At the most recent special town meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the local Special Education Programs. The public comments were primarily from parents of children served by the programs and were invariably supportive of the status quo or expansions of the benefits already in place. Helping parents with offspring that need more attention or resources than are generally available in our mainstream public classrooms has been unassailable for decades. The community is better off if every member, regardless of resources, is provided with an education sufficient to enable most to read, write, and think independently. That any individual cannot fully acquire these skills is no reason to deny him or her our best efforts to help them become as self-sufficient as possible.
I was surprised to hear that the cost per pupil for some of the people in Special Education Programs was as much as four times the expenditure per pupil in mainstream classes, but I gathered that this was a cost demanded by the marketplace. What confirmed Capitalist could begrudge the marketplace this price tag? I was also surprised to hear that the individuals participating in these programs had the option of continuing in their educational programs up to the age of 22. What confirmed Socialist could question supporting the more challenged amongst us for as long as help is needed?
As I pondered these questions, one of the parents ended her public comments with what seemed to be an entirely unrelated bit of advice. She insisted that she “wants the DEI . . . and sex crap out of the schools.” I believe she was referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and sex education courses. That these programs were competing with Special Education programs for funding seemed unlikely, and a little budget review established that they were not. So, why so hostile?
Indeed, our town has a committee that is supposed to promote DEI, but it is an all-volunteer committee with no real administrative powers. It is advisory, and, in all fairness, its advice has had little, if any, impact on our town. Having had discussions with other community members on ‘race’ issues, I gathered that the prevailing sentiment is that it is a phony issue. Most neighbors I have spoken to about race feel that there is no need to focus on, discuss, or make accommodations for African-American or Latino families. In fact, the implicit sentiment is that this issue already receives too much attention. Unlike students with learning disabilities, the problems faced by nonwhite citizens are not self-evident. Most members of our community will acknowledge that nonwhite Americans have faced unique obstacles to advancement and justice in past years, but the “playing field has been levelled.”
As for sex education, the prevailing sentiment is that it belongs at home, not in the schools. Parents vary widely in what they want their children to learn about sex or even if they want their children to learn about sex. The message delivered by many parents and most schools is, “Don’t do it!” I believe this is having as much impact on family planning and teen pregnancies as the message currently spreading across our nation that women do not have the right to decide when, with whom, or how often they have children. Emphasizing abstinence, as is currently recommended in most American school curricula that even discuss sexual matters, will be (and is) ludicrous. Sex drives are built into our genes and will not be denied.
So, you might ask, what roused me from my torpor at the town meeting and incited a need to disparage those who would oppose introducing more (or any) discussions of America’s racial history and ongoing racial problems (e.g., de facto segregation, racial gerrymandering, redlining, racial profiling, disparate sentencing, etc.) and those who would object to explicit and accurate sex education in our schools. Simply put, I am old and am tired of hearing the same foolishness repeated in the many communities in which I have lived and worked over the decades. In the 1970s, we, Americans, seemed to have escaped the racist rut and denial of a woman’s autonomy that was entrenched in most of our communities, but now we are slipping back into the old, familiar ways.
I discussed admission policies at an Ivy League school with a young faculty member, and he asked me to consider how I would deal with several scenarios. We agreed on the resolution of all except one potential issue. He indicated that an exceedingly intelligent and personable African-American man had completed his undergraduate degree at a a leading historically Black university with distinction and sought admission to medical school. He had applied to the Ivy League school and the historically Black institution’s programs and was highly regarded by both. Who should accept him? Obviously, the Ivy League school should accept him, I suggested, not only to increase the diversity of its own student body, but also to give this outstanding, young man the credentials he would need if he wanted to become a political activist, well-funded researcher, or a highly qualified community physician. No, my fair-skinned, blonde-haired, perfectly dentitioned, future leader of American medicine insisted. If the Ivy League school accepted this student, it would deny the medical school at the historically Black institution an enormous asset who would help to elevate the quality and improve the experience of students there. His acceptance to the Ivy League school would deny an historically Black university these benefits. The Ivy League school needed to reject him because he was so good. Of course, an Ivy League school would reject him anyways if he was not so good (unless, of course, his family could add a few million dollars to endowments that already range from $10 to $60 billion). The playing field may be flat, but it is inside a gated and closely guarded community.
As for America’s sexual illiteracy, one need only look at teen pregnancy rates, date rape statistics, sexually transmitted disease numbers, and any other parameter related to sexual knowledge to conclude that meaningful sex education need not be suppressed. It is already largely nonexistent. Perhaps that is an area that would profit from special education.
Dr. Lechtenberg is an Easton resident who graduated from Tufts University and Tufts Medical School in Massachusetts and subsequently trained at The Mount Sinai Hospital and Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in Manhattan. He worked as a neurologist at several New York Hospitals, including Kings County and The Long Island College Hospital, while maintaining a private practice, teaching at SUNY Downstate Medical School, and publishing 15 books on a variety of medical topics. He worked in drug development in the U.S., as well as in England, Germany, and France.
