Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Punished by Christian SchoolSchool
- Thread starter Jaebius
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
KayTheCurler
Well-Known Member
I'm not hearing what responsibility the school is accepting for failing to teach students how to prevent conception.
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
How do you know they didn't teach that Kay? With their being a private Christian academy, I'd be surprised if I learned they hadn't taught abstinence.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
Jae has commented several times about the importance of forming her moral character. From what I can tell this young woman's moral character seems pretty darn powerful. She admitted to having sex outside of marriage and has taken a strong pro-life stance. She is taking responsibility for her actions in a pretty impressive way for a teenager. I would be pretty darn proud of her. That seems like some pretty well-formed character to me. I fail to see how public shaming and humiliation, which is what this is, accomplishes anything other than hurting this woman and child - which to me seems the intent, and falls far outside of how Jesus would respond to this woman. I, personally, would not in any way want to be included in this school's definition of Christianity.
My response might be...... "We are disappointed you did not abide by the school code but we are both impressed and proud of your responsible response to your unexpected pregnancy. When you are ready, perhaps you might be willing to talk about how your faith helped you respond to this unexpected life circumstance."
Last time I checked we are all human. So unless the people in that school can faithfully appear before God with a clean slate they should focus on redemption, grace and learning opportunities. Punitive, shaming faith is a tragedy and will never represent my faith.
And, for the record, this outcome is not at all unexpected if we actually bother to read, and actually hear, what the research on abstinence only education tells us. Kids who attend conservative Christian schools (or who grow up in similar environments) and who do not receive comprehensive sexual health education are NOT less likely to refrain from sex. They are however, more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour including sex without birth control, as well as less likely to report sexual abuse (which can often fly under the radar in a patriarchal, sexist branch of any faith, including Christianity).
My response might be...... "We are disappointed you did not abide by the school code but we are both impressed and proud of your responsible response to your unexpected pregnancy. When you are ready, perhaps you might be willing to talk about how your faith helped you respond to this unexpected life circumstance."
Last time I checked we are all human. So unless the people in that school can faithfully appear before God with a clean slate they should focus on redemption, grace and learning opportunities. Punitive, shaming faith is a tragedy and will never represent my faith.
And, for the record, this outcome is not at all unexpected if we actually bother to read, and actually hear, what the research on abstinence only education tells us. Kids who attend conservative Christian schools (or who grow up in similar environments) and who do not receive comprehensive sexual health education are NOT less likely to refrain from sex. They are however, more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour including sex without birth control, as well as less likely to report sexual abuse (which can often fly under the radar in a patriarchal, sexist branch of any faith, including Christianity).
revjohn
Well-Known Member
DaisyJane said:
Amen. Add to that that apart from this the school has never had a reason to discipline her in the past and that she has a 4.0 GPA.
DaisyJane said:
Amen. This fails, and not by a little bit, to meet the goal of reflecting the virtues taught by Christ. I'd like to see the scripture text they appeal to to support this particular punitive action.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Let's get this strait. The school claimed girl was punished (let's use the correct terminology - she was punished) for breaking the Code of Conduct; not for getting pregnant.
I would guess that other students in this school are also sexually active. Let's suppose that the school overhears a boy in the locker room telling his buddy that he 'got lucky last night'. Or a note is intercepted between two girls that indicates that they are sexually involved. Or a student approaches his coach to ask advice and ends up confessing that he is sexually active. Are they also publicly named and are they refused the privilege of participating in school activities (newspaper) and in graduating ceremonies?
I would guess that other students in this school are also sexually active. Let's suppose that the school overhears a boy in the locker room telling his buddy that he 'got lucky last night'. Or a note is intercepted between two girls that indicates that they are sexually involved. Or a student approaches his coach to ask advice and ends up confessing that he is sexually active. Are they also publicly named and are they refused the privilege of participating in school activities (newspaper) and in graduating ceremonies?
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
Sure abstinence = no pregnancy = no STI.
But we also know that abstinence education, which is what we are talking about here rather than abstinence as a behaviour, does not correlate with reduced sexual activity. In fact, the research tells us (snippet of one research article posted below) that abstinence only education is correlated with higher pregnancy rates. So to be blunt, the school if it emphasized abstinence only education, actually increased the risk that its student body would a) engage in unprotected sex, and b) experience teen pregnancy. So one could argue the school shares some of the responsibility for the situation.
"Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14–19 (Table 3). The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant (Figure 2)."
But we also know that abstinence education, which is what we are talking about here rather than abstinence as a behaviour, does not correlate with reduced sexual activity. In fact, the research tells us (snippet of one research article posted below) that abstinence only education is correlated with higher pregnancy rates. So to be blunt, the school if it emphasized abstinence only education, actually increased the risk that its student body would a) engage in unprotected sex, and b) experience teen pregnancy. So one could argue the school shares some of the responsibility for the situation.
"Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14–19 (Table 3). The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior. To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant (Figure 2)."
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Abstinence only education is not, actually the issue.
Whether the school should be punishing the student is.
If it was simply a matter of discipline then the question needs to be asked what does barring the student from the graduation ceremony do that the suspension and the forced removal from a student leadership position don't or can't. Since the graduation ceremony comes after the student has completed all coursework to the satisfaction of instructors how can it be used in a disciplinary way rather than a purely punitive way?
The school is not saying that they are refusing to accept work completed, they are not saying that they intend to apply a different academic standard. According to those measurements the work of the student is exemplary and ought rightly to be commended. And yet, the school is making sure that the student not be seen.
The school has a right to teach an abstinence only approach to sex-ed. There is no denying that individuals able to comply with such a standard generally do not find themselves in a parenting way nor are they likely to be the unhappy recipient of STD's. And should they not manage 100% success, shame is all that they deserve. It is, after all the way Jesus rolls.
The issue is also not how conservative the theology expressed by the school. In that regard it matters not how theologically rigid they are so much as it matters how theologically bereft of grace they are.
Appearances may be deceiving. I'm not inclined to think that this time they are.
The school desires to punish, in that they represent the unmerciful servant that Christ spoke about in parable. They clearly fail to teach grace and they clearly fail to demonstrate grace hopefully when the time comes for them to be held accountable they are not held to such a graceless love of law as they are affording this student.
I am not going to celebrate the pregnancy or the decision to keep the child. All things considered neither are remarkable or unique events.
There is nothing to celebrate in the school's response. I hope that their academic rigour is as strong as their punitive desire because if they're academic standards are reflected by their theological witness a 4.0 from such a bankrupt institution is nothing I would celebrate.
Whether the school should be punishing the student is.
If it was simply a matter of discipline then the question needs to be asked what does barring the student from the graduation ceremony do that the suspension and the forced removal from a student leadership position don't or can't. Since the graduation ceremony comes after the student has completed all coursework to the satisfaction of instructors how can it be used in a disciplinary way rather than a purely punitive way?
The school is not saying that they are refusing to accept work completed, they are not saying that they intend to apply a different academic standard. According to those measurements the work of the student is exemplary and ought rightly to be commended. And yet, the school is making sure that the student not be seen.
The school has a right to teach an abstinence only approach to sex-ed. There is no denying that individuals able to comply with such a standard generally do not find themselves in a parenting way nor are they likely to be the unhappy recipient of STD's. And should they not manage 100% success, shame is all that they deserve. It is, after all the way Jesus rolls.
The issue is also not how conservative the theology expressed by the school. In that regard it matters not how theologically rigid they are so much as it matters how theologically bereft of grace they are.
Appearances may be deceiving. I'm not inclined to think that this time they are.
The school desires to punish, in that they represent the unmerciful servant that Christ spoke about in parable. They clearly fail to teach grace and they clearly fail to demonstrate grace hopefully when the time comes for them to be held accountable they are not held to such a graceless love of law as they are affording this student.
I am not going to celebrate the pregnancy or the decision to keep the child. All things considered neither are remarkable or unique events.
There is nothing to celebrate in the school's response. I hope that their academic rigour is as strong as their punitive desire because if they're academic standards are reflected by their theological witness a 4.0 from such a bankrupt institution is nothing I would celebrate.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
Just to clarify, my response about abstinence education was a response to Jae. I agree the key issue here is punishment vs. grace and about the fact that a woman is more likely to get "caught" in these fundamental cultures. A boy who was sexually active at the school (which is what violates the code I believe) would never get caught. Similarly, students who use birth control do not get caught and punished.
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Yes, more likely. In this particular case, the boy is not a student at the school.
DaisyJane said:
I wouldn't say, "never," and various things break that school's code - not just sex outside marriage.
DaisyJane said:
Seems less likely, however still possible.
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Given the LONG history (like centuries) of society shaming sexually active young women and placing much less emphasis on catching the boys who are equally active (or outright saying "boys will be boys" though that response seems liss likely in this context) it seems likely that @DaisyJane is accurate here.
Paul teaches about law vs. grace. The church has long triumphed grace -- while at the same time living out of a law and punishment mindset.
Banning from a grad ceremony has no instructive/corrective disciplinary benefit (which proper discipline should IMO). It is purely punishment and shaming (though I suspect in such a context just being seen to be pregnant has a degree of shame as it is). However it may be the only tool the school thought they had to use.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Actually Jae, here is the exchange:
Which shows that when you brought up abstinence you were indeed talking about education. Later you talked about behavior, though it was in a way that suggested the behavior flowed naturally from the education (which is demonstrably not always true).
Jaebius
Canadian in Korea
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
That's a fair comment Gord. What I meant is that I was speaking of behaviour when I was doing the math that I did. If all teens were abstinent, there would be no more teen pregnancies, and no more teen STIs.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
It would also be a world that has never existed. Many families have stories of the child who was born "too soon" in many many different generations.
THe challenge has always been how to respond. ANd most of the time the response has not been one that respected the parents as individuals (forced marriages, mom "going to visit an aunt"). I suggest that this type of punishment is along the same trajectory--helps nobody, teaches very little, solves nothing.