There’s been a good deal of buzz over a new novel by Tom Perrotta, “The Abstinence Teacher.” The book follows describes a sex education teacher’s unsatisfying role as a sex education teacher. Her liberal views lead to opposition by local evangelicals. The book is also being made into a movie, due for release in 2008.

Read an excerpt from the book.

Buy the book at Amazon.com.

Read reviews of the book:

• USA Today - “Pure fun“
• Entertainment Weekly review
• Los Angeles Times review
• The Christian Science Monitor - “Culture wars smolder”
• New York Times review

There have been quite a few media reports about pharmacists refusing to fill Plan B, the morning-after-pill, because of personal moral objections. Now, a Roman Catholic nurse says she was punished for refusing to teach a sex education class.

Maria Sulewski, 55, opposes birth control and contraception. She claimed she was punished with a less desirable work assignment in November 2006 after refusing to do a presentation on birth control and contraception for two area elementary and junior high schools.

Sulewski sued, and the Erie County health board approved a $12,500 settlement on Tuesday in the case.

There have been many claims about sex educators not being properly equipped to teach classes and not being clear on what material to teach. But in this case, Sulewski knew what to teach, but was morally opposed. This article makes me wonder whether this is a common issue and, if so, how schools are dealing with it.

Conservative groups recently fought a Washington county’s revamped sex education curriculum, but a circuit court judge ruled this week that schools can begin teaching the new curriculum to high schoolers this month.

Conservative groups, lead by the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum, tried to get the court to block the classes until after it can hear their arguments against the curriculum in January…The CRC has argued the revamped classes, approved by the county’s Board of Education this spring, would lead to intolerance against those who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. They also argued the curriculum fails to fully teach the limitations of condoms in protecting against sexually transmitted diseases.

I think it’s interesting that the debate over sex education extends into discussion of sexual orientation and religious faith. The article left some questions unanswered, such as why the conservative groups believe the revamped curriculum would lead to discrimination against them. Are they saying the new sex education curriculum is pro-gay (and that they’ll thus be marginalized because they oppose homosexuality on religious grounds)? Or is it more nuanced and just the fact that the discussion will include homosexuality, something the religious conservatives are opposed to, makes them feel they will be unjustly targeted?

Do sex education curricula traditionally even extend into discussion of sexual orientation, identity and gender? My own experience with sex education in an Alabama middle school barely dealt with the human reproductive system, much less with sexual orientation.

I think it’s interesting that homosexuals, who have traditionally been marginalized in society, are now ostensibly being blamed for intolerance against the religious conservatives who are opposed to them. Many would argue that religious conservatives have also been marginalized, but it’s interesting that this is also playing out in the debate over sex education.

The Washington Post also invited readers’ comments on this issue.