Should high school students learn scientific facts about their own world? Some think not.

According to The New York Times, Gilbert Public Schools, a school district in the suburbs of Phoenix, Ariz., recently voted to redact two pages in a high school biology textbook that discussed sexually transmitted diseases, contraception and abortion.

The article says that an Arizona law passed two years ago mandates schools to teach “preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption” over abortion. While supporting childbirth and adoption are laudable efforts, school board members must remember what the purpose of scientific instruction really is. 

Regardless of one’s views regarding STDs, contraception and abortion, public school students should be aware of their existence. The reality is that sex is a near-ubiquitous part of society. It is inevitable that teenagers will be exposed to sex. Therefore, schools must teach students about their bodies and the consequences of sex.

Biology class is often an appropriate outlet to do this. It should deal with science, not religious morality and ethics. Presenting students with facts about STDs, contraception and abortion will allow them to better understand the issues of the world in which they live. This does not mean, however, that students’ religious views will be undermined. 

Students, parents and policymakers must not forget the difference between freedom from and freedom of religion. Gilbert school board member and parent Julie Smith does not seem to understand this distinction. In the Times article, she is quoted as saying, “I’m Catholic; we do not contracept … It is a grave sin.” In regards to the publication of the contested pages in the textbook, she asserts, “you have violated my religious rights.” 

Informing students about contraception and abortion in public schools does not violate personal religious rights. 

There are two main aspects of religious freedom as guaranteed by our Constitution’s First Amendment. Its Establishment Clause says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” while its Free-Exercise Clause states, “or prohibiting the free-exercise thereof.” Therefore, government-supported schooling should not be in the interest of excluding scientific fact merely because it defies a certain religion. It is not the government’s role to endorse one religion over another. Alternatively, students should have the right to freely reject contraception and abortion in their private lives. 

It is because of this personal freedom that hard, scientific instruction in public schools is necessary. So, we cannot forget the distinction between biology and ethics. If a student is enrolled in a biology class, then that student should learn about science. Such a classroom is not the place to promote specific ethical agendas. Now, students should certainly discuss the moral and ethical side of contraception and abortion. However, this discussion should occur elsewhere, after students are educated in the scientific facts. 

These issues are not going away, and it’s possible they never will. Thus, school boards across the country should stop meddling with textbooks for the sake of their or their state’s agenda. A free nation is one in which its citizens are freely educated, and this can only happen without overt interference from biased policymakers.