2.1-6 DaoJensen

To educate, you have to be looking toward the future and believe in a better world. Better worlds, however, aren't profitable in the short term. —Adrianna Puiggros Under the economic theory of neoliberalism, market profits are privileged over human beings. Beginning in the 1980s Reagan era, neoliberal economic policies have attacked public programs established by the federal government to provide for the poor and disenfranchised. Strengthened by a neoconservative political backlash, many of the social and welfare programs that provided relief for poor families were being dismantled. The rhetoric of neoliberalism is not limited to the idea of free markets for increased profits and privatization of social services; it also derides government as inefficient, too big, or out of control while simultaneously advocating for more personal responsibility. This symbiotic relationship encourages people to look, not to government for assistance but to see government as part of the “problem.” While the term neoliberalism is rarely named or discussed in mainstream American culture, the enactment of neoliberal economic policies have instilled a powerful ideology that undermines the idea that government has a responsibility for creating opportunities that enables and advances the collective good. Neoliberalism does not reside exclusively within a particular political party in American politics and as I will later point out in this chapter, both Republican and Democratic presidents have instituted neoliberal policies that elevate and sustain the operation of corporatized markets and profits, leaving behind fragmented social programs for poor families and budget cuts to public schooling. In this chapter, I will explore how the neoliberal logic of market competition converges with the politically neoconservative agenda of Christian Right organizations by examining the hegemonic notions of personal responsibility in the public school curriculum. I will focus primarily on the implications for public schooling as federally funded abstinence-only sex education gained widespread appeal after it was included as a provision in welfare reform legislation, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Abstinence-only sex education comes of age Federal government funding for abstinence-only sex education pro-grams has existed now for twenty five years. Beginning in 1981, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), also commonly referred to as the “chastity law,” created teen pregnancy prevention programs that instructed young women about sexual abstinence while simultaneously promoting adoption (instead of abortion) for teen mothers who were already pregnant. Within two years, lawsuits charged that religious content in abstinence-only programs breached the Establishment Clause of the Constitution which stipulates a separation of church and state. By 1993, the lawsuit was settled out of court with the agreement that AFLA funded programs would not contain religious references (such as bringing Jesus Christ to chaperone while dating) and be medically accurate. Unfortunately, Christian centered abstinence-only programs such as Sex Respect and Teen-Aid had been proliferating for several years by then, creating their own for-profit abstinence-only curricula. The following year, Representative John Doolittle (R-CA) tried unsuccessfully to introduce an amendment designed to limit the content of sexuality and HIV education. Part of the Christian Right’s agenda, it was an attempt to restrict gay and lesbian youth services. Since federal laws prohibit the federal government from mandating content of local community education programs, conservative Christian Right lobbyists developed a strategy where they could influence program content through health policy and funding. By 1996, during the period that welfare reform legislation was undergoing revisions, a mandated provision for abstinence-only sex education for $50 million annually for fiscal years 1998-2002 was hastily written into the law. The funds would be drawn from the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant which provides prenatal and neonatal services to low-income women. Funding for abstinence-only sex education in welfare reform legislation was granted entitlement status which compelled Congress to fund it without requiring any debate. Signed by President Clinton, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA), was lauded by the Democratic president who proclaimed to “end welfare as we know it.” Welfare reform law shifted Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The name change was not merely superficial, it positioned single family house-holds (who are mostly headed by poor white women and women of color) as too dependent on government and therefore, undeserving of public aid. Describing the intersections of neoconservative politics and neoliberal economics, Lisa Duggan (2003) writes: These legislative features emerged from decades of efforts to erode New Deal welfare state programs, especially AFDC, through the deployment of images of sexually promiscuous, lazy welfare queens breeding for the profit of an ever-enlarging welfare check. The specific neoliberal spin on this cultural project was the removal of explicitly racist, misogynist lan-guage and images, and the substitution of the language and values of privatization and personal responsibility. As part of PRWORA, single women raising families with welfare assistance were told to take “personal responsibility” for their poverty by returning to the workforce as low-wage workers. As a result of PRWORA, federal funding for abstinence-only sex education pro-grams once intended to promote marriage to young unwed mothers and discourage sexual activity outside the confines of marriage was no longer limited to young, single mothers. The market competition for abstinence-only curricula was now open to all public school students. Federal government’s definition of abstinence-only Broadly viewed as a neoconservative attack on comprehensive sexuality education that encompasses contraception knowledge, abstinence-only sex education became an economic boon for Christian organizations as they competed to become federal grant recipients. The abstinence-only provision in PRWORA requires that for every three dollars that states spend on abstinence-only sex education, federal funds will match it with four dollars. Under the guidelines, comprehensive sex education programs that mention the benefits of contraceptive usage towards preventing pregnancy, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases do not qualify to receive federal funding. The federal government defines abstinence-only sex education as meeting the following requirements: has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity; teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society; teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity As evident in the highly restrictive federal guidelines, states that prefer to allow a more comprehensive sex education program that includes prophylaxis would be excluded from receiving federal funds. The teaching of “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage” and that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects” eschew recognition of gay and lesbian sexuality and creates a hostile climate in which sex educators are silenced. Since gay and lesbian people are not allowed to legally marry in the United States, the avoidance of discussing gay and lesbian sexuality in a positive manner is an attempt to marginalize and render them invisible. The government’s efforts to stigmatize any type of sexual behavior outside of marriage were epitomized in a website launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHH) in March 2005. Paid for by federal tax dollars, the purpose of the website, was supposed to serve as a discussion guide and resource for parents and caregivers to pre-teen and mid-teen young adults. However, medical health experts characterized the website as disseminating inaccurate, misleading, and negative information about condoms, sexual orientation, and single parent households (Connolly, 2005). Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), who led a congressional investigation of abstinence-only programs in late 2004, criticized the fear-based statements on the HHS website. “The content appears to have been guided by ideology, not a commitment to providing parents and teens reliable information about sex,” adding, “A federally funded Web site should present the facts as they are, not as you might wish them to be. It is wrong—and ultimately self-defeating—to sacrifice scientific accuracy in an effort to frighten teens and their parents” (Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2005). Further rebuke of the HHS website pointed to the fact that it lacked input from experts at the Centers for Disease Control or “any other science-based agency of the federal government” but was produced by a contractor, National Physicians Center for Family Resources for $46,000. The National Physicians Center for Family Resources, which has ties with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is a non-membership organization that concludes on its website that “contra-ceptive-based education will protect the overall health of America's adolescents is a prescription for continued disaster” (National Physicians Center, 2001). According to Waxman, the group lacks credibility within the medical community as it has “erroneously linked abortion to breast cancer.” Waxman admonished the HHS website as an example of “the distortion of scientific information” propelled by a conservative ideology dedicated to promoting abstinence-until-marriage programs (Connolly, 2005). With the help of over 150 advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood Federation of American, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), nearly 1,000 letters from parents and concerned citizens were sent to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt to protest the biased and medically inaccurate information on the website. By May 2005, changes to the HHS website included references to sexual orientation from “alternative lifestyle” to “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender lifestyle” and the section advising parents of gay children to “seek a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues” was amended to say “counselors and other health professionals may be helpful to both teens and parents when addressing difficult issues.” While minor corrections to the HHS websites have been made, the lack of government oversight to provide medically accurate information reflects an unwillingness to educate the American public on sexual health issues. Neoliberalism and the deprofessionalization of public school teachers The idea of market competition calls for community organizations, of which the overwhelming majority reflects a socially conservative agenda and/or are religiously affiliated, to submit grant proposals bidding for funds to teach abstinence-only sex education in public schools. To bypass the possible violation of separation of church and state mandated by the federal government, the contracted abstinence-only instructors are restricted to speaking in a secular language about sexuality and not discuss religion with students. Traditionally, when sexuality education was taught in a public school, the instructors were certified teachers or a medical professional employed directly with the school district. The creation and teaching of the sexuality education curriculum usually resided within the do-main of health education taught by either the biology teacher, physical education teacher, or the school nurse. However, many of the abstinence-only instructors are not certified teachers and at best, have a substitute teaching certificate. As non-certified school teachers, they are not allowed to teach in a public school classroom with students unless a school teacher or administrator is also present in the class-room. Abstinence-only instructors work under constant surveillance by the teachers and administrators. In most cases, they have undergone 2 week training sessions offered by the curriculum publishers. Part of their training involves following a scripted lecture will little pedagogi-cal autonomy. They are expected to adhere to the pre-packaged abstinence-only curriculum that has been purchased by their employer. Their temporary presence in the school makes it difficult for absti-nence-only instructors to develop rapport with students as they travel from public school to public school on a weekly basis. Within the economic framework of neoliberalism, abstinence-only instructors are the ideal workers for public schools which are constantly faced with budget shortfalls on an annual basis. As contractors, abstinence-only instructors are paid a much lower salary than that of a certified teacher, receive little to no healthcare benefits, and can be terminated at any time. Non-unionized and with the majority lacking any substantive teaching certification credentials, the presence of abstinence-only instructors in American public schools symbolize the increasing deprofessionalization and deskilling of public school teachers.
Since many instructors do not have teaching certification, the main qualification in becoming an abstinence-only instructor seems to be that one is a practicing Christian. As employees of the Christian organization that contracts with public schools to implement the absti-nence-only curriculum, the gradual erosion of separation of church and state reflects an alarming trend. While the majority of American par-ents favor a more comprehensive sexuality education over abstinence-only education for their children (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000), Christian based abstinence-only programs have made substantial in-roads in American public schools by sending in abstinence-only in-structors to inform teenagers about the spiritual rewards of “saving” one’s body from sexual impurity outside of heterosexual marriage. Taxpayer dollars funding religion Despite the dubious effectiveness of abstinence-only programs to de-lay the onset of sexual activity or to lower pregnancy and STD rates, these programs have continued to enjoy increased matched state and federal funding. Funding for abstinence-only programs reached a re-cord $500 million in the first five years from 1998–2002. More recently, President Bush has requested a budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 to increase funding for abstinence-only sex programs to a record $206 million. In May 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the abstinence-only program, Silver Ring Thing (SRT), was “permeated with religion” and used “taxpayer dollars to promote relig-ious content, instruction, and indoctrination.” The Silver Ring Thing was awarded more than $1 million since 2003 for its three hour absti-nence-only programs that include skits, flashing lights, video presentations, and a rally in which organizers quote Bible passages while students pledge to remain virgins. By August 2005, DHH took action by withholding the remaining $75,000 in federal funds from SRT, claiming that the abstinence-only sex education curriculum, as implemented by SRT, contained religious activities that disqualified it from receiving federal tax dollars. Similar to many abstinence-only programs, part of the SRT curricula involved organizing students to participate in a ritual of “virginity pledges.” The virginity pledge, the brainchild social movement of the Southern Baptist Church since 1993, encourages adolescents to pledge to God that they will not engage in sexual intercourse before marriage (Gish, 2000; Neill, 2000; Todd, 1999). Abstinence-only programs have organized virginity pledges that range from a public document signing to participating in a mass ritual verbal pledge. It is an idea that appeals to adults because it encourages adolescents and teenagers to take personal responsibility by embracing the message of “just say no” to sexual intercourse. Many of the abstinence-only programs, most of which are overtly Christian and some that have secular language, include virginity pledges as part of the curricula: Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to a lifetime of purity including sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relation-ship. —True Love Waits, virginity pledge on a Commitment Card, sponsored by Lifeway Christian Resources I, ______ am a (virgin, secondary virgin). I have made a choice to remain abstinent until ______. I will be accountable to ______ for this decision. (Teen-Aid, virginity pledge on Personal Commitment Card) I, ______, promise to abstain from sex until my wedding night. I want to reserve my sexual powers to give life and love for my future spouse and marriage. I will respect my gift of sexuality by keeping my mind and thoughts pure as I prepare for my true love. I commit to grow in character to learn to live love and freedom. (Sex Respect, Parent Guide) By 2000, over two and a half million adolescents have taken some form of the virginity pledge (Bearman & Brückner, 2000). In an up-dated study of adolescents who participated in virginity pledges, Brückner & Bearman (2005) used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Their findings point out that the difference between adolescents who made virginity pledges and those that did not was not statistically significant. In fact, the sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) infection rates do not differ between pledgers and non-pledgers. The researchers have offered a possible explanation that “pledgers are less likely than others to use condoms at sexual debut and to be tested and diagnosed with STDs.” In the case of SRT, young adults are expected to wear a silver ring as a symbol of their virginity pledge, a ring that is inscribed with “God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.” Ironically, SRT denies any proselytizing aspects of its abstinence-only curriculum yet for several weeks before and after DHH announced it would cease to grant funds for SRT programs, an online ad for Silver Ring Thing programs on DVD advertised a forthcoming, not yet finished secular version of its current abstinence-only program as being “in development.” The Silver Ring Thing is an abstinence-only program run by John Guest Evangelistic Team, a Christian missionary organization. A religious faith in the market Robert W. McChesney writes that neoliberalism demands “a religious faith in the infallibility of the unregulated market” (Chomsky, 1999). Based on 19th century concept of laissez-faire when businesses wanted minimal government interference, early conceptions of economic liberalism became a staple of American thinking by the early 20th cen-tury. The elevation of the market competition metaphor to describe America’s vision of democracy and the right to free speech was immortalized in a dissenting opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” (Holmes, Abrams v. United States, 1919). Although the ideas of economic liberalism fell out of favor after the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, it resurfaced again as neoliberalism by the end of the 20th century with the mounting neoconservative backlash against many of the government sponsored social programs. While one would expect the marketplace metaphor to describe an imaginary space in which competing ideas are discussed and contested, the conditions under neoliberalism are not hospitable to anything that challenges corporate profits. Within the unregulated marketplace metaphor, “truth” or claims to “own the truth,” becomes just another commodity to be purchased and consumed. In the unregulated marketplace of abstinence-only programs, Christian based and/or neoconservative organizations have been given unprecedented access to millions of taxpayer dollars to set up medically inaccurate information on a federal government website while religious proselytizers have infiltrated American public schools in the guise of promoting morality and character building as they highlight the benefits of abstaining from premarital sexual activity. Since federal funds for abstinence-only programs has reached over $100 million annually, the competition for federal grants to implement an abstinence-only program has led some organizations to seek out fee-based consultative services in writing grants and proposals from more established abstinence-only organizations such as Teen-Aid. In their discussion of neoliberalism and the social changes that result, Fischman, Ball, and Gvirtz (2003) assert: The market, competitiveness, and choice involve not simply a new and more efficient mechanism for the delivery of public sector services, but also the basis for a new moral economy. It brings with it a new set of values and a new ethical framework within which relationships and practices in public sector organizations are reworked. In the case of organizations that promote and design abstinence-only programs, the designation of non-profit status serves to obscure the enormous profits generated as well as the benefactors who seek to establish a strategic agenda of less government regulation of business and more privatization of government (public) services. The “new moral economy” urges people to exert self-control over themselves and to not rely on government services. The Best Friends Foundation is an example of the ways in which neoconservatives and neoliberals have co-opted the nonprofit organization status to advance their own vision of the role (or lack of) of government. Elayne Bennett is president and founder of Best Friends Founda-tion, a character building program whose purpose is to “promote self-respect through the practice of self-control and provides participants the skills, guidance, and support to choose abstinence from sex until marriage and reject illegal drug and alcohol abuse” (Bennett, 2005). Best Friends Foundation creates abstinence-only programs that emphasize virtue and personal responsibility for students in elementary through secondary schools. As the wife of William Bennett, former secretary of education during the Reagan administration and author of the popular and highly profitable The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories (1993), Elayne has been able to profit from her husband’s prominent business and political connections. Her Best Friends Foundation has 501(c)(3) status, a designation commonly given to non-profit organizations. The IRS designation prohibits organizations such as Best Friends Foundation from attempts to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates” (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html). During the years 1994–2003, Best Friends Foundation received $1,174,696 in charitable contributions. Public school districts that choose to implement the Best Friends abstinence-only and character building curriculum must make a commitment to purchase the entire curriculum series from sixth grade to the high school level. Best Friends Foundation does not supply the abstinence-only curriculum for free. Instead, school districts are expected to secure funding or apply for federal abstinence funds. As a non-profit organization, it is highly questionable why school districts would need to secure the majority of funding if Best Friends Foundation is highly successful in attracting Washington DC’s elite and wealthy benefactors at its private fund-raising galas. Upon closer examination of the Best Friends Foundation, its charitable organization status allows it to receive the majority of its funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., the country’s largest and most influential right-wing organization. Ac-cording to the Media Transparency website the Bradley Foundation “supports the organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of virtually all social welfare programs, and the privatization of government services.” Other Bradley Foundation grant recipients include ideologically conservative think tanks exerting tremendous influence on public policy such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, and The Hoover Institute. In the early 1990s, the Bradley Foundation provided financial backing to Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve (1994), which links intelligence to race, and Losing Ground (1995), which argues for the complete elimination of social programs. The Bradley Foundation’s resolute commitment to financing organizations that privatize government services is incontrovertible. Its “philanthropic” financing of the Best Friends Foundation’s character building and abstinence-only sex education programs have targeted low income public schools with a majority student population of Afri-can-Americans. Returning to Lisa Duggan’s assertion that neoliberal economic policies mask racist and classist ideologies, the Best Friends Foundation serves as a private contractor to public schools, promoting a curriculum taught during school hours that emphasizes moral virtue and personal responsibility to young African-Americans. A tacit understanding of character and abstinence-only programs within this “new moral economy” (Fischman, Ball, and Gvirtz, 2003) is that the poor and working class need only look within themselves for economic stability instead of analyzing the structures and system-atic barriers of institutionalized racism and classism that have led to the continued defunding of public schools and other social support programs. The intersections of economic neoliberalism and social neoconservativism have overshadowed the danger to an engaged citizenry as private corporate interests, with some disguised as non-profit organizations, dominate and compete not only for financial gain but moral control. It assumes that the market is the solution, that the market alone can solve, fix, or alleviate social inequalities that have been systematically formed for over three centuries. Religious faith in rampant capitalism parallels religious faith in Christianity to provide solutions and salvation to young adults who have been shortchanged by decreased funding and budget cuts to their public education. The government funding and endorsement of abstinence-only programs should be looked at critically, especially because it privileges a particular religious morality over educating young adults with scientific knowledge about their sexual health. Abstinence-only sex educators, espousing covert Christian values of celibacy and self-control over the materiality of the physical world, have secularized their discourse on sexuality with key words such as “character building” and “personal responsibility” to emphasize that complex socio-economic problems reside inherently within the individual. In other words, the “religious faith in the unregulated market” conceals the widening gap between rich and poor by offering virtue and personal responsibility as small consolation. References Connolly, C. (2005, August 23). “Federal funds for abstinence groups withheld.” The Washington Post. Accessed October 10, 2005 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/ 08/22/AR2005082201230_pf.html. Bearman, P. and Brückner, H. (2000). Promising the future: Virginity pledges as they affect transition to first intercourse. Report ac-cessed October 10, 2005 from Available from: http://www.siecus.org/media/pdf/Bearman2001.pdf. Bennett, Elayne. (2005). “Mission Statement.” Available online at http://www.bestfriendsfoundation.org/. Accessed October 10, 2005. Brückner, H and Bearman, P. (2005). “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges.” Journal of Adoles-cent Health, 36: 271–278. Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Beacon Press: Boston, MA. Fischman, G., Ball, and S., Gvirtz, S. (2003). Towards a neo-liberal education? Tension and change in Latin America. In S. Ball, G. Fischman, and S. Gvirtz (Eds.), Education, crisis, and hope: Ten-sion and change in Latin America. New York, Routledge-Falmer. Kaiser Family Foundation (2000). Sex education in America: A view from inside the nations classrooms. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Gish, J. (2000) “No sex, please, we’re teens.” Evening Sun, 7 Febru-ary. Hanover, PA. McChesney, R. (1999). Introduction to Noam Chomsky’s Profits over people. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. Media Transparency website: http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=34 October 10, 2005 National Physicians Center For Family Resources. (2001). “High Cost of Adolescent Sex.” Accessed October 10, 2005 from: http://www.physicianscenter.org/positions_sex.asp Neill, M. (2000). “544 high school students make promise of absti-nence.” The Times, 18 February. Cullman, AL. Office of Management and Budget. (2006). “Supporting a Compas-sionate Society.” Accessed October 10, 2005 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/compassion.html Planned Parenthood. “Abstinence-only ‘sex’ education.” http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml Accessed October 10, 2005. Puiggros, A. (1996). World Bank Education Policy: Market Liberalism Meets Ideological Conservatism. NACLA Report on the Americas, May/June 1996. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/031.html SIECUS (2004). A portrait of sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the States. SIECUS State Profiles (2004). http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/index.html Todd, H. (1999). “Abstinence workshop insertion criticized.” Herald Zeitung, 8 August. New Braunfels, TX.

shapeimage_2_link_7

Profits & Virtue Abstinence-Only Sex Education Thuy DaoJensen
Arizona State University