On Privilege and Responsibility

This is a post in response to the Anti-Racist Parent column, Is Privilege Offensive?

Privilege is absolutely not offensive. Scary to talk or think about? Yes, it can be. For many of us who have to talk to our kids about the high level of privilege our family experiences, it involves telling them about people who are just like them/us who do not have some of the basics that our kids often take for granted: food, shelter, parents, clothes, band-aids, heat, diapers, and the more complicated stuff like a fair trial, a fair chance in college admissions, or equal opportunities to create a livable existence for themselves and their families. If some people are underprivileged, that makes the rest of us overprivileged.

We talk about privilege in our family, with our children, all the time, although we don’t always use that exact word. We talk about my and my partner’s beliefs about the equality of all people, and also about the resources, choices, and opportunities our family (and our kids) have that are unfairly available to only a select a group of people. It can be hard to talk with children about the lack of privilege others are experiencing daily, especially when it manifests as extreme poverty, but I believe we as parents must do it anyway.

Imagine this: Three people are in a 100 meter race. The first person is standing relaxed at the starting line, stretching and waiting for the race to begin. One minute before the race begins, the second person arrives (panting) at the starting line. As the starting shot is fired, the third person runs up–and the three racers are off. The first (waiting, relaxed) person wins the 100 meter race–but not by much. Now, does it change anything to know that the second person had to run 100 meters directly before this race, and the third person had to run 400 meters right before the race? Is the first person the fastest runner? Is the first person truly the winner? Is it a ‘fair race’ if we only take into account that final 100 meter distance that all three runners were required to participate in? This story (that I’ve read in different forms many places) illustrates how privilege works. If you imagine the race from each runner’s perspective, this story also shows how difficult it can be to see (and understand) the other runners’ viewpoints.

I do not want my kids to grow up thinking they are simply ‘lucky’ and other kids are ‘unlucky’. It’s definitely not that simple. There are individual and institutional daily choices being made (as they have been for hundreds of years) that consistently privilege certain groups of people above others. People are privileged based on race (both perceived and actual), skin tone, gender, sexuality, religion, income, education, marital status, and physical ability, to name some of the most common factors.

I believe those of us who find ourselves more privileged in this world do owe something to those who are less privileged. I often wonder what would happen if we each did all we could for those who–for whatever reasons–have less privilege today than we do. What does true activism look like? Is it enough to speak out against offensive jokes and comments, to be an anti-racist parent, and to purchase a cartful of groceries for the food-shelf once a month? Can I expect the world to change if I am not working towards that change myself? Can I expect someone else to step up and do something I myself am unwilling to do?

Note on those ‘Got Privilege?’ t-shirts: I first saw one worn by a new friend I met at the Loving Conference last year (and yeah, I still want one). My friend is White. The majority of people I have met who have been to the White Privilege Conference are White. (I originally thought it was a conference for White people.) So my frame of reference for the shirts is a bit different because I initially met and pictured White people wearing them. I think those t-shirts are great, by the way. They are for anyone–of any race–to wear, anyone who is aware of their own privilege(s). I see these shirts as similar in message to the ‘Don’t assume I’m White’ t-shirts, worn by both PoC and White persons alike. The point is not whether the person wearing the shirt is or is not White–the point is to get people thinking about their racial assumptions. And the ‘Got Privilege?’ shirt is to get people thinking about privilege, hopefully about their own.

Reform the Whole System

There has been a lot of internet chatter, especially on the blogs I visit, about the newly recommended  changes to the MultiEthnic Placement Act (MEPA). The report, and the myriad of media articles and interviews that followed, have offered few new insights (for me)–but I was grateful to hear that the New York Times article really spoke to the parents in a family I know. They are now looking into moving to a racially diverse community for the sake of their transracially adopted children.

I received several phone calls last week from friends and family members letting me know that National Public Radio was holding a call-in show about transracial adoption. (I caught only a moment of one mother talking about ‘doing her tenth adoption,’ and how her kids were ‘voting on whether they should get a chocolate baby or a vanilla one, or one that was both’. Call-in shows are always dicey on what you’re going to hear, but I had to turn it off after that.) One of my family members listened to the whole show and then wanted to know what I thought about requiring additional training for transracially adopting parents (specifically White parents adopting Black kids out of foster care), since one of the ‘adoption experts’ on NPR said adding training requirements only left more Black kids in foster care longer. Let me be clear: I am all for special/additional training for potential transracially adoptive parents. Kids don’t just need to ‘get out of foster care into adoptive homes’; if they absolutely cannot be placed with anyone in their biological family, children in foster care need to move into permanent families with prepared parents.

Adoptive parenting is more complex than parenting birth children. Transracially adoptive parenting is an additional layer of complexity. White people/parents in particular have not often considered many of the race and racism-related issues that will be crucial to the growth and development of a child of color. If White potential adoptive parents balk at additional training before a Black child is even in their home, is there any reason to believe these same parents will be willing or able to rise to the multiple unforeseen challenges (both related and unrelated to race) that their family will face after their child is home?

Adults who become parents completely on purpose (which includes all non-relative adoptive parents) hold total responsibility to do everything they can upfront (before a child arrives in their family) to prepare for the new experiences this particular child will bring with them. This includes everything about the child, especially things the parent is unfamiliar with: medical conditions, abuse history, health issues, physical or educational disabilities, cultural practices, and–yes–racial differences. Growing up Black in the United States is not the same as growing up White, and White potential adoptive parents must realize that an additional session of training is the very least they can do to begin to educate themselves about the experiences of their soon-to-be child.

The articles I’ve been reading that most interest me speak to the larger issue of why there are so many children in foster care and in need of adoptive families. These articles begin to tackle the huge sticky overlapping topics of racism and poverty–specifically as they relate to adoption and to foster care. Check out the articles and blog posts linked below. There are lot of great thinkers writing right now on all aspects of transracial adoption. I’ve included a key paragraph or two from each piece.

• Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute Policy Brief on Finding Families for African American Children: The Role of Race and Law in Adoption from Foster Care:

While transracial adoptions can provide much-needed homes for boys and girls who may not otherwise have them, it is important to address the potential challenges in this growing practice in order to best serve everyone involved, especially the children.

In order for children of color to be placed with families who can meet their long-term needs, consideration must be given to needs arising from racial/ethnic differences. Consequently, when workers choose permanent families for children, and when they seek to prepare and support them in addressing the children’s needs, race must be one consideration - such as promoting connection of the child to adults and children from their own racial/ethnic group, developing a positive racial/ethnic identity, and learning to deal with discrimination they may experience. Sound social work practice to accomplish these goals is severely impeded under current federal law and policy.

• New York Times article De-Emphasis on Race in Adoption is Criticized:

Minority children adopted into white households face special challenges and white parents need preparation and training for what might lie ahead.

Transracial adoption itself does not produce psychological or other social problems in children, but these children often face major challenges as the only person of color in an all-white environment, trying to cope with being different.

• Peter’s Cross Station post Asking the Wrong Question:

Ironically, one of the most important things white parents of Black children need to understand is the racism that put their children in their arms. To parent a Black child, you must look that racism square in the face, see that you have profited incalculably from it and swear to fight it with all your strength for the rest of your life; to do everything in your power to create a world in which a child such as yours would never again need to end up in arms such as yours.

• Resist Racism post Considerations of Race & comment (#10, by panracial on May 28):

I encourage all people adopting from foster care to adopt the least adoptable children that they could love unconditionally - children with real special needs, sibling groups (including half siblings), teen children (including very old teens), children with behavioral problems, complex histories, or who have been abused or neglected (even severely), and black boys who are the least picked (regardless of other factors and especially if their complexions are dark) are most in need of homes. I encourage people not to automatically adopt a five year old biracial girls - chances are, if you don’t adopt them someone else will, but the teen black brothers may never get picked if you don’t offer them a home.

• Feministe post Too Poor to Parent (emphasis is mine):

All of my white-girl middle-class solutions don’t work across the board. Yes, contraception access is crucial - but it’s not going to stop a teenage girl who wants to get pregnant because for her, it’s the best option. Yes, it’s better for everyone to have health care, wholesome food, and a good education with every opportunity in the world available to them - but that isn’t reality, and until it is, we can’t be blaming individuals who are doing the best they can with all the odds stacked against them.

Children are not objects of privilege that only the rich are entitled to. Women who are good, loving moms but who can’t afford certain luxuries - or even certain basics - don’t deserve to suffer the burden of our societal failures.

• Harlow’s Monkey post What I Was Trying to Say:

We/they/all of us need to look at the underlying reasons why children are parent-less and maybe that preventative part makes us overwhelmed. We might feel we can’t eliminate poverty, or war. We can’t control natural disasters. We aren’t able to cure AIDS. We haven’t gotten rid of chemical dependency or mental illnesses. But we can take in a child - that much we can do.

• Multi-Ethnic Placement Act(MEPA): full text, including the InterEthnic provision of 1996, MEPA Internal Evaluation Instrument, and Protection from Racial Discrimination in Adoption and Foster Care

Race Preference in Adoption

This American Life aired a piece on NPR–on January 18, 2008–about a Nurse/Actress who worked in toy store FAO Schwartz’s Newborn Nursery (hat tip to Mixed Race America and Land of the Not-So-Calm). Here is the toy store’s promotional quote:

What You Will Experience When You Visit a Newborn Nursery:
As you enter the area, you’ll hear sounds of happy baby noises cooing from the nursery viewing area. When you peek through the glass, you’ll see a variety of babies with all different complexions and hair and eye colors. It’s almost too difficult to choose just one bundle of joy to take home! Once you do make your selection, a sales associate dressed like a real nurse, will help you put on your hospital gown. Papers are then completed with the baby’s name, address, and birth date. The “nurse” will carry your baby out of the isolette and will place him or her on a changing table. She’ll conduct a full health examination of your baby and then she’ll teach you how to hold your baby. New “parents” can shop for accessories (including dresses, blankets, shoes and more.) to make their new arrival the prettiest baby on the block!

(There are a lot of things about the way FAO Schwartz handles infant doll adoptions that really bother me, but I am going to focus on adoption and race issues here.)

The 17-minute American Life story is so worth listening to (download the whole “Matchmakers” show here and then fast forward to 41:00 minutes). The narrator is a light-skinned biracial (White and Mexican) woman working as a ‘nurse’. WARNING: PLOT SPOILER AHEAD . . . The dolls/babies begin to move quickly after they are featured on a segment of the TV show ‘Rich Girls’. Most of the ‘adopting mothers’ (approximate age: 7 years old) are White. Not surprisingly (to me at least), FAO Schwartz sells out of all the White baby dolls–within weeks of Christmas. The doll factory is back-ordered until mid-January. FAO Schwartz’s doll nursery has only minority Babies of Color available for sale adoption.

After the White babies are gone, then the Asian babies sell out. Next to go are the light brown (Latino/Hispanic, Native American, multiracial?) babies. The nursery is then full of Black babies–along with one factory-rejected White doll (with melted-together fingers that make its hands look like flippers). The unsellable factory-reject White floor-model doll is purchased adopted when there is an entire ‘nursery’ full of perfect Black babies dolls available.

Nothing about this story surprises me; it is simply play (some would say art) imitating life. I’m going to talk about supply and demand here. Let’s pretend we’re just talking about the FAO Schwartz doll nursery.

The people paying for the dolls/adoption are (for the most part) wealthy White parents, with White daughters choosing their baby to adopt doll. The parents want their daughter to have a White doll. Most of the daughters want a White doll. When all the White dolls have already been sold adopted by other little-girl-mothers, the racial hierarchy of doll-adoption flows the same way it does for children in real life. (Although in real life there is also the parallel gender-preference hierarchy. In the toy nursery, the ‘adoptive mothers’ simply state that their dolls/babies are girls. In real life, the adoptive parents request girls and the boys just wait.)

Here’s a real-life paralell example: a site that hosts pre-adoptive parent profiles*, families waiting for domestic–usually infant–adoption (NOTE: this site only accepts heterosexual, married couples–and most are Christian as well). Of the hundreds of currently listed waiting families:

• 88% would ‘accept’ a White baby
• 33% would ‘accept’ a South American or Hispanic baby
• 28% would ‘accept’ an Asian baby
• 26% would ‘accept’ a Native American baby
• 14% would ‘accept’ a Black baby

I ran these same stats for an article I wrote two years ago, and the numbers were just about the same. For biracial babies (White/____) the numbers of families willing to ‘accept’ a child rises. Adoptive parents still think raising a part-White biracial child will be easier, less complicated, than raising a ‘full’ (for example) African American child. (Ha!)

There are also the corollary international adoption statistics. The top 10 ’sending’ countries for 2006 provided U.S. families with 18,290 new children through international adoption. By region of the world, these children are from:

• 43% from Asia (China, Korea, India)
• 26% from Eastern Europe (Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine)
• 24% from Central and South America (Guatemala, Colombia)
• 7% from Africa (Ethiopia, Liberia)

The parts of this doll adoption story that strike deep inside me echo the same heart-issues I have with race and adoption in real life. Although transracial adoption should not be taken lightly (At all!), I have been kept up many a night thinking of all those Children of Color waiting for adoptive families, all those pregnant women seeking families for their unborn Children of Color. When will skin color and race be just one more thing we see when we look at someone (like their gender or their height)? When will light skin stop being a tally in the ‘plus’ category and dark skin a tally in the ‘minus’ category? If we as transracially adoptive parents are not expected (or able) to get past this light/dark skin-tone scale, who will?

I remember one pre-adoptive parent I was working with who was considering switching from the willing-to-accept-a-White-baby-only category to the ‘biracial’ category. This parent had a potential ‘match’ and wanted to know if their unborn biracial child would look ‘more White or more Black’. I gave the standard multiracial-children-come-in-all-shades response. But what I really wanted to say was, “If you have to ask that question, I don’t think you get it.” Black/White biracial is Black. If a parent can’t accept a ‘full’ Black child as their own, how can they embrace the Black-ness of a biracial child? As a country, we must be willing, no, committed to discussing race and racism and White privilege–as they relate to adoption and foster care (and to everything else).

Although I believe that no one should adopt a child they do not feel prepared to parent (race/ethnicity or known special needs), becoming a parent is not a multiple choice menu. Just because parents engineer their child to be what they desire or (in the case of adoptive parents) are ‘willing to accept’–that does not by any means guarentee the menu-selected individual will be the child those parents receive (through birth or adoption). When you have children, you get what you get–much of your child is unknown no matter how you build your family. The unknowns involved in building a family are both magical and scary, but IMO worth all the risk.

* NOTE: Finding accurate statistics for domestic adoption is impossible. Statistics are collected for almost all states for foster care adoption, but infant adoption is regulated by individual states, and neither states nor the federal government collect these statistics.

Segregated Training?

I’ve been working on a curriculum for anti-racism training for a while. I am also the point person for the Education/Training sub-committee of our Undoing Racism group. I met with another committee member to discuss training ideas, and also to hear about a workshop on White Privilege she is currently co-leading at the local college. As we talked, I realized that she and I have very different perspectives on the purpose and best structure of training, specifically on the racial composition of groups.

Let me explain. During our conversation, I told her that my biggest challenge in designing a training for our area is the inherently racially unbalanced group we would be training (think at least 75% White, probably more). She talked about how People of Color have carried the burden of educating White People about racism for too long, and how it’s time that White People take on the responsibility for educating themselves. I was with her so far. And then she said we should be designing a training on White privilege for White people only–led by White people. I asked her, ”Is your college workshop mixed?” Her answer shocked me. No.

She said they had advertised it as specifically for White students, but that students of Color had applied anyway. There was an interview process to ‘balance’ the class (I think gender, primarily), and they had turned down all the students of Color based on their race alone. I said, “I don’t think you can do that.” She assured me that she could–and pointed out that she is co-leading the workshop with a high-up (White) administrator at the college.

Reportedly, the ‘full’ students of Color who applied to the workshop understood why they were being turned away when the purpose of the class was explained to the them. But there was one biracial, half-White, White-appearing student who is still figuring out their racial identity who was also turned away from the workshop–again based on their race.

This woman’s primary training curriculum idea is that we should hold separate trainings for White People and People of Color–and that the White People training should be led by a White person and that the People of Color training should be led by a Person of Color. “Where do the multiracial people go?” I asked. Her idea (theoretically) was that they (we) should not only have their own bi/multiracial group, but that they(we) should also be allowed to be part of the White People and the People of Color groups (but not the White People college workshop?). This is also obviously assuming that biracial and multiracial people are all ‘part’ White, which they are not.

She trotted out the old ‘tragic mullato’ (she didn’t use those exact words) theme of bi/multiracial people needing their own group so they can figure themselves out, because she knows ‘they’ have self- identity issues. I didn’t even go there.

I stuck with my main issue, which is this: To me, the best part of antiracism training (especially around here) is getting a racially diverse group of people together, talking,  in the same room. Monoracial groups of people gather and talk all the time, sometimes about race and racism. But bringing everyone together is the most educational part of this kind of training.

To some people it makes sense to teach White people about White privilege in a more ‘comfortable’ setting–but doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of talking about White privilege in the first place? I mean really, a purposefully segregated all-White group of people talking about White privilege? As my partner said, “First you have to get White people comfortable enough to say ‘Black’–in front of an actual Black person.”

Then there’s the excluded biracial student. I was angry about that. The woman said that was the only student she felt bad about turning away, and that she wished she had ’somewhere else to send’ the student. But she didn’t.

I felt somewhat invisible in this context. If you are White-appearing, as I am, you are a beneficiary of White privilege (which means you may benefit from/have a lot to offer a workshop on White Privilege or Whites Fighting Racism or Whatever). It reminds me of another invisible-People-of-Color moment, when the Undoing Racism group was discussing canvassing for information about what it’s like to live in our state as a Person of Color. The canvassers would be targeting People of Color–that is, visible People of Color. I pointed out that this method of collecting information would miss a lot of People of Color (using several of us sitting at the table as examples). In that survey, I (and that biracial student) wouldn’t be counted as a Person of Color, but when it comes to the White Privilege workshop, I would. And I’d be excluded both times.

I just want to go on the record as saying I do not believe trainings about race or racism or White privilege should be racially segregated. (I’m still not even sure this is legal.) As a multiracial person in a multiracial family with four multiracial kids, I don’t think anything should be racially segregated. A training about combating racism that uses a person’s race as a criteria for admission? That sounds like racism to me.

Where are the Outraged Parents here?

I’ve been reading the (rightfully) outraged commentary about the grossly entitled New York Times post by transracially adoptive parent Tama Janowitz. If you haven’t read it yet, this is the quote that is driving everyone the most mad:

So in a way it is kind of nice to know as a parent of a child, biological or otherwise - whatever you do is going to be wrong. Like I say to Willow: “Well, you know, if you were still in China you would be working in a factory for 14 hours a day with only limited bathroom breaks!”

Here’s why I haven’t written about Ms. Janowitz before now . . . Because I was waiting for the ground-swell of outraged adoptive parents, the ones who are just as angered and sickened by this commentary on [adoptive] parenting as the censored adult adoptee voices. But those adoptive parents are nowhere to be found.

The only adoptive parents I have found who are speaking out about this mess are Paula (who is also a transracial adult adoptee) and Dawn (who says only that adult adoptee voices need/deserve to be heard).

Now I’m all for hearing from adult adoptees; there is no other way to have a full and accurate discussion regarding adoption. But where are the adoptive parents who think that Tama’s attitude is garbage (and dangerous garbage at that)–just because it is!? This post offends me, and not just because I visualize my children, my friends as Tama’s child.

The anxiety that keeps me up at night is that Tama’s viewpoint really is that of most adoptive parents. That although adoptive parents may not be so ‘funny’/casual/cruel about it, they really do believe they have saved their child. Saved them not only from poverty, but also from their birthfamily and birth-culture. This ’saving’ which then necessitates some level of gratitude from the child.

Which is why these same adoptive parents do not feel obligated to bring their child’s birth-culture into the family, or even into their child’s life. As a family member of mine said (oh yes they did, and in a totally honest way), “What exactly is good about Black American culture?” But that was a (now educated) extended family member; that was not my partner or me. (And boy, did I have to sit there and breath for a minute before answering that one. I think I started with the brilliant, “Are you kidding me?”)

I had my partner read Tama’s post last night. His take was that she was playing on a stereotype of a brash, self-centered New Yorker (”F-you, kid!”). And then the photo of Tama and her daughter at the top of Susan’s post this morning made me think ‘child as fashion accessory’ (and honestly, I never think that of APs, not even Angelina Jolie).

AN ASIDE: I can’t believe that we (those of us who are part of the adoptive family ‘community’) are still debating whether an adoptive parent-child relationship is different–for the child or the parent–from a biological parent-child relationship. Can we just agree–it’s not better or worse, but IT IS DIFFERENT. And the adoptive parent-child relationship is (not in a bad way, but in a real way) also more complicated. When can we acknowledge these truths, and move on? As long as we (adoptive parents) try to pretend that adoptive relationships are the same as biological relationships, we are living in the land of denial. (It’s like saying that a multiracial family is the same as a monoracial family, or that a 2-mom family is the same as a mom-and-dad family. None is better or worse than another, but I think we are all (most of us?) aware that living in a multiracial family or a 2-mom family is probably inherently more complicated.)

My major disbelief? I cannot believe Ms. Janowitz has been chosen as a representative/average adoptive parent voice.

My biggest fear? That she is.

  

FURTHER READING

Posts by adult adoptees, including scathing commentary on the NYT’s refusal to publish their comments:

• A Comment About the Comments & All The (Adoption) News That They See Fit to Print, from Paula at Heart, Mind, and Seoul (Paula is also an adoptive parent.)
• New York Times aka “The Adoption Police?” & Relative Choices? from Harlow’s Monkey
• Shut Up, Tama Janowitz. Just shut up. And turn in your parenting license while you’re at it. from Susan at Reading, Writing, Living
• Racist M/Paternailsm at its Best, from Lisa Marie at A Birth Project
• To Willow Janowitz: You’re Not Alone, from Sarah Kim at Outside In
• The New York Times: Gatekeeper, Censor, from Twice the Rice
• Tama Janowitz on NYT Adoption Blog, from Sun Yung Shin

Other Posts:

• Save one, win valuable prizes & What you should have have read in the NYT, from Resist Racism
• Whoa. Hey. People - this isn’t ok, from Dawn at This Woman’s Work
• The New York Times Censors Adult Adoptees on Adoption Blog, from Racialicious