Provincetown, June 26: Schools in Provincetown, Massachusetts, wanted to provide protection to its students, so the school district set a policy to provide condoms to any student who requested them from the school nurse.
Though this is not an unheard-of policy in the state, according to a June 24 article in the Boston Globe, there were a pair of startling departures from how such programs are usually handled: the wishes of parents would be set aside–and there was no lower age limit on students who could request condoms.
The idea was simple–perhaps too simple; young people are conscious of sex, and are having sex, at younger ages. The wishes of parents would not be enough to ensure that young people determined to explore sexuality would refrain, or would somehow obtain condoms on their own. So the school system though that allowing students to obtain condoms confidentially would be a means to encourage responsible sexual behavior.
Moreover, the school system’s administrators did not intend simply to hand over condoms to young children; though no official rules in the policy prevented a younger child from receiving a condom automatically, a request for a condom from a younger student would be screened by the school nurse. Administrators expected that in such situations, the child would probably not be given a condom–though that remained a possibility: superintendent Beth Singer told the press, “If that were to happen, we would deal with it in a professional and appropriate way.” Added Singer, “I don’t anticipate that this policy is going to affect youngsters. It’s there for adolescents.”
Singer created the policy, and the Provincetown school committee unanimously approved it.
But not all parents approved. Predictably, neither did social and religious conservatives, who overlooked the intentions behind the program–cultivating sexual responsibility in young people and taking steps to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs–and leapt immediately to accusations that the school system was “promoting promiscuity.”
Kris Mineau, of the Massachusetts Family Institute–which is known chiefly for its efforts to undermine marriage equality for gay and lesbian families–seized on the policy, conjuring a worst-case scenario. “This is the theater of the absurd to hand condoms to first-graders who don’t even know what their purpose possibly could be, who can’t even spell sex,” Mineau declared. “And it’s a gross violation of parents’ rights.”
Mineau’s concerns were echoed by the state’s governor, Patrick Deval, who expressed reservations about young children getting hold of school-issued condoms. Deval was hasty in making his concerns known to Singer, and the school system’s administrators immediately reconsidered, reported the Boston Globe in a June 25 follow-up article. The chairman of the school committee, Peter Grosso, told the media that the policy would most likely be amended to set a lower age limit the age of students who could request condoms. Grosso said that fifth grade would likely be the earliest students could seek condoms from the school nurse.
The follow-up article specified that one reason for not having included an age limit in the first place was that no one seriously thought very young children would be given condoms.
Moreover, Grosso said that Singer had told him that, “the School Committee is going to have to revisit the policy and definitely reword it so it’s self-explaining, and possibly wording it so that maybe there would be an exclusion of the real young grades.”
The Globe’s article noted that Patrick’s opponents in the upcoming gubernatorial race had also been quick to denounce the Provincetown school system’s pending policy, which is set to take effect when the new school year commences. “As a parent, I find the Provincetown school position indefensible,” declared Charles D. Baker, a Republican. “I especially resent and oppose this notion that parents aren’t allowed to opt their kids out.”
“You can be teaching kids about the facts of life, sexual education, but passing out condoms is crossing the line for kids that young,” said Timothy D. Cahill, who is running as an Independent.
But the Provincetown school system’s officials see limiting condoms to high schoolers as falling short. “It’d have to go lower than that, because we all know kids are sexually active before high school,” Grosso told the Globe.
Some viewed the school system’s attempt to provide condoms as a responsible step toward providing alternatives to unsafe sex. How young teens or even pre-teens might be when they become sexually active is a matter that parents may influence, but cannot control, noted Patricia Quinn, the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy’s executive director. “But we can ensure that when they’re making those decisions, there are caring adults and support present.”
The follow-up article did not say whether the confidentiality part of the policy would be up for reconsideration, or whether the school system’s administrators might revisit allowing parents to veto their children’s requests to obtain condoms.
But in the earlier article, Board of Selectmen chair Michele Couture told the Globe that, “you don’t want to take away a parent’s right to decide what’s right for their child. But it’s unrealistic to think that a parent saying no to condoms means the child’s going to say no to sex. They’re still going to have sex; they’re just not going to have a condom.”
Outrage over the story was the order of the day at conservative chat site Free Republic.com. Most postings focused on the suggestion that very young children would be supplied condoms on demand. Few appeared to address whether middle or high schoolers would, or should, have access to a means of safer sex.
“The Pervs and the Pedophiles appear to be writing school policy in Provincetown,” one chat participant wrote. “More proof that public education has become a cesspool of liberal ideas, social engineered brainwashing and experimentation and indoctrination into perversion.”
“The schools serve to undermine the parental authority,” wrote another. “That is to say ’Secular Humanism’ is now our official state religion, keep your ’silly Christian superstitions’ to yourself.”
Another, evidently taking note of Provincetown’s reputation as a longtime gay tourist destination, took a swipe at the city, writing, “You could get a social disease just walking down the street in P-town, they should be handing out hazmat suits instead.”
Others took the opportunity to repeat long-discredited claims that Obama appointee Kevin Jennings favors pedophilia; along similar lines, one posting took the form of a photograph showing grown men playing basketball with young boys. In the background, banner had been manipulated to read, “NAMBLA Day,” a reference to a pedophile group. Others also took up the NAMBLA thread, with one post suggesting that first graders would be taught to put condoms on older men.
Another photo was posted that purported to show Singer and district principal Kim Pike.
A rare posting suggested another viewpoint had made it to the mix. “Train up a child of four on condom usage and they will not stray from it when they are forty-four,” wrote one chat participant.
–Agencies–