Does Abstinence Only Education Work?

Few things are more part of conventional wisdom than the mantra “abstinence only education doesn’t work.” But a recent study conducted by the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine revealed that indeed abstinence education does reduce the number of teen pregnancies.  Between 2001 and 2004, John B. Jemmott III and his colleagues studied 662 African-American sixth- and seventh-graders  whose average age was 12. The children were randomly assigned to one of four programs. The first emphasized abstinence and included role-playing methods to avoid sex. The second combined an abstinence message with information about condoms. The third focused solely on condom use, and the fourth–the control group–was taught general health information.

Over the course of the next two years, about half of the kids who received the condom instruction and half of the control group were having sex. Forty-two percent of those who got the combination class were sexually active, but only 33 percent of the abstinence-only group were having sex. The study also found no difference in condom use among the four groups of students who did engage in sex.

This study seems to be pretty airtight, thus it isn’t easy to expose it as a flawed piece of research. Moreover, it really presents a problem to those who have been arguing for years that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what, so educators should merely steer them in the right direction through sex education. One wonders, by the way, why the same logic is never applied to smoking cigarettes: “Teens are going to smoke no matter what, so we may as well teach them how to smoke responsibly.”

Anyway, this study is food for thought and may pave the way for more abstinence only programs rather than the costly, wasteful, and perhaps counterproductive sex education programs running rampant throughout America’s public schools.

The War on Terror and the Vietnam Syndrome

For my Vietnam War students, I want you to think of the ways the War on Terror has been influenced by the American experience in Vietnam. Do we still struggle with the so-called Vietnam Syndrome? If so, how has it shaped U.S. foreign policy? Are there parallels between the Vietnam War and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Please comment.

How Common Has Slavery Been in World History?

In this post, I would like my African American History students to assess the practice of slavery in different cultures throughout the world over time. How common was the practice? Was it the exception or the rule? Is there something different about the enslavement of Africans compared with the enslavement of others? Also, for how long was slavery practiced in other parts of the world? Did other cultures abolish slavery and if so based on what principles?

Olbernonsense

On January 21, 2010, Keith Olbermann of MS-NBC compared–he actually compared!–a recent Supreme Court decision (a reversal of a 1907 verdict) claiming that corporations, like individuals, have a right to free speech and therefore can spend as much money as they want on political advertisements and candidates of their choice with the Dred Scott decision of 1857 that claimed that African Americans have “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” His syllogism was very difficult to follow, but he blathered that Chief Justice John Roberts should be likened to Roger Taney the justice who presided over the Dred Scott Case. Mr. Olbermann insisted that both men are the same in their repudiation of democracy.

First a little about the Dred Scott Case: Scott had been a slave who sued for his freedom upon the death of his owner. After an 11 year ordeal, the Supreme Court led by Taney ruled against him. This was a landmark decision because essentially the Supreme Court sanctioned slavery and the sub-human condition of African Americans. In so doing it underscored the most abhorrent thing about slavery; namely, that it denies people their individual liberty and freedom. The decision was a renunciation of democracy because it denied people basic rights of citizenship as human beings living in the United States. The Court’s recent ruling does no such thing. It simply overturned a ban on corporate campaign funding and undermines the campaign finance reform laws that had been in place. It may give disproportionate power to corporations in influencing elections, but really, equating it to the Dred Scott Case?

Mr. Olbermann’s knowledge of history is peculiar and his comparative analysis is specious and silly. His faulty logic unwittingly does great injustice to African Americans who lived in the shadows of the Taney decision for a long time thereafter. Mr. Olbermann also made no mention of the fact that he works for one of the largest media corporations in the United States (apparently, he’s very selective in which big businesses are evil and which have a first amendment right).  He also ignored the fact that unions can now spend willy-nilly on advertisements and candidates as well.

The fact is that Mr. Olbermann believes that only certain corporations, MS-NBC among them, have rights protected by the First Amendment. I doubt if he would have been understanding if the Court decided to curb his air time because of the excessive influence he might exert over his viewers. His argument can be paraphrased as follows: “I’m different because I’m me, and therefore I’m exempt from the logical conclusion of my own argument.” In short, he is a ten year old disguised as a journalist, but, alas, one with a pretty big microphone, though not as big as he might think.

One wonders if Mr. Olbermann truly believes what he says or if he’s just pandering to what he thinks his audience wants to hear. I typically do not dignify such tawdry and ignorant comments with a response, but really this sheer nonsense needs to be exposed for what it is–demagoguery at its worst and most pathetic. Even if today’s decision gives undue power to corporations– a debatable point in itself–to compare it to the Dred Scott decision simply makes Mr. Olbermann appear to be  an uninformed commentator and an ignorant ideologue who lacks seriousness and professionalism.

Health Care Debate

President Obama has made universal health care coverage an important agenda item. This act would insure 40 million Americans who are today without health coverage. On the other hand, some estimates suggest that it would cost taxpayers in excess of $1.3 trillion.  The questions for you are these: Is it feasible to change the nation’s health care at such a high cost at a time when the nation suffers from a severe economic decline? Is it morally acceptible to deny 40 million people health care for the sake of keeping the economy stable?

Senator Chris Dodd’s Reelection Bid

This discussion will focus on whether or not Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will be or ought to be relected to the U.S. Senate. Much has been made of Dodd’s role in the banking crisis and his past support of the AIG bonuses. Recently, his apporval ratings have dropped to 33 percent. For the first time in a long time he faces a tough battle against Republican candidates. The questions: Do you tihnk his nearly 30 years of service in the Senate will and/or should come to an end? What are the reasons you can give for your responses?

Is the Media Giving President Obama a Free Pass?

In this discussion, particularly for my American Government students, I’d like you to think about the role of the media and Barack Obama’s presidency. Has the media been fair in its coverage of the President? Has it asked the tough questions of him or has it not reported on his first few months in office with the proper level of scrutiny? Are there some elements of the media that have been more fair than others?

Who has the power to declare war–the President or Congress?

I would like students in both my American Government and U.S. Constitution courses to consider what the Constitution says about the power to declare war. It seems that the document contains a great deal of ambiguity regarding this issue. I also want you to apply your understanding of the constitutional power to declare war to the conflict in Iraq. Was the decision to go into Iraq constitutionally legitimate? If so, on what grounds? If not, who should be held responsible for this constitutional breach?

Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton

The Democratic primaries have been the most heated in a long time in large measure because you have two worthy opponents sparring against each other. Either one would make history as the first African American and first woman President respectively. Recently, the issue of race in America’s political culture has become a very important issue. Do you think race is as important or perhaps more important than gender in determining for whom people will vote?

Jena-6

On December 4, 2006, six black students from Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana were charged for the beating of a white student. The event followed months of racially charged activities, the most notable of which was when three white students hung nooses from a tree at the high school. So when the “Jena-6″ were charged with attempted murder, protests began and spread throughout the country.  It was argued that the charges were excessive and racially discriminatory. For some, the events in Jena have come to symbolize the continued racism that pervades the nation.

My questions for you, my students, are these: Do you think racism is as prevalent as it was a half century ago or even a generation ago? What are some possible solutions to the problem of race in America? Has there been improvement in race relations? If you can cite statistical evidence for your opinions, it would be very helpful.