Engaging Rebecca Hagelin: Let's Rethink, Not Regress
It was 1 a.m. this morning and I was going about my sometimes benign, sometimes epic scan of Twitter before bed. As I often remark in trainings and with interested audiences, Twitter has created a pretty damn efficient marketplace for ideas, and this evening was no exception. "Epic" might be an understatement. On offer this night, courtesy a delayed RSS feed of the Heritage Foundation's five most recent op-eds, was an opinion piece by Rebecca Hagelin: "Assaulted by sex-ed," which ran Monday in the Washington Times, with 3 comments as of this writing.
Not only does title the title appear to play on words - sex education implying sexual assault - but the actual content unfortunately reinforces a style of rhetoric about sex that is unproductive and makes a mistake common to traditionalist conservatives: The argument contradicts key conservative principles about personal responsibility, evaluating economic impact and driving our society forward in innovative, world- and industry-leading ways.
Let me be clear: on many market issues and some general policy issues, I see eye-to-eye with Heritage. I have even met in person and worked with Rebecca Hagelin (via JESS3) on a project that included redesigning their e-mail newsletters and web design for Heritage's blog, The Foundry. She is sharp, pleasant and a working mom. Respect, respect. I also count key Heritage folks like Rob Bluey, Tim McGovern and Todd Thurman friends. This is in no way a personal attack on Rebecca or any of her colleagues. And I hope anyone who chooses to engage in the comments, over Twitter and on their own blogs also maintains a high level of respect and professionalism.
As many friends and readers of my blog know, I have an interest in this subject beyond the pedestrian. I bring to the table over 15 years of activism in the sexuality and education space, starting as early as 7th grade and marked by academic work at the University of Chicago (especially my senior thesis, "Rethinking, Reframing and Revolutionizing the Sex Education Debate").
As they say in academia, let's unpack this. And to do so, I have two points and one caveat:
FIRST - THINK RETHINKING (this is where it gets interesting and productive). In 1984, Gayle Rubin put forth an important, well-considered challenge to rethink the way we think about sex. I want to challenge: the reader here, Rebecca Hagelin, the Heritage Foundation, young, old, conservative, progressive, straight, gay, heterosexual, queer and everything in between to rethink about what is really being taught, what is missing, what can in fact be presented in a better way. To quote Rubin from 25 years ago: to truly have a meaningful and more realistic understanding of sex, we must shift our thinking from the traditional framings of sex in terms of "sin, disease, neurosis, pathology, decadence, pollution, or the declines and fall of empires" to instead understand sex in terms of "social analysis and historical understanding."
SECOND -DON'T REGRESS (in 2009, we cannot afford not to take into account scientific, sociological and psychological learnings when it comes to human sexuality). While the Heritage Foundation espouses the concepts of free enterprise and individual freedom, they still have an arguably non sequitur belief in fear-based (not health- / science-based) treatment of sex education. Sorry, but this is where the conservative movement and adherent Republican politicians lose me and, I would imagine, many others. Until we can have a reasoned and measured discussion about sex, without framing it in terms of pathology and propaganda, we will not be able to truly address key issues such as sexual health (think both STDs, AIDS, abuse, as well as personal sexual agency and pleasure) and planned pregnancy (think not only reduced levels of rape, abortions and unprotected sex, but also joyful families welcoming little blessings into this world).
See what I did there? By using the neutral word "health" we can talk about the range from disease to expression. By using a word like "planned", we can talk about what happens when things do and do not go as planned. The language we use and the way we frame our thoughts all have an impact on the politics, policies outcomes and potential solutions. Not only do I see this enabling a happier, healthier and more self-aware culture, but I truly believe that this reframing has real impacts and benefits to our economy - just ask any economist from my alma mater (see especially: Becker and Levitt). Further, thanks to well-reasoned thinking from greats like George Orwell, we know that language is inherently political. But that doesn't mean we should charge it up with negativity just because we can. I would sure hope an institution that considers itself a "think tank" would think through its argument and frame it in a more productive way.
THIRD - MY CAVEAT: I am also not ready to completely disregard concerns about age-appropriate content in classrooms funded by the state. On this point, I am not ready to dismiss Dr. Miriam Grossman, the expert quoted by Hagelin in her piece, who has written You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education, because I would like to first read her book and second, continue my own research in this area before I make any final judgments. In fact, my suspicion here is that both Hagelin and Grossman may describe extreme, but rare, instances that are true in some cases. I also recognize that Hagelin is deliberate and strategic about her polarizing approach. She has a world view that in her experience has not been honored by the public school system and it's OK if she wants to opt out of the system. She also has a book to sell; hats off to the hustle.
That said, this remains a conviction and the note on which I want to end: Using extremist language such as "perverted and immoral sex propagandists" to describe respectable organizations like SEICUS gets us nowhere fast. This is exactly the kind of language I saw advanced in the 90s in Oregon by the far-right group Oregon Citizen Alliance, where they conflated a way of life (homosexuality), with a set of practices (S&M) and a completely illegal act (pedophilia). Polarizing tactics aside, the end goal here should be happy, healthy children who grow into happy, healthy and productive members of society. As many of us know, relationships, sex, having children and sexuality all play into our ultimate and collective happiness and healthiness. And so does meaningful, well-framed and productive dialogue, as I believe I have begun to lay out here.
What are your concerns? Where do you think the limits reside? Please share your thoughts here, over Twitter and via our Act.ly petition:
Petition @Heritage to Help facilitate a meaningful dialogue about Sex Ed. #sexed http://act.ly/e6 RT to sign #actly
Even more fired up? Blog about it, tell a friend.
Photo credit: Lew57
COMMENTS (4)