START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,294,801 people care about Politics

Kansas Wants to Prosecute Teachers Who Show “Harmful” Materials – Whatever That Means

Kansas Wants to Prosecute Teachers Who Show “Harmful” Materials – Whatever That Means

I don’t envy teachers. Kids are the worst. Parents are the worst. On top of that teachers’ unions seem to be under perpetual attack. No, being a K-12 teacher looks like a rough gig, and I’m glad there are people out there who are more cut out for it than I am. It’s too bad, however, that we constantly treat them like the children they teach.

Late last week, the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would make it easier to prosecute teachers, librarians and school principals for materials that are “harmful to minors.” The move was in response to an incident involving a sex ed poster hung on a middle school classroom door.

Hmm… A kneejerk reaction to teaching preteens about sex? What could possibly go wrong?!

You may be thinking at this point, “What, exactly, is meant by ‘harmful to minors’?” The bill basically takes an “I know it when I see it” approach to figuring out if something is inappropriate for minors. It requires the imposition of “contemporary community standards.” Specifically, the bill defines “harmful to minors” to mean materials that:

(A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;
(B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors

Sounds a bit like pornography. I think we can all agree that teachers shouldn’t be showing kids pornography. That clearly crosses a line. However, opponents of this bill argue is far too sweeping and that it could ban great works of art, like Michelangelo’s David or “Romeo and Juliet.”

I’m not sure about that, but it is serious. Remember, this all came about because of a sex ed poster hung in a middle school. That poster didn’t have graphic images of naked bodies. It was merely a list of ways people can show sexual intimacy. According to the Wichita Eagle:

The poster was titled “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” and featured a list of 17 behaviors or sex acts, including cuddling, holding hands, massage, kissing, oral sex and anal sex. It was removed after a parent complained, and Shawnee Mission district officials later said in a letter to parents that the curriculum had been suspended “pending a detailed review of the material.”

I know people get all squiggly when we start talking about sex with kids, but think about it this way. I learned about oral sex when I was in middle school from Bill Clinton. This was before I was going on the Internet in a big way. Would you rather these kids get their information from potentially inaccurate sources, or would you rather they get their information from a trusted teacher? The idea that this type of thing could be banned because of nebulous “community standards” is frightening. It’s even more so when you think that the more sexually repressed the community, the more there needs to be a safe space to discuss these issues.

And we Kansans seriously need to talk about sex more. Specifically, we need to talk about safe sex more. In 2011, Kansas had the seventeenth highest teen birth rate in the country.

As potentially harmful as this bill is, it gets worse. You’ll notice that the bill prohibits material that depicts “sexual conduct.” This, too, has a definition. It means, among other things, “acts of…homosexuality.”

Whoa. Wait. Acts of homosexuality? What does that mean? Hand-holding? Hugging? Raising kids together? You only have to live in the world to know that gay couples are held to a different standard than hetero couples. Hand-holding might go unnoticed if it was between people of different genders, but become glaringly obvious when two men or two women do it. Will it suddenly be illegal for teachers to expose students to positive depictions of homosexual couples? I think the bill gives cover to people who want to erase gay people from public knowledge.

At the very least, this bill will cause teachers to self-censor because a teacher is guilty of a crime if they recklessly expose their students to this material. It doesn’t even have to be intentional. It’s only rational to want to avoid committing a crime, which in this case would likely lead to some kind of self-censorship. In education, this is basically the worst.

The people we have tasked with teaching our children have enough to deal with. Can we at least trust them with their job?

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

448 comments

+ add your own
11:38AM PDT on Mar 29, 2014

Frightening in its ambiguity.

12:41PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Just being alive is harmful anymore.

10:28PM PDT on Mar 17, 2014

Teaching HAS always been a tough PROFFESION, that I am not envious of........... then you get good teachers and then you get bad ones, but the real trouble is, that it's our kids out there and us Parents are always right!!

2:40PM PDT on Mar 17, 2014

Worrying

5:51AM PDT on Mar 17, 2014

Kids are practising sex from an early age, did you know that to some kids at young as 8, oral sex is like kissing, to show how much you like someone? they need to know what a loving and trusting relationship is all about, all to often they get porn from their mobiles (or have the internet available in their bedrooms, and believe me, most kids can get around any bars you may have put on it), they mistake porn for love. Some family's don't want to, or can't talk about sex with their children, or some like my family think you have to be 16 till they can tell you the basic facts of life! Way to late, my periods started at 13, three weeks before they taught us at school, can you imaging how scared I was! Teachers have a way of getting through to kids that some family's can't, let them get on with their jobs and stop trying to pull the blanket over sex, it only makes kids more desperate to try it!

3:04PM PDT on Mar 14, 2014

Defining “average adult person” is important when what is right or wrong appears to depend on what the “average adult person” considers correct. The problem is that the idea each of us has of the “average adult person” is strongly dependent on the education, the family way of living, the religious and the political beliefs. Briefly: there is not a word wide agreement on what the “average adult person” is. So if the basis for defining the correct behaviour is based on something that can strongly differ from one person to another, we are bound to go on the wrong track.

1:25PM PDT on Mar 14, 2014

What are the harmful materials that is being shown to the kids?
There is no answer to this in the proposed legislation. That is part of the problem.

1:12PM PDT on Mar 14, 2014

What are the harmful materials that is being shown to the kids?

7:56PM PDT on Mar 13, 2014

Tim W- well put. Apparently 2 posts of mine from last night are not showing up at the moment. Sometimes they seem to come & go here on C2.... Whatever. IF I don't see them in the next few days I'll repost. But I agree w/your statement. And those thinking I'm implying that people should be forced to submit to the 'pray out the gay' crowd are just wanting to start BS instead of have a conversation about how something like this COULD be beneficial- there are only so many words one can type in a box like this & only so many one would want to read anyway. Many here just judge people on past posts or what they want to think someone is all about. I'm not far left, so therefore, I'm classified as right-wing. Maybe it's kind of like being classified as gay in a straight world? Only I can sit back & laugh- it's not as easy for a gay person. Still, IMO, IF done the correct way, this idea to help. And the correct way is not to alienate, but to help one sort out confusion.

7:43AM PDT on Mar 13, 2014

thanks

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Interracial dating site for singles dating white men,black women,black men and white women online!Find…

I wonder whether they'd be greater outcry if it was armed women intimidating men?

adorable! the one one the left looks like my dog Shadow when he was a puppy. he reacts the same way…

ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.