Sexual behavior ignored at Santa Clara
By Colleen Snyder
I am convinced that school health officials truly believe that no Santa Clara students are sexually active. In the two-plus years I have been a student here, I have yet to see or hear anything remotely related to sex education.
As a young adult still struggling to grow up in today's culture, I feel I can speak for most other people my age when I say that sex is definitely a real issue in the lives of most college students. Why, then, does Santa Clara continue to ignore sex in a place full of the prime candidates for such information?
The obvious answer is that Santa Clara is a Jesuit university. If we wanted information on sex, birth control and condoms, we should have gone to a public school. Is that fair? I don't think so.
Before I get much further, I want to clarify that I am Catholic and have attended Catholic schools all my life. My parents and teachers have well acquainted me with the stance the Catholic church has taken on the issues of sex and birth control. But to me, teaching a church's doctrine and recognizing the realities of the world we live in are two separate things.
If the school took an active role in complete sex education, it would not be contradicting church doctrines of abstinence. In fact, I believe abstinence should always be promoted as the only way to safely guard oneself against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, sex education means letting people make their own choices about their sexual practices. After all, isn't that what the university is aiming for � to prepare students to make their own, conscientious decisions about their own lives?
If the university feels capable of telling students what is right and wrong, why not do that in classes too? Although I think most faculty here would agree that dictating one correct way is counter-intuitive to developing critical and independent thinking, and I believe most would also agree that theory applies to religion as well.
Stepping back from such matters of principle and individual choice and freedom, there are the countless studies that have shown that educating young people on issues concerning sex does not promote sexual behavior, but instead reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Surely, if Cowell was providing information on contraceptives or giving out free condoms, as many universities do, it would not influence people previously dedicated to abstinence to have sex.
Who decided that providing necessary services such as these to students means the university is condoning premarital sex?
As it is now, Cowell gives out the phone number of Planned Parenthood, an organization that not only dispenses free and confidential birth control and condoms, but also performs abortions, an operation that severely contradicts the beliefs of the Catholic church. Does this not contradict the statement they're attempting to make by refusing to address sex right here on campus?
School officials have decided it's not acceptable to hand out preventative contraceptives such as condoms or birth control, but it is fine to send students to a place where they can not only receive those services, but abortions as well? Personally, I don't understand that logic.
It seems to me that if the school desires to provide full-spectrum health services for their students, they would realize the need for some kind of sex education. Simply demanding abstinence is not good enough for a campus of young people, less than 50 percent of who are actually Catholic. Santa Clara has succeeded in producing an image of a forward-thinking, liberal-minded Jesuit university.
When will it recognize the realities of sex for a majority of today's young people and accept its responsibility to provide students with a safe, reliable place for preventative measures?