By: David Deschesne

ST. FRANCIS, MAINE - Just down the road from Fort Kent, in the predominately conservative Catholic town of St. Francis, several parents are outraged at their local elementary school’s plan to show graphic video footage of the male sex organ at full climax to their 10 and 11 year-old 5th grade students. The video, which is part of SAD 27’s “Human Growth and Development” curriculum, has drawn fire from parents since its proposed showing in late April, 2006. “The SAD 27 Family Life Curriculum adheres to the standards set forth by the Maine Learning Results,” said SAD 27 Superintendent, Sandra Bernstein. Bernstein told the Saint John Valley Times that a few weeks prior to the course, the teacher sent a notice home to parents, informing them of the course content and the plan to show a film about human growth and development.

“In the May 3 news story, Sandra Bernstein said we parents were sent a notice on April 1,” wrote Shannon Hafford in a letter to the editor in the Valley Times, “but there was no mention of a video.” “That letter was shown to all school board members on May 7. Sandra had no response on the lie she told the newspaper.” Some advocates for the video argue that teenagers need information related to sexual health and reproduction and are afraid to get it from their parents. However, Hafford states the argument isn’t over the content, but the age group the school chose to show it to. “All this talk about 15 and 16 year olds getting pregnant and contracting diseases - where did that come from?” wrote Hafford. “We are talking about 10 and 11 year-old children. Our children, whom we know what’s best for, are not ready for this part of the health curriculum.” Hafford and several other parents showed up at the school early late April because of some concerns on the topic as it was presented. “Three of the four parents called in advance to announce their presence in the health class. No mother stormed into the school. We followed all the guidelines we were told to follow. We let the secretary know we were there and waited in the hall until the principal approached us. We did not demand to see a video because we had no idea there was a video to be shown until the principal told us on April 26.” The showing of the video was postponed at that time until a later date.

“I will not allow learning to be disrupted,” Bernstein told the Valley Times. “This is the district curriculum. this program has been done in all the other schools with no disruptions. “We think 5th graders are a little too young for sex education  as part of our health curriculum, so the ‘sex ed’ piece waits until 6th grade,” said Fort Fairfield’s Superintendent, Jeanette Condon. “The kids are separated by gender, to minimize the embarrassment potential as we recognize that Middle School kids are easily embarrassed by the hormonal changes that are occurring in their development. Arna McNamee, our school nurse works with the boys and Kelly Bubar, our health teacher works with the girls.” Condon indicates a similar video is part of the curriculum at Fort Fairfield Middle School. “I reviewed it, the public is welcome to review it as well, and the section referred to is presented in a line drawn animated form,” said Condon. “There is no actual penis but the changes occurring in puberty are depicted  as were described by others in the area. The female video also has animated drawing to depict female body changes.  Mrs. Bubar tells me this is not presented in a graphic manner, the gender presentations are co-presented by medical folks. Mrs. Bubar was joined by a female RN from TAMC and Mrs. McNamee was joined by a male physician from Cary for the presentation to Fort Fairfield’s sixth grade classes. “Both male and female focused videos have straight talk and cover the basic body changes for young people this age.”   “I also asked Mrs. Bubar if we’ve ever had concerned parents about the curriculum we present and her comment to me is that parents have no complaints thus far.” Hafford continues on in her letter to the Valley Times, “After pleading with the principal, we were finally allowed to view the video.” “In my, and five other parents’ opinion, it’s a good thing we did. I am 33 years old and cannot recall ever feeling so uncomfortable.” “The pictures, language and details of the male body were very explicit. The film showed a picture of a penis then told and showed the penis with an erection and how the penis ejaculates. The film also talked about wet dreams and how a little boy is worried if his penis is going to grow large enough.” “Now, I would like each and every one of you to think about your 10 and 11 year-old son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter, niece or nephew sitting in this co-ed classroom listening and watching a video that shows a penis and talks about erections, ejaculations and wet dreams. How can we say this is okay?”

Hafford goes on in her letter to the Valley Times, “The question whether or not this part of the film is actually a photograph or a drawing seems to be an issue. Well, it is not an actual photograph, it’s a computer-enhanced drawing that actually moves. To me, and the other parents, we were not concerned with whether or not it was a real photo. We were concerned with the content of the video. I, myself, am very comfortable with talking to my children about human growth, but I feel that at this age, my daughter does not need to hear or see what may happen to a male and vice-versa. Maybe in the sixth grade - maybe not. But that choice should be left up to us parents. I do not call this choice a phobia; it’s my morals and beliefs.”  Two SAD 27 board members, Bert Michaud and Rita Gardner, are against the video being shown at this age. Gardner viewed the film on May 9 and stated to Hafford that this video is inappropriate for 10- to 11-year olds.

“The whole issue seems to revolve around drawing a distinction between ‘educational’ material that is suitable for the particular age group, and outright pornography,” said one Fort Fairfield inhabitant.  “In my never-humble opinion, the film described constitutes the latter, regardless of the setting in which it's presented.   Such a viewing might be appropriate for medical students in their 20's or 30's, but unquestionably is inappropriate for the pre-pubescent.”

   Maine’s sex education program and psychotropic drugging schemes seem to be in concert with similar plans outlined in a Russian textbook on psychopolitics: “By making drugs of various kinds readily available, by giving the teenager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her practices taught at the Sexpol, the psychopolitical operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness, and worthlessness that will be the matrix to give the teenager complete freedom everywhere - communism.” (see Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook of Psychopolitics, ©1991 Foundation for Human Understanding, p. 24.

Concerned parents of any school district are encouraged to contact their local superintendent for more information.