Rowe R N
Clearing House. 1994 Mar-Apr;67(4):184. doi: 10.1080/00098655.1994.9956059.
To challenge the distribution of condoms on school campuses with accusations of immorality and "lack of good character" appears shallow at best. Considering the home situation of many young people and their immediate environment, the act of securing a condom could be totally consistent with "good character." Certainly, abstinence up to a certain stage in a youth's life is prudent, but who is to determine the age to which, and the environment in which, abstinence must be observed universally? The litany of virtues to which Gow refers (kindness, courtesy, the Golden Rule, and so forth) all could be attributed to the youth who obtains a condom at school and uses it in an effort to protect himself and his partner. Use of a condom even by a teenager is not an unvirtuous act. Gow refers to two "misguided assumptions." The first is that "it is the legitimate function of the schools to dispense contraceptives." He maintains that parents and physicians, not schools, constitute the proper source of medical information and medication. Granted, they are the most logical and desirable sources, but what if a student has incompetent or perhaps no parental guidance and has little if any access to a physician? Schools have acted in loco parentis ever since public education first evolved. Why should it stop now during a devastating health crisis? The second "misguided assumption"--that "teen sex and pregnancies result from ignorance"--happens to be true. Ignorance is a major cause of pregnancies and AIDS. Distribution of condoms on campuses will help to counteract ignorance because it leads to explanations and discussion, two essential components of education. I find no quarrel with Gow's call for reevaluation of values and methods of communication. His belief that institutions such as churches, families, social organizations, and so forth must assume a larger role in clarification of values is logical. But until that occurs, what institution other than a public school has a better chance to reach the greatest number of young people?
以不道德和“品行不端”为由指责在校园发放避孕套，这种做法往好了说是肤浅的。考虑到许多年轻人的家庭状况及其周边环境，获取避孕套的行为完全可能与“良好品行”相符。当然，在年轻人生命的某个阶段保持禁欲是明智的，但由谁来确定必须普遍遵守禁欲的年龄和环境呢？高所提及的一系列美德（善良、礼貌、黄金法则等等）都可归因于在学校获取避孕套并使用它来保护自己和伴侣的年轻人。即使是青少年使用避孕套也并非不道德的行为。高提到了两个“错误假设”。第一个是“学校发放避孕药具是其合法职能”。他坚持认为家长和医生而非学校才是医疗信息和药物的恰当来源。诚然，他们是最合乎逻辑且理想的来源，但要是学生没有称职的家长指导，或者几乎接触不到医生呢？自从公共教育出现以来，学校一直代行家长职责。在这场毁灭性的健康危机期间，为何现在要停止呢？第二个“错误假设”——“青少年性行为和怀孕是由无知导致的”——碰巧是正确的。无知是怀孕和艾滋病的主要原因。在校园发放避孕套将有助于消除无知，因为这会引发解释和讨论，而这两者是教育的两个关键要素。我并不反对高呼吁重新评估价值观和沟通方式。他认为教会、家庭、社会组织等机构必须在价值观的阐释方面发挥更大作用，这是合乎逻辑的。但在那之前，除了公立学校之外，还有哪个机构有更好的机会接触到最多的年轻人呢？
