Quote:
Although the parents are legitimately concerned with the subject of sexuality, there is no constitutional reason to distinguish that concern from any of the countless moral, religious, or philosophical objections that parents might have to other decisions of the School District — whether those objections regard information concerning guns, violence, the military, gay marriage, racial equality, slavery, the dissection of animals, or the teaching of scientifically-validated theories of the origins of life.
Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent. Such an obligation would not only contravene the educational mission of the public schools, but also would be impossible to satisfy.
|
That's basically it - page 15074. What's the alternative - what would the law look like? Why just sex? etc etc
The problem was the Master's student. She wasn't forthcoming enough (morally - although legally there appears to be no "problem") on the contents of the questionnaire.
(edit) In case you're wondering, from a New Zealand perspective this is fascinating. We have no Constitution, so there is no fallback position on which these sorts of things get legally assessed. I believe it basically boils down to the current moral flavour of the nation - whomever controls the Ministry of Education probably ultimately sets the degree of sex ed. We argue about it in the same way you guys do, but the framework is totally different...