Local Lawsuit Asks Sex Education Halt

A group of parents has filed a lawsuit against the Ann Arbor School System seeking discontinuance of the Family Life and Sex Education program. The suit also seeks to have Michigan Public Act 44 of 1968, which permits the teaching of sex education and birth control, declared unconstitutional. The suit was filed yesterday by Ypsilanti attorney Robert V. Fink on behalf of six Ann Arbor parents: Mrs. Lorraine Fette, 941 Westwood; Mr. and Mrs. Alan Jones, 1911 Sunrise; Mr. and Mrs. William Van Fossen, 122 Gralake; and Howard Johnson, no known address. Circuit Court Judge William F. Ager Jr. has scheduled a show-cause hearing for this day on the petition's request that all instruetion in the Paaiily Life and Sex Education program be discontinued until the entire legal question is settled. In its argument against the Michigan act the suit claims the law is unconstitutional because it deals with sex edueation in a manner as if it were of a religious nature. Dr. Sam M. Sniderman, director of instruetion i'or the schools, described the law as containing two parts, one for the teaching of the development aspects of sex education, and the other . concerning itseli with birth control instruetion. He said the Ann Arbor schools do not and have had no intention of teaching birth control, but they do concéntrate on the development aspects. The nine-page suit declares that the Family Life and Sex Education program "destroys certain of the plaintiffs personal rights to liberty and happiness" and violates the "universal relationship" between parent and child. The suit continúes by saying the "course of study is designed to question parental authority by encouraging analysis, appraisal and criticism of parental authority," and a 1 s o maintains that parents have the right to control their minor children. Other arguments against the sex education program include: -That the course is taught without regard to "traditional moral values." -That it violates parents' rights to privacy and other rights guaranteed in both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. - That the program attempts to teach ehildren in matters related to discipline and the making of moral and ethical judgments "which cannot be separated from religious conviction," and thus violates the separation of church and state. -That the eourses, including matters of hygiëne, are taught without the supervisión of a registered physician or nurse, or an otherwise qualified person. -That the course is "potentially harmful to the physical and mental and psychological wellbeing of the ehildren and may cause in some instances permanent and disabling injuries to the child." -That the program is "so integrated and combined in the general school curriculum as to infringe upon students' rights to attend school." - That some teaching materials are availatale for teachers to use which are "amoral if not immoral, and border on the pornographic if not actually pornographie, encourage masturbation and excite interest in sexual matters, tend to be sexually stimulating to the young child." The suit continued by alleging that the material was "anti-Christian," "anti-Bible" and "anti-deistic." The petitioners also claimed that petitions with 1,000 signatures have been presented from parents opposed to the present program. The petitions called for the discontinuance of the program on the grounds that: (1) it is the right of the parent to determine religious and al values of tha children; (2) there is "no credible evidence" that the program will alleviate - venereal disease, illegitimacy, homosexuality or promiscuity; (3) that introducing the child r e n to sex education at too early an age would lead to "oversexualization"; (4) and that elementary children are beiag exposed to material which would not be allowed on televisión or radio by government imposed regulations. While asking that the school s y s t e m be permánently enjoined and restrained from continuing the program, the parents also gave a list of guidelines which they said should be followed if a sex education course were to be established. The guidelines recognized that the primary responsibility for séx education should be based with the parents, and said any material used should be legally adopted and opportunity should, be given for the parents to review it. Other recoramended guidelines were that the courses should be completely voluntary and taught when the parents could be able to attend; that it should not be taught until the c h i 1 d r e n reached puberty; qualified and trained teachers should be used; prior parental permission should have to be given; the c o u r s e should impress on the youngsters the importance of morality and honor, and of being respectad toward parents; and that the purpose of the program should I be clearly defined and the 1 methods to carry it out I pletely described. 1