Sunday, January 29, 2006
Race and Adoption
Race need not be an issue in adoption
More matches possible if we stop talking about race
By HOWARD ALTSTEIN
In 2002, the last year for which there are national statistics, 300,000 women aged 18 to 44 were seeking to adopt a child and had taken specific measures to do so.
It's not surprising that about half of the women preferred a single nondisabled child under the age of two. What is significant are the racial preferences of these black and white women toward the race of any future adopted child.
Eighty-four percent of white women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an African-American child as compared with 75 percent of African-American women who would "prefer or accept" a white child, a difference of only 9 percentage points.
Supporting these changing racial preferences, 93 percent of black women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white as compared to 95 percent of white women seeking to adopt who would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white.
These strikingly similar figures, a difference of only two percentage points, speaks to a fundamental shift in family creation and, indeed, reflects a shift in defining what it means to be a family member.
I am not at all surprised by the overwhelming willingness of white and black women to adopt across racial lines.
Their attitudes attest to the rejection of politically and culturally based arguments that cross-race adoption is:
•Imperialistic, on the part of white adopters.
•Racist, based on arguments that white social workers, with the compliance of their agencies, do not look hard enough for nonwhite adopters.
•Detrimental to the adopted children, based on arguments that growing up in a multiracial family will somehow rob them of their cultural heritage.
For 30 years, scientific data has rejected the idea that children raised in cross-race adoptive families are any less African-American, Asian, etc., than their counterparts raised in racially similar environments. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no need for trans-racial adoption or adoption in general. But the world is very far from perfect and children need families, and families want children.
Morgan Freeman was castigated by some for saying in a 60 Minutes interview that one way to eliminate racism was to not talk about it. Why not try that when it comes to adoption? There is little to no risk.
What is the alternative for thousands of children available for adoption — to remain in foster care when we know the long-term detrimental effects of such long-term placement? How about not talking about race in relation to adoption?
If there's a goodness of fit between an available child in foster care of a race different from an eligible adoptive family, don't talk about race, as Freeman suggests. Just place the child.
Why reject what we know: Children of one race raised in families of another race develop into productive, emotionally healthy, assured, racially comfortable adults.
Altstein is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. This article originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun.
ED: Interesting statistics, but seemingly self-reproted and therefore one need to question how, what people SAY they WOULD do, relates to what they actually do. There is alos a difference between inter-racial and international adoptions and one cannot extrapoltae form on to the other. International adoptions are, for the most part, imperialistic and classist - done more because of DEMAND for babies (with "no strings" [i.e. birthmothers] attached.)
More matches possible if we stop talking about race
By HOWARD ALTSTEIN
In 2002, the last year for which there are national statistics, 300,000 women aged 18 to 44 were seeking to adopt a child and had taken specific measures to do so.
It's not surprising that about half of the women preferred a single nondisabled child under the age of two. What is significant are the racial preferences of these black and white women toward the race of any future adopted child.
Eighty-four percent of white women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an African-American child as compared with 75 percent of African-American women who would "prefer or accept" a white child, a difference of only 9 percentage points.
Supporting these changing racial preferences, 93 percent of black women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white as compared to 95 percent of white women seeking to adopt who would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white.
These strikingly similar figures, a difference of only two percentage points, speaks to a fundamental shift in family creation and, indeed, reflects a shift in defining what it means to be a family member.
I am not at all surprised by the overwhelming willingness of white and black women to adopt across racial lines.
Their attitudes attest to the rejection of politically and culturally based arguments that cross-race adoption is:
•Imperialistic, on the part of white adopters.
•Racist, based on arguments that white social workers, with the compliance of their agencies, do not look hard enough for nonwhite adopters.
•Detrimental to the adopted children, based on arguments that growing up in a multiracial family will somehow rob them of their cultural heritage.
For 30 years, scientific data has rejected the idea that children raised in cross-race adoptive families are any less African-American, Asian, etc., than their counterparts raised in racially similar environments. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no need for trans-racial adoption or adoption in general. But the world is very far from perfect and children need families, and families want children.
Morgan Freeman was castigated by some for saying in a 60 Minutes interview that one way to eliminate racism was to not talk about it. Why not try that when it comes to adoption? There is little to no risk.
What is the alternative for thousands of children available for adoption — to remain in foster care when we know the long-term detrimental effects of such long-term placement? How about not talking about race in relation to adoption?
If there's a goodness of fit between an available child in foster care of a race different from an eligible adoptive family, don't talk about race, as Freeman suggests. Just place the child.
Why reject what we know: Children of one race raised in families of another race develop into productive, emotionally healthy, assured, racially comfortable adults.
Altstein is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. This article originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun.
ED: Interesting statistics, but seemingly self-reproted and therefore one need to question how, what people SAY they WOULD do, relates to what they actually do. There is alos a difference between inter-racial and international adoptions and one cannot extrapoltae form on to the other. International adoptions are, for the most part, imperialistic and classist - done more because of DEMAND for babies (with "no strings" [i.e. birthmothers] attached.)
# posted by Senior Mom @ 1:51 PM 
