are discussions about larger social contexts and factors that play in the development of individual sexual identity and of disparities in sexual rights, freedom, and expression of certain minority groups (such as LGBTQ, youth of color, and youth with disabilities). While some educational resources contain elements of these types of discourses, most curricula and lesson plans contain little to no information about those minority populations. It stands to reason that it is detrimental in general for all students to lack this deeper level of critical thought about their sexual identities and how social and political structures influence the way people are viewed as sexual beings. Availability of sexuality education resources In the USA, there is no national sexuality education curriculum. There are only sexuality education standards. Thus, it is up to individual schools and teachers to develop their own lesson plans and decide which concepts to focus on within their classrooms. Some states have topical requirements that teachers must cover in the sexuality education unit, but evaluation of the scope and depth that teachers actually go into each subject has not been fully examined (Moore and Rienzo, 2000). There are a few curricula that are made available to local schools that are developed by local agencies such as Planned Parenthood local affiliates (e.g. Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc., 2014; Planned Parenthood Santa Barbara Ventura & San Luis Obispo Counties Inc., 2014) and public health departments. Local teachers can sometimes receive training from those agencies on how to implement the curricula in their classrooms (King County, 2014; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, 2014). Many sexuality educators typically piece together their own lesson plans and curricula from national resources such as SIECUS (SIECUS, 2014) that have developed classroom activities that focus on a variety of sexual topics. These national resources are available for both comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only programs. The risk of being able to develop their own curricula using resources such as SIECUS is that teachers have the power to focus on teaching the issues they are most comfortable discussing with students or topics they agree with morally (Moore and Rienzo, 2000). Thus, sexuality education and the choice of topics to be highlighted or “brushed over” are highly dependent on the individual teacher or school culture, which means that different students receive different information about sexuality. While other school subjects such as history or biology are relatively regulated and similar across the nation, sexuality education varies dramatically even within school districts (Kelly, 2005; Moore and Rienzo, 2000). In general, however, the national resources are focussed more on preventing disease than on enhancing the sexual well-being of American youth. While some resources are more progressive in terms of including diverse and frequently overlooked populations, present-day sexuality education is largely unstructured, inconsistent and based upon individual, familial and community morals of heteronormativity (Elia and Eliason, 2010; Kelly, 2005). For instance, the topic of abortion is widely contested in both political and social circles, and there is no uniform or standard way to discuss this issue. Some schools choose to avoid discussions about abortion altogether; others teach that abortion is a sin; and some stick to “just the facts,” ignoring discussions about the social and economic circumstances that revolve around abortion. This means that the information students receive about abortion depends on what their particular school or teacher chooses to focus on (Kelly, 2005). Discussion about LGBTQ groups also varies greatly and is highly dependent on the current social and political culture of the surrounding community and of the school itself. Some sexuality education programs (such as SIECUS) contain activities aimed at educating students about sexual orientation. Many others (primarily abstinence-only curricula) do not incorporate this information and thus can further promote fear, stigma, and, in some cases, violence against these youth (Connell and Elliot, 2009; Elia and Eliason, 2009; Kelly, 2005). Examples of currently used school-based sexuality education resources The next section contains brief descriptions and critiques[1] of more well-known and utilized sexuality education resources. Some of the newer resources consist of web sites geared toward providing information directly to youth but have activities and lesson plans available to educators for curriculum development. The authors critique the following resources according to their own professional use and experience in the teaching of school-based sexuality education. Abstinence only In recent years, there has been a stark decline in the use of abstinence-only sexuality education curricula (e.g. the Abstinence-Centered Education Program (AEP) (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2014), Aspire and Excel (Care Net Abstinence Educators, 2014)), mostly due to the decrease in federal funding of abstinence-only programs. Since the end of President Bush’s administration in 2009, numerous studies have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of these curricula. Drawing on this evidence, the USA Congress and President Obama have rejected further mass funding for abstinence-only programs. In 2009, 23 states and the District of Columbia declined Title V federal funding for abstinence-only programming, which clearly indicates a great change in sexuality education (Boonstra, 2009). Some states and school districts continue to promote these programs, but for the most part, some elements of comprehensive sexuality education are included in class (Boonstra, 2009; Elia and Eliason, 2009). Abstinence-only programs have largely been found to deliver inaccurate information about the effectiveness of contraceptive methods and false information about abortion, to teach biased views of religion and gender, and to contain no information about safe sexuality practices such as using contraceptives or testing for STIs (Boonstra, 2009; McKeon, 2006). These programs focus on waiting to have sex until marriage as the only socially acceptable and healthy way to have sex. They use tactics of fear and judgment to “teach” young people about the dangers of sex (Malone and Rodriguez, 2011; McKeon, 2006; Stanger-Hall and Hall, 2011). Rigorous evaluative studies (referenced below) on the effectiveness of abstinence-only sexuality education programs have shown that these types of programs are not effective in delaying sex for a significant amount of time, decreasing the number of partners, or preventing teen pregnancy or STIs (Kirby and Laris, 2009; Lindberg and Maddow-Zimet, 2012; McKeon, 2006; Stanger-Hall and Hall, 2011). Not only does abstinence-only sexuality education often lack correct information about safer sex behaviors, but the moralistic curriculum blurs science and religion, teaches gender norms as scientific fact, and instills homophobic attitudes and sexual shaming of any person who appears to step out of the sexual “norm.” This type of education is heteronormative and based upon the idea that sexuality is shameful, dangerous and only for the privilege of white, middle-class married heterosexual couples when used only for procreation (Elia and Eliason, 2009). Comprehensive sexuality education SIECUS SIECUS (2014) is the most-used source of comprehensive sexuality education and dictates the standards of what constitutes comprehensive information. This resource contains numerous lesson plans that are categorized by grade-level appropriateness and topic but has few options for adaptable variations for different groups of youth. SIECUS’s mission statement is to “advocate for the right of all people to accurate information, comprehensive education about sexuality, and sexual health services. SIECUS works to create a world that ensures social justice and sexual rights” (SIECUS, 2014; “About Us”). While SIECUS contain[ing] information about teaching contraceptive method use, STIs, HIV, pregnancy and anatomy, there is very little attention paid toward discussing wider social factors that influence sexual health and sexual identity. There is factual, medical information about topics such as sexual orientation but little about one’s sexual identity and fluidity (Elia and Eliason, 2009; also see SIECUS, 2014). Groups of LGBTQ youth are given universal defining factors and are depicted as a homogenous population with uniform values, characteristics, and sexual practices, when there are innumerable differences among all LGBTQ individuals (Elia and Eliason, 2010; also see SIECUS, 2014). Sexuality lessons focus on orientation and LGBTQ issues, not on how other aspects of person identity affect a person’s sexual sense of self such as race, economic status, citizenship or disability. The guidelines, standards and lessons developed and supported by SIECUS are used nationally by many nonprofit organizations, health departments, schools, and families, so the content produced by SIECUS is powerful in influencing what is taught and focussed on in sexuality education. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s (Planned Parenthood, 2013) resources for educators are based upon resources from other sources such as Advocates for Youth (2013) and SIECUS (2014). There is no official Planned Parenthood sexuality education curriculum, but the organization offers many informational templates for educators to use in providing information (Planned Parenthood, 2013). The main focus of the resources, however, is medicalization of sexuality and prevention of pregnancy and STIs. Planned Parenthood educators are main sources of educational materials for the classroom (contraceptive demonstration kits and pamphlets) and classroom presentations on contraception, refusal skills, STIs, and how to access sexual health services. At its core, Planned Parenthood is a healthcare provider, so while there may be some lesson components that examine social issues related to sexual health, the main focus is maintaining sexual health in the disease- and pregnancy-prevention context. The typical Planned Parenthood resources and activities are missing components that hit on larger social issues within sexuality and instead focus on sexuality only in terms of disease and danger. Our whole Lives Lifespan Sexuality Education Curricula Our Whole Lives (Unitarian Universalist Association, 2014) is a series of sexuality education curricula developed by the Unitarian Universalist Church. Though developed by a religious institution, it claims to neither have a religious doctrine nor be based on the Bible. This curriculum was developed to be implemented outside of school and focusses on human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and society and culture. The lesson plans begin as early as kindergarten and include lessons for adults. With older groups, there are lessons that include information on positive lovemaking, masturbation, sexual orientation, disability and sexuality, and contraceptive methods and STIs (Unitarian Universalist Association, 2014). This appears to be comprehensive with emphasis on discussion and internal reflection on individual values in making decisions regarding sexual health. Some youth may not feel comfortable or safe discussing sex and sexuality with family members or the religious community, so this may not be an option for those young people to receive sexuality education. Though the discussions within this curriculum are meant to be open and nonjudgmental, there are specific behaviors that some adults (both parents and religious leaders) would prefer their children to engage in, and that can influence children’s values about sexual behavior and their own sexuality (Sex, etc. 2013). Sex, etc Sex, etc. (2013) is a web site and print magazine that includes youth as writers, editors and contributors to articles and activities that focus on educating young people about sexuality. This resource is affiliated with Rutgers University and is published by Answer, a national organization that provides access to information about sexuality to young people and adult educators (Sex, etc. 2013). This is one of the more unusual resources available because it has a high level of youth involvement and the topics are driven by youth choice. There are components that involve information about contraception, STIs, anatomy and physiology, as well as social commentary on LGBTQ youth rights and experiences of youth of color and disability. The youth contributors touch more upon the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, citizenship, and disability and provide more open spaces for young people to converse nationally about these issues in sexuality education. The youth participation on Sex, etc. helps to ensure that diverse identities are included in discussions of sexuality education and that sexuality education is participatory for youth. Advocates for Youth Advocates for Youth (2013) is a database of resources that promote comprehensive sexuality education for young people in both school and home settings. This organization was founded in 1980 and has continued to develop many positive educational resources including separate web sites that focus individually on minority groups of youth such as Spanish-speaking LGBTQ (AmbienteJoven.org), young women of color (mysistahs.org), and LGBTQ youth (youthresource.org). Most of these newer web sites have youth contributors and focus on raising discussions about sexuality within these groups. The central Advocates for Youth web site has resources for educators focussing on comprehensive sexuality education and a wide variety of other topics. The best-known tenets of Advocates for Youth are the three Rs: Rights, Respect and Responsibility, in which youth have the right for information; youth deserve respect; and society has the responsibility to provide youth with information and tools regarding sexual health. There are lesson plans with activities that focus on LGBTQ issues, discrimination, and gender roles and norms, so there are components that involve diverse populations (Advocates for Youth, 2013). This program is a move toward sexuality education that is truly comprehensive and inclusive. However, it still has some way to go. Excluded are youth with mental or physical impairments or disabilities and how those factors affect their sexuality, sexual health, and well-being. In addition, while activities that address discrimination are important for students to do, there lacks a connection with how discrimination can be applied toward a person or group’s sexual health or sexuality status in society. For instance, these activities typically focus on discrimination in name-calling in the classroom and how racist, homophobic or sexist slurs are hurtful. These are certainly important issues to address in school, but they only scratch the surface in critically examining how discrimination affects sexuality. There lacks discussion on how society discriminates or values certain sexualities and why those values exist, or how race, education and economic status are contextualized in sexuality. If discrimination is included within sexuality education, it needs to be discussed in a way that is thoughtful and does not ignore the influences of those factors on how society views a person or group’s sexual identity. FLASH (Family Life and Sexual Health) FLASH curriculum (King County, 2014) was developed by the Department of Public Health in Seattle and King County in Washington State. This comprehensive sexuality education program is implemented beginning in seventh grade and contains different lessons and activities according to grade level. This curriculum is unique in containing a separate set of lesson plans that can be used with youth with special needs. However, definition of this category is dependent on the school or teacher. This curriculum has a high reliance on family involvement, and almost all topics have a component in which youth discuss those issues learned in class with a parent or adult. Teachers can receive training on how to implement FLASH in their classrooms, and trainings take place year-round in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. All lesson plans are available free online. Similar to other comprehensive sexuality education curricula, FLASH emphasizes disease and pregnancy prevention as the most important learning objectives; refusal skills, communication, abstinence, and delay of sexuality as the most effective ways to prevent pregnancy; and family involvement in decision-making (King County, 2014). While there is one lesson plan that focusses on LGBTQ education, there are no distinct lessons that examine wider social contexts of youth sexuality or of diverse populations of youth, such as youth of color or youth with disabilities. There are separate lessons for students with special needs, but that information is not readily shared with students in “regular” classes. This can perpetuate the separation of minority youth from mainstream sexuality education both physically, by having them learn about sexuality in different classrooms, and socially, by excluding them in class discussions. This separation serves to reinforce stigma, stereotypes and power imbalances. Get Real − Planned Parenthood, League of Massachusetts Get Real (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, 2014) curriculum was developed by the Planned Parenthood, League of Massachusetts affiliate. This is another example of the type of a curriculum that, while providing accurate, science-based information, emphasizes disease and medicalization of sexuality rather than teaching about it as part of overall well-being. The lesson plans focus on decision-making skills and communication within relationships as the most important components of making healthy decisions. While this is a comprehensive sexuality education program, it does promote abstinence as the best option for youth in preventing disease and pregnancy, suggesting that sexuality should only be explored in the context of committed relationships. One of the objectives is to learn about the negative consequences of sexual activities and how to prevent those negative outcomes, including activities that practice refusal skills (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, 2014). However, there is no goal of youth learning about the positive aspects of intimate relationships and sexuality and how to cultivate those types of relationships in healthy and fulfilling ways. Overall critiques The various sexual health and sexuality education programs used currently in schools tend to emphasize prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy, but equally if not more imperative, lessons about inequality and power imbalances of sexual rights are largely absent. Connell and Elliot (2009, p. 2) write that “sexuality education, as it is currently organized, does more than present children with objective facts about sexuality; it also socializes children into systems of inequality,” meaning that there is more than just proper contraceptive use being taught within classrooms; lessons about heteronormativity and exclusion are being taught as well (Esmail et al., 2010; Garcia, 2009; McAvoy, 2013). Within abstinence-only sexuality education, not only is most of the information taught not supported medically, it is based upon the beliefs and practices of the religious right. This type of programming instills fear of sexuality, sexual expression, and sexual “deviancy” in hopes of deterring youth from engaging in premarital sex. Instead, abstinence-only education is shown to have little effect on behaviors such as delaying sex, minimizing number of sexual partners, use of condoms or birth control methods, or getting tested for STIs (Kirby and Laris, 2009; Lindberg and Maddow-Zimet, 2012; McKeon, 2006; Stanger-Hall and Hall, 2011), and has the additional consequences of promoting homophobia, sexism, classism, and other “isms” in attempts to define what is “healthy sexuality behavior” (Connell and Elliot, 2009). Comprehensive sexuality education takes a different approach from abstinence-only education, with programs that include lessons on LGBTQ issues, discrimination, contraception, gender roles and norms, rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, even in these programs, many of the same lessons of fear and exclusion are being taught and learned. The main concept behind comprehensive sexuality education is that providing scientifically accurate information about safer sex practices is the most effective way to increase healthier behaviors among youth. Comprehensive sexuality education provides a broad-brush approach including biomedical, health, socio-cultural and relational aspects of sexuality with a focus on “teaching sexuality skills and knowledge for personal choice/development” (Jones, 2011, p. 378). What is largely missing, however, is teaching youth to view their sexual decision-making within a larger social context, and there lacks discussion about disparities and inequities in sexual rights and liberties among youth. Comprehensive sexuality education promotes autonomy in youth sexual decision-making, but in reality, there are always influencing factors on individual values and behaviors (McAvoy, 2013). For instance, such factors as relationships and the influence of others, entrenched belief systems, power within the context of social and sexual relationships, just to name a few, make complete autonomy nearly impossible. Put another way, “no person is an island.” Humans are interdependent. Simply providing youth with “the facts” about sexuality, as defined by physicians, public health educators, and teachers, is not accounting for the larger structural systems that influence decision making such as legal systems, religious beliefs, cultural practices and political institutions. It is important to allow space for critical thought and discussion about these larger systemic influences. Otherwise, they can apply steady pressure on individuals to make choices they may not want or be ready to make. Even when minority youth populations become a part of the curriculum, they are still highlighted as different and divergent from the believed sexual norm. Devoting separate lesson plans to addressing issues within minority groups, rather than including all youth in the main curriculum, teaches that these groups are different and that sexuality is applied differently to “those people.” These separate lessons can then reinforce stereotypes of groups and exacerbate differences (Esmail et al., 2010). Three groups that are frequently missing from sexuality education are youth of color, LGBTQ, and youth with disabilities. Though some of these groups are touched upon in a few curricula, the contexts in which these groups are included and brought into the conversation are still not promoting equality and justice, but are reifying stigma, stereotypes, and power imbalances. The ways in which race is used within sexuality education lessons play a role in the stereotyping of sexual practices and beliefs of certain racial groups (Connell and Elliot, 2009; Garcia, 2009). For instance, black and Latina women are oftentimes portrayed as cautionary tales of teen pregnancy and the consequences of improper birth control usage (Connell and Elliot, 2009; Garcia, 2009). In a series of interviews with high school aged Latinas about their experiences with sexuality education, respondents commented that sex educators connected Latina youth risk of pregnancy to “Latino culture” and designated them as higher risk because of the machismo attitudes of Latino teenage males, which was linked to nonuse of condoms. Teachers and sex educators told Latinas in their classes to not be like those “other girls” they may know, and instead to behave better than them. There were numerous instances in which judgment was placed on Latino youth as overly promiscuous and “excessively reproductive” because their Latino culture promotes early parenting for girls and machismo in boys (Garcia, 2009). Men of color are also hyper-sexualized and demonized as predators who take advantage of weaker cultural values of minority women (Connell and Elliot, 2009; Garcia, 2009). Youth of color within school systems are often viewed as more adult-like rather than as child-like, and are stereotyped and punished more severely because their disobedient acts are seen as actions taken by adults (Ferguson, 2000). This affects the way educators perceive sexuality in youth of color. These youth are seen to demonstrate adult sexual behavior and are therefore more dangerous, threatening or thoughtless compared to white youth (Ferguson, 2000; Garcia, 2009). When youth of color are presented with information about sexuality, it is within the context of these youth being “at risk” and a danger to themselves and the wider community’s health (Garcia, 2009). Youth of color are privy to the same facts, but with the idea that they are the ones most likely to make the “poor decisions” comprehensive sexuality education tries to prevent. Even the sharing of disparities in negative health outcomes such as teen pregnancy or STI rates that highlight the higher rates within communities of color perpetuate stigma toward those groups rather than bringing to light the inequitable circumstances that contribute to those disparate outcomes. LGBTQ lessons are becoming more frequent with the new political atmosphere surrounding gay rights − same-sex marriage and repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Federal Policy − in the mainstream media. Many lessons on sexual orientation (e.g. Advocates for Youth, 2013; Sex, etc. 2013; SIECUS, 2014) involve a section on how to prevent bullying of gay youth or how to become an ally to LGBTQ students at school. There is a growing level of comfort in discussing homosexuality in schools and homes, but at the same time, value and acceptance are being placed on certain “gay” behaviors, and there are now hierarchical categories of LGBTQ that are accepted in the classroom. There are very few lesson plans in any of the resources mentioned about transgender, bisexual, or cisgender youth, and if gender identity is addressed, it is in the binary concept and focusses on heterosexual youth displaying characteristics of another gender (Elia and Eliason, 2009). The intersections of race, disability, and sexual orientation are not included in the discussion. Youth of color are largely presented only as heterosexual with the focus only on preventing pregnancy and HIV; they are rarely seen as examples of LGBTQ (Garcia, 2009). This continues to silence youth of disability or color as sexual beings outside of the heterosexual norm. There is progress being made, but it is far from being completely health promoting of all LGBTQ groups. Another segment of the youth population that remains relatively invisible is youth with mental or physical disabilities. This is a difficult and complex group to address because of the varying types and degrees of disability (Esmail et al., 2010). The heteronormative undertone of sexuality education assumes that sex only occurs with genital penetration. This can leave out youth who are paralyzed or have limited mobility in assuming that those are the only body parts that can experience arousal or constitute sexual activity (Esmail et al., 2010). This can have detrimental effects on a young person’s self-esteem and negatively impact the view of self as a healthy sexual being capable of intimacy (Tepper, 2005). The omission that these programs make in assuming that sexual activity is limited to genital penetration excludes all groups that do not participate in those acts but could still consider themselves as sexually active (Esmail et al., 2010). Curricula taught to youth with mental disabilities teach that intimacy ranges from holding hands to sexual intercourse, which allows young people to develop their own sexual identity based on what behaviors they view as sexuality or intimacy (for an example of a sexuality education curriculum focussed on sexuality and disability, see Löfgren-Mårtenson, 2012). Youth with either physical or mental disabilities are less likely to receive information about sexuality or sex from parents or able-bodied friends because many youth with disabilities are viewed as childlike and innocent, making others uncomfortable providing this information or unaware that it is needed. Many times disabled youth are desexualized by friends, family, and larger society and are therefore deprived of any sexual identity (Tepper, 2005). Around 50 per cent of youth with disabilities have not received sexuality education, and this group of youth then must rely on outside sources such as schools or healthcare providers for information (Esmail et al., 2010). There is very little information on sexuality education for youth with disabilities, and the limited resources available do not disaggregate this group enough to be helpful (Tepper, 2005). Status quo evidence-based sexual education policy re-entrenches a heteronormative view of gender and sexuality that has multiple impacts from a decrease in sexual health to exclusion, violence, domestic abuse and lack of sexual agency. Schalet, Santelli, and Russell et al. 2014 [Schalet, A.T., Santelli, J.S., Russell, S.T. et al. “Invited Commentary: Broadening the Evidence for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Education in the United States.” J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43: 1595. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0178-8. SPS.] We have argued that Evidence Based Interventions often do not reflect factors that the broad scientific literature identifies as key to health behaviors and risks, and do not approach individual behavior in the broad context of adolescents’ lives. As such, there is a disconnect between research and theoretical advances on one hand, and sexual health education programs and policies on the other (Romero et al. 2011). For instance, social and behavioral science research documents the significance of the sexual orientation of young people, the gender beliefs and inequities that shape their sexual agency and relationships, and the economic and racial inequalities that constrain their options, as crucial to a holistic understanding of adolescent sexual health. But many EBIs do not fully address or even acknowledge the psychosocial and structural factors that shape the ways in which adolescents conduct their sexual lives. Thus, while consensus has emerged across disciplines that gender, racism, stigmatization of LBGTQ youth, and poverty are critical to adolescent health, we lack programmatic emphasis and EBIs that address these inequalities. Moreover, when EBIs fail to address non-EBI scientific data about the role of poverty, race, and gender in adolescent sexual health they create the potential for reinforcing cultural stereotypes. In the remainder of this article, we turn to evidence from across the social and behavioral sciences that should be central to all adolescent sexual health education. We show how the emerging research on LGBTQ youth calls for inclusiveness in adolescent sexual health education programming. Drawing from an extensive literature on the harmful effects of gender inequity and stereotypes, we demonstrate the need for sexual health education to address these issues. Finally, we illustrate how poverty and inequality intersect with adolescent sexual health education in a myriad of ways that have distinct implications for policy and programming. Contemporary LGBTQ and gender nonconforming youth “come out” or disclose their identities at younger ages than prior cohorts and have distinct sexual health needs (Floyd and Bakeman 2006). It is now commonly understood that LGBTQ students may face victimization at school, or generally hostile school climates (Birkett et al. 2009). Their needs are often invisible in sexual and reproductive health services, and they are typically excluded from sexual health education programs (Bay-Cheng 2003; Cianciotto and Cahill 2003; Sanchez 2012). Yet the known risks for LGBTQ youth are clear: greater rates of HIV for males and transgender youth; higher rates of high-risk sexual behavior for males, females, and transgender youth; and higher rates of pregnancy for both girls and boys (results for transgender youth are unknown) (Mustanski et al. 2011; Saewyc et al. 1999; Saewyc et al. 2009). The focus of sexual health education historically has been on heterosexual sexuality, with emphasis on procreation, presumably or explicitly directed to the confines of marriage (Carter 2001). For more than 100 years, educators have grappled with the issue of how to teach youth about sexuality while promoting premarital chastity and marital monogamy, a dilemma that has often led to sacrifices of scientific accuracy in favor of ideology (Carter 2001). As a result LGBTQ youth are often excluded or left without relevant and necessary information to make safe and effective choices. Despite potential breadth, the dominant focus of sexuality education programs initially focused on the public health outcomes such as the prevention of unintended pregnancy, and since the mid-1980s, prevention of HIV/AIDS and STIs. Before HIV/AIDS, there was mostly silence on LGBTQ sexualities in sexual health education. Debates in the late 1990s became dominated by abstinence in sexual health education, a stark contrast to growing scientific knowledge about the efficacy of comprehensive sexuality education. In addition to other faults described above, the introduction of AOUM programs actively thwarted momentum to include LGBTQ youth needs in sexual health education by emphasizing abstinence until heterosexual marriage among high-school youth in different-sex relationships. Only since 2004 has marriage for same-sex couples been possible (to date more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry); thus, for many LGBTQ youth, the AOUM message actively erases potential for comprehensive sexual health education. Moreover, some abstinence-only program content includes unequivocally hostile messages about LGBTQ people (Cianciotto and Cahill 2003). Several empirical studies have begun to document the ways that abstinence programs may undermine LGBTQ youth sexual health and well-being (Kosciw et al. 2012). One report showed that compared to schools with other types of sexuality education, LGBTQ students who attended schools that taught abstinence-only programs faced greater harassment in the form of anti-LGBTQ remarks. Further, by excluding sexual minorities (or in some cases giving disparaging information about them), abstinence-only programs may produce feelings of rejection and being disconnected to school (Kosciw et al. 2012). These feelings may lead to negative mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety and serve as precursors for other health risk behaviors (Almeida et al. 2009; Kosciw et al. 2012). On the other hand, there is evidence that inclusive strategies can promote sexual health for LGBTQ students. For example, Blake et al. (2001) found that LGB students in schools with gay-sensitive HIV instruction reported lower sexual risk taking and substance use. Not only may LGBTQ students be invisible or marginalized in sexuality education, but their health needs may not align with the sexual health education needs of students involved in different-sex relationships or sexual activity. If the risk for disease is presented only with reference to penile-vaginal sexual behaviors, there may be deleterious consequences for the health of those who engage in same-sex relationships or sexual activity. For example, HPV poses a threat to all male and female youth, including cancer risk stemming from same- as well as different-sex sexual activity. However, if education only refers to heterosexual vaginal transmission, youth may erroneously conclude that HPV risk pertains only to heterosexual vaginal sex. Such an approach would obscure other sexual behaviors that pose risk for HPV, such as non-penetrative sexual contact, even though the prevalence of HPV among women who have never engaged in vaginal intercourse is high, as is the risk for anal cancer associated with HPV among men who engage in receptive anal intercourse (Mayer et al. 2008). Heterosexual bias in sexuality education will leave some youth without critical knowledge they need to make safe sexual choices. Only nine states require that sexual health education programs provide inclusive information on sexual orientation (Guttmacher Institute 2013). Seven states (and multiple localities) have laws that expressly forbid discussion of LGBTQ issues (including sexual health and HIV/AIDS awareness) in a positive light, if at all; of those, three states (Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas) require that sexuality education programs include negative messages about same-sex sexuality (Guttmacher Institute 2013; McGovern 2012). Alabama law criminalizes same-sex relationships and sexual behavior and proclaims them to be “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Additionally, the law asserts that this position comes from a “factual manner and from a public health perspective.” This discriminating law is not unique; there are other laws throughout the country that work to stigmatize LGBTQ people, including youth in the classroom, by expressly forbidding discussion of LGBTQ issues in a positive manner (McGovern 2012). Meanwhile, two proposed federal laws have languished; the Safe Schools Improvement Act (2013 S. 403) and the Student Non-Discrimination Act (2013 HR 1652) would explicitly provide protection to LGBTQ students in US schools, and create a supportive policy context for inclusive health policies and programs. In spite of this discouraging context for sexuality education, the pace of social change regarding LGBTQ inclusion has been extraordinary, as evidenced, for example, by the growing number of US states and other nations that permit marriage for same-sex couples. Beyond sexuality education programs, there is an emerging body of evidence that documents specific educational practices and strategies that create positive school climates for LGBTQ youth, including inclusive anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies and laws, school personnel training and advocacy, access to LGBTQ-related resources and curricula, and gay-straight alliance (GSA) school clubs (Russell et al. 2010). A number of studies show that these strategies are linked to adolescent academic achievement and mental and behavioral health (Blake et al. 2001; Goodenow et al. 2006; Poteat et al. 2013).Thus, a growing body of evidence points to principles for promoting adolescent health in ways that respect and include LGBTQ youth, and that respond to known inequities many LGBTQ youth experience. These principles should inform the evidence base for federal sexual health education programs and policies. A second area in which current scientific thinking and sexual health education policy and programs are not aligned concerns the impact of gender (in)equity and gender norms. Research across disciplines has demonstrated that gender norms and inequities are key factors in shaping health generally, and sexual health in particular (Rogow and Haberland 2005). International health organizations have recognized that promoting gender equity is critical to advancing health across the life course (World Health Organization 2002). Domestically, Healthy People 2020 includes gender and gender identity as dimensions linked to health disparities—that is, systematic obstacles to health—and it aspires to reduce those disparities. But in the “Adolescent Health” section, the document is silent about the need to address gender inequities or harmful gender beliefs.3 Establishing gender equity and challenging gender beliefs that research has shown to be harmful to adolescent sexual health have never been central goals in US adolescent sexual health and education policy (DeLamater 2007). In fact, many abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have taught gender stereotypes as facts (Curran 2011; Delamater 2007; Fine and McClelland 2006). Even approaches that include information beyond abstinence have perpetuated gender inequities through gender stereotyping implicit in curricula or teachers’ informal communications (Curran 2011; Fields 2008; Garcia 2009, 2012). It has long been established among researchers that gender inequities, and the gender ideologies that uphold them, are key factors in shaping sexual and reproductive health globally and domestically, affecting STIs, HIV/AIDS, unintended pregnancies, and sexual violence (Rogow and Haberland 2005; Santana et al. 2006). Scholars have documented how traditional gender roles impede women’s sexual autonomy and self-efficacy, and thereby increase their vulnerability to STIs and HIV, intimate partner violence, unwanted sex, and unintended pregnancy (Amaro and Raj 2000; Amaro et al. 2001; Impett et al. 2006; Jewkes 2010; Phillips 2000). Gender-based relational power imbalances impact women’s capacity to advocate for their own sexual safety (Phillips 2000; Rosenthal and Levy 2010). For instance, compared to women who report low levels of relationship power, women with higher levels are five times as likely to report consistent condom use (Pulerwitz et al. 2002). Cultural beliefs about gender can also have negative health consequences for men by, for instance, encouraging risk behavior (Higgins et al. 2010). Gender ideologies shape how youth view and experience themselves and each other. Researchers have documented how schools, peer culture and other institutions overtly and covertly communicate distinct gender ideologies about sex and romance to young people (Chambers et al. 2004; Eder et al. 1995; Fields 2008; Pascoe 2007). Traditional gender ideologies frequently link masculinity with heterosexual sexual activity, sex drive, sexual initiation, and lack of emotional involvement, and femininity with sexual passivity, sexual restraint, responsibility for controlling boys’ desires, and emotional over-involvement (Allen 2003; Bay-Cheng 2003). The sexual double standard, which encourages and celebrates heterosexual sexual experience in teenage boys but censures and stigmatizes sexual experience in teenage girls, is endemic in the United States, though it varies by local context and culture (Crawford and Popp 2003; Greene and Faulkner 2005; Marston and King 2006). The sexual double standard harms girls by stigmatizing their sexual desires and experiences, reducing their negotiating power within sexual encounters, and conditioning girls to believe that their own desires and wishes are less significant than those of their male partners (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009; Holland et al. 1998; Martin 1996; Tolman 2002). Negative cultural beliefs about girls’ sexuality can make it difficult for them to disclose their sexual histories to partners, parents, or adult care providers (Greene and Faulkner 2005; Schalet 2011a, b). Traditional gender roles can also hinder girls in refusing unwanted sex and insisting on condom use (Impett et al. 2006; Kirkman et al. 1998; Petitifor 2012). Possessing a sense of sexual self-efficacy—a sense that one has power over one’s sexual decision making—seems to be especially important in aiding girls to engage in safer sex behaviors (Gutierrez et al. 2000; Pearson 2006). There is additional evidence to suggest that when girls know about, and feel entitled to, sexual pleasure, they are better able to advocate for themselves and their sexual health, leading scholars to call on sexual health education to challenge the double standard and emphasize the value of girls’ desires and pleasure (Hirst 2013; Horne and Zimmerbeck 2006; Impett et al. 2006; Martin 1996; Tolman 2002). Boys are also disadvantaged by prevailing gender ideologies. The sexual double standard can make it appear as if boys should always desire sex, and never say no to sex, even risky sex (Bowleg et al. 2000). The prevailing ideologies stigmatize boys’ emotional vulnerabilities and needs, including their needs for intimate friendships and romantic relationships, making them less prepared to have intimate relationships (Giordano et al. 2006; Way et al. 2013). They also stigmatize homosexuality and behaviors associated with homosexuality (Kimmel 2008; Klein 2012; Pascoe 2007). Norms about appropriate male behavior affect all males. But those who adhere most to “traditional” beliefs about masculinity—for instance, that men should be tough, have status in society, not behave in ways marked as “feminine,” and regularly have heterosexual sex— are most at risk for negative consequences compared to other boys and men. Those who embrace such traditional attitudes toward masculinity tend to also report more sexual partners, engage in more unprotected vaginal sex, and show less self-efficacy and consistency in condom use (Noar and Morokoff 2002; Pleck et al. 1993, 1994; Santana et al. 2006; Shearer et al. 2005). There is growing evidence that among adult men some masculine gender norms are linked to violence in intimate relationships (Gallagher and Parrott 2011; Murnen et al. 2002). For example, compared to other men, men who report more traditional masculinity ideologies are more likely to report having perpetrated violence or sexual coercion (Marín et al. 1997; Santana et al. 2006). Conversely, compared to less egalitarian men, men whose gender role ideologies are more egalitarian report fewer instances of physical aggression against their intimate partners (Fitzpatrick et al. 2004). Gender norms also shape young people’s capacities to resist, report, and recover from sexual violation. Boys are unlikely to report sexual coercion due to homophobia as well as masculinity norms that emphasize male sexual desire and strength and obfuscate boys’ capacity to be coerced or intimately violated (Bullock and Beckson 2011). For girls, the pressure to be normatively feminine (sexually passive, accommodating, “nice”) can make resistance to unwanted sexual advances difficult (Armstrong et al. 2006; Hamilton and Armstrong 2009; Phillips 2000). The stigma around girls’ sexuality also prevents many from seeking help, a barrier that is heightened for low-income girls and girls of color (Collins 2005; Froyum 2010). In short, there is strong and consistent evidence that gender beliefs and (in)equities shape sexual health (Rogow and Haberland 2005). However, until recently, these areas have received very little attention in US adolescent sexual health policy and programming (Grose et al. 2014; Rolleri 2013a; Rolleri 2013b). There is no requirement for federally-funded sexuality education to work toward gender equity, avoid explicit or implicit gender stereotyping, or include modules that help students challenge harmful gender beliefs. Abstinence-oriented programs have often taught gender stereotypes as fact (DeLamater 2007; Fine and McClelland 2006; Curran 2011).4 Approaches that include information beyond abstinence can also perpetuate gender ideologies through the topics they cover and leave out, or include implicit gender stereotyping in apparently gender-neutral exercises and role plays (Bay-Cheng 2003; Curran 2011; Fields 2008). Unless harmful gender beliefs are explicitly addressed and challenged, sexual health education runs the risk of reinforcing those beliefs through the taken-for-granted assumptions teachers and students bring into the classroom (Fields 2008; Garcia 2009, 2012; Froyum 2010). Yet, of the 35 designated (Tier 1) “evidence-based” programs, only a handful (all of which target youth of color) even mention gender in their program description, suggesting incorrectly that only minority groups contend with harmful gender beliefs (Office of Adolescent Health 2014a).5 The research record shows the advisability of ensuring that all sexual health programs are free from harmful gender beliefs—which may be explicit or implicit in the curricula—and include tools to help students address and challenge these beliefs. Plan The United States federal government should fully fund sexual education for primary and secondary education in the United States and mandate that all federal funding for sexual education in primary and secondary education meet the criteria established by the Real Education for Healthy Youth act, or REHYA.

Solvency

Federally mandated standards for inclusive and medically accurate sexual education are key and spill over to states and local organizations Kempner 16 [Martha. May 10, 2016. Martha Kempner is a writer, consultant, and sexual health expert. “Fewer Young People Are Getting Formal Sex Education, But Can a New Federal Bill Change That?” Rewire. https://rewire.news/article/2016/05/10/fewer-young-people-getting-formal-sex-education-can-new-federal-bill-change/. SH] As Advocates for Youth explains, if passed, REHYA would be the first federal legislation to ever recognize young people’s right to sexual health information. It would allocate funding for education that includes a wide range of topics, including communication and decision-making skills; safe and healthy relationships; and preventing unintended pregnancy, HIV, other STIs, dating violence, sexual assault, bullying, and harassment. In addition, it would require all funded programs to be inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students and to meet the needs of young people who are sexually active as well as those who are not. The grants could also be used for adolescents and young adults in institutes of higher education. Finally, the bill recognizes the importance of teacher training and provides resources to prepare sex education instructors. If we look at the federal government’s role as leading by example, then REHYA is a great start. It sets forth a plan, starts a conversation, and moves us away from decades of focusing on disproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In fact, one of the fun parts of this new bill is that it diverts funding from the Title V program, which received $75 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2016. That funding has supported programs that stick to a strict eight-point definition of “abstinence education” (often called the “A-H definition”) that, among other things, tells young people that sex outside of marriage is against societal norms and likely to have harmful physical and psychological effects. The federal government does not make rules on what can and cannot be taught in classrooms outside of those programs it funds. Broad decisions about topics are made by each state, while more granular decisions—such as what curriculum to use or videos to show—are made by local school districts. But the growth of the abstinence-only-until-marriage approach and the industry that spread it, researchers say, was partially due to federal funding and the government’s “stamp of approval.” Heather Boonstra, director of public policy at the Guttmacher Institute and a co-author of its study, told Rewire: “My sense is that [government endorsement] really spurred the proliferation of a whole industry and gave legitimacy—and still does—to this very narrow approach.” The money—$1.5 billion total between 1996 and 2010—was, of course, at the heart of a lot of that growth. School districts, community-based organizations, and faith-based institutions created programs using federal and state money. And a network of abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations grew up to provide the curricula and materials these programs needed. But the reach was broader than that: A number of states changed the rules governing sex education to insist that schools stress abstinence. Some even quoted all or part of the A-H definition in their state laws. REHYA would provide less money to comprehensive education than the abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams did to their respective programs, but most advocates agree that it is important nonetheless. As Jesseca Boyer, vice president at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), told Rewire, “It establishes a vision of what the government could do in terms of supporting sex education.” Boonstra noted that by providing the model for good programs and some money that would help organizations develop materials for those programs, REHYA could have a broader reach than just the programs it would directly fund.

US federal sexual health policy should be scientifically based and inclusive of all marginalized students. SexEd policy that acknowledges the role that structural and contextual factors play is essential to break down the hegemonic ideologies surround sexuality in the status quo Schalet, Santelli, and Russell et al. 2014 [Schalet, A.T., Santelli, J.S., Russell, S.T. et al. “Invited Commentary: Broadening the Evidence for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Education in the United States.” J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43: 1595. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0178-8. SPS.] US federal sexual health policy has come a long way since the introduction of AOUM policies when federally funded programs were often medically inaccurate, were prohibited from teaching the health benefits of condoms and contraception, and were required to teach students that sex outside of heterosexual marriage would damage them. In providing our critique we acknowledge the strides that have been made in current federal policies and initiatives, and we also acknowledge that US sexual health education programs and policies exist in a cultural and political context that is not fully conducive to holistic approaches to adolescent sexual health education, or to the full range of contemporary science in this field. The current “evidence-based” policy, while a significant leap forward, is limited in a number of ways. The US federal policy continues to fund abstinence-only programs as part of its Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative as well as other funding streams. But more important, the definition of scientific evidence is limited to a narrow understanding of what constitutes the broad scientific evidence for adolescent sexual and reproductive health. The current policy does not require programs to be engaged with the breadth of current scientific thinking about adolescents and their sexual health. We have sought to highlight the limitations of EBIs by examining three bodies of literature on topics about which there is growing scientific consensus. This evidence indicates that adolescent sexual health is undermined by the exclusion and stigmatization of LGBTQ youth, gender inequities and stereotypes, and poverty and structural racism. Likewise, the research shows that greater inclusiveness, more gender and economic equity, and freedom from harmful stereotypes, all benefit young people and their sexual health. And yet, although there are some excellent programs that approach adolescent sexuality holistically (see for instance, International Sexuality and HIV Curriculum Working Group 2011), federal policy does not require its recipients of funds to address these critical topics, and indeed very few federally funded programs do.8 When federally funded sexual health education does not intentionally address these topics, it may overtly or inadvertently promulgate gender, sexual orientation, class, and racial stereotyping, and fail to give youth resources to combat them. Gender, heterosexual, economic and racial biases in sexual health education leave youth without the personal agency and the critical knowledge they need to make safer sexual choices. Based on these considerations, we offer several recommendations for federal sexual health education policy, as well as for more effective translation of science into policymaking and programming. First, adolescent sexual and reproductive health policy should be based on scientific input from a broad range of disciplines, including social, behavioral, medical, and public health sciences. The full range of scientific evidence should guide adolescent sexual and reproductive health policies, including adolescent sexual health education. Federally-funded programs must address gender, poverty, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Federal policy makers should engage in conversation with the broad range of scientific communities and professional societies. Policy makers and federal program administrators must draw on scientific advisors to help translate the broader evidence base, and guide the development of interventions that reflect current scientific thinking. Further, scientists must become actively engaged in the translation of their work for policy and practice. Second, sexual health education should be inclusive of a wide range of viewpoints and populations without stigmatizing any group. It should avoid heteronormative approaches and aim to strengthen young people’s capacity to challenge harmful stereotypes. In cooperation with scientists and health professional associations, content guidelines should be established for federally-funded sexuality education programs to assure medical accuracy as well as gender equity and inclusion of LGBTQ youth. This should be a priority across federal agencies and throughout the Department of Health and Human Services, including the CDC, Administration for Children and Families, and the Office of Adolescent Health (in particular, in its next round of teen pregnancy prevention programs). Finally, sexuality education programs and policies must acknowledge the role that structural and contextual factors play in sexual risk. Comprehensive sexuality education should recognize personal, interpersonal, social, economic and cultural factors that shape adolescents’ sexual motivations and behaviors. A fundamental goal must be the removal of economic, gender and LGBTQ disparities in adolescent sexual and reproductive health through laws, regulations, and funding requirements. Structural inequalities that are critical barriers to adolescent sexual health promotion are at the heart of some of the most contested issues in American society: the sexual orientation of adolescents, concepts of gender, and economic and racial inequalities. When federally funded health interventions do not engage directly with these issues, and thus ignore the broader scientific consensus regarding adolescent sexual and reproductive health, they run the risk of reproducing these inequalities (Fine and McClelland 2006). By incorporating the full range of scientific evidence regarding adolescent sexual and reproductive health, federal, state, and local efforts will be best positioned to promote adolescent health and well-being.

  • Critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education in the context of inclusive sexual education leads to a democratic form of engagement focused on lived experiences that is capable of challenging current dominant ideologies surrounding sex and sexuality.

Elia and Tokunaga, 2015 [John P. Elia, Jessica Tokunaga, (2015) "Sexuality education: implications for health, equity, and social justice in the United States", Health Education, Vol. 115 Issue: 1, pp.105-120, https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1108/HE-01-2014-0001. SPS] Two useful theoretical and practical (not that these two features are neatly separable) interventions in education that can be leveraged as we re-envision sexuality education are critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education. Ira Shor, a major figure in critical pedagogy, sums up the tenets of critical pedagogy rather well by stating it involves “habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse” (Shor, 1992, p. 129). In the context of sexuality education, critical pedagogy would necessarily involve a democratic process of engaging in a critical appraisal of many aspects of the curriculum (e.g. the basis of a biomedicalized curriculum, a critical examination of whose “facts” have been represented in sexuality education and how those facts end up impacting individuals’ lived experiences, an analysis of who has been silenced in the process of carrying out conventional sexuality education efforts, etc.). In many ways, following a critical pedagogy approach would allow sexuality education curricula and practices to be “turned upside down” and “inside out” in the interest of exposing the ideologies of the curriculum; understanding the personal and social implications for the curriculum; creating a learning atmosphere in which students can learn about, and engage in, (sexual) health promotion both for themselves and for the communities in which they are a part. This means that students would be guided to question long-held facts or “truths” about sexuality and then engage in a critical acquisition of sexual knowledge. The definition of “sex” can be used as an example of how sexuality education students can be guided through critical inquiry. For instance, most students learn in the context of a biological science course or health education unit that “sex” is defined as “either of the two major forms that occur in many living things and are designated male or female according to their role in reproduction” (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1998, p. 477). This can be viewed as problematic. For instance, the prominent Brown University biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling (1993) proposes that there are five sexes, not just two, as commonly believed, and challenges the binary gender system that is often unthinkingly accepted in US society and perpetuated in sexuality education curricula. Fausto-Sterling also makes the point that there are biological variations among males and females. In other words, it is not as simple as categorizing individuals as either in one camp or the other. Most individuals know about intersex individuals, yet there seems to be an investment in espousing the binary system in which people think about humans and other animals as inhabiting either male or female bodies. Our tightly held notion of “opposite sex” is another way we reproduce and reify this fictitious binary. The repetitious unreflective use of “opposite sex” and ensuing actions have implications for equity, social justice and health. There is a presumed heterosexuality and a privileging of reproductive sexuality within marriage. The binary system makes it easier to categorize individuals and create hierarchies. Sexism is a good example of how a whole group of people (i.e. girls and women) have been oppressed and relegated to second-class status and suffer − more or less depending on other social signifiers − all of the educational, financial, social and health implications. It is these kinds of foundational issues that need to be taught from a critical pedagogical perspective to begin to unearth and undo some of the harmful aspects of what have become mainstays in school-based sexuality education. In the words of bell hooks, “critical pedagogy encompasses all the areas of study that aim to redress biases that have informed ways of teaching and knowing in our society ever since the first public school opened” (Hooks, 2010, p. 23). Besides the example of the implications of exploring “sex” froma critical perspective, teachers and students can interrogate the status quo of sexuality education including specific lessons that focus on privileging certain forms of sexuality (e.g. middle-class, white heterosexuality involving able-bodied individuals); a discourse of danger and disease connected with sexual activity; and anti-pleasure messages. Critical pedagogy can be a useful pedagogical tool to encourage teachers and students to engage in meaningful analyses to mark the assumptions, inequities, and harmful aspects of school-based sexuality education and provide a corrective educational experience. Anti-oppressive education Anti-oppressive education is an approach to understand and undo the inequitable and oppressive aspects of schooling. In his seminal article, Kumashiro (2000) characterizes anti-oppressive education as “[…] an attempt to address the myriad ways in which racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of oppression play out in schools, educators and educational researchers have engaged in two types of projects: understanding the dynamics of oppression and articulating ways of working against it” (Kumashiro, 2000, p. 25). Oppression happens when individuals and/or communities are othered (i.e. marginalized in some way as “other” than the accepted norm). Given what we know about how sexuality education has been taught in schools, there have been systematic and ongoing ways in which individuals, communities, and sexualities have been othered. For example, and as mentioned earlier, youth of color, disabled youth, and LGBTQ youth continue to be othered. Further groups include those who do not fit the expected norm, such as young women who show sexual interests and students who have an openly positive view of sexuality. Kumashiro (2000) provides a useful framework with four modes of educational action that can help address oppression in schools. Specifically, he suggests that there be education for the other; education about the other; education that is critical of privileging and othering; and education that changes students and society. Creating (socio-sexual) health promotion through sexuality education Section:Previous sectionNext section Our analysis above demonstrates the alarming extent to which much of school-based sexuality education is likely to be health degrading rather than health promoting due to such aspects as perpetuating heteronormativity and overlooking LGBTQ, racial and disability issues related to sexuality. In contrast, a multifaceted approach to sexuality education in the schools is necessary to improve the (socio-sexual) health of youth. The first and foremost consideration is to view sexual health broadly. A more holistic view of sexual health ought to be considered rather than simply disease prevention on the physical realm. Even going beyond the World Health Organization’s definition of sexual health, which encompasses physical, social, and emotional sexual well-being (World Health Organization, 2014), it is important to add intellectual and spiritual aspects of sexual health. The following are brief examples of aspects that might fall within some of the less well-trodden categories of sexual health: social sexual health − social connectedness with family, friends, and community related to one’s and others ‘sexuality; emotional sexual health − feeling fulfilled, safe, and secure about one’s sexuality; spiritual sexual health − feelings of contentment about various aspects of one’s sexuality and how they align with one’s spiritual and/or religious affiliations and practices; and intellectual sexual health − curiosity about one’s sexuality, learning about sexuality. The sexual health of the individual falls on a continuum and is dynamic depending upon circumstances. The aim of school-based sexuality education could be to increase students’ sexual health in all categories. However, unless both critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education efforts are deployed in earnest, such efforts will be severely compromised and relatively ineffective given that the foundations of school-based sexuality education are so fundamentally flawed. Conclusion Section:Previous sectionNext section The history of school-based sexuality education and the analysis of current major sexuality education efforts in the USA reveal significant areas in need of improvement so that sexuality education will promote students’ sexual health (e.g. along physical, social, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual lines). For this to be successful, several structural issues need to be remedied. Perhaps the very first step is for school administrators, teachers, parents, and students to do an honest assessment of which categories of individuals (according to their sexuality) and forms of sexualities and genders get privileged and which get denigrated in the educational experience. Heteronormativity (and sex negativity) with all of its trappings regarding sexual and gender behaviors needs to be neutralized. Integrating LGBTQ, racial/ethnic, and disability studies into the sexuality education curriculum is of paramount importance. We suggest using critical pedagogy and anti-oppressive education concepts as a guide for major reform efforts. All this is not about “adding things on” to an already troubled curriculum, but truly integrating curricular materials, methods, activities, personnel, materials, and resources to offer the students the very best sexuality education possible in the interest of enhancing the quality of their sexual health. Inclusive frameworks for sexual education should incorporate concepts of desire that challenge the state and the religious right’s attempts to shape educational policy. Rather than move away from the state and giving up on sexual education, we should engage in a politics of wanting that demands publicly subsidized educational, social, and interpersonal opportunities for youth. An interrogation into the way the state intersects with sexual bodies is essential to critical thinking and political action, schools and the policies that shape them are a critical starting point. Fine and McClelland 2006 [MICHELLE FINE and SARA McCLELLAND (2006) Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing after All These Years. Harvard Educational Review: September 2006, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 297-338. SPS.] Thick desire places sexual activity for all people, regardless of age or gender, within a larger context of social and interpersonal structures that enable a person to engage in the political act of wanting. Wanting can be interpreted in any number of ways, but it necessarily positions a young person as feeling entitled to that which comes in the future. It includes wanting to have unhindered access to structural and institutional supports, such as education, health care, and protection from coercion. With wanting securely in place and thick desire as an organizing frame, it is possible to theorize about young women’s sexual and reproductive freedoms not merely from a perspective of minimal loss, but from a perspective that sees them as entitled to desire in all of its forms; entitled to publicly funded enabling conditions across racial, ethnic, class, sexual, geographic, and disability lines. This essay has interrogated two kinds of desire: the unbridled desire of the state and the religious Right to re-create public education in their own image, and the thick desire of youth to create lives filled with educational and economic opportunity, free of violence, and protected by knowledge of and resources for sexual and reproductive health. We have documented the geographic spread of the religious Right in terms of policy incursions into many of the “private” sites where young women and men seek assistance, resources, and support for healthy sexual development. And yet, more importantly, we want to leave the reader with a sense of how we might educate and research with the recognition that young minds, souls, and bodies desire broadly, in areas that are economic, educational, health-minded, and, indeed, sexual. That is, young people carry thick desires for a tomorrow of meaning, hoping for rich enabling contexts where they can feed these desires in conversation with peers and elders (Chavkin & Chesler, 2005; Diamond, 2000; Levine, 2002; Lipman, 2005; Rose, 2003; Santelli et al., 2006a; Tolman, 2006). To elaborate on a vision for critical sexuality studies, we argue that youth sexuality be theorized about and studied inside a stew of desires for opportunity, community, pleasure, and protection from coercion and danger. Adolescents need good schools, health-care, and freedom from violence (structural, institutional, family, and intimate) in order to develop healthy sexual subjectivities. Given this frame, sexuality and reproductive struggles must be linked to fights for equity in school finance, civil/queer/feminist/disability rights, health care, school and prison reform, affirmative action, and access to higher education. Economic, social, and corporeal struggles must be linked through the bodies, imaginations, dreams, and demands of young women and men. Further, comprehensive sexuality education and youth development must help young women and men navigate across the dialectics of danger and pleasure. Risk cannot be severed from pleasure. They are braided, parasitic, nested inside one another. An exclusive focus on risk not only alienates, but also distorts the complexity of human relations and sexual desire. Therefore, it is naïve to educate for pleasure without attending to risk; but more perverse to imagine that teaching only about risk will transform human behavior. We have also tried to advance, theoretically and methodologically, a framework for thinking through how state policy penetrates bodies at embodied intersections. We have tried to model how gender intersects with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, disability, geography, and institutional biographies, and to document the disparate impact state laws, public policy, and educational practice have on differentially situated young bodies. Whether researchers rely on hierarchical linear modeling or sophisticated narrative analysis or both; whether we study youth in privileged communities or in long-neglected neighborhoods; whether we conduct life histories or delve into the statistical archives of seemingly unrelated public institutions like schools, prisons, and health clinics — this article is a call to recognize, study, and document how broadly and deeply state policies slice into the seemingly private lives of very differently situated youth, most particularly those with no private safety net. Turning now to the question of sexuality education, we repeat the words of young people we met from various communities, ranging from those in extreme poverty to those more middle class. When we asked, “What do you need in the way of sexuality education?” young people were clear: “More conversations like this, where we’re asked what we think, what we want to know.” And yet, according to one of the speakers at the Network for Family Life Education conference in New Jersey in 2005, such pedagogical contexts are unfortunately growing extinct: “In sexuality education, talk is becoming a fourletter word” (Rodriguez, 2005). We are tempted, of course, to argue that the era of comprehensive sexuality education is over in public schools, that educators and youth workers would be better off creating safe spaces for this kind of talk outside of schools, in local community centers, churches, synagogues, mosques, LGBTQQ community centers, health clinics, the YMCA, and the Girl Scouts. While we believe all of this should happen, we are more sure than ever that we cannot abandon schools — the place where all children and youth are required to attend, and attend together; the place where intellectual, political, and personal possibilities are inspired; where democracy, inquiry, and human rights are supposed to be fundamental. Turning then to schools, we recognize that young people spend 30 percent of their day in classrooms; they are one of the most important places for talk, learning, and building skills. The evidence gathered here and confirmed in conversations with educators and youth, suggests that schools and schoolbased health clinics (see Geierstanger & Amaral, 2005) are precisely the places where young people can be engaged in safe, critical talk about bodies, sexuality, relationships, violence, contraception, abortion, disability rights, LGBTQQ struggles, gender equality, and sexuality as a human right. In language arts, history, science, math, and in courses on the visual and performing arts, young people can learn the skills of critical inquiry and democratic engagement, the power of dissent and action on one’s own behalf and for a larger political project. Young people need to develop skills for finding key pieces of information and resources; building trusting relations with peers, adults, and professionals; speaking publicly for social justice (see Rogow & Haberland, 2005). Though we take the question of skill seriously, we are concerned that the definition of skill within AOUM policies has atrophied. Skills to express political and sexual agency are just the kind of muscles young people need to develop in order to undertake critical analysis, trusting conversation, and help-seeking, and finally, to negotiate risk and pursue pleasure. Having skills merely to say no does not help young people make tough decisions, but instead simply drains decision-making from them and places them in the hands of more powerful others — the state, the media, advertisements, a partner, abuser, or predator. The echoes of lost skill reverberate for a lifetime in the student — we see the loss when a student is afraid to speak to a teacher or health practitioner or pharmacist about contraception or an STD; when he feels afraid to use a condom because he learned it will probably fail; when she finds herself not knowing that she is entitled to pleasure or to resist aggression; when she or he tries to find an identity as a lesbian, gay man, or transgendered person in a sea of “silver rings” (see Alwyn, 2004 for description of the “Silver Ring Thing,” a Christian abstinence group which encourages the use of silver rings to signify young people’s pledges of abstinence until marriage) and promises of sexual bliss in the confines of marriage. One young woman in a high school focus group explained to us, “I do not want to have sex until I am married. So I don’t really need these conversations.” Later in the group she spoke again, a bit less calm and detached, “But, when I am ready, where will I learn about contraception or even about what might feel good for me? Where will I learn about sexuality after high school? Will it magically happen when I marry?” Denied sexuality education, she will likely lack the knowledge, sense of entitlement, and skills to find out in the future what she doesn’t know but needs to. It is important to note that sexuality education is the only academic content area that is taught as if the knowledge gained in the classroom is meant to exclusively serve the young person’s present situation. In an editorial in the journal Contraception, a group of physicians and medical researchers wrote, “School is intended to prepare young people with skills they need for the future. There is no controversy about good math education even though few teens have a compelling need for algebra in their daily lives” (Stewart, Shields, & Hwang, 2004, p. 345). A national commitment to abstinence only until marriage casts a wide net that will ensnare us all; it creeps into our imaginations and into our beds by prescribing a constricted form of sexual expression for young people, as well as adults, leaving clouds of shame, guilt, ignorance, and silence where knowledge, skills, and safe conversation should grow. We introduced the concept of thick desire in this discussion, and we hope to make it a lens through which to conceptualize and evaluate youth-based education and social policies across public institutions. Instead of merely documenting risk and loss, we call for policies and research that recognize how macro-structures, public institutions, practices, and relationships affect “personal decisions,” particularly for those without private supports and buffers. Thick desire is offered as a framework to move us away from mourning the “missing discourse of desire” and on to demanding more publicly subsidized educational, social, legal, economic, and health care supports for young people as they develop complex social and sexual biographies in adolescence and beyond. It is a way of evaluating policies, both local and global. Thick desire is meant to be a tool to see what is missing and to say what needs to be in place. In this spirit, we invite educators, youth organizers, policy analysts, community activists, YMCA directors, health clinic professionals, and youth to create a surge of information and conversation about sexuality, power, and justice. Researchers, educators, community workers, lawyers, youth, and progressive clergy can come together to demand that thick desire be the benchmark — a progressive form of accountability — for measuring the extent to which a community supports full youth development (for an example, see the Forum for Youth Investment, http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org). Campaigns and research projects for healthy youth development can be launched in schools, community centers, libraries, clinics, afterschool programs, and on the Internet, in which conversations about desire, danger, power, and bodies can be reclaimed as spaces for doubt, giggles, honesty, negotiation, struggle, pleasure, pain, and information. Young people are dying for good conversation about sexuality, and are dying without it.

Framing Don’t prioritize large scale spectacles of violence—everyday acts of dehumanization produce a will to violence that makes large scale conflicts possible Kappeler 1995 [Susanne. Former lecturer in English at the University of East Anglia and an Associate Professor at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behavior. Polity Press. ISBN 0 7456 130555. Pg. at bottom] A decision to violate is not necessarily synonymous with a decision to be ‘bad’ or to commit an injustice. Rather, we have at our disposal structures of thought and argumentation which make such a decision appear rational, justified or even necessary. These structures of thought are deeply rooted in our everyday thinking: they are part of the dominant ideology. We use them in our daily decisions for action - actions which are not necessarily acts of bodily injury and murder, of arson and larceny, and which do not necessarily unleash a major war, but which none the less are acts of violence: violation of the rights and integrity of other people, violation of their dignity and personhood, suppression of their freedom of choice and their self¬determination, acts of objectification and of exploitation at every conceivable level — in other words, war, on a small scale and against our nearest if not our dearest. What is remarkable is that this everyday behaviour, in so far as it does not fall within the competence of criminal law, is hardly the subject of a serious theoretical discussion.4 Neither does it attract explicit legitimation; rather, the violence of everyday behaviour draws its legitimacy from the ubiquity of such behaviour in our society and the social consensus about its relative ‘harmlessness’ compared with other, that is, recognized forms of violence. That is to say, everyday behaviour takes its orientation from the tradition of social practice, reproducing itself through recourse to the status quo. It is so natur¬alized, in fact, that it is not violent action which attracts attention, but any resistance to it: leaving a violent relationship or situations of violence, resisting bullying, pressure and blackmail, refusing to fight back. Even a discourse on ethics which we might expect to address this issue increasingly addresses problems of a collective social respons¬ibility — leading indeed to enlightened guidelines for social policy, yet leaving the question of personal responsibility unanswered. For an analysis of collective social responsibility tends not to differentiate between the respective responsibility of the members of that collective according to their diverse situations. Yet the single person has to act, has to decide how to act, even if this does not cause a war or change the world at one stroke. It is these decisions for action within the range of competence of persons which are the topic of this book. This does not mean that I deem the obvious and systematic forms of violence - from the violence of men against women and children, the racist violence of whites against Black people and people of the Third World, to the violence of the state and its military forces, or violence against animals and nature (which is hardly even discussed in the context of violence) — a less urgent problem than individual beha¬viour. Rather, the obvious importance and magnitude of ‘social’ problems of violence cannot be the pretext for considering apparently ‘lesser’ or more ‘harmless’ forms of ‘personal’ violence (our own) a matter for postponement until the major problems have been solved. Violence cannot be measured as larger or smaller, more or less, even if the consequences of violence differ enormously. The consequences differ, however, neither in their measurable size as ‘damage’ nor in the size or measure of the violence which caused them, but in terms of the means used on the one hand, and in their specificity, uniqueness and incomparability as experience on the other. Violence as the struc¬ture of action is neither greater nor lesser: it either is or is not violence. Moreover, personal behaviour is no alternative to ‘political’ action; there is no question of either/or. My concern, on the contrary, is the connection between these recognized forms of violence and the forms of everyday behaviour which we consider ‘normal’ but which betray our own will to violence — the connection, in other words, be¬tween our own actions and those acts of violence which are normally the focus of our political critiques. Precisely because there is no choice between dedicating oneself either to ‘political issues’ or to ‘personal behaviour’, the question of the politics of personal behaviour has (also) to be moved into the centre of our politics and our critique. Violence — what we usually recognize as such — is no exception to the rules, no deviation from the normal and nothing out of the ordinary, in a society in which exploitation and oppression are the norm, the ordinary and the rule. It is no misbehaviour of a minority amid good behaviour by the majority, nor the deeds of inhuman monsters amid humane humans, in a society in which there is no equality, in which people divide others according to race, class, sex and many other factors in order to rule, exploit, use, objectify, enslave, sell, torture and kill them, in which millions of animals are tortured, genetically manipulated, enslaved and slaughtered daily for ‘harmless’ consump¬tion by humans. It is no error of judgement, no moral lapse and no transgression against the customs of a culture which is thoroughly steeped in the values of profit and desire, of self-realization, expansion and progress. Violence as we usually perceive it is ‘simply’ a specific — and to us still visible — form of violence, the consistent and logical application of the principles of our culture and everyday life. War does not suddenly break out in a peaceful society; sexual violence is not the disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations. Racist attacks do not shoot like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual exploitation of children is no solitary problem in a world other¬wise just to children. The violence of our most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal will to violence, constitute the conceptual preparation, the ideological armament and the intellectual mobilization which make the ‘outbreak’ of war, of sexual violence, of racist attacks, of murder and destruction possible at all. 7-9 Sexuality is uniquely key to this culture of violence—sexual panics are deeply tied to the reproduction of structural violence and its ideological legitimation Herdt 09 [Gilbert. June 2009. Professor of Human Sexuality Studies and Anthropology and a Founder of the Department of Sexuality Studies and National Sexuality Resource Center at San Francisco State University. “Introduction: Moral Panics, Sexual Rights, and Cultural Anger.” Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights. NYU Press. SH.]



1NC vs SP1[edit]

1NC vs SP1

1

A) Interpretation: “Primary and secondary education” refers to schooling ranging from elementary to high school education U.S. Department of Education 8 (International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education, Feb 2008. “Organization of U.S. Education: The School Level,”) PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS Primary schools are called elementary schools, intermediate (upper primary AND different interests and capabilities who follow different educational tracks within the same school.

B) “Education” is prescribed classroom instruction Webster’s Webster's 1913 Dictionary - http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/education Education (noun): The act or process of educating; the result of educating AND education for the bar or the pulpit; he has finished his education.

C) Violation: the plan funds teaching certification programs, which are postsecondary education -- Putnam 81 (John F. Putnam, National Center for Education Statistics. “Postsecondary Student Terminology: A Handbook of Terms and Definitions for Describing Students in Postsecondary Education,” March 1981.) A postsecondary education institution is defined as an academic, vocational, technical, home AND FICE Report,, vol. 1, no. 3 (June 1974).

D) Prefer our interpretation:

1) Limits – allowing affirmatives to fund or regulate postsecondary education drastically and unfairly expands the negative’s research burden – impossible for the neg to win- aff already gets unlimited prep and first and last speeches

2) Ground – postsecondary education skirts the core controversy of federal vs. state regulation of schools – eliminates core generics specific to public education

Topicality is an apriori voting issue because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating.

2

The aff aims to satisfy capitalism's urge for limitless growth - causes exploitation, destruction of democracies, and destroys value to life while trying to stave off the inevitable collapse Clark 12 (Richard, OpEd News, 8/28/12, republished by WPF 4/3/14, " How and Why Is Global Corporate Capitalism Obsolete?", http://wpfdc.org/blog/economics/19049-how-and-why-is-global-corporate-capitalism-obsolete) What lies at the heart of this insanity? It is this: Commanding an AND people and the natural environment remain stronger than the desire to accumulate wealth.¶

Fully employment is just a pipe dream of late capitalism that remains solely as ideological mystification. Excess populations are relegated disposable creating contemporary forms of fascist violence like the expansion of global policing and immigrant detention centers Srnicek and Williams 2015 (Nick and Alex, lecturers @ City University of London, “Inventing the Future, Postcapitalism and a World Without Work”, Verso, 2015) If full employment remains operative only as an ideological mystification, its normalisation of work AND use to manage surplus populations, ranging from disciplined integration to violent exclusion.

It’s try or die for the negative Robinson 14 (William I., professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, @ the University of California-Santa Barbara, 5/27/14, “Global Capitalism: Crisis of Humanity and the Spectre of 21st Century Fascism”, http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=1799, aps) Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the “Great Recession” of 2008 AND indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

Vote negative to reject the affirmative as a refusal to participate in activities which support capitalism. We must hollow out capitalist structures by refusing to invest our energy in reforms and rescue operations—avoids transition wars Herod 4-Social Activist since 1968, owns an awesome website, Attended Columbia University and spent a year abroad at the University of Beirut (Lebanon) [James, Getting Free, 2004, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm]


Capitalism produces sacrificial genocide, eliminating all other alternative systems Santos 3 (Boaventura de Sousa, director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, EUROZINE, COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OR GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW, http://www.eurozine.com/article/2003-03-26-santos-en.html) *Note this card had been modified for suicide metaphors According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it AND to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years.

Automation

Decline doesn’t cause war Drezner 14, Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/v066/66.1.drezner.html The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the AND ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”45 [End Page 134]

The economy is built upon the notion that growth must be sustained. This makes climate change and global societal collapse inevitable. Vercelli 17 [2017, Alessandro Vercelli, Professor of Economics at The University of Siena, “Crisis and Sustainability: The Delusion of Free Markets”, pg. 186-188] The empirical evidence produced by the ecological approach confirms the pessimistic view on the unsustainability AND impact on climate action shifting public concern and political will towards financial survival.

Involuntary degrowth is necessary for a mindset shift to a sustainable future Davey 2014 [Brian Davey, 12-18-2014, "Degrowth – A Vocabulary for a New Era: Review," Feasta, http://www.feasta.org/2014/12/18/degrowth-a-vocabulary-for-a-new-era-review/] By “involuntary degrowth” I mean a view of the future that the production AND are describing an unpleasant historical epoch in which death rates will be rising.

Collapse now avoids extinction – causes smooth transition to sustainable localized economies Alexander 14 (Samuel, lecturer at the Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne, Australia, and author of Entropia: Life Beyond Industrial Civilisation, PhD, AND Jonathon Rutherford, “The Deep Green Alternative,” http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf) As industrial civilisation continues its global expansion and pursues growth without apparent limit, the AND may encapsulate one of the most realistic forms of hope we have left.

Manufacturing No transition wars – interdependence and diplomacy check Fettweis, Poli Sci Prof @ Tulane University, 10 (Christopher, “Dangerous Times?: The International Politics of Great Power Peace,” pp. 173-175) If the only thing standing between the world and chaos is the U.S. military presence, then an adjustment in grand strategy would be exceptionally counter- productive. But it is worth recalling that none of the other explanations for the decline of war—nuclear weapons, complex economic interdependence, inter- national and domestic political institutions, evolution in ideas and norms— necessitate an activist America to maintain their validity. Were America to be- come more restrained, nuclear weapons would still affect the calculations of the would-be aggressor; the process of globalization would continue, deepening the complexity of economic interdependence; the United Nations could still deploy peacekeepers where necessary; and democracy would not shrivel where it cur- rently exists. Most importantly, the idea that war is a worthwhile way to resolve conflict would have no reason to return. As was argued in chapter 2, normative evolution is typically unidirectional. Strategic restraint in such a world would be virtually risk-free.

Hegemony fails and destabilizes regional powers – no impact to the transition – turns case – disregard their fearmongering Posen 14 – Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT and the director of MIT's Security Studies Program (Barry, “Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy,” Cornell University Press, p. 60-62, June 24, 2014)

Partisans of Liberal Hegemony might accept some of the factual statements above but would argue that the good the strategy has achieved far outweighs the bad. As noted in the introduction, partisans assume that liberal democracy, human rights, market economies, free trade, nuclear nonproliferation, middle and great powers that do not take responsibility for their own security, and U.S. political and military hegemony are all mutually causative, and all lead ineluctably to a vast improvement in the security and welfare of others, and hence to the U.S. security position. 124 They also posit that the world is fragile; damage to one of these good things will lead to damage to other good things, so the United States must defend all. The “fragile and interconnected” argument is politically effective. By accident or design, the argument derives an inherent plausibility due to the inevitable limits of our substantive knowledge, fear, uncertainty, liberal ideology, and U.S. national pride. Most targets of the argument do not know enough about the world to argue with experts who claim these connections; the chain of posited connections always leads to danger for the United States, and fear is a powerful selling tool. Once fear is involved, even low-probability chains of causation can be made to seem frightening enough to do something about, especially if you believe your country has overwhelming power. It is pleasant to believe that the spread of U.S. values such as liberty and democracy depend on U.S. power and leadership. The argument does not stand close scrutiny. First, it obscures the inherently strong security position of the United States, which I have already reviewed. The economic, geographic, demographic, and technological facts supporting this point are seldom discussed, precisely because they are facts. It takes very large events abroad to significantly threaten the United States, and more moderate strategies can address these possibilities at lower costs. Typical Liberal Hegemony arguments for any new project take the form of domino theory. One small untended problem is expected easily and quickly to produce another and another until the small problems become big ones, or the collection of problems becomes overwhelming. Whether these connections are valid in any particular case will always be open to debate. Even if the connections are plausible, however, it is unlikely given the inherent U.S. security position that the United States need prop up the first domino. It has the luxury of waiting for information and choosing the dominos it wishes to shore up, if any. Second, proponents of Liberal Hegemony often elide the difference between those benefits of the strategy that flow to others, and those that flow to the United States. Individually, it is surely true that cheap-riders and reckless-drivers like the current situation because of the welfare, security, or power gains that accrue to them. United States commitments may make the international politics of some regions less exciting than would otherwise be the case. The United States, however, pays a significant price and assumes significant risks to provide these benefits to others, while the gains to the United States are exaggerated because the United States is inherently quite secure. Third, Liberal Hegemonists argue that U.S. commitments reduce the intensity of regional security competitions, limit the spread of nuclear weaponry, and lower the general odds of conflict, and that this helps keep the United States out of wars that would emerge in these unstable regions. This chain of interconnected benefits is not self-evident. United States activism does change the nature of regional competitions; it does not necessarily suppress them. For example, where U.S. commitments encourage “free-riding,” this attracts coercion, which the United States must then do more to deter. Where the United States encourages “reckless driving,” it produces regional instability. United States activism probably helps cause some nuclear proliferation, because some states will want nuclear weapons to deter an activist United States. When the United States makes extended deterrence commitments to discourage proliferation, the U.S. military is encouraged to adopt conventional and nuclear military strategies that are themselves destabilizing. Finally, as is clear from the evidence of the last twenty years, the United States ends up in regional wars in any case.

Fourth, one key set of interconnections posited by Liberal Hegemonists is that between U.S. security provision, free trade, and U.S. prosperity. This is a prescriptive extension of hegemonic stability theory, developed by economist Charles Kindleberger from a close study of the collapse of global liquidity in 1931 and the ensuing great depression. 125 Professor Kindleberger concluded from this one case that a global system of free trade and finance would more easily survive crises if there was a “leader,” a hegemon with sufficient economic power such that its policies could “save” a system in crisis, which would also have the interest and the will to do so, precisely because it was so strong. 126 Subsequent theorists, such as Robert Gilpin, extended this to the idea that a global economic and security hegemon would be even better. 127 Robert Keohane, and later John Ikenberry, added to this theory the notion that a “liberal” hegemon would be still better, because it would graft transparent and legitimate rules onto the hegemonic system, which would make it more acceptable to the “subjects” and hence less costly to run. 128 A comprehensive rebuttal of hegemonic stability theory is beyond the scope of this book. But this theory has fallen into desuetude in the study of international politics in the last twenty years. Proponents did not produce a clear, consolidated version of the theory that integrated economics, security, and institutional variables in a systematic way that gives us a sense of their relative importance and interdependence, and how they work in practice. The theory is difficult to test because there are only two cases: nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, and post–World War II United States, and they operated in very different ways under very different conditions. Finally, testing of narrow versions of the theory did not show compelling results. 129 These problems should make us somewhat skeptical about making the theory the basis for U.S. grand strategy.

Hegemony will cause extinction—economic crises, systemic warfare, and mass structural violence Chossudovsky 16 (Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. “Neoliberalism and The Globalization of War. America’s Hegemonic Project,” 6/19/2016. http://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalism-and-the-globalization-of-war-americas-hegemonic-project/5531125) The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have AND , the legitimacy of money laundering and the protection of the drug trade.

Cybersecurity

No significant impact to cyber attacks – probability, current defense checks, and too difficult to coordinate Gartzke and Lindsay ’15 [Erik Gartzke is professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. Jon R. Lindsay is assistant professor of digital media and global affairs at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. Weaving Tangled Webs: Offense, Defense, and Deception in Cyberspace, Security Studies, 24:316–348, 2015.] Indeed, the US Department of Defense gets attacked ten million times a day; AND for a more general tendency toward offense dominance across the entire cyber domain.

Can’t Solve

1. Even if the aff can somewhat lower the risk of a cyber attack in the U.S., they can’t solve for the rest of the world, which means they can’t solve for other countries’ infrastructure, the aff only marginally solves for the risks.

2. The environment minority workers enter is controlled and maintained by white males.

3. The aff can’t control employee benefits of private sector, meaning competition doesn’t allow the aff to solve for miscalc.

Alarmism

Cyber threats are always hyped by commanders of the US Cyber Command overwhelmed with exaggerations and hyperbole.

Individuals get caught up in listening to companies who work to maximize the potential cyber threats so you will by their software and “expertise” to combat such threats.

1NC SP2[edit]

Interpretation—“substantial” requires creating a new program. Redwoods.edu no date [1] Calculus BC SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE A new program based upon an active proposal. This action will initiate a new control number.

Violation: the aff modifies existing sex education standards and programs

Vote neg:

Limits—justifies an infinite number of affs that make minor changes to existing education programs—allows hyperspecific and small affs with massive advantage areas—explodes neg research burden

Ground—modifications to existing programs destroy DA and mechanism counterplan ground—destroys link uniqueness contextual counterplan solvency

Topicality is a voter for fairness and education

Prefer C/I – Reasonability forces judge intervention and causes a race to the bottom

K

individualized risk-based model of sexuality – this results in a neoliberal model of personal responsibility which integrates sex ed into patterns of economic consumption and production. Shannon 16 (Barrie Shannon, PhD Candidate at the School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. “Comprehensive for who? Neoliberal directives in Australian ‘comprehensive’ sexuality education and the erasure of GLBTIQ identity,” Sex Education, 2016) Sexuality education in Australia does not necessarily resemble the ‘conservative’ nor the ‘comprehensive’ AND shifted from a macro to an individual level (Harris and Farrington 2014).

The AFF misses the forest for the trees, failure to isolate capital as the structural antagonism as a starting form for their politics dooms them to replicate the horizontalist politics of occupy Marcus 2012 – associate book editor at Dissent Magazine (Fall, David, “The Horizontalists”, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-horizontalists) There is a much-recycled and certainly apocryphal tale told of an ethnographer traveling AND that, in our age of ever more stratification, we must resist.

Single-issue movements will be co-opted by capitalism—only complete structural challenges have any hope. Meszaros, 95 -(Istivan, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, Beyond Capital, pg. 39-40) To aggravate the situation, everything is further complicated by the fact that it is AND emancipatory movements can successfully make their common cause for the survival of humanity.

Its try or die—Capitalism’s narcissistic drive makes democratization of the market impossible—humanity is at a crossroads—the timeframe is now Richard A. Smith 7, Research Associate at the Institute for Policy Research & Development, UK; PhD in History from UCLA, June 2007, “The Eco-suicidal Economics of Adam Smith,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 22-43 So there you have it: insatiable growth and consumption is destroying the planet and AND a practical working socialist democracy, or we face ecological and social collapse.

Voting negative refuses the affirmative in favor of Historical Materialist Pedagogy. International inequality is sutured by the unequal circulation of capital. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary moment. Only starting from the structural antagonisms produced by wage labor can lead to transformative politics. Ebert ‘9 [Teresa, Associate Professor of English, State University of New York at Albany, THE TASK OF CULTURAL CRITIQUE, pp. 92-95] Unlike these rewritings, which reaffirm in a somewhat new language the system of wage AND Instead, the pedagogy of critique is a worldly teaching of the worldly.

Capitalism produces sacrificial genocide, eliminating all other alternative systems Santos 3 (Boaventura de Sousa, director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, EUROZINE, COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OR GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW, http://www.eurozine.com/article/2003-03-26-santos-en.html) *Note this card had been modified for suicide metaphors According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it AND to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years.

2

The Fifty United States and all relevant territories should eliminate funding for abstinence-only sex education and fully fund sexual education programs that meet the criteria established by the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act.

States are key to education and preventing “one size fits all” programs. The CP also aligns responsibility and moves towards a more practical decision calculus. Kelly and Hess 9/15/2015 [Andrew P. Kelly is a resident scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Entrprise Institute. Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book, “Letters to a Young Education Reformer.” More Than a Slogan Here are five good reasons federalism is so important in education. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-education-matters] Calculus BC It's a matter of size. Education advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and AND is both accountable to the public and dynamic enough to meet today's challenges.

States solve better—sex ed policy is decentralized Kaiser 02 [Kaiser Family Foundation. March 2002. “Sex Education in the U.S.: Policy and Politics.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2000/09/3224-sex-education-in-the-us-policy-and-politics.pdf. SH] Despite these federal efforts, sex education policy is mostly decentralized. And, since AND five require that it be due to a family’s religious or moral beliefs.

3

Trump Administration sets precedent; it’s a states issue National Review 2/23/2017 (February 23, 2017, “Returning Power to States and School Boards, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445181/trump-transgender-guidelines-win-federalism)//PS Yesterday the Trump administration preserved federalism, respected the principle of local control over local AND student privacy and identity, one size most assuredly does not fit all.

Federalism on sex ed threatens national unity; causes fissures in morality issues Barr 2010 (Sam Barr, February 4, 2010, “On Sex Ed, Who Should Decide?” < http://harvardpolitics.com/online/hprgument-blog/on-sex-ed-who-should-decide/>)//PS Ross Douthat had an admirable column earlier this week arguing that, because we don’t AND prefer proximity in law-making, or e pluribus unum in culture?

Federalism maintains sanctuary cities, scaling back mass deportation Somin 11/26/16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.d2d1595c1ecb Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter." The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations AND cooperate with it. And they will have the Constitution on their side.

Deportation increase industrial ag, GMOs, pesticides Meierotto 10/5/15 Lisa Meierotto, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Foundational Studies Program at Boise State University. She earned her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Washington, and also holds an M.A. in international development and environment from Clark University. Meierotto’s research focuses on the human rights of migrants and environmental ramifications of undocumented immigration. https://thebluereview.org/food-and-immigration-food-systems-and-food-security/ More recently, I have been considering the ways in which mass deportation policy as AND wages, farm worker protection and sustainable production lies right here at home.

Industrial ag = food collapse Peters 2010 (Kathryn, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in Agricultural and Food Law, “Creating a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION, http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf Industrial agriculture in the United States has only been in place ¶ since the mid AND to rapidly changing climate ¶ conditions and will help to ensure food security.

Biggest extinction risk Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It, http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv0zXxbQ7toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coming+famine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RR_mT7OYFKeq2gXP5tHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20coming%20famine&f=false The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more AND changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that power it.

Case

Advantage—Heteronormativity

Comprehensive sex ed is an assimilatory tactic of cisheteropatriarchy – the progressive narrative of inclusion envelops deviant subjects into a neoliberal restructuring of the nuclear family, which only permits the biopolitical management of trans and gender non-conforming subjects. Shannon 16 (Barrie Shannon, PhD Candidate at the School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. “Comprehensive for who? Neoliberal directives in Australian ‘comprehensive’ sexuality education and the erasure of GLBTIQ identity,” Sex Education, 2016)[discourse modified]* Sameness, ‘homonormativity’ and GLBTIQ erasure Harris and Farrington (2014) and Riggs AND capability to feel ‘intimately linked’ with the world around them is diminished.

Canada proves that sex education is designed to outline who and what LGBTQ+ and disabled people need to be. Comprehensive sex education contends itself to be diverse and inclusive, but mimics the narrowed view of neoliberal mentality and reinforces violence against disabled people in the name of “normal” McMinn 17 (TL McMinn thesis for Master of Arts Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto “Sex Education as Neoliberal Inclusion: Hetero-cis-ableism in Ontario’s 2015 Health and Physical Education Curriculum” <http://search.proquest.com/docview/1884603730?pq-origsite=gscholar>) The following research question informed this study: how does hetero-cis-ableism AND are viewed as unnecessary, overwrought, and just plain uncomfortable to have.

Solvency—Diversity Discourse Fails

“LGBTQ+ Friendly” education only manages negative stigma whilst maintaining the superiority of the nuclear family. McNeill 13 [Tanya McNeill received her PhD in Sociology with a Certificate in Feminist Studies from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2008. She has taught in Women’s and Gender Studies, LGBT Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Wellesley College, the University of California at Davis, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. Her research interests include the production of knowledge about the family, the regulation of gender, race, sexuality, and class, childhood and gender, and LGBT advocacy. Her essay, ‘A nation of families: The codification and (be)longings of heteropatriarchy’ was published in Toward a Sociology of the Trace in 2010. She currently lives in Eugene, Oregon, where she is researching cultural and political representations of gender creative (or gender non-conforming) children. file:///C:/Users/Benny/Downloads/sex%20education%20and%20the%20promotion%20of%20heteronormativity.pdf “Sex education and the promotion of heteronormativity” pg. 9] Calculus BC The assertion of the superiority of a particular family form raises affective and pedagogical problems AND heteronormative regulation of the family, and of the state’s regulation of affect.

Framing

Evaluate extinction level impacts first- Extinction o/w and is the best method for effective policymaking—allows lives to be quantified – juxtaposes with structural violence claims that use affect which can’t be specified

Extinction first --- it’s irreversible and outweighs their offense Fassin 10 - James D. Wolfensohn Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, as well as directeur d’études at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris. (Didier, Fall, “Ethics of Survival: A Democratic Approach to the Politics of Life” Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, Vol 1 No 1, Project Muse) Conclusion Survival, in the sense Jacques Derrida attributed to the concept in his AND life into a political instrument or a moral resource or an affective expression.

1NC SP3[edit]

SP3 1NC Framework

Interpretation: the affirmative should defend the desirability of a topical plan that affirms the United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.


A. “United States Federal Government should” means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means Ericson, 3 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4) The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains AND compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.

B. The word “Resolved” before the colon reflects a legislative forum Army Officer School ‘04(5-12, “# 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon”, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm) The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after " AND resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Violation: The affirmative does not present a topical plan text.

Vote Negative -

1. Institutional knowledge – our framework prioritizes a method of democratic engagement and commitment to participatory change - the affirmative’s criteria for political change causes a fracturing of politics and trades off with genuine political change. Chandler 7 - Professor of International Relations at the University of Westminster [David, “The Attraction of Post-Territorial Politics: Ethics and Activism in the International Sphere,” The Inaugural Lecture of Professor David Chandler, 2 May 2007, http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Inaugural-lecture.pdf] However, politics is no less important to many of us today. Politics still AND peers and colleagues at the level of political or intellectual debate and organisation.

2. Deliberative dialogue - the resolution provides fair, limited balance of ground to both the aff and the neg – discarding the opportunity of focus provided by the resolution turns debate into a monologue which guts all benefits of the activity. Hanghoj 08 – PhD, assistant professor, School of Education, University of Aarhus, also affiliated with the Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials, located at the Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Southern Denmark [Thorkild, PLAYFUL KNOWLEDGE An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming, PhD Dissertation Institute of Literature, Media and Cultural Studies University of Southern Denmark 2008, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf] 3.3.1. Balancing teaching and gaming Debate games are often AND dialogue as an end in itself” (Wegerif, 2006: 61).

These impacts outweigh - effective deliberative training coupled with institutional knowledge is key to effective challenges to oppression—the content of debates is irrelevant, it’s about repeatedly practicing the form of switch-side skepticism Hahn, 16—Ph. D. in Communication from the University of Pittsburgh (Taylor, “TEACHING WHAT MATTERS: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS ON LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN,” http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/30348/1/T.%20Hahn%20Dissertation%20-%20ETD%20submission.pdf) My analysis of the Solutions controversy has revealed one such opportunity: the potential for AND create political space within which alternative conceptions of politics can be developed.30

1NC

Its try or die—Capitalism’s narcissistic drive makes democratization of the market impossible—humanity is at a crossroads—the timeframe is now Richard A. Smith 7, Research Associate at the Institute for Policy Research & Development, UK; PhD in History from UCLA, June 2007, “The Eco-suicidal Economics of Adam Smith,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 22-43 So there you have it: insatiable growth and consumption is destroying the planet and AND a practical working socialist democracy, or we face ecological and social collapse.

Voting negative refuses the affirmative in favor of Historical Materialist Pedagogy. International inequality is sutured by the unequal circulation of capital. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary moment. Only starting from the structural antagonisms produced by wage labor can lead to transformative politics. Ebert ‘9 [Teresa, Associate Professor of English, State University of New York at Albany, THE TASK OF CULTURAL CRITIQUE, pp. 92-95] Unlike these rewritings, which reaffirm in a somewhat new language the system of wage AND Instead, the pedagogy of critique is a worldly teaching of the worldly.

Their rejection of education as a space of productivity is actively hostile to an anti-capitalist orientation – ethics demand that we utilize spaces such as debate to generate an anti-capitalist pedagogy that can play a fundamental role in shaping the material relations of power. Instead of resigning ourselves to an experience of impotentiality, the negative can create counter-hegemonic enclaves to challenge neoliberal knowledge production – this provides a new vocabulary to discuss social and political problems, develop the requisite skills to deploy them and reverse the neoliberal orthodoxy. As an educator, this is your responsibility Giroux, 5 American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy, Henry, “Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism,” http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/1_2/giroux.html, In opposition to these positions, I want to reclaim a tradition in radical educational AND through new forms of pedagogical praxis, global protests, and collective resistance.

Our pedagogy has the ability to connect critical theory to practice- the academy has become the fodder of neoliberalism- we need to move past revelations and theorizing and it is your responsibility as an academic to provide a new vocabulary for engaging the social order Giroux, 5 American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy, Henry, “Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism,” http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/1_2/giroux.html, Increasingly, education appears useful only to those who hold political and economic power, AND trust, conviction, and courage that are vital to a substantive democracy.

Capitalism produces sacrificial genocide, eliminating all other alternative systems Santos 3 (Boaventura de Sousa, director of the Center for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, EUROZINE, COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OR GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW, http://www.eurozine.com/article/2003-03-26-santos-en.html) *Note this card had been modified for suicide metaphors According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it AND to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years.

Case

The aff may be a pre-requisite but it is not a complete politics – their method of study cannot defend or sustain itself which guarantees backlash and re-appropriation. Ford 17 – (Derek R., Prof of Education at DePauw University, PhD Syracuse, “Studying like a communist: Affect, the Party, and the educational limits to capitalism,” Incorporating ACCESS, Volume 49, 2017 - Issue 5, Pages 452-461)//a-berg Studying is, like the crowd event, a beautiful moment of encounter, the AND foreclosed as the crowd is dispersed through redirection, exhaustion, or repression.

Contemporary uses of biopolitics are not all bad – it enables modes of survival. Ojakangas 5 (Mika – Professor of Political Thought at the University of Jyvaskyla, “Impossible Dialogue on Bio-power: Agamben and Foucault,” in Foucault Studies, Number 2, p. 26-27, http://dferagi.webs.ull.es/d/social2/docs/Foucault.3.pdf) In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite incomprehensible without taking AND collective – that is the measure of the success of bio-power.

Piecemeal resistance should be your goal --- agambens arguments lay a groundwork for what’s wrong with the status quo but aren’t helpful in determining what to do about it --- simply using the state does not doom us

The jargon of ‘exception’ is depoliticizing and ignores social reforms Huysmans 8 (Jef – Professor of Security Studies at the Open University, “The Jargon of Exception—On Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society,” in International Political Sociology, Volume 2, Issue 2, June 2008, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00042.x/abstract) Deploying the jargon of exception and especially Agamben’s conception of the exception-being- AND as the central processes through which individualized bodily resistances gain their sociopolitical significance.

People can and do assert agency in the face of state control – ignoring this disempowers the aff Casarino and Negri 04 -Cesare Casarino, professor of cultural studies and comparative literature at the University of Minnesota AND Antonio Negri, author of numerous volumes of philosophy and political theory. “It’s a Powerful Life: A Conversation on Contemporary Philosophy” Cultural Critique 57. AN: I believe Giorgio is writing a sequel to Homo Sacer, and I AND continuously try to subtract or neutralize our resistance. [End Page 174]