Tag: Children

Suspension Rescinded for Fort Worth Student for Comments Opposing Homosexuality

~ Evan Lenow

When you hear some stories, you immediately think, “I know where that happened.” So when such things happen in places outside the norm, we tend to get a little shocked. This week a high school freshman was suspended for making a comment that he was a Christian and he believed being homosexual was wrong. I immediately assumed that the situation occurred in California or New York, but much to my surprise it happened right here in Cowtown—Fort Worth, Texas.

According to news reports, the student at Western Hills High School on the west side of Fort Worth was in German class when the discussion of religion and homosexuality in Germany arose. He turned to a friend in the class and said, “I’m a Christian and I believe being gay is wrong.” The teacher heard his comment, wrote an infraction, and sent him to the assistant principal’s office where he received a three-day suspension.

The next day, his mother arrived with an attorney to discuss the matter with the principal. Thankfully, the principal rescinded the suspension and removed it from the student’s record, allowing him back into class with no further repercussions.

Even in a world of political correctness where teachers are all but required to be non-religious, this situation still seems a little strange. Reports suggest that the teacher has regularly introduced the topics of religion and homosexuality in the classroom:

[Attorney Matt] Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions. “There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.” Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.” “He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

These actions raise a very interesting question for public schools. Should a student’s cultural views—influenced by his religious beliefs—be stifled while a teacher is allowed to promote his beliefs about a controversial subject? The school system will face a very difficult decision about whether or not to become completely non-religious, non-controversial, non-cultural or to allow for some expression of differing viewpoints without the threat of punishment.

The implications of the latter—which seem to be in line with the spirit of the First Amendment—could be a two-edged sword. On one hand, we would applaud the ability of the student to express his belief in a sincere and respectful way. On the other hand, it would also seem to allow for the teacher at least to express his support of homosexuality. Now I certainly do not believe that the teacher should be allowed to push a homosexual agenda in class (especially a German class), but I do believe that students should be allowed to articulate alternatives to his view without fear of punishment or retaliation.

I can see some limited application of this discussion in a German class. Having studied four languages other than English, I recognize that there are some cultural aspects of learning a language. Most language teachers want their students to have an understanding of the culture behind the language, so I can see where discussion of religion could find its way into a German classroom. Let’s face it, one of the most central figures of Protestantism was German—Martin Luther. His translation of the Bible to German is still influential today. A balanced discussion of historical and contemporary religious issues in Germany could be fruitful for students learning the language. The problem with this teacher’s presentation is that it was not balanced. He pushed an agenda and punished a student who disagreed.

Of course there are limits to such discussions in the classroom, and an understanding of the maturity level of the students is necessary for having such discussions. It would never be appropriate for a public school teacher to have such a discussion with a third grade class; however, high school may be a different story. You may protest and say, “I don’t want my ninth grader exposed to such conversations in class!” I would counter with the realization that such conversations are already taking place in the hallways and locker rooms, so the controlled environment of the classroom may be better. In addition, as parents we need to prepare our children to articulate their positions effectively even when it is in opposition to a teacher’s position. At least while they are in high school, we have the opportunity to help them formulate their positions and support them in such discussions in class. When they move away to go to college and these same conversations arise, it may be too late.

So what do we take away from this? Let’s answer a couple of questions. Was the teacher wrong in punishing the student? Yes. He punished a student for disagreeing with his personal position. The student’s belief does not prevent him from learning German. The teacher was simply wrong. Outrage over the suspension is indeed appropriate, and the teacher should probably face disciplinary action for the way he handled the situation.

Should these discussions take place in school? To a certain degree, I say yes. Within a controlled environment where the students and teachers are mature enough to handle the discussion, it could be useful. To prevent such conversations would also prevent discussion of creation and intelligent design that many believers are fighting to get back into the classroom. Since those positions are often labeled “religious,” I am not willing to block all “religious” discussions in the classroom.

Should these conversations be taking place somewhere else? This is the most important question. Yes, they should happen in the home and church. We should not shy away from such topics at the dinner table. We need to tell our children what the Bible says about these things and prepare them to express their beliefs in a hostile environment. Don’t wait for the topic to come up in school—prepare for them in advance.

In 1 Peter 3:15, Peter instructs his readers, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” Let’s be prepared to give a defense for what we believe and direct them back to the hope we have in Christ.

_________________________

Lari Barager, “Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong,” Fox 4 News, September 21, 2011.

Todd Starnes, “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” FoxNews.com, September 22, 2011.

Eva-Marie Ayala, “Western Hills student suspended for denouncing homosexuality has punishment reversed,” Star-Telegram, September 22, 2011.

For audio from a recent conference where I addressed some of the issues related to homosexuality, see Southwestern’s Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Conference audio.

One Man, 150 Children

~ Evan Lenow

According to an article posted yesterday on The New York Times, the Donor Sibling Registry has identified 150 half siblings from one anonymous sperm donor. The article notes:

As more women choose to have babies on their own, and the number of children born through artificial insemination increases, outsize groups of donor siblings are starting to appear. While Ms. Daily’s group is among the largest, many others comprising 50 or more half siblings are cropping up on Web sites and in chat groups, where sperm donors are tagged with unique identifying numbers.  

I addressed the issue of egg and sperm donation as an ethical dilemma in January, but this issue continues to creep back into the picture. While the article to which I responded in the winter celebrated the idea of donation, this current article paints a much darker picture. The author states:

Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors, including the possibility that genes for rare diseases could be spread more widely through the population. Some experts are even calling attention to the increased odds of accidental incest between half sisters and half brothers, who often live close to one another.

The interesting thing is that there are few regulations in the United States governing the donation of reproductive material. Donors remain anonymous and are simply assigned a unique identification number. Men can donate a seemingly unlimited number of times. Potential mothers typically request a specific donor’s sperm with no idea of how many other children have been conceived with his genetic material. Behind all of it, donor banks make a fortune from the sperm of popular donors.

Wendy Kramer, founder of the Donor Sibling Registry, states, “Just as it’s happened in many other countries around the world, we need to publicly ask the questions ‘What is in the best interests of the child to be born?’ and ‘Is it fair to bring a child into the world who will have no access to knowing about one half of their genetics, medical history and ancestry?” These questions are legitimate questions to ask the government and the industry behind this growing problem.

In Great Britain, regulations have been in place since the early 1980’s to limit the number of offspring a single donor could father (10 per donor). While most donors in the U.S. are promised a small number of potential offspring, many have found that they now have dozens of children. The article states:

Ms. Kramer, the registry’s founder, said that one sperm donor on her site learned that he had 70 children. He now keeps track of them all on an Excel spreadsheet. “Every once in a while he gets a new kid or twins,” she said. “It’s overwhelming, and not what he signed up for. He was promised low numbers of children.”

So what are we to make of this? As I noted in January, the biblical model of procreation is intended to take place within the confines of marriage (Gen 1:28; 4:1; Heb 13:4). The introduction of donors (sperm and/or eggs) creates an unusual moral dilemma that raises the question of adultery. Have these reproductive technologies created a new category of adultery—reproductive adultery?  While difficult to say for certain, we certainly need to raise that question.

In addition, the article describes another set of problems that often go unnoticed—those related to the children.

Experts are not certain what it means to a child to discover that he or she is but one of 50 children—or even more. “Experts don’t talk about this when they counsel people dealing with infertility,” Ms. Kramer said. “How do you make connections with so many siblings? What does family mean to these children?”

How will children deal with the fact that they have dozens, or even hundreds, of siblings? While many parents typically want to keep it a secret from their children that they were conceived with the help of donors, can they afford to do so with the possibility of incest?

Technology is a great thing, but too often we accept the benefits of technological advances without considering the long-term ramifications. This is one example of something that has the potential to cause great problems in the future—and the future is now.

_________________________

Jacqueline Mroz, “One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring,” The New York Times, September 5, 2011.

The Donor Sibling Registry, https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/.

Evan Lenow, “Who’s the Mother?: The Tangled Web of New Reproductive Technologies,” January 11, 2011.

Are Children a Burden or a Blessing?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

Earlier this summer, I picked up an old copy of Life magazine while on vacation. The cover picture and title caught my eye. There was a picture of a small baby (no older than a few months), and below the picture, the cover read, “The Baby Riddle: What will happen to American life if each family has one child? Or two? Or three?” The magazine was dated May 19, 1972.

After my wife gave birth to our fourth child two weeks ago, I decided to take out the magazine and read through some of the articles. Here are a few of the highlights—remember that it was written nearly 40 years ago. Addressing the “problem” of continued population growth, the author writes:

Both the Pill and easier abortion laws have helped lower the birthrate in recent years. So have inflation, job shortages and the women’s rights movement, all of which tend to encourage later marriages and fewer children. Last month, after an exhaustive two-year study, the presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future recommended that we now seize the chance to stabilize our population. The commission, headed by John D. Rockefeller III, favors abortion on request, free contraceptive information and supplies for all, including minors, and a national policy of zero population growth. Married couples would be encouraged to have an average of only two children (the present average is 2.3).

Back in 1972, many sociologists were sounding the alarm about a population bomb that would threaten food production, infrastructure, and the American dream. The magazine article proposed that if American families had three children, the population would balloon to 322 million by the year 2000 (current population of the US is over 312 million based on the population clock from the US Census Bureau), half the country would be short of water, food costs would increase by 40–50%, and 93% of all students would receive a worse education in 2000 than they could have received in 1972. These crises would all be the result of a population explosion.

But wait, there’s more:

Besides these direct measures [free contraceptive services, liberalized abortion laws, and state-subsidized sterilization], the commission noted with disapproval the large number of social and psychological pressures in our society that encourage too many people to get married and, once married, to have children.

Here we see a government commission disapproves of social pressures to get married and once married, for couples to have children. Well, I guess in some respects, they have gotten their wish. According to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), “nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2007.” In addition, the report states, “Most births to teenagers (86% in 2007) are nonmarital, but 60% of births to women 20–24 and nearly one-third of births to women 25–29 were nonmarital in 2007.” Social pressures for marriage have subsided, but women are still giving birth. The difference is that 40% of all births are now to single women, meaning that children are being reared in single-parent households at an alarming rate.

Some may see this trend as a positive example of the feminist movement. However, Maggie Gallagher suggests that marriage is important for the well-being of children. Among other conclusions, she reports, “Marriage reduces child poverty. Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms. Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality. Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes. Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.”

Finally, the article cites a then-forthcoming book by Shirley Radl bemoaning the fact that she ever had children. Here are some of her thoughts:

When I was pregnant the first time, we celebrated our eighth wedding anniversary. My husband gave me an exquisite pearl bracelet. Six years later I was picking up the pearls in my vacuum cleaner. My son had destroyed it. It is a sad symbol of how two children affected a once-beautiful relationship.

Bearing children is a gamble with lives of innocents. The greatest failure is to have children and learn too late you’re not equipped for that career. We who learned the truth must level with an unsuspecting generation of potential mothers. They must look beyond the myths, seek the truth, judge their capacities accordingly. Plan carefully: the life you save may be your own.

The overwhelming thrust of the articles in this 40-year-old edition of Life is that children are a burden. The act of having children must be weighed like a financial decision—do I invest in myself or in children? The focus is on personal rights, dreams, aspirations. If children get in the way of those things, then they must be a burden. Is that how Scripture describes children? Absolutely not!

In Psalm 127:3–5, Solomon writes:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate.

The biblical perspective is that children are a gift, a blessing, a reward. Do children place a burden on the lives of adults? Yes. I will not deny that there are things we cannot do because we have four children. Do the rewards of four precious lives outweigh the burdens? No doubt about it! We need to maintain a biblical perspective on children and the blessing of having them in our lives.

_________________________

“The Crucial Math of Motherhood,” Life, May 19, 1972.

U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. POPClock Projection.”

National Center for Health Statistics, “Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” May 2009.

Maggie Gallagher, “(How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?,” in The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, & Morals (eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain; Dallas: Spence, 2006), 197–212.

Shirley Rogers Radl, Mother’s Day Is Over (Arbor House, 1987).

The Tragedy of Pregnancy Reduction

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

As I write this post, I am waiting to get the phone call from my wife saying we need to head to the hospital for the birth of our fourth child. The last forty weeks have passed amazingly fast and painfully slow at the same time. In the midst of what will most likely be the longest streak of 100+ degree days on record in Fort Worth, we await the arrival of our precious daughter. Some people think we are crazy for having four children. When they find out our oldest is only 6, it confirms it in their minds.

In contrast to our anticipation of our child’s birth, the New York Times ran a story this week on the increasing phenomenon of pregnancy reduction—specifically the reduction of twins to a singleton. The article is heartbreaking and painful at times to read. The article opens with the following story:

As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment—and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.

“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner—in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me—and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”

Jenny’s last sentence tells it all. She said, “The pregnancy was all so consumerish.” If she could choose to get pregnant in the first place through donor-based IVF, why couldn’t she simply choose that she only wanted one of the babies?

The language found throughout the article relates to choices and desires. The story about Jenny continues:

The idea of managing two infants at this point in her life terrified her. She and her husband already had grade-school-age children, and she took pride in being a good mother. She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love.

Dr. Richard Berkowitz, a perinatologist at Columbia University Medical Center, asks, “In a society where women can terminate a single pregnancy for any reason—financial, social, emotional—if we have a way to reduce a twin pregnancy with very little risk, isn’t it legitimate to offer that service to women with twins who want to reduce to a singleton?” His question sums up the whole debate from a secular perspective. If our society has already opened the door for abortion-on-demand with no concern for reason, then there is nothing standing in the way of pregnancy reduction except social mores.

Despite the logic of the argument, society is still uneasy with certain forms of pregnancy reduction. Reducing twins to a single birth receives the least amount of public support. An interesting facet of this discussion is that the option of pregnancy reduction was not even possible a few decades ago. Most proponents proclaim it as a victory for women’s choice, but Josephine Johnston, a bioethicist at the Hastings Center, sees it differently:

In an environment where you can have so many choices, you own the outcome in a way that you wouldn’t have, had the choices not existed. If reduction didn’t exist, women wouldn’t worry that by not reducing, they’re at fault for making life more difficult for their existing kids. In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I’m not saying we should have less choices; I’m saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be.

The culture of death that views abortion and pregnancy reduction as socially acceptable has gripped our American culture. This article, however, exposes the unease with which our culture has accepted these horrendous practices. It reminds me of Romans 2:14–16 where Paul writes, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” Their consciences are bearing witness against their actions because they know that what they are doing is wrong. The guilt is a result of God’s general revelation to mankind testifying that such pregnancy reductions are sinful.

I pray that we would stop seeing these precious lives in the womb as fetuses and see them as God sees them—humans made in the image of God. In Psalm 139:13–16, David proclaims:

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

_________________________

Ruth Padawer, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,” The New York Times, August 10, 2011.

When Teachers Cheat

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

The Christian Science Monitor published a story today about a scandal in the Atlanta public school system involving teachers who changed test responses for students. According to the article, the governor’s office released an 800-page report describing how 178 teachers and principals altered standardized tests in order to boost test scores. Why would the teachers cheat? They would receive financial bonuses for improved test scores.

The article reports some dreadful behavior on the part of teachers and administrators. The article states:

Among many shocking revelations, the report details “changing parties” where teachers used razor blades to cut security plastic around tests and used lighters to fuse the plastic seams back together after changing scores. It also documented intimidation of teachers by administrators, including one case where a teacher was told to get under a table at a meeting after raising questions.

In the current culture of public education, standardized test scores rule the day. The Atlanta system has the test authorized by the state of Georgia. In my state of Texas, the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) looms over every student each spring. I know teachers who fight the temptation to “teach toward the test,” but everything rides on the results. It’s hard not to gear lesson plans toward what will be asked on the test rather than what the student should learn in fifth grade math. Why waste your time teaching life skills that are applicable from the English classroom when you know they will not appear on the test.

For the teachers and principals in Atlanta, they may learn a harder lesson. Some of their crimes—altering government documents and lying to investigators—may land them in prison for up to 10 years. The school district will likely face serious fallout as well because their inflated scores had brought significant donations from wealthy benefactors and foundations. Now they may have to return some of the money or at least face the fact that such donations are likely never to happen again.

There are two questions we need to ask about this scandal.  First, what does this say about our current educational system? I am a professor. I develop the content of my classes. I decide what my students are required to read. I decide what I will discuss in class. And I decide what will appear on my exams. However, most public school teachers have no such luxury. Instead, they are told to make sure their students perform well on a standardized test developed by administrators in the state capital. These tests become the law of the land. Property values rise and fall based on the recognition of the local schools. Careers are made and lost based on the scores of 6- to 18-year-olds.

I think we all desire a good education for our children. The public school systems scattered across our country are the mechanism by which many families provide that education. However, it appears that some of these school systems are broken. They are entangled in politics and bureaucracy that care less about education and more about government grants. Certainly not all school systems are like this, but many major cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Memphis often find themselves embroiled in controversy and political wrangling.

Second, what are we teaching our children when our teachers cheat? The virtue of integrity seems lost on children today. They look around them and see that you do what it takes to win. Adults lie, cheat, and steal to make it to the top. We hold out hope that somewhere along the way they learn to be virtuous. Many people hope that such lessons come in school. Now we see that 178 “honorable teachers” in Atlanta were not that honorable after all. And Atlanta is not the only city where this is a problem. The teachers who claimed to be teaching the “truth” were living a lie. Success through deception is not success. Our communities suffer when such scandals hit the airwaves. But more importantly, our children suffer because they never learn the value of honesty, hard work, and education.

Reading about this and other scandals reminds me that the world simply acts like the world. We should not be surprised when sinners sin. The cheating scandal in Atlanta is not the problem. Living according to the flesh is the problem. Money, power, and influence can be dangerous temptations. We need to guard our steps .In Proverbs 10:9, we read, “He who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.” These teachers and administrators have found this proverb to be true the hard way. However, we need not sit on the sidelines and point fingers at them lest we find ourselves “perverting our ways” rather than “walking in integrity.”

As believers in Christ, we need to watch our own lives and guard against these temptations through the power of the Holy Spirit. In addition, we need to walk in integrity in all our ways. Have we cheated someone in our business? Have we changed reports to make us look better? I pray that we not be found guilty of the same.