Lesson Plans for Homophobia | Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project

Lesson Plans for Homophobia:

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs,

anti-gay harassment,

and HIV stigma in schools

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are one of the few growth industries in the domestic federal budget, and are stripping real HIV prevention education from public school curricula. But are these programs also being used to promote "hetero-only" beliefs into the schools? What do they say to young people who are LBTGQ, or who have gay parents? And do they promote HIV stigma by saying that the only safe relationships are with an "uninfected" spouse?

Tuesday, October 24, 2006
6:30 - 8:00PM
LGBT Community Center, New York City

Speakers:
Diana Bruce, AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families
Click here for PowerPoint presentation

Maxwell Ciardullo, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)

Elizabeth Diaz, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Click here for PowerPoint presentation

Shaquana Gardner, Teen Advocate Program – Planned Parenthood NYC, High School Student

Moderated by: Vanessa Brocato, JD, Independent Consultant, Sexual Health and Rights

Co-sponsors:
ACT UP New York
Advocates for Youth
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Reproductive Rights
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP)
Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
Housing Works Youth Advocacy Group
LGBT Community Center
New York AIDS Coalition (NYAC)
Planned Parenthood of NYC
Pro-Choice Public Education Project (PEP)
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Youth CAHN (NYC AIDS Housing Network)

Summary:

Announcement, Magali Romero, youth activist, CHAMP Find the Condoms Campaign

I am a public high school student and a youth activist. New York City requires that all high schools provide condom access to students, but those mandates are not being met. 3 of 10 of the nation’s HIV positive youth live in New York. A group of youth working with CHAMP is trying to do something about it with the Find the Condoms in Your School Campaign. High school students are having a meeting coming up that we hope you can spread the word about. The meeting location is 32 Broadway, Suite 1801, and the first high school meeting is Tuesday 11/7 at 4pm. If you have questions, contact anyone at CHAMP.

Welcome, Vanessa Brocato

“Lesson Plans for Homophobia” is part of an ongoing series of forums organized by CHAMP and the LGBT Center, and cosponsored by many supporting organizations. This forum is being taped by Out at the Center, a TV program of the LGBT Center that airs on the 4th Thursday of every month on Channel 34 (MNN in Manhattan) and also on BCAT (Brooklyn). Check the Center’s website at www.gaycenter.org/out for dates and times.

The US federal government is a major supporter of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Abstinence-only programs are premised on the assumption that all students are not sexually active, are straight, and are on their way to a monogamous marriage — and if they are not, they should be.

Tonight we will explore how these policies affect youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, questioning, and HIV positive.

We have a great panel of speakers, who I will introduce now.

Maxwell Ciardullo is Information Associate at SIECUS. He will discuss what approach abstinence-only programs take and why.

Diana Bruce is Director of Policy & Government Affairs at the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families. She will describe federal policy that supports these programs and how they impact LGBTQ and youth living with HIV/AIDS.

Elizabeth Diaz is Research Associate at GLSEN. She will present research thanks links abstinence-only programs and harassment of queer youth in schools.

Shaquana Gardner is a NYC public high school students and a Teen Advocate at Planned Parenthood of NYC. She will discuss how these programs impact young people and particularly young people of color.

Maxwell Ciardullo, Sexuality Information & Education Council of the US (SIECUS)

SIECUS is a 40-year-old national organization that promotes responsible and accurate information, education, and policy about sexuality and sexual health. For the last few years, SIECUS has been spending most of its time fighting the abstinence-only position of the Bush administration. SIECUS takes the position that sexuality is a normal and natural part of being human and deserving of dignity.

Ciardullo demonstrates an example of an activity in abstinence-only curricula that SIECUS says is common in federally funded programs, including those in New York State. Maxwell asks for a volunteer from the audience, and pulls out a piece of tape. The tape represents the volunteer’s girlfriend. It is thin and transparent, and the volunteer decides that he likes her and decides to have sex with her. To represent this decision, Ciardullo wraps the tape around the volunteer’s arm.

Ciardullo then engages in a dialogue with the volunteer.

Ciardullo: (speaking to the volunteer) How old are you?
Volunteer: 15.
Ciardullo: Will you marry this girl? Is possible/probable?
Volunteer: No.
Ciardullo: Then it’s time to break up with her. You probably want to do it slowly, so as not to hurt her. (The volunteer slowly peels the tape off his arm; Ciardullo holds the tape up to the audience). When you peel off tape, it leaves things on it (dead skin cells, hair, lint). If you keep on doing this, then the tape will no longer be sticky. Then this person will not be able to bond. Tape is a bonding agent, and it’s best when it is clean, dry and free of debris. The same is true of sex.

Ciardullo’s presentation covers two major issues underlying the educational philosophy these programs use. This philosophy is exemplified by the activity just demonstrated.

1) The way programs use shame as motivating force for young people

Abstinence-only programs focus on young people who have had sex or who may have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) (as in the activity when it was inferred that the girlfriend, represented by the tape, was dirty and full of debris). Nearly half of all high school students have had sex. These students are essentially being told by their teachers that they are dirty. These students represent the “cautionary tale,” or the failure. Yet, there is no discussion or attempt to meet the needs of sexually active youth or young people with HIV/STIs. There is no discussion of risk reduction. Condoms are disparaged; the only discussion that might occur is about their failure rates. People with HIV/STIs are represented negatively, as people to be pitied.

2) Lack of critical thinking or discussion in these programs

Most abstinence-only programs claim that young people do not become cognitive thinkers until age of 25. Before this age, they are only capable of concrete thought, and as such cannot be trusted to understand a message that is not made completely straightforward. There is a bias inherent in these programs that youth can’t make important decisions until they are older or that they can’t interpret complicated messages.

In abstinence-only education programs, there is only one possible answer, and the questions cannot be very rhetorical. For instance, abstinence-only proponents argue that comprehensive sex education programs confuse young people with “mixed messages.” The supposed rhetorical complexity of comprehensive sex education—with its basic message of “be abstinent, and if not, use a condom”—are characterized by its opponents as too complicated. Yet, this approach is powerful, because it acknowledges that youth make hard decisions everyday and need as much information as they can get.

Who does these programs? In New York State, Catholic groups conduct a large share of abstinence-only funded programs — 13 of 33. While Catholic groups are known to run good programs in other subject areas, they are not in a good position to provide sex education for HIV-positive or queer youth when the church has policies repudiating condoms and queer youth.

Nationally, abstinence-only programs tend to be much more dominated by evangelical groups and crisis pregnancy centers (which persuade women by means of misrepresentation of facts not to get abortion). Congressman Waxman did an investigation and found that from 2001-2005, $30 million in federal funds went to more than 50 pregnancy crisis centers.

These are not health, education, or sexuality experts that are running these programs. However, they perceive themselves as having a moral authority to run abstinence-only programs.

So, given who is running these programs and the educational philosophy that they use, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are wholly inappropriate for young people and especially for queer youth and HIV-positive young people – particularly because of their reliance on shame-based tactics and the omission of crucial information.

Diana Bruce, AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families
Click here for PowerPoint presentation

The AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families was founded in 1994. It is a national organization dedicated to advocate for women, children, youth, and families at risk and affected by HIV/AIDS. The AIDS Alliance recognizes that HIV has a disproportionate impact on youth, communities of color and the LGBT community. (Refer to slides 5 and 6 for statistics in the attached presentation). A major focus of the organization in the HIV prevention arena is around youth – especially young women of color and young gay and bisexual men, predominately of color. AIDS Alliance works closely with SIECUS to advocate for comprehensive sex education (see slide 3 for more about the organization).

There are many challenges facing youth of color and gay, bisexual, MSM youth:

• Stigma or fear of condemnation/discrimination
• Historically poor access to care
• Negative perceptions of the health care system
• Self-perceptions of sexual orientation
• Youth perspectives that make it difficult to assess risks and critically understand and adopt preventive behaviors

Currently, there are three streams of federal abstinence-only funding:

• Adolescent Family Life Act (1982): $13 million
• Title V [1998, part of TANF — Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (the welfare reform act signed into law by President Clinton)]: $50 million federal + state matching funds = $87.5 million
(This funding goes directly to the States)
• Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE; 2001): $113 million (FY 06)
(This funding stream represents a way to get around the States.)

The current Congress does not like the States having a say in the disbursement of abstinence-only sex education funding. Rather, Congress would rather deliver funds directly to programs such as crisis pregnancy centers, which seek to influence women not to have an abortion with misleading information and manipulative tactics. Funding for CBAE has more than doubled in the last several years and is now funded almost twice as much as Title V.

The chart from SIECUS (see slide 8) shows how funding for abstinence-only education has increased since 2000. The good (and breaking) news is that the AIDS Alliance and its allied organizations successfully lobbied Congress not to increase appropriations for abstinence-only programs for FY 07. Next year, Congress will maintain flat funding for CBAE at $113 million, and total funding will remain at $218 million. The projected increases for FY 07 depicted in the chart were not approved. Bruce attributed this win to the fact that anti-abstinence-only advocates were able to cast doubt on the efficacy of those programs, though these same advocates were unable to beat back the FY 06 funding level.

The federal response to the growing epidemic of HIV and STDs among youth is abstinence-only until marriage programs. However, the definition of abstinence changed recently.

Eight-Point Definition of Abstinence:

This is the old federal definition of abstinence-only-until-marriage. All points must be covered throughout the course of a curriculum. A new definition was issued in March 2006, and it follows after the eight-point definition.

Bolded items indicates potential for anti-gay teaching (#2, 3, 4, 5)

1. Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the expected standard for all school age children;
3. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
4. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
5. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage may have harmful psychological and physical effects;
6. Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
7. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
8. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Now there is a new abstinence definition for 2006 CBAE grant guidance (issued March 2006). This is what kids are now learning in school!

• Abstinence is “voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity before marriage. Sexual activity refers to any kind of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons, including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.”
• Marriage must be defined “only as the legal union between a man and a woman as a husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

For more information, visit:
http://www.acfhhs.gov/grants/pdf/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.pdf

Men and women of color are less likely to have ever been married than whites, according the 2000 US Census. According to the Society of Adolescent Medicine 2.5% of high school students identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual; and one in ten grapple with issues of sexual orientation.

Please review the PowerPoint presentation for information about the AIDS Alliance’s Positive Youth Project, examples of abstinence-only teachings, policy and legislative developments, and perspectives from HIV-positive youth.

Elizabeth Diaz, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Click here for PowerPoint presentation

GLSEN is national education organization that promotes the awareness, policy and leadership necessary to create safe schools for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Documenting anti-LGBT bias and behavior in K-12 schools and examining the effectiveness of different interventions s the group’s primary job, and a good summary of this research can be found in GLSEN’s publication, the 2005 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of LGBT Youth in Our Nation’s Schools.

I will briefly present the findings of our 2005 National School Climate Survey (see slides 2-6).

Executive Summary:

Most students responded that they felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation or the way they express gender in school:

• Three-quarters (74%) of youth felt unsafe at school because of at least one personal characteristic.
• 64% of youth had been verbally harassed, 38% physically harassed, and 18% physically assaulted in the past year based on their sexual orientation.
• 46% of youth had been verbally harassed, 26% physically harassed, and 12% physically assaulted in the past year because of how they expressed their gender.
• 39% of youth experienced high frequencies of sexual harassment (e.g., being touched inappropriately) at school in the past year.
• 45% of youth had frequently been the target of mean rumors or lies at school.

Harassment was related to negative academic outcomes among LGBT youth. Youth who experienced high levels of physical harassment based on their sexual orientation and gender expression:

• had an average GPA that was about half a grade lower than other youth (2.6 vs. 3.1);
• were almost 3 times more likely to have missed school in the past month because they felt unsafe; and
• were less likely than other youth to have plans to attend college after high school.

For the 2005 report, students were asked about abstinence-only curricula in schools. GLSEN wanted to see if these curricula had a relationship with students’ experience at school. Survey participants were asked: “In your school health classes, does your school follow an abstinence-only curriculum when teaching sexuality/sex education? For example, were you taught that you are expected to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity, or that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful effects of you?” Examples were based on the federal government’s Eight Point Definition of Abstinence-Only Education as Defined by Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act. Analysis compared students who said that their school followed an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum with students who said their school did NOT follow this type of curriculum. Students who didn’t know were not included in the analysis.

The findings about abstinence-only programs were as follows:

• 44% responded that they were not taught abstinence-only curricula, and 46% said that they were taught abstinence-only curricula.
• LGBT youth at schools that followed an abstinence-only curriculum experienced higher levels of harassment than students at schools that did not (see Figure 82 on Slide 8).
• Regarding verbal harassment based on religion, youth of religions other than Christianity reported experiencing higher levels of religious-based harassment at school.
• LGBT youth at schools that used abstinence-only curriculum reported fewer supportive school staff (see Figure 84 on Slide 9).
• LGBT youth at schools that used abstinence-only curriculum felt less comfortable talking with school staff about LGBT issues (see Figure 85 on Slide 10).

So, the conclusions from this research are as follows (see slide 11):

• For many LGBT youth, school is often not a safe place. This research demonstrates that abstinence-only education – which often provides stigmatizing representations (if any) of LGBT people – is an indicator of negative school climate.
• We must take action. Schools should provide a safe learning environment for all students. School administrators, principals, and other educational stakeholders need to consider the impact their policy decisions have school climate for students, including LGBT youth.
• Further research should be conducted to more closely examine the impact of abstinence-only-until-marriage education on LGBT youth, and the relationship between abstinence-only curricula and school climate.

Shaquana Gardner, High school student, Teen Advocate – Planned Parenthood NYC

Teen advocates are a group of teens who go through intensive training. We are trained on sexuality education and go to community groups to do skits and workshops.

Comprehensive sex education is important because it is something that affects a young person’s everyday lives. And young people need more information than they’re usually getting. Teens feel pressured to have sex. It allows them to feel like they are equal to adults. Teens need a range of choices in order to make their own healthy decisions for themselves.

The only way to actually have choices is to receive education with information on contraception. Without it, a young woman’s life choices are limited.

I have two friends who are in high school who have really different levels of knowledge about sexuality. The one who has information knows what to do to prevent HIV-infection, STIs, and pregnancy, while the other friend does not know. One friend who is educated can effectively protect herself from HIV, STIs and pregnancy, while my other friend has no information. She thinks that if she pees after sex, she will prevent pregnancy. She also does not know much about STDs.

There are lots of misinformed students that I go to school with – people not receiving proper sexual education. The types of subjects of education in general influences what one does when one is older — in this same way, we need to teach about sex education.

Current sex education promotes an abstinence-only approach that also promotes homophobia. Basically, the message is that gays should not have sex. In health class, this approach subliminally teaches students to discriminate against gay people.

Bush’s abstinence-only sex education policies cause international outcry because they are not effective policies — for example, in Africa. But many girls in Africa do not get to choose when they loose their virginity.

Teens in the US, too, may not choose when to have sex either, so they need to know what to do in case they are infected with a STI. They need to know the symptoms, and need explicit information like what the discharges from sex organs are, what their exact nature is, and where and how do such discharges occur.

One of my heroes is Margaret Sanger, who provided contraceptive information to prevent pregnancy. She understood that education is key to people living better lives. We need to take a stand now 100 years later—the stakes are higher because the fight is for youth. Sanger’s efforts are an example for youth now who need to be given choices. Students need to be given an opportunity to live better lives and make their own choices. It is not fair to be underprivileged in life simply because you didn’t have the detailed information to make decisions. I’m lucky to be a peer educator.

Especially in poor schools, students are not receiving good education programs to help their lives. Students need to learn history, math, science — AND comprehensive sex education. Students have a right to know what they need to know, and they need knowledge of sexuality to prepare them for a future in college.

I want you to understand what it is like to be a teen. Youth are faced with life-changing decisions everyday. Adults forget what it is like to be youth now in 2006.

I want you all to take action tonight. Before you leave tonight, everyone please look at the letter on your seats addressed to Senator Bruno in the NY State Senate in support of the Healthy Teens Act, which is a very important bill that we need to get passed to keep our state’s youth safe. Sign it and hand it in before leaving. (Visit www.getthefactsny.org for more information and to take action on the Healthy Teens Act).

I would encourage you to also go to school principals and petition them for sex education and approach other government officials, too. We have to do something about this, and youth need the help of all of you.

Summary of Questions and Discussion

Question and comment: I work as a director of school programs for eight high schools and middle schools, and we are a part of a network of 30 schools in NYC. We have many more freedoms as a nonprofit group than the Board of Education. What are recommended curricula that nonprofits can use to subvert abstinence-only curricula? How can we use our power in health classes to subvert abstinence-only messages? Trainings I have attended have rhetoric of condom availability, not condom distribution. In classroom with teachers and health educators and nurses — how did it change? Also, my understanding is that condom demonstrations are not allowed in the schools when a student wants to learn how to use a condom. What about anal sex and other practices such as oral sex? The coordinator of a citywide program said we could not talk about those things, and no one in room wanted to talk about it; they were uncomfortable. But kids do it. Are we promoting stigma? Have they improved condom availability programs in the city?

Maxwell: SIECUS has a lot of positive curricula materials, and has guidelines for creating and evaluating curricula available on its website (www.siecus.org). This list of curricula includes those proven to work by research. Regarding condom availability in NYC schools, the HIV/AIDS part of the curriculum has been recently revamped, and condom demonstrations are still not allowed in the classroom. CHAMP and others have been working on condom availability through the Find the Condoms in Your Schools Campaign. They have found that a majority of NYC public schools do not have condoms available and there is a lot of inconsistence between schools. Talk to Magali or Sonny for more information. (Contact sonny@champnetwork.org for more information).

Diana: SIECUS does have lots of great curriculum. “Our Whole Lives” for grades 9-11 is good on LGBT issues. “FLASH” provides factual, medically accurate information about PLWHA. SIECUS has materials for “hard-to-teach” issues. Advocates for Youth (www.advocatesforyouth.org) has an excellent new resource—a curriculum to teach teachers to talk about queer youth in a more productive way and be more sensitive to LGBT issues.

Comment: Regarding the condoms in schools, I went to training and was told that condom demonstrations can be done only on fingers in the health resource room during proper hours. Also, the new HIV curriculum is limited and has shortcomings but is not as homophobic.

Question: I’m interested in what proactive things are happening in NYC schools? When I was in school we had a citywide gay prom, for example. What efforts exist here in NYC to counter stigma? Where do people under 18 go for an HIV test, and how do they find out about it? Are there are statistics on how many teens get HIV tests?

Shaquana: At my school, there is a gay-straight alliance. My school is progressive; the health teacher offers support though these teachers are generally hesitant due to fear of professional reprisals. We can use the GSA to show support.

For HIV testing, teens can go to Planned Parenthood. The Lower East Side and the Bronx have teen advocates programs and soon Brooklyn will too. Teen advocates provide teens with information, including a card that tells them where to go for reproductive health services. Also, The Door provides services. We can also teach teens that there is a law that protects the relationship between doctor and teen. A doctor cannot call parents to talk to them about their child’s reproductive health issues.

Elizabeth Diaz: Opportunities to address violence, harassment for lesbian and gay students in schools can be found in various guides designed to help young people address these issues. GLSEN (www.glsen.org) is a great resource.

Comment: Another example is Harvey Milk high school, which was established to address gay and lesbian youth issues. Mt. Sinai Adolescent Health Center is a good place for youth to go. The Family Planning Rights Act specifies that if a person cannot afford birth control, the state will pick up tab to get services. Also, NYS Department of Health clinics are open to young people.

Question: Diana, can you talk more about the Positive Youth Project you mentioned?

Diana: This year, AIDS Alliance launched a program to collect stories from HIV-positive young people in order to promote comprehensive sex education. These stories were included in materials and meetings the Alliance conducted in Washington, DC to educate Congressional staff about what HIV-positive youth needs are for comprehensive sex education. What do abstinence-only programs say about HIV/AIDS? What kind of stigma do abstinence-only-until-marriage programs say about positive youth and how do they stigmatize queer youth? See the PowerPoint slides for quotes from young gay men and young women. The stories include one young person who became infected through sexual activity and one young person whose parent is HIV positive.

Comment: I’m a 4th grade teacher in Brownsville, Brooklyn. There is not much discussion of sex in elementary school. An issue that comes up is that kids as young as 6th graders are sexually active—for example, young women who are pressured into performing oral sex.

Shaquana: The Healthy Teens Act in the NYS legislature calls for incorporating comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for all age groups.

Maxwell: Some curricula address issues for K-12. The problem is more about when to get it into a 4th grade classroom and getting the okay to do it. Part of the reauthorization of HIV education in NYC schools is that we should talk about it as early as third grade.

Diana: One could identify a social worker to intervene in situations in which young people feel pressured to engage in sexual activity.

Comment: Outside speakers can also come in to schools to present sex education curricula.

Shaquana: Planned Parenthood does provide workshops for children as young as seven years old. They provide education for youth in an age-appropriate way to help them avoid bad situations.

Comment: I’m a teacher at a school in Harlem. The AIDS curriculum in New York City schools is problematic. It is only a one-week curriculum that is not supported by training for teachers. The materials refer to HIV as a “bad germ” until 5th grade. The curriculum does not include words such as penis, vagina, or sexual intercourse until 5th grade. This is not healthy for youth.

Shaquana: In my junior year of high school, HIV/AIDS curriculum was integrated in gym class. Speakers were brought in, including people living with AIDS. But these speakers had biases. For instance, they asked students to raise hand if still a virgin, and then announced that those with raised hands are pure and great. Those who did not self-identify as virgins were dismissed as folks that don’t know what they are doing.

Comment: It is easy to vilify programs, but what about outreach on the legislative level? How do you change beliefs that this abstinence-only approach is the right way due to religious or culturally specific reasons?

Diana: Advocates need to present evidence that abstinence-only programs are harmful and don’t work — that they perpetuate stigma, and contain medical inaccuracies (for example, curricula that declare that HIV is a death sentence or that HIV-infection is possible from contact with sweat or tears). By exposing misinformation, advocates have been able to successfully lobby to level-fund these programs without an additional increase for the next budget year.

Vanessa: Research shows that the majority of adults in the US want kids to have comprehensive sex education. In the general public there may be confusion about what is taught. The average person thinks sex education in schools is good, but people are shocked when they hear what students are actually being taught. Therefore, we need to raise awareness in the community about this misinformation that is being taught.

Comment: I’m doing a Freedom of Information Act Request to find out where the money is going. Federal monies go to nonprofit groups who then bring the curriculum to schools that are overburdened. This is one of the ways that bad programs get into schools.

Vanessa: We also need to show how abstinence-only-until-marriage policies are also about a broader agenda designed to energize a Republican political base.

Maxwell: The abstinence-only-until-marriage money does not go through oversight or control — these monies do not get education department review. The $113 million goes directly from the federal government to large and small community-based organizations that only need approval of a single teacher or principal to go into a campus classroom.

Diana: Another trend is that these programs are getting bigger. There is a trend to fund fewer organizations with the same amount of money; this means that the groups chosen for funding are getting bigger.

Comment: A positive development in the criticism of abstinence-only curricula is that there is lots of talk in conferences about whether these programs are working. Evaluators are our best allies. They are independent and do not care about funding, so they provide honest feedback about the efficacy of programs. Also the DOH takes federal abstinence-only money and then distributes it in the state. The DOH is specific about what you can talk about, but it will take money away from an organization or program if it provides false information. So, people in the system are trying.

Diana: The question is what are they evaluating, though. If they are only asked to evaluate how many people are reached, and the answer is a lot, then that would be good. Or, for instance, if they are evaluating attitudinal changes, and they ask immediately before and immediately after the program if they intend to abstain until marriage. But they don’t track the program participants to see if they actually do abstain if they said they would immediately after the program.

Question: Can you talk more specifically about the relationship between abstinence-only curricula and HIV stigma in schools and in general?

Diana: Abstinence-only will not help positive teens if/when they get married or in their adult futures when they need information and strategies on how not to transmit the virus. In one of the curricula, the strategy presented for preventing HIV is through the development of “good moral character.” HIV is presented as a death sentence. One common activity is having a girl roll dice — if she rolls a 4, then she goes straight to grave because she has HIV. These messages go against what HIV-positive parents teach their kids. When these kids go to school and learn that people with AIDS will die and are dirty, such a curriculum demonizes HIV positive parents. The implication is that these parents do not have a good moral character and deserve to die.

Comment: Comprehensive sexual education should teach that oral and anal sex are beautiful things, like the Tunnel of Love curriculum from the GMHC, a prevention tool that advocates not feeling shame about sexual desires.

Question: Are there any lawsuits predicated on violations of the separation of church and state with these curricula?

Maxwell: There have been a number of lawsuits. Some have been successful. There was a successful lawsuit against a Louisiana program that bought bibles with abstinence-only money. Also, a “Silver Ring” program — the name of which originates from a scripture verse — was defunded as result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU. However, religious groups find ways around these restrictions. At conferences, programs give them technical assistance to help religious groups deliver secular-seeming programs.

Diana: The AIDS Alliance does advocacy and lobbying in Congress, but can’t engage in electoral politics. Also, Democrats are not necessarily allies — remember that Clinton signed the 8-point abstinence-only curriculum into law. Democrats are scared of opposing abstinence-only education programs.

Vanessa: We should contact all elected officials and tell them what we need no matter what.

Thanks for coming. Please attend the next forums in the CHAMP-Center forum series – on Tuesday, November 14th on HIV prevention research and on Tuesday December 12th on HIV and incarceration.