The Delphi Technique – The Times Examiner

The Delphi Technique of Manipulation

Bob Dill, Publisher

Published: 29 February 2012

On February 1, in this space, we discussed Saul Alinsky, Cloward-Piven and the Delphi Technique and how these three describe Barack Obama and his success in deceiving and manipulating large groups of people who are ignorant of his methods.

Longtime readers of The Times Examiner are familiar with the Delphi Technique and are not fooled by liberals and leftists using the technique. Tragically, those Americans unfamiliar with the technique are vulnerable to manipulation and played for fools. They have unknowingly been willful partners in the destruction of our constitutional republic and the demise of personal freedom.

The Delphi Technique is a modified version of the Communist “reeducation program” developed by the Rand Corp. for the US Department of Defense as a weapon of war. When Jimmy Carter became president and created the US Department of Education, the technique was specialized to manipulate and control teachers. That specialized technique was called the Alinsky Method, named for President Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky.

The technique was so successful in brainwashing and manipulating teachers to swallow the “party line” that they modified it further to manipulate students and later parents. The technique is extremely successful and works on every group imaginable, except for those who are familiar with the technique and understand what is happening.

The Delphi Technique is a “manipulative method used by governments, organizations, and unions to cause a ‘per-selected outcome’ at a meeting, event or function. . It is based upon the Hegelian Dialectic of creating ones own opposition in order to manipulate that opposition to a unified consensus.

In a group setting, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible” while making opposing views appear “ridiculous.”

The Delphi Technique has been and is being used in Greenville County, the Upstate and across the nation as the “visioning process.” This is a process through which predetermined policies acquire the appearance of community input before they are presented to the elected governing body as the “will of the people. The visioning process is being used successfully on ignorant, but well-meaning people to implement UN Agenda 21 to transform cities and towns into “sustainable communities” in a three step process:

  1. The visioning process
  2. Converting the vision into a plan
  3. Implementing the plan through law

Greenville County has already gone through the visioning process and has a plan. Several Non Government Organizations funded with government and private grants are using the Delphi

Technique to manipulate gullible citizens to build a false consensus to present to County Council claiming citizens want the plan made law.

The Delphi Technique can be diffused. A group of people who know the Delphi Technique can disrupt the Delphi in a group setting. Success is dependent on ignorance of the technique. Remember, this is an unethical, dishonest method used mostly for evil purposes. It must be exposed to as many people as possible.

An easy way to disrupt the Delphi is to take a group of informed people to the meeting.

Make copies of the Delphi explanation to pass out to others. Quietly participate in the meeting and when the facilitator has the group sorted out and ready to break up in smaller groups, ask: “Are you using the Delphi Technique?” It will ruin the day of the facilitator and he will not know what to do. If he claims not to know what the Delphi Technique is, offer to explain it to him and the group.

Be respectful, otherwise you may play into their hands and find yourself labeled a troublemaker.

 

Advertisements

The Delphi Strategy

The Delphi Technique: Let’s Stop Being Manipulated!

By Albert V. Burns

More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique.

This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.

How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined. First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize. It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”

Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience. The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.

At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator. Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.

Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.

This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize. Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.

How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion.

Rarely does anyone challenge the process, since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others. So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants and the rest of the community that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation.

Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place. The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained before the meeting took place, why have the meeting?

Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique. It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is theirs! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized! If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.

This very effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” Now, citizens chosen at large are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now theirs! The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public.

Can you say “Conspiracy?

These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” can be beaten! They can be beaten using their own methods against them. Because it is so important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column.

One: Never, never lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.

Two: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to their agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question.

If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is not what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.

Three: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question.

Four, don’t go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person ”armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. Don’t sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.

Fifth, when the facilitator or change agent avoids answering your question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point. They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did not really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor. To quote my informant: “Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats.

And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face. “Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.

URL Reference: http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html

Additional Resources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWl3wA3wJs What is the Delphi Technique?

Roger Fredinburg interviews Heather Gass of the East Bay Tea Party about the crowd control / group think techniques used on the public by the trained Sustainable Development aka Smart Growth planners and consultants of the American Planning Association.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYJMUOUe-As Tactics to Break Up a Delphi Meeting

Roger Fredinburg’s 3-14-2012 interview with Heather Gass of the East Bay Tea Party about how to disrupt the psychology of the Delphi Technique used by paid facilitators to control public input at meetings promoting the sustainable development goals of the UN Agenda 21 agreement signed by George H.W. Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

http://www.parentadvocates.org/nicecontent/dsp_printable.cfm?articleID=6116 The Delphi Technique and How to Disrupt It

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Delphi_Technique.htm The Delphi Technique: How To Achieve A Workable Consensus Within Time Limits

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DefeatingDelphi.pdf Defeating the Delphi Technique

Overview of CSE Strategies

Managing Controversy in Pressure Cooker Situations regarding Comprehensive Sex Education, Gender Confusion and LGBQTI Agenda

(one of many examples: view https://amaze.org)

INTRODUCTION and STRATEGIES

Most teen pregnancy prevention organizations, sex education teachers, and reproductive health advocates face controversy and conflict at some point in time. During such controversy, we and our (Comprehensive Sex Education) organizations may be closely scrutinized and questioned, put on the defensive, challenged, or attacked. To address conflict effectively, we need to anticipate and strategize. This handout identifies some common ‘pressure cooker situations’ and offers suggestions from the field on how to approach them.

PRESSURE COOKER #1: THE PUBLIC HEARING

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– Avoid Public Meetings

– Committee Work under the Radar

– Pre-set the public meeting rules with the agreeing School Board

– Constrict Public Meeting Time

– Intimidate the CSE and LGBT Agenda Opposition with visible security officers

– Have the Pro-LGBT speakers arrive early to pre-load the total speaking time allotment.

– Have influential people speak that are pro-LGBT agenda.

Our community coalition is trying to get an evaluated sex education curriculum approved for use with tenth graders in local public high schools. We have tried to avoid a public hearing because we know that such meetings are usually unproductive. They tend to draw people on the extremes, heighten emotions, and end in deadlock.

Despite our attempts to keep a low profile by working ‘under the radar’ with the curriculum committee, a small and vocal group of parents actively opposes our efforts. We now realize that a public hearing is inevitable. What steps can we take to ensure that the school board and community members hear our position? We can:

  • Meet with representatives of the school board prior to the hearing and ask that the school board take the following measures to ensure an effective meeting:
    • Schedule a 90 minute hearing (Otherwise, the debate could go on for days!);
    • Have security available;
    • Ask speakers to sign a roster;
    • Allow only persons to speak who live in the county and/or who have children in the public school system;
    • Give each speaker a maximum of two to three minutes, a time limit established before the hearing;
    • Allow each speaker only one opportunity to speak;
    • Keep a stop watch and stick to the designated time.
  • Ask influential, supportive people in the community (such as physicians, ministers, and PTA officers) to speak on behalf of the issue;
  • Encourage supporters to arrive early and to fill the front rows;
  • Ask articulate young people to speak about students’ needs;
  • Prepare press kits and develop sound bytes for the media.

PRESSURE COOKER #2: REQUESTS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– Re-title curriculum

– Science based by who (were opposing Pediatric and Psychiatric views taken into the study)?

– Review process by who?

– Science based by who (were opposing Pediatric and Psychiatric views taken into the study)?

– Pre-set the public meeting rules with the agreeing School Boards

A health teacher in a local public high school recently contacted us for help. He explained that he is responsible for teaching family life education for 10th and 12th grade students. He teaches a science-based, evaluated curriculum that was approved several years ago after a lengthy review process. Recently, a group of parents sent him a new curriculum, with a letter firmly requesting that he introduce the material in the upcoming semester. The curriculum has not yet been evaluated. To help him respond in an effective manner, we give him the following advice:

  • Accept the materials graciously. Contact the parents to let them know that you will review the materials over the next two weeks. Then, they can follow up with you during a specified period of time.
  • Describe why the current curriculum was selected and explain the school’s process for accepting new material. Explain that new material must meet specific criteria and competencies and must be approved by an advisory committee.
  • If the group continues to press, ask one representative to meet with you in person. Explore with that person the parts of the curriculum that are acceptable. Then talk about unacceptable or questionable material.
  • If the group still continues to press, take the request to the curriculum advisory committee along with your own research and findings regarding it.

Build support among your allies on the board. Don’t go out on a limb by yourself.

PRESSURE COOKER #3: THE DIFFICULT BOARD MEMBER

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– What to do if a board member threatens to ‘go public’

– If school parents are against the Agenda, are new candidates screened to represent the Agenda?

– Pre-load the Agenda’s support by building allies on the board before the public meeting

Most members of the board of our teen pregnancy prevention organizations clearly support the organization’s governance, philosophy, mission, fund-raising efforts, and strategic direction. However, one member consistently challenges decisions and frequently undermines the work of individuals and committees. As the new president of the board, I learned from other board members that this member threatened in the past to ‘go public’ with his concerns. I realize that I have inherited a ‘pressure cooker’ situation that I must address. What can I do?

  • Establish rules for the board and its committee.
  • Rules should spell out:
    • Who can speak on behalf of the group
    • How members should offer input and participate in dialogue;
    • The use of the democratic process and majority vote;
    • The use of anonymous voting procedures when the group is deadlocked.
  • Establish operating policies for rotation and replacement of members.
  • Screen new candidates for the board to ensure they will: be representative of the community; participate in constructive dialogue; and respect the democratic process.
  • On controversial issues, talk with members individually to make sure you have the votes you need before you call the question. Build support among your allies on the board. Be sure that you don’t go out on a limb by yourself

PRESSURE COOKER #4: THE MEDIA

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– Agenda successfulness is based on being pro-active with the media

– Monitor and Study the Reporters interests

– Craft our response note cards and practice our responses

– Our supporters need to be vocal and visible

– Develop working relationships with media representatives

In advance provide press packets, hold press events, and request individual interviews

Our community coalition is making a concerted effort to build public support for science-based prevention efforts in the community. We have seen professional colleagues sometimes misrepresented and misquoted in local television interviews and newspaper articles. Rather than simply reacting to community controversy when it arises, we know that we are more likely to be successful if we are proactive. We decide to develop a public relations plan and approach the media strategically. Where do we start? We:

  • Anticipate when reporters will call by monitoring their interests, beats, and concerns.
  • Train spokespersons and decide who will best handle the media in a given situation.
  • Avoid putting teachers in the position of having to speak on behalf of a curriculum.
  • Prepare to address various controversial topics. We develop a set of note cards with sound bytes. We practice our response.
  • Ask supporters to be visible and vocal at public hearings.
  • Develop good working relationships with local media representatives. We talk with them often, not only for interviews but to offer background and assistance with research.
  • Respect reporters’ deadlines and are careful to give them accurate quotes and verifiable facts.
  • Use various strategies to educate the media about our key issues. We provide press packets, hold press events, and request individual interviews, as appropriate.
  • We talk to reporters when we have not been asked to respond to misrepresentations by the opposition. At the same time, we honor reporters’ responsibility to cover both sides of the issue.

PRESSURE COOKER #5: THE POWERFUL POLICY MAKER

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– Inaccurate information based on whose findings?

– Supporting sexual risk behaviors?

– Support confidential (non-parental involvement) reproductive health services

– Infiltrate after school youth development programs such as tutoring and job training

– Encourage Pro-Agenda people to run for the school board, county or city commission, and state legislature.

Recruit people to our coalition who have access to these elected officials.

Our community teen pregnancy prevention coalition focuses primarily on consumer education, professional training, and program development rather than on advocacy and policy work. Yet, we know that elected officials play a powerful role in supporting or opposing state and local teen pregnancy prevention efforts. We have seen politicians change laws regarding young people’s access to health services. We have seen them enact new laws that undermine minors’ rights. We have watched our school board vote for a so-called ‘family life education’ curriculum that provides inaccurate information and uses fear to discourage sexual risk behaviors. We have watched our governor slash prevention funding and/or veto a bill that would fund integrated programs.

Now, we realize that we will be more effective if we combine our current efforts with advocacy. We are ready to be vocal advocates for young people. How can we work within the political process to make a difference? We can:

  • Determine what types of policies will help reduce teen pregnancy in our state and community. For example, what types of laws, policies, and regulations are needed to ensure that teens have complete and accurate information about their sexual health? Have access to confidential and affordable reproductive health services? Have the opportunity to participate in youth development opportunities from tutoring, to after-school programs, to job training?
  • Determine which decision-making bodies or elected officials are responsible for these policies.
  • Mount a carefully constructed campaign to educate policy makers, media and the public about the importance of comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to health care. Educating elected officials before there is controversy is the best way to ensure their support when controversy arises.
  • Identify knowledgeable people who are committed to science-based programs, including comprehensive sex education. Encourage them to run for the school board, county or city commission, and state legislature.
  • Recruit people to our coalition who have access to these elected officials.
  • Get involved as private citizens in campaigns by making contributions; working actively in the campaigns; and speaking out on the priority issues.

PRESSURE COOKER #6: GROUPS OPPOSED TO SCIENCE BASED APPROACHES AND PROGRAMS AND TO COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION

Observations of their strategy items (see words that are underlined):

– Infiltrate the Agenda’s opposition by getting on their mailing list and monitor their activities

– Infiltrate the Agenda oppositions meetings

– Learn who attends the opposition meeting and note what issues they represent

– Try to develop a working relationship with a leader of the Agenda opposition

– Maintain an active duty, readily available group of spokespeople and supporters

– Create a telephone tree so we can mobilize our supporters quickly

– Proactively pre-load the media with our information as often as possible

In recent years, a small, yet vocal group of advocates has grown to be a significant force in our community. This group opposes comprehensive sex education in schools. It also opposes confidential reproductive health services for teens. The group is often visible in the media and often misrepresents our positions and goals. We must address the group and the controversy head on. Where do we start? We can:

  • Learn about the opposition.
    • Get on the group’s mailing list so we can monitor its activities and claims.
    • Attend the group’s meetings so we will know who participates and what issues they represent.
    • Develop a working relationship with at least one leader from the group.
  • Do our homework.
    • Offer accurate information and valid points when rebutting opposition arguments, whether in print or at public meetings.
    • Present credible research and data on youth’s risk behaviors; community polls and surveys; and program evaluations.
  • Have a strategy plan to help us deal with potential controversy.
    • Develop and maintain a readily available group of spokespeople and supporters.
    • Create a telephone tree so we can mobilize our supporters quickly.
    • Have a small committee that can troubleshoot in crisis situations and respond on behalf of our supporters.
  • Avoid public confrontations.
  • Work together to support our issues.
    • Insist on negotiating and identifying common interests. Reach decisions that the majority supports.
    • Develop a strategy that helps us to handle personal attacks and to support the one attacked.

Preparation is key to managing controversy. By anticipating our own ‘pressure cooker’ scenarios and developing our own strategic responses, we can be effective in handling these difficult situations!

Talk with local media representatives often, not only for interviews but to offer background and assistance with research.

Written by Barbara Huberman, RN, Med; Tom Klaus, MS; and Tanya Gonzalez, MPH; © 2008 Advocates for Youth (example, http://www.advocatesforyouth.org)

2007-12-31 ASH/TPP/PSBA-6PC This publication is made possible (in part) by a Cooperative Agreement (U58/CCU324962-02) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Any part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, distributed, and adapted, without permission of the authors or the publisher, provided that the materials are not copied, distributed, or adapted for commercial gain and provided that the authors and Advocates for Youth are credited as the source on all copies, reproductions, distributions, and adaptations of the material.

 

Sara and Albert Reuben Partners in Health Education

Sara and Albert Reuben Partners in Health Education is the education arm of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.  As your Partner in Health Education, we provide education about sexuality and reproductive health.  Our goal is to conduct programs that empower people to develop a broader understanding of human sexuality and make healthy, responsible decisions.

We believe that:

  • Sexuality is an essential lifelong part of being human; it should be celebrated with openness and mutual respect.
  • Sexuality education should provide complete information so that people can make healthy decisions for themselves.
  • Everyone deserves information that is:
    • medically-accurate
    • complete and comprehensive
    • culturally sensitive

Kirby, Doug

Dr. Douglas Kirby

Douglas Bernard Kirby, PhD, was a senior research scientist at ETR Associates and a pillar in the field of adolescent sexual and reproductive health.

Dr. Kirby received his PhD in Sociology from UCLA in 1975. He was one of the world’s leading experts on school and community programs to reduce sexual risk taking, and dedicated his career to promoting sexual and reproductive health among young people through his writing, teaching, and research. He authored over 150 articles, chapters and monographs on these programs, and frequently spoke nationally and internationally on his work. He served as a scientific adviser to the CDC, USAID, WHO, UNFPA, UNESCO, and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Dr. Kirby died of a heart attack in December 2012, at age 69, while mountain climbing in Ecuador. His legacy continues to inform and transform the field.

Dr. Kirby’s career started in 1977 at Mathtech, Inc., as Director for the Social Science Group. In the early 1980s, Dr. Kirby completed a seminal study on the impact of school-based health centers while working at The Center for Population Options (now Advocates for Youth). Dr. Kirby joined ETR Associates in 1988 and continued his work in adolescent sexual and reproductive health. Dr. Kirby was involved in the creation and/or evaluation of numerous sex and HIV education curricula including Reducing the Risk, Safer Choices, and Draw the Line/Respect the Line, among others. He authored several encyclopedic reviews of the scientific literature, such as Emerging Answers 2007, which summarized the literature on adolescent sexual behavior and HIV/STD/pregnancy prevention programs. This work facilitated access to scientific research and paved a pathway for progress toward more effective prevention programs. More recently, Dr. Kirby worked with colleagues to create Promoting Sexual Health, a program that focuses on STD and pregnancy prevention among young adults and features the promotion of healthy sexual relationships. He also authored a theoretical guidebook, Reducing Adolescent Sexual Risk, on how to develop and adapt sexuality education curricula.

Dr. Kirby’s latest work focused on helping countries ravaged by HIV to strengthen their prevention education efforts through developing more impactful educational programs. Over the past year, Dr. Kirby delivered trainings for Ministries of Education, Ministries of Health and non-governmental organizations from over a dozen southern and eastern African countries on designing effective programs.

Dr. Kirby was a passionate professional who was incredibly generous with his time—answering inquiries from research colleagues, policy-makers, and students with thought and depth. He relished the opportunity to explore scientific issues, and continuously pondered and tackled complexities of the field. Doug was also a caring human being who took personal interest in those he met. He loved a good conversation and took the time to build relationships, show concern, and share his support no matter how overwhelmed or busy he was in his professional life.

One of Dr. Kirby’s goals in life was to help make the world a better place—he achieved that goal and more. Dr. Douglas Kirby will always hold a position of influence in the field of sexual and reproductive health and will continue to serve as an inspiration to others in the field for years to come. In his honor, ETR has established the Kirby Summer Internship, for graduate students in education, psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology or a related field, with a focus or interest in sexual and reproductive health. ETR also launched the Kirby Summit, a gathering that focuses on the application of a particular area of emerging or ongoing research to the field of adolescent sexual and reproductive health.

Doug was a pioneer in the field of sex education, both in the United States and internationally, identifying the key features of good quality, effective education and raising important questions about the limitations of other approaches…. He is sadly missed by all who worked with him or knew his work, but leaves the field of sex education a richer place as the result of his enthusiasm, dedication and scholarship.