Tennessee Senate Bill 49: "Don't Say Gay" means "Don't Teach Abstinence"?

Pat Dollard brought this story to my attention earlier today. His story included a link to an identical post at azcentral.com (the story had an Associated Press byline). A Democratic state senator is mentioned as criticizing the bill for its potential to "prevent  the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence". I wanted to know how that could be, but nowhere were there links to the particular bill in question or to the current Tennessee state law. That isn't meant to disparage the original author, or those who reposted the story. I just like knowing as much as possible about such topics. So I did a little investigating. It started with a careful reread of the story. Here are some key excerpts.

Opponents deride the measure as the "don't say gay bill." They say it's unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.

Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.
The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." Republican Senate sponsor Stacey Campfield of Knoxville said some of his colleagues were uncomfortable with that language.

However, a critic said the new wording could create other problems. Sen. Roy Herron, D- Dresden, said it "may inadvertently prevent the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence."

 

It is true that our actions can have unintended consequences. Is that the case here? Could a bill (intended for a state law) intended to "ban teaching of homosexuality" prevent any educational materials from being presented about sex to children in grades K - 8?

The bill in question (Tennessee SB 0049, crossfiled with Tennessee HB0229) was first proposed as this:

SENATE BILL 49

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,

Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to education.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

(c)

(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Bill Summary

ON MAY 20, 2011, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #5 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 49, AS AMENDED.
AMENDMENT #5 rewrites the bill and requires that any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school must be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science. This requirement will also apply to a group or organization that provides instruction in natural human reproduction science in public elementary or middle schools.

Both the original bill and the amendment seem to have as a goal that public elementary or middle schools (K-8 is the typical range for those schools) would only be able to teach "natural human reproductive science." I am not sure I see the distinction that Mr. Campfield's colleagues noticed; after all, as he states in the original story, is not the only natural human reproduction accomplished in heterosexual relationships? The headline on the original stories seems to be true: the bill would "ban teaching of homosexuality"-- in K-8 schools in Tennessee. Notice that the language of the bill, and its amendments, don't deny the existence of homosexual relationships. The bill just prevents teachers and others who "provide instruction" in K-8 classrooms from acknowledging the existence of those relationships as part of the curriculum and the all-powerful teacher/student information conduit.

How does this compare to current Tennessee law? The 2010 Tennessee Code, Title 49 Education says this:

49-6-1005. Sex education.

(a)  It is unlawful for any person in any manner to teach courses in sex education pertaining to homo sapiens in the public, elementary, junior high or high schools in this state unless the courses are approved by the state board of education and the local school board involved, and taught by qualified instructors as determined by the local school board involved. Any such course in sex education shall, in addition to teaching facts concerning human reproduction, hygiene and health concerns, include presentations encouraging abstinence from sexual intercourse during the teen and pre-teen years. With respect to sex education courses otherwise offered in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (a), no instructor shall be construed to be in violation of this section for answering in good faith any question, or series of questions, germane and material to the course, asked of the instructor and initiated by a student or students enrolled in the course.
(b)  This section shall not apply to general high school courses in biology, physiology, health, physical education or home economics taught to classes.
(c)  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Acts 1969, ch. 304, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 49-1924; Acts 1987, ch. 388, § 1; 1987, ch. 427, § 1; 1989, ch. 591, § 113.]    emphasis mine

Let's look at the current law. Courses in sex education have to be approved (by the state and by the local school board; TN recognizes the need for local input and control), taught by qualified instructors, and must include presentations including abstinence. When combined with the amended bill, what I see is that courses in sex education taught in K-8 classrooms in Tennessee must:

• be approved by the state and by the local school board;
• be taught by qualified instructors;
• include presentations including abstinence; and
• be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science.

Additionally, any materials used in K-8 schools must follow that same limitation of natural human reproductive science. Perhaps this is where the "don't say gay" moniker originated. If the only "kinds of families" discussed in K-8 classrooms are those of heterosexual parents (married or not), then the LGBT community will not have representation in the curriculum of Tennessee classrooms. To be noted is:

Stephen Smith, assistant commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education, (who) also said he's unaware of homosexuality being taught anywhere in the state. He said there is nothing in the state's curriculum standards that allows students to be taught about homosexuality.

Regardless of the intentions of the bill, the criticism remains that teachers may be prevented from instructing their student in "ethics, morality and abstinence." Amendment 5 does not address abstinence, and neither abstinence nor the words ethics or morality were included in the original bill text. The bill as written is a new subsection (c); sections (a) and (b) would not be altered. The only way that these topics could conceivably be "prevented" by SB0049/HB0229 is if these ideas--ethics, morality and abstinence--are somehow not considered natural. That is clearly not the case. As Tennessee current state law requires abstinence to be taught, there is no reason to suppose that SB0049/HB0229 would change the law to prevent such teaching. Amendment 5 reads this way: