Did the principle have the right?

[SayaOtonashi]

p-Ressler on Apr 17, 2013 at 2:55 pm

High school senior Katelyn Campbell

A West Virginia high school student is filing an injunction against her principal, who she claims is threatening to punish her for speaking out against a factually inaccurate abstinence assembly at her school. Katelyn Campbell, who is the student body vice president at George Washington High School, alleges her principal threatened to call the college where she’s been accepted to report that she has “bad character.”
George Washington High School recently hosted a conservative speaker, Pam Stenzel, who travels around the country to advocate an abstinence-only approach to teen sexuality. Stenzel has a long history of using inflammatory rhetoric to convince young people that they will face dire consequences for becoming sexually active. At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection.
Campbell refused to attend the assembly, which was funded by a conservative religious organization called “Believe in West Virginia” and advertised with fliers that proclaimed “God’s plan for sexual purity.” Instead, she filed a complaint with the ACLU and began to speak out about her objections to this type of school-sponsored event. Campbell called Stenzel’s presentation “[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shaming” and said that it made many students uncomfortable.
GW Principal George Aulenbacher, on the other hand, didn’t see anything wrong with hosting Stenzel. “The only way to guarantee safety is abstinence. Sometimes, that can be a touchy topic, but I was not offended by her,” he told the West Virginia Gazette last week.
But it didn’t end with a simple difference of opinion among Campbell and her principal. The high school senior alleges that Aulenbacher threatened to call Wellesley College, where Campbell has been accepted to study in the fall, after she spoke to the press about her objections to the assembly. According to Campbell, her principal said, “How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?” Campbell alleges that Aulenbacher continued to berate her in his office, eventually driving her to tears. “He threatened me and my future in order to put forth his own personal agenda and make teachers and students feel they cant speak up because of fear of retaliation,” she said of the incident.

Despite being threatened, Campbell is not backing down. She hopes that filing this injunction will protect her freedom of speech to continue advocating for comprehensive sexual health resources for West Virginia’s youth. “West Virginia has the ninth highest pregnancy rate in the U.S.,” Campbell told the Gazette. “I should be able to be informed in my school what birth control is and how I can get it. With the policy at GW, under George Aulenbacher, information about birth control and sex education has been suppressed. Our nurse wasn’t allowed to talk about where you can get birth control for free in the city of Charleston.”
Campbell’s complaints about her high school reflect a problematic trend across the country. There are serious consequences when figures like Stenzel repeatedly tell young Americans that contraception isn’t safe. Partly because of the scientific misinformation that often pervades abstinence-only curricula, an estimated 60 percent of young adults are misinformed about birth control’s effectiveness — and some of those teens choose not to use it because they assume it won’t make any difference. Predictably, the states that lack adequate sex ed requirements are also the states that have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
Some of Campbell’s fellow students at GW High School are also rallying for her cause. They plan to take up the issue at a local board of education meeting, which is scheduled for Thursday evening.




One studies have shown Sex ed doesn't lead to higher sexual actives. In fact it decrease. Not only that south states have higher teen pregnancy rate than another states. They don't teach sex ed. As a parent how would you response to the principle. Did, he have a right?

 

[Harry3142]

Do the students identify themselves as all being Christians? The reason I ask is due to we Christians' having a code of conduct which forbids premarital sexual relationships. It is one of the 'acts of the sinful nature' which we are to shun:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

For us premarital, extramarital, and aberrant sexual relationships are all strictly forbidden. These are among the motivations which we identify as the old, sinful nature's still being in charge of what we do. Instead, the motivations which we are to act on are those identified as 'the fruit of the Spirit'. It is these 9 'fruit' which are to be the origin of our actions, and it is only when our actions conform to these 9 'fruit' that our actions conform to what God wants of us.

However, there is an important point which we must recognize: Our accepting the motivations which are 'the fruit of the Spirit' are to follow our accepting the salvation which God offers us, not precede it or replace it:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26,NIV)

It is our sincere acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice on our behalf which leads to the indwelling of the Spirit, and it is the Spirit who brings with him 'the fruit of the Spirit' to both subdue and replace our original, sinful nature. This procedure cannot be augmented or replaced, but only recognized and accepted as the only means of our attaining a nature which can properly perform what God wants of us.

If these students have not gone through this procedure, then they are to be seen as 'of the world'. This means that either they have refused to accept the salvation that God offers to all, they are still undecided as to whether they will accept it, or they have been taught a different path to follow. Scripture is quite clear as to how we are to interrelate with those 'of the world':

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (I Corinthians 5:9-13a,NIV)

We are to accept that there are actions which God forbids to us, and that his reason for this is due to his compassion toward us, evidenced through his not wanting us to take the path which he knows will only lead to sorrow, pain, and ultimately destruction. We are also to accept that our path is to be dictated by the motivations which the Spirit has brought with him, and has implanted within us. It is these motivations (the fruit of the Spirit) which are to be the impetus for our actions, thereby making those actions truly conform to God's will for us.

However, at the same time that we recognize this process in our own lives as Christians, we must also recognize that those 'of the world' have other motivations which are dictating the path which they will follow. And their departure from that path will not be accomplished via their being 'beaten over the head' with Scripture passages. Instead, their departure from that path will only be accomplished through their sincere acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice on their behalf. Only when they have done this will God implant within them his Spirit, without whom no one can act in accordance with God's will.

 

[TheDag]

All I see from the students claims is that the principal was expressing dissatisfaction that the student went to the press. Perhaps there is more that was said that has not been reported. However if there is freedom of speech then obviously no it is not wrong to host such a function just like there is no problem with a student giving different views. All too often when people say freedom of speech they actually mean as long as you agree with me.

 

[hedrick]

All I see from the students claims is that the principal was expressing dissatisfaction that the student went to the press. Perhaps there is more that was said that has not been reported. However if there is freedom of speech then obviously no it is not wrong to host such a function just like there is no problem with a student giving different views. All too often when people say freedom of speech they actually mean as long as you agree with me.

That's not what freedom of speech means. Teachers are not free to base a student assembly on their private views.

There are certainly non-religious reasons to avoid teen pregnancy, but the manner of delivering the message could still be inconsistent with normal non-religious sex education.

And threatening to call a college and slander a student is not an exercise of free speech.

Of course this all assumes that the OP is accurate. There's certainly no guarantee of that.

 

[OllieFranz]

In a school-sponsored assembly in a public school, the speaker is not allowed to say something like "It is a sin to have sex outside of marriage." (She can say "I am a Christian, and I believe that sex outside marriage is a sin, and most Christians agree with the principle," but she can't preach it directly as a given fact in a public school, since there might be non-Christians in attendance.) So she instead preaches fear tactics.

It is true that prophylactics are not 100% effective and that only abstinence can assure that the likelihood of pregnancy or STIs is statistically zero. But lying about the actual effectiveness of prophylactics to the point where the teens feel that it does not matter whether or not they are used is criminally irresponsible. Everyone sins, Christians included. And sex is a very powerful temptation (as Paul tells us in his first letter to Corinth). In the teen years, especially. Even committed Christians will fail.

And being prepared to act responsibly in the event that their willpower does fail is not the same thing as planning to fail.

My father was a police officer. Every police officer in the US carries a gun on duty, and most carry a gun off duty as well. I can tell you that every day, as they strap on their gun, police officers pray that today they will not have to draw it in the line of duty. Most have a horror of the day that they find themselves aiming at another human being and pulling the trigger. But still they wear the gun, because they know that if the situation becomes that dire, not to have the gun to resort to would be tragic.

Likewise with teens. I pray that they remain celibate until marriage, and I encourage them to rely on the Holy Spirit, and not on their willpower. But I know that a significant number of them will fail, and it would be tragic if they did not have and use the prophylactics, or had them and did not know how to use them properly.

Telling them the truth -- the whole truth -- in Sex Ed is not encouraging promiscuity. It is equipping them to survive.

 

[seeingeyes]

This is not the whole story.

According to Campbell, her principal said, “How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?”

Why in the world would the principal call this student a 'backstabber'? Who is she betraying, exactly?

Yeah, something else is going on.