SCOTT DREYER: Guest Opinion On Sexually-Explicit Materials In Schools

In recent years, the questions of what is being taught in schools and parental rights have attracted much attention and debate. Most political observers believe this issue is what sent businessman Glenn Youngkin packing into the Virginia Governor’s Mansion and former Governor Terry McAuliffe packing into an early and involuntary retirement.

In response to the public outcry and as a result of the Old Dominion’s elections that made national headlines last November, the General Assembly passed a number of bills related to education and parental rights and sent them to Gov. Youngkin’s desk for his signature. One of those was Senate Bill (SB) 656, to require parental notification of sexually-explicit materials in schools.

The successful passage of that bill into law earlier this year has also made recent national headlines, as in “Virginia To Require Schools To Alert Parents Of ‘Sexually Explicit Content’ In The Classroom.”

One resident of the Roanoke Valley and reader of The Roanoke Star shared these thoughts on this matter. This writer has a successful, decades-long career in healthcare and an advanced degree. By virtue of educational training and professional experience, this individual has a deep background in and passion for public health and wellness.

Sadly, however, because of the unfortunate and long litany of people who have been publicly scolded, cancelled, shamed, censored, fined, had their careers damaged or even ended, and in some extreme cases, victimized by violence or jailing, all because they had the audacity to say something that the politically-correct mob disagreed with, this person wishes to remain anonymous. The fact that such browbeating, intimidation and coercion is carried out by people who tout themselves as acolytes of open-mindedness and tolerance is one of the supreme ironies and inanities of our day. But, that itself is an issue for another column on another day.

Below are this person’s thoughts for your consideration:

“This question [of sexually-explicit materials in schools] is ultimately traceable to the collision between two polar-opposite worldviews: the Judaeo-Christian worldview upon which our nation was founded vs. the Marxist-based Critical Theory worldview. Very briefly, the Judaeo-Christian worldview teaches that there is an infinite-personal God, who created the universe and humankind intentionally and purposefully. All human persons reflect His image. Baked into His creation are moral precepts that teach us how to live and treat one another. A central part of that is the creation of males and females and the covenant of life-long, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. However, His creation is broken, because the first humans rejected His sovereignty, choosing to go their own way, and our world has been broken ever since, including sexually. The locus of evil in the world is actually in our own hearts. We can rectify this evil by accepting God’s forgiveness of our wrongs and receiving His gift of a new nature that hates evil and loves good and gives us the power to change, and along with that, eternal life. Such a deal!”

“In contrast, the Marxist/Critical Theory (CT) worldview is inherently atheistic. We and the universe are accidents of random cosmic processes. There is no ultimate reason for us to be here, and we ultimately go nowhere when this life is over and the universe runs out of gas. Our only identity is in the workforce or in our particular social group. CT explains evil by asserting that all of society is divided into groups: oppressors vs. oppressed, e.g, white vs. black, men vs. women, “straight” vs. LGBTQ, able vs. disabled, citizens vs. non-citizens, Christians vs. all other religions, etc. In fact, one reference posts a whole “matrix of oppression”, with every oppressor group, its corresponding oppressed group and the associated grievance (-ism). The remedy for evil (oppression) is to destroy the oppressor through ideology, social activism, canceling or, increasingly, violence.”

“Critical Theory regards anything that limits people in any way as “oppressive”, and they move to deconstruct and dismantle it. This is actually where the LGBTQ movement comes in. It regards historic (all cultures’) sexual norms as oppressive, and it is zealously working to question, challenge, discredit and dismantle those norms in favor of legitimizing virtually any imaginable sexual desire and behavior. Any disagreement is immediately tarred with an inflammatory epithet, such as sexist, homophobic, transphobic, “hate speech”, etc.”

“Having this agenda in schools, particularly without the consent, or even knowledge, of parents is a betrayal of the parents’ trust. Although we can recognize and sympathize with the deep struggles LGBTQIA+ students are going through, to depart from the historic norms that are common to every culture is destructive. To pressure, suggest or lure students into these lifestyles, particularly the “trans” movement and the attendant hormonal and surgical “treatments” is unethical and medically dangerous.

For these reasons SB 656 is essential to the safety of our children and communities.”

–Scott Dreyer

Scott Dreyer at Bryce Canyon
Scott Dreyer M.A. of Roanoke has been a licensed teacher since 1987 and now leads a team of educators teaching English and ESL to a global audience. Photo at Utah’s iconic Bryce Canyon. Learn more at

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Related Articles