Responses to ‘Family Life’ Controversy

John Maitino’s argument in support of the family life curriculum (“Family Life Courses: Pro and Con,” May 19) seems to revolve around argumentum ad hominem --attack the man. The public expects better from a teacher.

I, for one, would prefer a rational defense, a defense that refrains from pointless name calling and labeling. The following is merely a sampling: “small band of agitated and emotionally charged citizens . . . brandishing their Bibles . . . chant patriotic songs . . . their venom and bombast . . . they condemn . . . they admonish . . . .”

After reading about these horrible people I expected a fiery, self-righteous column from the opposing writer, Russell Neal. What I discovered was a calm, forthright presentation--devoid of the inflammatory rhetoric found in the previous argument. (And Neal may be an atheist for all we’re told of his religious leanings.)

Neal attacks the issue itself--not people, or caricatures of people. He sketches a clear, concise picture of why the courses are objectionable to many. Given that the curriculum is controversial, he pleads that it be taught in “separate classes and let them be voluntary,” as opposed to being interwoven throughout any and all classes.

Ironically, in stooping to ridicule the opposition, Maitino aptly illustrates the very point maintained by many opponents to family life courses--that students holding values at odds with the teacher invariably will be put down, in subtle or not so subtle ways.

ELIZABETH WATSON

Fullerton