Public School Teaches About Infanticide

By Sharon Hes
Rightgrrl Contributor
October 25, 1999

What is a "values-neutral" education? When the issue of school vouchers is discussed, some people claim that they do not want "public money to fund the teaching other people's values which they do not support," i.e. G-d, religion, etc. They only want public funds to support a "value-neutral" education. Does such a beast actually exist? Let's take a look at a school in my hometown.

Here is an actual writing assignment given to sixth graders at the Benjamin Franklin Middle School in Teaneck, NJ on October 6, 1999.

Please respond to the following statement in at least 3 paragraphs. Choose a "for or against" point of view and defend your opinion.

"Now it must be admitted these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus."

"When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed... Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effects on the others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him. The main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
You can see a copy of the actual assignment at

You may recognize it as a quote from Peter Singer who currently holds the "Josef Mengele" Chair of Bioethics at Princeton. Peter Singer, the first tenured professor of bioethics at Princeton, is known for propounding beliefs such as the superiority of some animals to some humans (sentient animals to non-sentient humans), euthanasia, and "practical" or "utilitarian" ethics.

There was a political group in Germany who had similar ethics during the 1930's and 1940's. And no, the fact that three of Singer's grandparents were victims of the Holocaust does not immunize him from the valid claim that his ethics bear great similarity to those of the Nazis. The Nazis began by "euthanizing" the disabled. It is tragic enough that college students are taught his ideas.

However, it is both dangerous and damaging for eleven-year-olds to be exposed to Singer's "utilitarian ethics" in the writing assignment described above. These concepts cannot safely be examined by impressionable children except from within a moral and religious framework (which is unavailable by design in a public school.)

The real danger of this assignment is that it acclimates the students to morally reprehensible views, making it seem like simply a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

Remember, Singer's view is that "the widespread belief in the sanctity of human life is little more than a cultural construct that ought to be reconsidered." And people wonder how violent tragedies like Columbine can happen! What they should wonder is why it doesn't happen more often with teachings like this! Why should not a sixth grader exposed to this feel he would be doing his family a favor by eliminating his annoying, troublesome, disabled three-year-old brother?

This also demonstrates the fact that the public schools do not offer a "values-neutral" setting. There is no such thing. All education teaches values. Let me repeat that. ALL education teaches values. The question is, whose values? I contend that it should be the parents' values. That is why I'm not only an advocate for school choice, but also currently a candidate for the NJ State Assembly in District 37. I'm a mother running for the first time against entrenched Democrat incumbents. If we don't speak out and fight against evil being taught, it will prevail.

There are more links to articles about the dangerous Peter Singer at

Copyright 1999 by Sharon Hes. Not to be reproduced in any fashion, in whole or in part, without written consent from the author. All rights reserved.