Should schools allow gender debates?

One newspaper reader replies to a letter calling for a suspension of sex education in schools. We analyse the writer's arguments.

Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.A18 (letters)
Headline: Instilling values a complex task
Writer: Warren Mark Liew

Quote1
I read with concern last Saturday's letter supporting the suspension of all sexuality education programmes offered by external agencies. ...

Comment
This identifies the topic of discussion.

Quote2
Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education's (MOE) push for critical thinking.

Comment2
Here is the argument, formally presented:

Premiss1: If (censor all), then (contrary to MOE)
Premiss2: Not-(contrary to MOE) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(censor all) [suppressed]

This is an enthymeme, a partial argument. We complete it above, supplying the suppressed portions as well.

The argument structure is the special case of the Modus Tollens known as reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity). Censoring all alternative views has the consequence of being contrary to MOE's policy (Premiss1). This consequence is absurd, so we reject it (Premiss2). This leads us to the inevitable conclusion of rejecting (censor all).

Quote3
If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?

Comment3
The question at the end of this quote is a rhetorical question, meaning it should be read as a statement: "this balanced approach should be similarly extended ...". In general, I advise against using rhetorical questions, as we cannot be sure the reader will understand its intention as a statement. Better to just make the statement.

This is an argument urging consistency (Premiss1):

Premiss1: If (abortion debate), then (gender debate)
Premiss2: (abortion debate)
Conclusion: Hence, (gender debate)

The argument structure is a Modus Ponens, hence valid. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. Premiss1 is the statement of consistency. If Premiss1 is held to be true, the conclusion follows.

Quote4
A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore's society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well researched knowledge and information.

Comment4
This argument is premissed upon an understanding of what comprises a (mature curriculum), and on our desire for such.

Premiss1: If (mature curriculum), then (reflect all views)
Premiss2: (mature curriculum) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (reflect all views) [suppressed]

The argument form (technical term for argument structure) is the valid Modus Ponens. If the two premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.

Quote5
Perhaps, MOE would be wise to consult students for their views on what ought to be included in a 21st century sexuality education curriculum. Our children are often more precocious than we give them credit for.

Comment5
Premiss1: If (children precocious), then (consult students) [suppressed]
Premiss2: (children precocious)
Conclusion: Hence, (consult students)

Quote6
Silencing their views in favour of the dominant conservatism is itself a kind of prejudice against the ability of young people to think for themselves.

Comment6
This argument is, like that in Comment2, a Modus Tollens -- except that it is not the special case of reduction ad absurdum. Here is the argument, formally presented:

Premiss1: If (silence children), then (prejudice)
Premiss2: Not-(prejudice) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(silence children) [suppressed]

The argument is valid. If the premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.

Comment7
Note the different thrusts of the various arguments.

Comment2: Do not censor all views.
Comment3, 4: Allow gender debate, reflect all views.
Comment5: Consult children
Comment6: Do not silence children

Note also that 2, 3, 4 may not be compatible with 5, 6. It is logically possible (though highly unlikely) for the children to desire censorship.

END