Given the media feeding frenzy of the last year, it is possible to assert with a degree of certainty that the Monica S. Lewinsky-Bill Clinton relation-ship is the most common topic of conversation in this country. With an impeachment vote looming, it seems as if "Zippergate" will keep a high profile in the coming months.

One Florida school, however, has effectively closed the classroom door against the political scandal raging outside. Last month, the school board at East Lake High School in Clearwater forbade Linda Manning, who teaches a government class for seniors, from using the Kenneth W.Starr report or Clinton's taped testimony in a discussion of the Lewinsky affair.

Officials claimed the documents contained "explicit sexual content" which made them "inap-propriate" for an academic setting. In response, Manning filed a federal lawsuit last week claiming that her First Amendment rights to academic freedom and uncensored speech had been violated.

The issue is whether the Starr report and Clinton testimony tapes constitute "valid" material for classroom discussion. But the larger and more significant implication of the case is whether the classroom is a place where information can be freely exchanged, debated and understood.

There is little question that the explicit details of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair are lewd. But is it realistic to believe that avoiding conversation of the subject altogether will in some way "protect" academic integrity?

It is obvious that Manning's goal is not to encourage promiscuity or the circulation of"sexually explicit material"--after all, these are government documents, not Playboy magazine.

Consider, also, the age of the students in the classroom. High school seniors are 17 and 18 years old--practically adults. It is unrealistic to dictate to adults that topics like adultery are not "appropriate" for discussion.

The National Education Association, in supporting Manning's decision to file suit, identified the problem when they noted that the school board was "afraid that somebody would use the term 'oral sex.""

The puritanical nature of public schools is well-known. Many districts still ban books like The Awakening and Sophie's Choice because they are considered, like the Starr report and the Clinton tapes, "sexually explicit." Never mind that both books are fascinating character studies and substantial works of literature; if sex is involved, it isn't "appropriate." The same goes for the Clinton-Lewinsky affair: of interest to a government class is whether the president's dishonesty merits his removal from office. It's more about adultery, and party lines and huge egos, than sex.

By making a huge uproar against those particular documents in one particular government class, the school board is putting a much larger emphasis on sex than necessary. There needs to be a greater understanding that discussion is not the same as advocacy. Talking about the indiscretions of the President in government class does not mean that the school supports or endorses "inappropriate" behavior. It is high time to move beyond outdated sensibilities that cloak sexuality in shame and secrecy.