Excerpt
March 30, 2011
When a policy like racial preferences becomes infected with ideology, its adherents often seem impervious to mounting evidence that it is a dismal failure if not downright counterproductive, even when judged by its own goals. Since 1972 the National Association of Black Social Workers has opposed trans-racial adoptions, calling such adoptions ``a form of genocide'' and claiming, ``Black children belong, physically, psychologically, and culturally in black families in order that they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection for the future.'' Backed by white liberals, the organization has influenced dozens of states and the federal government into policies that make trans-racial adoptions terribly difficult. Since 40 percent of all children available for adoption are black, the result has been to condemn tens of thousands of these children to languish in state institutions or foster homes when white couples are ready and eager to become their adoptive parents. And to what end? A twenty-year study of black children adopted by white families conducted by Professor Rivka Solange of American University found these children to be better adjusted, far better cared for, and no less conscious and proud of their racial heritage than black children adopted by blacks or remaining in foster care. As Elizebeth Chrystal of the Harvard Law School observed, ``The evidence is overwhelming that delay or denial of permanent placement injures children both in the short and the long term. At the same time, there is not a shred of evidence that trans-racial placement poses any problem for the children involved.'' At the initiative of Congress, long-standing legal bias against trans-racial adoption seems in the process of being erased.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
