The following column is the opinion and analysis of the Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board.
Nothing is easy in TUSD, so it was inevitable that the district’s attempt to update its family life curriculum to include realities of the human experience — in other words, that not everyone is a heterosexual man or woman — would run into vocal, misinformed and organized opposition from folks, some of whom don’t live in or have children attending Tucson Unified schools.
The Governing Board has heard hours of public comment over the proposed curriculum revamp, many in support but also many like these:
- “Please do not teach children about same sex couples!!!!”
- “Why would you show a child images of the reproductive system. I believe that TUSD is making a mistake trying to change to the Sex Ed class. As a Christian household we disagree with your curriculum and your gender identifying methods.”
- “Please, don’t fight against God.”
Children deserve to have accurate, non-judgmental information and the critical thinking skills they need to make consequential decisions about their lives.
Ideally, parents would fill that role but the reality is “the talk” doesn’t always happen — and when it does, it can be a cringe-worthy, too-detailed or too-vague episode that leaves the child with more questions than answers beyond “just don’t do it.”
It is also essential that young people who are LGBTQ see themselves in the curriculum — and it’s vital that all students learn that curriculum, too. This knowledge and inclusion can be life-saving for queer students who face hostility at home. Gender identity and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing, and, simply put, not everyone answers those questions with an either/or reality.
Board President Adelita Grijalva said that she’s heard from parents whom aren’t satisfied with the right to opt-out, because they fear their children will hear about it from other students.
Newsflash: Kids are already talking about it all – and national data show that some students have already had sex by age 13. It is better that kids share accurate information than the rumors and myths (i.e. you can’t get pregnant the first time you have sex, if you’re wearing high heels or standing up - and yes, these are real examples).
No amount of denying the existence of certain facts and unwelcome subjects will make them go away and refusing to expose children to the world around them sets them up for failure, both academically and emotionally.
Parents have a choice. They can opt out of the family life curriculum and the district is coming up with an alternative curriculum for those students who do.
A proponent of the changes summed it up nicely. “This shouldn’t have been divisive, adopting this curriculum. Let these religious families opt out ... Adopt an inclusive curriculum that includes everybody.”
Superintendent Gabe Trujillo wisely asked the Governing Board to not vote at its meeting Tuesday night, but to instead allow the administration to come up methods to involve and educate parents in what their children will be learning and to ensure the information is taught in a “politically and religiously neutral” way.
“There is a sadness,” he said. “Two sides of a brilliant community and vibrant community have arrived at a place in time where they’re talking at each other and not talking with each other — where this critically important issue, instead of becoming an issue to solve has become an ideological debate or a political debate or a religious debate.”
Organized opponents are spreading propaganda trying to scare people into believing that supporters want to make kids transgender or queer (as if that were possible), and to sexualize children. Neither is true.
The most recent hearing, Tuesday night, revealed a new line of rhetoric against the family life curriculum: claiming to oppose the enactment of the new curriculum based on “culture.”
“My parents … they taught me according to our culture,” said a young woman who was one of the more reasonable speakers in opposition. She suggested the district hold sessions for parents to learn the curriculum first, so that they can teach it to their children.
“Teach [the parents], and they will teach it to their kids according to their age, their beliefs and their culture,” she said.
Culture? Which culture?
Let’s not mince words: the culture referred to by those in opposition is Hispanic. One speaker, named Miquel Robles, speaking through an interpreter, said as much. He said he is the parent of two former TUSD students and grandfather of two more.
“I feel very hurt the way we have been treated as Hispanic people; we have been ignored. It is known that we are a great majority, and we are not given attention,” he said, through tears.
The use of Hispanic culture as a cudgel to deny the existence and education of other marginalized groups is inappropriate.
Using a whole culture to argue that children should be shielded from the realities of the modern world is a recipe for regression, ignorance and potential harm.
It’s also untrue. One speaker in opposition claimed that the curriculum couldn’t be considered “inclusive” because it didn’t include nods to Hispanic culture. This would assume that there are no LGBTQ youth growing up in Hispanic families, an objective falsehood.
Multiple people of Latino and Hispanic heritage spoke out in support of the curriculum change, including Lane Santa Cruz, the Democratic nominee for Tucson City Council in Ward 1. No single point of view has an exclusive claim on Latino culture.
Trujillo is right to continue the discussion, but a decision will have to be made. Students have a human right to accurate and inclusive information, and their parents have a right to keep them out of those classes.
What must not be allowed to happen is an alternative that board member Rachael Sedgwick proposed at the end of the discussion: “I would love to be able to find common ground, but if we can’t do that, it seems to me the thing to do is to not offer a family life curriculum in TUSD.”
Doing nothing would be a costly and dangerous adult failure at students’ expense.
