At a local high school: MassResistance goes head to head with school officials and teachers who push radical “comprehensive sex ed” on their students

It’s worse than most people realize!

Parents must NOT back down, but confront school personnel

by Brian Camenker
March 26, 2020
ALT TEXT The "genderbread person" is used in packaged sex-ed courses across the country. They describe it as "a teaching tool for breaking the big concept of gender down into bite-sized, digestible pieces."

We’ve all read about the terrible graphic sex ed, homosexual propaganda, and “gender” ideology being taught to young teenagers in the public schools today. But most people have not had the opportunity to sit down and discuss this with the administrators and teachers who are actually pushing it. Recently, I did. It was quite a mind-numbing and frightening experience. What you are about to read is a look at the inside of schools that few parents ever see.

A mother asks MassResistance for help

Several weeks ago Beth, a mother in central Massachusetts, contacted me. Her ninth-grade daughter had previously attended private religious schools but was now enrolled in the public high school. It was time for her to take the “comprehensive sex ed” course. Beth was very concerned about what might be in the course, especially concerning abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and graphic sexuality. She is serious about her religious faith, she said, and didn’t want to just ignore this. But she also realized that she had very little experience dealing with the public schools.

It turns out that the school’s “comprehensive sex ed course” is a radical, graphic third-party packaged curriculum titled “Making Proud Choices.”

Most parents are unaware that thousands of schools across the country use these highly inappropriate, packaged sex ed courses. Others include “Get Real,” “Teen Talk,” “Healthy Choices,” “FLASH,” and “Our Whole Lives.” They are published by various left-wing “sex ed” companies and they all push the envelope on sex, homosexuality, and transgenderism. Virtually all of them have a direct or indirect connection to Planned Parenthood, and most are promoted somewhere on Planned Parenthood’s website.

The Massachusetts Parental Notification Law (which we wrote and got passed back in 1996) allows the public to examine the course material and parents may opt out their children if they wish. (Examining the course would also fall under most states’ open public records laws.) Most parents are too busy to bother to actually look at what’s being taught to their children – or take the time to opt out their children. And the schools take advantage of that.

Beth had already asked to look through the course material, but was being rebuffed. An administrator had arranged for Beth to come and examine the curriculum, but when she got there the person was suddenly “too busy” to show it to her. So Beth called MassResistance and asked for our help. I spoke with her.

I told Beth to call the Principal’s office and insist that he personally arrange for her to see the curriculum this time. That worked. A few days later she got a call back with an appointment to come to the school’s main office to examine the curriculum. Since MassResistance’s offices are in suburban Boston, not too far away, I told her I’d go in with her.

Just how bad is “Making Proud Choices”?

Last November, MassResistance published an exposé of “Teen Talk,” a similar third-party sex curriculum being used in California schools. In particular, we focused on its sections on Gender Identity and Sexuality. It shocked a lot of people.

It’s not surprising that the staffers at Beth’s school were reluctant to show a parent this course, especially since it’s for 9th graders. It appears to be even worse and more destructive than Teen Talk.

Here’s what Family Watch International says about “Making Proud Choices”:

Making Proud Choices is essentially a how-to manual for sexual activity. It implies that many, if not most, teenagers are sexually active and teaches them how to negotiate condom use and obtain consent for sex. This program promotes acceptance of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities and even contains same sex role play scenarios for teens to act out. Making Proud Choices encourages detailed condom demonstrations using penis models and suggests ways to make condom use more pleasurable … One video contains animated steps to condom use including animated figures acting out vaginal, anal and oral sex.

Family Watch International goes on to describe that “Making Proud Choices” sexualizes children, how it teaches children to consent to sex, promotes anal and oral sex, promotes homosexual and bisexual behavior, promotes solo and/or mutual masturbation, promotes transgender ideology, and promotes contraception and abortion to very young teens.


Thus, the move in schools these days is away from a “home-grown” run-of-the-mill sex ed program to a high-octane curriculum put together by the radical sex ed industry and Planned Parenthood.

Beth said she just wanted to see the curriculum for herself.

The school meeting starts

When Beth and I got to the high school’s main office, we were immediately ushered into an adjoining conference room. We had expected to see a teacher or administrator with the course materials laid out.

But instead, we were surprised to see four people sitting at one end of the table waiting for us: the school Principal, the school’s sex ed teacher, and two other people. The two others were the instructors from a local social services clinic that the school contracted to come in and teach the “Making Proud Choices” curriculum to the students.

It became clear that their purpose was not to show Beth the curriculum at all, but to explain it to her, placate any concerns she has, and dismantle any of her “misunderstandings.” It was also pretty obvious that having the four of them in a room with one parent was meant to intimidate and overwhelm. It’s a common tactic with school administrators.

They had not expected Beth to bring someone with her. I introduced myself and informed them that I was the author of the current state law on parental notification and consent, and that I’ve worked with parents around the country on this issue. They didn’t seem pleased to hear that.

I mentioned that the current law had been bitterly opposed by the homosexual lobby, Planned Parenthood, and the teachers’ unions – and that many parents have had a difficult time getting the schools to follow the law properly. The Principal immediately reacted with surprising hostility – saying that they always let parents opt out. I reiterated what our experience has been over the years, and that’s why I was here with Beth to see that she got to look at the curriculum herself.

One of the instructors at the far end of the table showed us a binder that she said contained the “Making Proud Choices” curriculum. But she said that “we don’t teach all of it,” and that it would be better for Beth to look over a few sheets of paper which contained their own “overview” of the curriculum, which they handed to Beth.

The school sex ed teacher then turned to Beth and – as the others nodded in agreement – began describing the “wonderful” aspects of the curriculum. She talked about important up-to-date information that it gives the students, the critical negotiation skills they learn, and the helpful role-playing and video training that the course includes. These are all essential things that young people need to know about in this day and age to stay safe, she said. Plus, it’s a top-quality course because it’s “evidence-based” – a term that was used several times.

It was all well-crafted propaganda made to sound like simple common sense – with all the authority figures in the room showing their agreement.

At one point, Beth asked how they teach about abortion. She said she has worked with a church group that counsels girls who have had abortions. Does the course normalize abortion?

The sex ed teacher handled that very skillfully. She gave a long answer but didn’t directly answer the question. She assured Beth that the course doesn’t directly give girls information on where to get abortions (which we think is untrue) and that they include discussion of abstinence.

Disappointingly, I could see Beth succumbing to their tactics. From that point on, she didn’t challenge them any further. She seemed to drop her interest in actually looking at the curriculum, apparently not wanting to appear “backward” or “unenlightened.”

And it got worse. Beth shocked me by telling the group that she agreed that kids need good information – and that she made sure her ninth-grade daughter knew all about contraception.

Challenging the school people

Unlike Beth, I had heard all that propaganda a hundred times before, and I wasn’t buying any of it. Instead, I began to confront them about what they were actually telling kids. They weren’t prepared for that!

I asked them point-blank, “Why are you using this horrible, graphic Planned Parenthood curriculum that teaches kids so many destructive things? Why not make your own curriculum that doesn’t do all that?”

The sex ed teacher answered, “This course is approved by the Mass. Dept. of Public Health.”

The Principal then looked at me and said very matter-of-factly, “State law requires that we teach these things. We don’t have a choice.” That is a common retort that school officials throw at parents, and I knew that it wasn’t really true. “I’m not aware of any state law that mandates that. What exactly is the statute you’re talking about?” He just got angrier and said, “You can look it up yourself.” I shot back, “As I said, I’m not aware of any such law in Massachusetts. Planned Parenthood has lobbied for one several times, but it’s never passed.”

The truth is that besides a broad “health” mandate by the Dept. of Eduication, there is no legal requirement in Massachusetts for almost all of the radical things that school teaches kids. And some schools teach very little, and get away with it because they’re within the law. 

One of the instructors then said, “‘Making Proud Choices’ is not a Planned Parenthood course.” I answered, “Well, it’s certainly listed on the Planned Parenthood website, so there must be some connection there, right?”  She didn’t answer.

Then I asked, “You’ve used the term ‘evidence-based’ several times. What does that mean?” She gave a confusing answer that there had been studies – or something – done. But according to Family Watch International:

This curriculum claims to be “evidence-based.” However, the one and only study cited in the Facilitator’s Manual was done by the authors themselves, presenting an extreme conflict of interest.

Sex survey for ninth-graders. I was reading through a copy of the course’s “survey” for ninth-graders that they had handed to Beth. (Beth didn’t really look at anything they handed her, unfortunately. The group had successfully intimidated her. She had lost her focus.)

I read aloud one of the questions, which asked kids how many times recently they had (a) vaginal sex, (b) oral sex, or (c) anal sex. What is this all about, I asked them? Exactly what kind of message are you giving ninth-graders when you even ask them these things? Is it that they’re not normal if they’re not doing this? Why would you do something like this?

Their answer was simply that kids have the choice of not answering the questions. They offered nothing more.

I read aloud another question on the survey that asked kids to identify themselves as being (a) heterosexual, (b) bisexual, (c) transgender, or (d) genderqueer.

And then I said, “And please tell me, what is the definition of ‘genderqueer’? I need to know that.”

One of the instructors turned to me and with an imperious tone and said, “We have that in our list of definitions here.” She handed me a sheet of paper with a “genderbread person” on it.

I answered, “No, I don’t want to read about it. You’re the teacher. You tell me what ‘genderqueer’ means.” She clearly couldn’t answer that, and said nothing. They were all clearly annoyed, and Beth was looking uncomfortable at my impertinence.

The LGBT group “Human Rights Campaign” defines it this way:

People who identify as "genderqueer" may see themselves as being both male and female, neither male nor female or as falling completely outside these.

In other words, it’s a yet another nonsense word created for ideological reasons. The school officials swallow the line that they must recognize it as a valid "identification" and force others to "respect" so-called genderqueer people without even knowing what it all means.

Transgender nonsense. The survey and their course overview made several references to transgenderism and a student’s purported “gender identity.”

I asked the group, “Why are you even discussing with students this lunatic idea of ‘transgenderism’ and ‘gender identity’? It’s not science, but completely unscientific quackery.”

The Principal answered in an exasperated tone, “We have to do it. State law requires that schools must respect and recognize a student’s preferred ‘gender identity,’ preferred name, and preferred pronouns.” 

What the Principal didn’t know was that I was in the room when the State Board of Education passed this lunacy. So I know exactly what he’s referring to. So I told the Principal that he’s wrong. It’s NOT a state law. It’s simply an official “guidance” document by the state Dept. of Education on what they would like schools to do. There’s no punishment for not doing it. The guidance document refers to a very broad state “gender identity” law which does not require any of the things the Principal mentioned. He didn’t respond to that.

VIDEO: Brian Camenker MassResistance rebukes the Massachusetts State Board of Education as they approve outrageous "transgender" guidelines for public schools. February 26, 2013. (5 min 28 sec)

Bringing up The Health Hazards of Homosexuality

Finally, I did something that really shook up the meeting (including Beth unfortunately). I pulled out a copy of our 600-page book, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality – What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals. I asked them point blank: "Do you tell students about the medical dangers of homosexual behavior?"

The sex ed teacher got angry and said, “Oh, that’s just someone’s opinion.”

I said, “No, it’s fact. It’s all from the US Centers for Disease Control and established medical websites. Are you telling me you don’t tell kids of these dangers?”

She said, “No, we don’t.” I looked at the Principal and asked him, “You tell kids about the dangers of smoking, don’t you?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, why not this?”

He angrily replied, “This is a fairly liberal community and a very liberal state. I’d get fired if I did that. I have a wife and kids to support.” (Yes, but a lot of good that does his students!)

At that point, the Principal announced that it was time to end the meeting. Beth had still not asked to actually look at the curriculum, and had barely glanced at the handouts they had offered her. But she jumped up, grabbed my copy of “Health Hazards of Homosexuality” which I’d laid on a chair, handed it to me, and bolted out the door.

We had an awkward exchange outside where she said she’d call to follow up. But that never happened. Frankly, I was not at all pleased with how she let their intimidation tactics and dumb propaganda completely silence her.

What does this tell us?

Our side tends to rail against “the radical Left” and “the LGBT movement” for creating these horrible courses targeting children, and we also blame “the schools” for implementing them. It’s easy for us to rail against political abstractions or distant organizations.

But the true evil lies with the people on the ground who are actually doing it. The Principal and these three teachers know exactly what they are doing. They didn’t react with any surprise or true disbelief to anything I said during that meeting.

They are doing things to innocent, vulnerable children that no normal person would do to children – things that can harm them physically and psychologically for the rest of their lives. They are doing things that throughout most of history were illegal. Moreover, they employ skilled propaganda techniques to defend themselves, knowing full well what the truth is.

And when Beth wanted to simply look at their hideous curriculum, they purposefully ganged up to intimidate her, confuse her, and mislead her.

This brings up a widespread philosophical problem that our side has when dealing with people who do these horrible things. We do not accept the so-called “Nuremburg defense” that they are just following orders and are doing it to keep their jobs. That excuse was debunked over 70 years ago. When you knowingly do things that are clearly evil, no matter what the circumstances, you are personally responsible for your actions.

Beth’s behavior was also very disappointing. When the intimidation started, rather than stand up to it, she folded. She had clearly decided that she was going to opt out her daughter anyway, so why risk being labeled a fringe character or a troublemaker? Why not let other parents fight that battle?

Is it any surprise that the Left is winning the “culture war” so easily? It’s absolutely necessary that good people stand up to evil, no matter how frightening it might be.

We believe that this battle can and will be ultimately won. MassResistance will help you make that happen!

Facebook Twitter Email Print

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!