A recent ninth grade biology homework assignment on blood typing is making its way around the internet. Students were asked to determine the father of a child based on the blood type of the baby, the mother and four men whom the mother had presumably been intimate with in the prior 28-day period. A parent was upset and sent the assignment back to school incomplete with a note about the inappropriateness of the lesson. Was this parent being overly sensitive? Or is this assignment just another example of less-chaste behavior being promoted by a public school?

Larry Basej has a daughter in the ninth grade at Romeo High School, a suburb of Detroit, Michigan. Last week she asked him for help with her biology homework, a lesson in blood typing and DNA. She was stumped by Question 8 and couldn't figure out the answer. The question that stumped his daughter listed the blood type of a mother, her baby and four potential fathers — and asked for a determination of paternity. Larry sent the homework back with a note calling the questions "inappropriate" stating "we teach our children not to sleep around."

Random hook-ups as the norm

But take away the fact that four men were listed, and even the occupations imply random hook-ups without emotional attachment or commitment.

The potential fathers in the question were all really random: bartender, guy at the club, cabdriver and flight attendant. It paints a picture of a fairly promiscuous woman, if you consider the mother in Question 8 would have had to have intimate relations with all four of these men within a 28-day period to be considering them for fatherhood of her child. Granted, if you are wondering about paternity to begin with, you probably aren't the most chaste person in the world. But take away the fact that four men were listed, and even the occupations imply random hook-ups without emotional attachment or commitment. Is this what public schools are teaching our children?

The implication was there

We used to live in a society where having a child outside of marriage was not the norm. Where a two-parent household was ideal and encouraged. And while I'm happy we no longer vilify single parents (hey, at least they aren't aborting), it worries me to see single parenthood included so flippantly in public school curriculum. Not just single parenthood, but latently promiscuous behavior. While no one comes out and says "the mom in Question 8 sleeps around," it is clearly implied.

Watch what they learn

We live in a world where we are told to watch our words and deeds because, even if you don't mean it, you could accidentally offend someone doing something you didn't even know was wrong.

We live in a world where we are constantly being warned about latent racism, latent sexism and latent homophobia. Where we are told to watch our words and deeds because, even if you don't mean it, you could accidentally offend someone doing something you didn't even know was wrong. But this is the same world where children are being taught at age 12 about "grinding." This is the same world where a woman of questionable sexual morals is presented with apparent abandon as if it is no big deal. This is the same world where latent promiscuity is apparently a part of public education curriculum. The school Superintendent Nancy Campbell ultimately apologized, saying the question "certainly could have been worded better" and "there is no need for any homework assignment to be offensive to parents or students." The teacher pulled the assignment from an online source, and either didn't review the assignment well or didn't find it questionable. Regardless, this is another example of inappropriate material being taught in a public school.

Not just one question

It wasn't just Question 8. Question 7 is almost as bad, asking to determine who could not be the father of a woman's child based on blood typing. The options for this question:  the mailman, the butcher, the waiter and the cable guy. Oh, and the mother from Question 7 is the sister of Question 8. I'm not sure why that information is at all relevant to the lesson, unless to teach that promiscuity runs in the family. It was after all, a lesson in DNA.

Share with us!^ What's your take? Was the assignment inappropriate, or would you be fine with your teen learning this way? Leave us a comment below!

More on teens and sex

Kids don't need to learn about grinding at 12
How to talk to your teen about safe sex
Give teens access to condoms

Photo credit: West Coast Surfer/Getty Images

Topics: