Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22
By Kate Murray ’22
Staff Writer
Sex education in American public schools has long been a topic of intense debate. Since the 1980s, it has been the site of moral and political battles over what kind of sex education should be taught to children in public schools, if it should be taught at all. Ideologically conservative parents, teachers and administrators often advocate for abstinence-only curricula while progressives tend to vouch for a more comprehensive, inclusive approach to sex education. The intensity of this debate has led to individual states passing their own sex education legislation, resulting in a lack of nationwide educational uniformity. According to Planned Parenthood, only 29 states mandate sex education in public schools, and of those states, only 15 require the information taught to be medically accurate. The extreme variation and polarized debate over sex education in the United States is indicative of a deeper ideological divide, and the legislation passed in individual states is a reflection of a central political message. Indiana and California, two states that are aggregately on opposite ends of the political spectrum, are prime examples of this phenomenon.
At first glance, sex education in these states seems to be completely dissimilar. Indiana public schools are not required to teach sex education at all, and those that do are not obligated to provide medically accurate information or to discuss sexual orientation, gender identity or consent. Abstinence must be stressed as the expected standard, which demonstrates how the curriculum is steeped in conservative values. The idea that abstaining from sex is the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted or out-of-wedlock pregnancy upholds conservative beliefs that emphasize the importance of monogamous relationships and purity. There is also no requirement to mention any form of birth control, which is in alignment with the parts of conservative religious doctrine that condemn the use of contraceptives. While there is still room for diverse curriculum choices in Indiana, the baseline requirement of abstinence-based education signals that conservative values are reflected in state policy.
On the flipside, California policy regarding sex education in public schools refutes the conservative values upheld by Indiana law. For one, sex education in California cannot “promote or teach religious doctrine” and the curricula must “provide information about the effectiveness and safety of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy, including, but not limited to, emergency contraception,” according to Article 2 of the state’s Education Code. Additionally, California public schools’ approach to sex education is much more comprehensive than legislation in Indiana. Curricula must contain medically accurate information that pertains to students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Though California schools are required to mention abstinence as an option, it is not the expected standard. In 2018, California public schools introduced an option for districts to offer training programs on sharing sexual content online as well as information on human trafficking. If these issues are on Indiana lawmakers’ radars, the fact that they haven’t included it in their sex education curricula shows either that they don’t unilaterally believe it’s important or are being pressured by their constituents to promote conservative ideas.
In analyzing the sex education protocols for both California and Indiana, it is informative to pay attention to what is omitted from these pieces of legislation. In comparison to California, Indiana has fewer things that they require curricula to include. It’s possible that lawmakers have been pressured to pass legislation that mirrors the conservative policies of other social realms, such as criminal justice and public health. In other words, Indiana’s sex education policy expresses uniformity in policy.
For California, one can get a real sense of the state’s ideological stance by examining what they include rather than exclude. For example, there are proposed initiatives to expand comprehensive sex education to rural and low-income communities in California. No such expansion efforts are being undertaken in Indiana. Based on the legislation that has successfully taken hold in California, it appears that progressive and inclusive sex education is held in high regard for many voters and lawmakers. In Indiana, it seems as though sex education is heavily deemphasized, with the bulk of the content framed around abstinence. Indiana legislation does not prioritize educating public school students about having safe sex the way California does — instead, it reflects an ideology that would encourage teaching teenagers not to have sex at all.
While it may seem an unlikely source, sex education curricula for public schools is a reliable indicator of a state’s general political ideology. While education legislation is just one manifestation of these moral and political leanings, it has the potential to greatly impact policy in other areas on both a local and national scale. If sex education is any indicaton, these more covert policies can have a big impact on the wider cultural and political landscape.