Sexual Abuse, and the LAUSD's overreaction

As soon as you read the title of this article, you can notice something a little bit different about it. Saying that there's an overreaction to sexual abuse? Is that possible? Well according to this article about a recent sex abuse scandal at a public elementary school, it is. After one of the teachers was accused of multiple accounts of sexual abuse of his students, the school took obviously needed and sought after regulations to help the community feel protected. Some of these regulations did seem reasonable and justified, such as pulling all the normal teachers from the school and replacing them with substitutes while the investigation was going on. Now however, the USD has continued placing restrictions on teaching methods that resemble anything to do with the abuse. Blindfolding is no longer allowed in the school, despite the curriculum using blindfolds to teach children about the senses. Now kids can't experience the fun and educating lesson of making butter. Teachers have also been told to avoid comforting grieving children with a hug.

When I first saw this article, I wondered what the author could be thinking for obvious reasons. Overreaction isn't usually a word you hear when you talk about child abuse. But as I read the article, I realized that the author was right in his claim, banning blindfolding and butter-making isn't going to stop or prevent sexual abuse. All the USD actually did with these bans is made it impossible to abuse children in these specific ways. These new regulations will just make abusers more careful and witty with the methods they use. Ultimately all that's suffering here is the children's education, and that's something that's unacceptable.




http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-blindfold-20120306,0,6703148.story

Birth Control, Bishops, and Religious Authority

This article was interesting for several reasons. First, the author is a Catholic philosopher. That in and of itself is an interesting combination when you consider the topic being written about. This is a hot topic, and Gary uses statistics about polls from Catholic women on their views about birth control. According to the statistics 98% of Catholic women use birth control, and 78% think that it's perfectly alright to do so, despite the teachings of the Bishops. Even though the overwhelming percentage of Catholics share these views, the Church still teaches that birth control is morally wrong. This strong stance was highlighted by the backlash from the Obama administration's ruling that all Catholic hospitals and universities have to provide birth control to patients.

An interesting point Gutting brings up in the article is a question he poses: Who has the power to decide what the Catholic Church stands for and against? As he notes, no one has had a credible meeting with a divine being for thousands of years, so how can anyone possibly know what he/she feels about current issues that weren't around in the time of Christ? Do the Bishops get the power to blindly guess about these matters by default? Our government can't regulate the preachings of the Bishops because of separation between Church and state, so its up to each individual to decide for themselves what they believe.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/birth-control-and-the-challenge-to-divine-authority/?ref=opinion