To the editor:
When I was in school, we used to try to get the teacher to say the name of the capital of Thailand, or the seventh planet from the sun, or the name of that lake between Bolivia and Peru. I grew out of it, but a few years ago I attended a lecture by a psycholinguist whose use of the words “f—k” and “s---t” brought stifled titters from the audience. Given that this was a lecture about the effect of taboo speech on the amygdala, the audience reaction surprised some attendees. The speaker said that he got similar reactions every time he spoke. No matter the audience, they always had a reaction to the incongruence of a Harvard professor uttering obscene words.
Using words to shock is not new, nor is the concept that colloquialisms are not always appropriate in a professional setting. George Carlin has gone to his eternal reward, but here in Croton we are fortunate to have Stephen Walker. As Superintendent of Croton’s schools, he put out a statement this week purporting to justify a controversial curriculum being taught here in Croton.
To give one example: the students were shown a Power Point slide with a series of 45 terms, including “f---king, banging, cum n go, pound, doin the deed, doing the nasty…” and so forth. The list concluded with “charzarding, choking, screw.” Below that was the tagline: “If you only knew the literal meaning of our language, what would you think we are talking about?”
Noam Chomsky and Al Goldstein inspired the Croton ninth grade curriculum, but some parents fail to appreciate Mr. Walker’s sociolinguistic application of critical pedagogy. They think a pervert is teaching their kid.
The biggest difficulty of being a school Superintendent is that you have to deal with ignorant parents. Lacking an EdD, some parents are guided by common sense and parental instinct rather than the esoteric applications of Marxist theory taught at teachers colleges. Mr. Walker pivoted to the I-just-work-here defense, blamed the students for having potty mouths, and said that the teacher merely wrote down their vulgar words and displayed them on the classroom whiteboard.
Mr. Walker says that this curriculum was created because “several years ago some school district students were involved in a reported off-campus sexual assault” and the district adjusted accordingly: “One of those learning experiences begins with a discussion about consent, including the nuanced and sensitive language around that topic.” The statement goes on to say that the list of words was solicited from the students, and that the classroom discussion did not define what the terms meant.
Oh, where to begin?
Even in 2022, not many parents (except in Croton) consider “f—k” or “cum n go” to be “nuanced and sensitive language.” It may surprise Mr. Walker to know that some Croton parents don’t even think that sort of language has a place in a classroom of 14 year-olds, and that a few Croton taxpayers believe that the school district might have better uses for that $52 million budget than discussing charzarding with the kids.
Croton students attending the high school already know slang sex terminology. For that matter, students at the elementary school could rattle off a list of vulgarities that would make a sailor blush. Students do not need the terms defined by the teacher; they can find any definition in a matter of seconds and see a porn video of the act on their cellphone. (Tip for Mr. Walker: if you google a term and Urban Dictionary comes up on the first page of search results, you should reconsider using the word if you are over age 25 or thereabouts).
It is bad enough to blame the students for making the teacher put up a list of vulgar language. But to blame the Croton teaching approach on a prior student-on-student sexual assault is disgusting beyond all irony.
Students have always used vulgar language. In the years following the 1948 release of the Kinsey Report, there was a growing public discussion of sexual practice and that necessarily included use of clinical terminology regarding sexual acts. The 1972 release of the movie Deepthroat resulted in a dramatic shift in acceptance of slang terms for sex (We probably shouldn’t mention that to Mr. Walker or he might add Deepthroat screenings to the ninth grade syllabus).
One of the earliest peer-reviewed studies in 1974 found that male college students had a significantly larger amount of slang words for sex, and that many of those words were misogynistic to the point of being “sexploitation.” Researchers also observed an inverse correlation between female knowledge of sex slang and religious involvement and adherence to traditional gender roles.
Gender isogloss has changed since 1974. A fifth grader with access to a computer can get lists of names for sex acts and free porn of all varieties. But there are certain realities which—however we may pretend to the contrary—remain the same. Sexual assaults are disproportionately committed by men (or women with penises) and the victims are disproportionately persons possessing a vagina (formerly known as “women”). Children raised in religious households are still more likely to be bothered by vulgar language: as Croton’s Mayor would say, those children are “prudish.”
I am not a biologist, but if Mr. Walker takes some of his 52 million bucks to retain a biologist, my guess is that he will find the sexual assault a few years back was committed by males against a female.
If you are not woke, you might notice something interesting about the Croton High School List of Naughty Words. Many of the terms involve a penilely-inclined person doing something to a vaginally-inclined person, often with an implication of power imbalance, dehumanization, and force or violence.
These are the very dynamics which are present when a group of boys force themselves upon a girl at a party. These are the dynamics present in Croton ninth grade classrooms, as evidenced by the list of sex slang.
The position of Mr. Walker is that posting a giant blowup of vulgar sex terms is a necessary precondition to “a discussion about the overall connotation of these terms, and the importance of using respectful language around this sensitive topic.” Mr. Walker believes that in order to teach Croton students to use “respectful language” it is necessary for them to first talk about “f--king”, “ejaculating and evacuating” “smash and dash” “pump her” et cetera.
I am old enough to remember when teachers taught respectful language without saying “f--k.” A few of us are old enough to remember when such language would result in a mouthful of soap. In Croton today, the soap would be considered child abuse but saying “f—k” is enlightened progressive pedagogy.
You know what else is child abuse? Forcing a captive audience of students to sit through a class with a Power Point slide of misogynistic gutter language. To Mr. Walker, this is cutting-edge curriculum which has “been presented as examples to professionals thoroughout the state at a conference of the New York Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.”
Who attended this conference—Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky? Would you want your daughter to take dance lessons from the Croton health teacher who put up a slide of misogynistic sex slang? Would a teacher who talked about “smashing and dashing” be a good role model for your son?
The most controversial slang term used in Croton classrooms is charzarding. There are two variants of this. The first one involves setting fire to the pubic hair of a person possessing a vagina (f/k/a “woman”) and then extinguishing the flames with high volumes of ejaculate from the partner possessing a penis (f/k/a “man”). The alternate involves a person whose anal hair has been set on fire expelling flatulence and thereby becoming a “human flamethrower.”
The anal variant is a myth. The classic vaginal variant is also a myth, but there is at least one reported case in 2000 of a German woman who said her estranged husband had set her pubic hair on fire. The husband’s defense was that this was part of a consensual sadomasochistic act and he was not aware of the inflammable nature of pubic hair (Forensic scientists determined that pubic hair was more inflammable than straight head hair).
Sexual assault is not some male fantasy of massive quantities of ejaculate shooting on top of a prone woman in order to extinguish the flames from her vagina (paging Dr. Freud, report to the Croton ninth grade classroom stat). Charzarding is like most pornography: it both satisfies male urges and sets up unrealistic and inherently misogynistic expectations.
Sexual assault is real and it has life-long impact on the victim. It is disproportionately committed by males against females, and a culture like Croton-Harmon High School where students in class rattle off vulgar slang denigrating women is a big part of the problem.
Mr. Walker says that the vulgar slang exercise was designed in response to an off-campus assault by Croton High School students against another Croton High School student. Does he not see that normalizing such language perpetuates the problem?
You notice that Croton students don’t use terms such as “making love” that indicate sexual intimacy as something arising out of an emotional connection. On the contrary: many of the terms describe using a woman to achieve orgasm and then quickly departing. Objectification of women as throw-away vessels of sexual gratification is a real issue. It warrants serious discussion.
I don’t approve of saying “ass f---ed” or “cum zone” in a class of 14 year old students. But there is a difference between those terms and a word which references setting a girl’s pubic hair on fire. “Charzarding” calls to mind an act which necessarily requires the violent mutilation of a woman’s body. For Mr. Walker to brag that the words are only discussed as a group and not defined individually illustrates what causes the mindset that causes Croton students to think it is ok to assault another student at an off-campus party.
Croton school students are exposed from an early age to graphic sexual imagery online. Is there really a need to bring this into the classroom? Exposure to pornographic images and video causes multiple problems, including desensitization. Forcing students to be exposed to vulgar sex slang in Croton ninth-grade classrooms is not simply duplicative of what they are already seeing online—seeing such slang in an educational setting sends the message that this is acceptable.
Not only is misogynistic slang acceptable in ninth grade classes at the Croton high school, it is enthusiastically welcomed by a majority of parents and students. Strong community approval actually poses a potential legal problem for Mr. Walker with regards to adequacy of existing avenues to be excused from the “related learning experiences.”
In a letter to this newspaper (The Gazette, week of June 16/22) Brian Pugh—writing in his official capacity as Mayor of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson—said: “we do [students] a great disservice if we allow prudishness or partisanship to deny them a sound health education.”
Mr. Pugh is not alone in his view. In Croton, it is the majority view expressed in the raucous school board public meeting, and on social media. This leads to an obvious point which nobody wants to admit, let alone discuss: the issue of whether the 14 year-olds are consenting to this class or whether it is non-consensual sexual abuse of a minor.
People are as a whole not inclined to be non-conformists. This is especially true in a small community like Croton. Fourteen year-olds are as fervent as they will ever be in their lives when seeking peer approval and acceptance by the important adults in their lives. Croton’s student community is about as insular as you can get: in 2018 Principal Capasso noted that of the 136 graduates, 113 had been together since kindergarten.
Even under the best scenario, a Croton student is under intense pressure to abide by community norms regardless of any personal views to the contrary. We have seen this before, including at the time of the March For Our Lives walkout. Students may have an opposing viewpoint, disagreement or discomfort with a particular action, or perhaps simply don’t want to be involved one way or the other. It does not matter: the rest of your peers are doing something, so you go along rather than stick out in front of your classmates and teachers.
A student uncomfortable with Croton’s sex ed class is in that position. In theory, if she does not wish to write down vulgar and demeaning slang and have to look at a list of words displayed in class, she may be excused from the class. In reality, that is not how ninth grade works. Everyone would know that she is—to use the description of Croton’s Mayor—prudish. All her friends are remaining in class. Her friends’ parents were at that school board meeting and they supported the vulgar words exercise; the few that did not were booed by the other parents.
If you were that student, would you speak up? Or would you sit there quietly in an environment which you found abusive and disrespectful of your values?
This is where it gets interesting. The student stays in the class. She participates in the exercise, writing down “f—k,” “popping the cherry,” “cum n go” and passing her paper up with her classmates. She says the right things and beams with joy when the discussion turns to cherry flavored condoms.
The student is conflicted. She knows that this is not how she was brought up, and she knows her parents don’t share these values. Seeking to resolve cognitive dissonance, she reasons that saying a dirty word or two is no big deal: Her parents are “prudish” and not like the other kids parents who think this stuff is perfectly normal. Everyone from the Mayor to the school Superintendent thinks this class is wonderful. It even was lauded at some big New York State school association conference. She may even talk about how much she learned from the class and that it was only after being able to see a list of words like “smash, f---, bonk” that she realized that you shouldn’t use that list of words.
This chain of events is not an accident. It is deliberate. In some cases around the country, teachers have explicitly told students not to tell their parents about what is being taught. Croton students are sophisticated enough that they don’t need to be told that; in fact such a statement by a teacher would be counter-productive in Croton.
As Mr. Walker knows, 14 year-olds want to fit in. The last thing you want is to have your Dad show up in the Principal’s office demanding that you be removed from the sex ed class.
So you keep quiet. You don’t tell your parents. You do what all your peers are doing. The last thing you want is one of the cool kids like hepcat Brian Pugh to call you prudish. Even worse, he could call you “partisan” which is Croton-speak for “Republican.” Being outed as conservative is about the worst thing that can happen to you in Croton.
Think. Create. Reflect. Respect.
Superintendent Walker would have you believe this is the mantra of the Croton schools. And so it is… if you are a student who thinks the way you are supposed to and respects the values held by people who think that 14 year-olds need to be less prudish.
Mr. Walker is wrong. What he is defending is sexual abuse of children who have no choice but to sit there and participate in their own abuse. Even if parents want this abuse to occur (and in Croton, many do) the Superintendent of Schools has a responsibility to the psychological health of all students under his care.
Mr. Walker states that this information is available on the curriculum maps posted on the school district website. That may be so, but I am reasonably proficient at navigating a website and I cannot locate such information. I do see a curriculum map for the ninth grade “Physical Education & Health” class, but I do not see any discussion of student instruction regarding “f---ing” or “charzarding.”
For Mr. Walker to tut-tut about how “Mr. Astorino has not contacted the district for background or context” is more than a bit disingenuous. If you are going to have lists of filthy language posted on ninth-grade classroom whiteboards, that is something the mothers and fathers should know. Mr. Walker is proud of how this curriculum is presented to educators around the state as being an example for all to follow. Why not post the slides right up there on the school district homepage?
This poses a serious problem for a minority of parents who have children and live in the Croton-Harmon school district. The majority of Croton parents, along with the School Superintendent, village Mayor, and the elected officials representing Croton, are firmly behind the curriculum. Now that the school board has seen how outrageous curriculum in Croton schools can be used to turn out the Democratic Party base, we will see more such curriculum. Teachers and administrators are now incented to push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable teaching behavior.
The lack of respect for students shown by the Croton school curriculum is something that is not going to change. Based on statements by the Croton Superintendent of Schools and the Croton mayor, concerns expressed by parents opposed to sexualization of 14 year olds will be ignored. If any action is taken, it will be to call them prudish and partisan. That should be cause for thinking and reflection by parents seeking a creative solution which teaches respect and empathy to their sons and daughters.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
**************You may also have an interest in https://theneweverythingcroton.blogspot.com/2022/06/not-safe-for-school-ny-district-defends.html
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1)%20(4).jpg)
