Kim

(Unfortunately, the adoption industry is extremely classist, and strong preferences are given to people who are wealthy. Last time I checked money doesn’t make a good parent.)

No, but it makes a good customer.

(Altough being financially stable usually helps in parenting, I think).

I also think that Pheonix Rising is really the only person who was able to elaborate the connection between race and class, which I should have made more explicit. Adoption (especially through private agencies) has really become something that is only accessible to people with medium to high incomes, due to poverty, racism, job discrimination, poor schools, etc. African American family are underrepresented in the economic class of people that can afford adoption. (Unfortunately, the adoption industry is extremely classist, and strong preferences are given to people who are wealthy. Last time I checked money doesn’t make a good parent.)

1. we did not choose to adopt after painful fertility attempts. we just want to adopt because it makes sense for us right now.

2. we do not think of adoption as charity. true, the child will probably have a better life with us than in an orphanage, but we are adopting because we want to raise a child, not because we want to save one.

3. the “adoption industry” isn’t all about money. we did chose to adopt internationally because the price in US was very high…but not the economic price, rather the moral price. most US adoptions require presenting yourself (on paper) to birthmothers, who then choose you if they think you’ll be a good parent to their child. we were not willing to “compete” with other prospective adoptive parents who (while well-meaning) might be offering more financial assistance to the birthmother than we would. we chose internation adoption to try to minize the industry-ness of the adoption industry.

4. we have been voraciously studying the problems inherent in transracial adoption. chinese food and celebration of chinese new year (like learning to do black hair) are mere tokens of cultural understanding. we have moved to one of the most ethnically (not just black-white) diverse neighborhoods of our city so our child will not be the only one in her class who looks like her. we have read about the sexual stereotypes of asians (did you know that asian women are stalked at much higher rates (i.e. per capita) than white women?). we understand that she will identify as chinese-american, and we will name her so she has the option of using her chinese name if she so chooses. we are working to strengthen our ties (which we already have some of) to the chinese-american community in st. louis. we hope to find asian doctors, babysitters, etc.

i’m not saying all this to be defensive or to get applause. i’m saying this to point out that there are plenty of white adopting couples that don’t fit into that “love will conquer all” stereotype. we are seriously considering adopting a black child (african, not african-american) for our second kid, and i’m already thinking about how to talk to him about handling police who assume he’s violent, teachers who assume he’s not capable, store detectives who assume he’s stealing, peers who assume he’s an oreo.

i’m well aware that the act of adoption is an expression of my white, heterosexual, middle-class privilege, and my wife and i have had to come to terms with the guilt that equally capable non-white, gay, and/or poor potential parents will have a harder time adopting than we have.

this essay makes some good points about media coverage, and i agree with most of them. and it makes some good points about some transracially adopting parents, and i agree with those too (which makes about 85% agreement, so don’t get me wrong here). but i do wish you had separated the issues a little more clearly and at least acknowledged that there are plenty of non-white kids being raised by white parents who are probably just as well equipped to deal with race issues as their peers raised in single-race households.

Classism is absolutely a word, and it is the one that applies to the adoption market in this country.

Poor and working class white birth parents who voluntarily place their health white infants for adoption are far outnumbered by poor and working class parents of all races whose children are taken from them by the public systems designed to protect kids. Due to structural factors in our economy and drug laws, a lot of those children are not white.

Ergo, the percentage of children available for adoption who are healthy white babies is a low percentage. Due to those same structural factors including racism and inherited patterns of wealth (known among us commie symps as ‘class’) a high percentage of families seeking to adopt are white.

Rachel is correct that the children are ranked in their desirability by the (private and public) adoption markets. However, what she hasn’t touched on is the extent to which parents are also ranked. For a very small percentage of adoptions, birth parents choose adoptive parents and have the option of enforcing their own preferences about what type of family will raise the child. For the vast majority of adoptions, though, the preferences of the state(s) and social workers involved will determine the match. So frequently hard to place children, who are older and more traumatized on average, are matched with the same-sex couples; mixed race children are placed with mixed race couples, etc. These preferences are imposed on adoptive parents much more than they reflect the desires of adoptive parents.

Of course adoptive parents need to learn about race issues. I think anyone who spends time with white parents of children of color, like myself and Trey, has observed that we’re interested in learning and reality-based in our thinking. I think the most interesting question about the trope ‘Love is all you need’ that Rachel correctly identified as a part of the Transracial Adoption Story is, where are the adults of color raised by white parents? and Where are the adoptive parents when their kids are sixteen? Twenty-six?

When your kid is a baby, love can overcome (your own internalized) racism…when your kid is in a classroom, your love means diddly to the teacher who has not examined her racism or experienced the love for your child that you do.

Speaking from experience.

I agree that race plays a large part of how families are treated by the state, but I’d submit that economics plays as important a role. Having now been in the ‘foster system’ for a year and experiencing it first hand, I believe that the state is more likely to take a child away from a family of a disadvantaged economic class than an economically advantaged one. For every story you relate above, I can give similar stories of white/hispanic/etc families. The overriding factor is class, not race it seems to me.

Several reasons for this I think, classism (is that a word?) and often the financial/social resources that different classes can call on to ‘rescue’ a child for a dangerous home.

Again, I think race is a big part of this, but part of that is because black and hispanic populations have a larger proportion of economically disadvantaged families (due to racism.. history.. :).

When looking at the adoption of African-American children, you also need to look at the disparate ways that agencies like CPS treat Black children and their parent and extended family members when compared to those of White children and also at the foster care system and how it does like. A good number of children of different races who are put up for adoption come this route. I think these entities and how they operate is one reason why you have the “cultural genocide” argument and also the argument that as has always been, Black children and their families are the property of the State.

I know of many African-American couples who have adopted Black children or want to, I don’t think the pool’s quite as small as it’s claimed to be. I think the intraracial adoption and foster care of Black children is something that gets lost in the midst of the “Losing Isaiah”, “Different Strokes” and “Webster” stories.

But I also hear accounts of horror stories involving Black parents especially single mothers losing their kids to CPS. Often in those cases, extended family members like grandparents try to get custody of their grandkids, even with good histories, good home situation and they lose out to White foster parents or White parents wanting to adopt, whose “bond” with the children is seen as impermeable even in cases where they only had the children several months, than the “bond” between the grandparents and the grandchildren that has lasted since birth. To me, in a sense, that doesn’t seem much different than what happened under slavery in the sense that blood relatives of these children can so easily lose contact with them let alone have any chance of getting legal custody. I’ve seen what pain that can cause to the relatives and the children. Yes, there are cases where CPS has to act, but in many cases, it seems like they overreact in a way they do not do with White kids.

One case, the grandmother was disqualified for a non-violent felony conviction that was over 35 years old. She had a clean history since, after she turned her life around when she was a very young woman. So they took her grandkids and split them between three White families. Is that fair? The argument once she got the paperwork all straightened out was the six months that the White guardians had spent with her grandkids was an emotional bond that would be too harmful to break at that point. There are also cases when a biological parent loses custody of a child and the grandparents even with good records have no right to even offer to raise the child and it’s given to a White adoptive parent.

The key thing here that many white people who adopt black babies have different priorities than you do, and may want to focus more on their family than to challenging racism 24/7.

The key word, “priorities” shows what is wrong in this situation. Addressing racism doesn’t have to be a “priority” for Whites because they enjoy racial privilage and do not have to think of such unpleasant things. They might see addressing racism as divergent from “focusing on their families” and it can’t be, not if they are raising Black children. To not address racism and as Rachel S. said its relationship to power is just irresponsible. What parents tell their Black children especially their sons can be the difference between life and death or at least serious injury or problems in some situations.

For example, how many parents tell their children how to behave if they are pulled over by law enforcement officers? Many parents of Black or biracial(in this case, one of the races being Black, the other White) children do, in fact especially if they have sons, especially if they have tall, muscular sons as a friend of mine put it, they sit up late at night waiting until their sons are back home safe from whereever it was they either took the family car or went with, when out with their friends for the evening. White parents might brush on this issue by saying, just do what the officers have said. Many parents of Black or biracial children will tell their sons to keep their hands in plain sight, or on the steering wheel, they will tell their son to not talk back to the officer no matter what. They will tell them to get out of the car when the officer tells them to, to sit on the curb when he tells them to, to sit handcuffed in a squad car when he tells them to. Not argue with the officer if he wants to search the car or impound it and never, ever to physically touch the officer.

Any complaints about treatment will not be addressed with the officer then but will be addressed later on when he’s safe back home. Because unlike with White children, it’s not just criminals, or reckless drivers on the road these parents’ sons have to be concerned about.

(And it’s not just sons, increasingly it’s daughters too)

As a White person who theoretically could have been the adoptive parent of a Black child, I spent a large part of my life without realizing that parents of Black or biracial children had to do these things until I talked to parents of these children including those who lost their children in fatal shootings by police officers during traffic stops. In many cases, even the best advice wouldn’t have prevented it, because you still have police officers who have issues with violence and racism, but the advice does help more often in cases which could escalate to serious injuries or serious criminal “contempt of cop” charges.

How do you teach your child to cope with going to a store and being viewed or even treated as a shoplifter simply for being BWS? A White person doesn’t have their own experiences in life while shopping to draw upon to even gain the awareness that number one, this happens to Black people and number two, this could be happening to their own kid.

Parents teach their kids how to deal with life and its experiences including bad or unjust ones by what they learned from their own experiences and through their parents’ experiences. White parents need more than these things to teach some of the lessons that their Black or biracial children need to know. It may or may not be easier to teach “multicultural” things(although even those are through their own personal view of them) than the harder lessons associated with racism.

I don’t oppose the adoption of Black or biracial children by White parents or families. I just think that before it’s done, there has to be a lot of examination of how you are going to deal with these issues. Black and biracial children are going to face racism in its many forms. That’s reality. They deserve to be taught the lessons and given the guidance they need to deal with these situations.

There is much I agree with here. Adoption definitely is a market. And I would love to discuss/read more on how racism enters into the picture.

But there are some things, from my own experiences and from my own readings that I think you get either wrong or perhaps I’ve read the wrong way.

You say: The transracial adoption debate ignores the fact that our current racial order all but forbids blacks from adopting white children,

Really? How so? Black couples, like white couples overwhelmingly choose a child of their own race when adopting. If you have X number of black couples adopting and 2X number of black children that are adoptable, isn’t it going to mean that all X number of black couples are going to be able to adopt a child of their own race?

LIke you said, its all supply and demand, not necessarily structural racism in the adoption industry (though there is an argument that it has to do with societal racism). There are X number of black couples. 2X black children. X white couples, 1/2X white children (ratios are totally wrong, just making the point). Thus you’ll get black couples always adopting black children, white couples almost always adopting white children… but some adopting black children. It’s not that black couples are forbidden to adopt white children, but rather demand (they want black children) and supply (there are plenty). From my experience this also carries over into international adoptions. Of the half dozen (admittedly small and anecdotal) black adoptive couples I know and the several dozen I know of, none adopted internationally. Why? Are they forbidden? Are they prejudicial? No, again, it’s supply and demand.

You wrote: Unfortunately, in some cases white families decide to adopt black children when they are unable to find or afford a healthy white child.
This I think is much too simplistic of a statement. Though I used ‘market’ above, there is much more to adoption than the ‘market’. It is very very complex, emotional, and multi-faceted.
Of the dozens of transracial families I know, very few, if any, adopted transracially because they were ‘unable to find or afford a white child’. The availability of white children defitinitely plays a role, but it isn’t the only.. or even the deciding factor.. in most couples adoption of a child of a different race.

You wrote: White adoptive parents may learn about how to do their child’s hair or what sorts of food or cultural practices are common in the adopted child’s biological parents’ culture(s). The problem with this sort of approach is that it completely ignores racism. As I said in a recent entry, race is all to frequently reduced to culture, but the link between racism and power needs to be added to any discussion of transracial adoption. This is where the mass media often misses the point. Even if everything they are saying is true, we also need to talk about some of thing things that they do not say.

I found this a bit off-putting too. I know you don’t mean it this way, but I think it shows a lack of understanding of transracial adoption and the issues involved. I know you are attacking the ‘media’ here. And believe me, the media needs attacking on this issue. The framing is wrong as you state and needs to be addressed.

But, don’t assume the ‘adoption industry’ (which is is and isn’t.. and definitely not monolithic) and definitely the transracially adopting parents talk about “all we need is love” and some “multi-cultural education”. Believe me, it’s a HUGE discussion in our world (adopting parents, individually, etc) and our discussions and training go MUCH deeper than that. Don’t assume, and thus become patronizing (just a warning, not an indictment) that it’s not and we (most transracially adopting couples) go into this with doe-eyed optimism of love and learning to do hair.

And if we did, the education in the real world would shock us into reality of racial politics and social structure.

These discussions often assume transracial couples don’t face, discuss, understand, deeply experience and confront race in our society on a daily basis. I think we know and understand a lot more than is every give credit for and frankly a lot more than many will ever understand.

I also feel frustration with accounts of social issues that focus only on the small, not the large, or visa versa. For example, environmental regulations impose real costs on individuals AND provide real benefits to society; I need to understand both dynamics to be able to understand environmental issues.

That said, I’m not sure I understand how all the issues identified in this post bear on the question of whether a white couple should adopt a black baby. Yes, racism exists. It will exist whether that child is adopted by a white couple, a black couple, an Asian couple, or spends its life in foster care and institutions. Thus, while racism is interesting in its own right, it doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor in determining an adoption decision.

[H]ow could this story be reframed to recognize racism[?]

Interesting question. Maybe interview kids raised by parents of different race? Have them talk about the challenges they faced. Then interview kids that never got adopted and remained in foster care and institutions until they reached adulthood. Have them talk about the challenges they faced.

‘Cuz those seem to be the relevant alternatives for many babies: Be adopted by the couple of a different race, or remain in foster care/institutions. There simply aren’t enough couples of every race seeking to adopt.

[A]doption is a market….

Yup.

The transracial adoption debate ignores the fact that our current racial order all but forbids blacks from adopting white children, and limits many blacks from adopting black children.

I’d like to hear more about this. Here’s what I surmise this means:

1. As the NYT article noted, adoption agencies prefer to place a child with a couple of the same race.

[T]he National Association of Black Social Workers, in 1972, likened whites adopting black children to “cultural genocide.” The group removed the genocide reference from its policy statement in 1994, but it still recommends same-race placements. And organizations like the Child Welfare League have argued in recent years that while race need not be the primary consideration in placements, it should not be disregarded.

If adoption professionals believe in matching the race of adoptors and adoptees, then we should expect to find black couples adopting black babies and white couples adopting white babies and Asian couples adopting Asian babies, etc. They only time we would find a transracial adoption would be when the supply of adoptees of one race exceeded the supply of adoptors of that same race. And it is my understanding that the supply of black babies exceeds the supply of black couples wanting to adopt. Ergo, the fact that adoption agencies don’t place many white babies with black couples would seem to reflect nothing more than the fact that the supply of black babies exceeds the supply of black couples seeking to adopt.

2. I don’t doubt that adoption agencies limit many blacks from adopting black children, just as they limit many whites and Asians and Hispanics and Native Americans and…. It’s their job to exclude people who fail to meet some minimum qualification for parenthood, regardless of race.

Thus, I am not surprised that the transracial adoption debate ignores these facts; they don’t seem that relevant to the debate.

Loving black parents and families are almost invisible in these debates…..

Well, to the extent that there’s nothing controversial about a black couple adopting a black baby, that’s not surprising, it is? I mean, what is there to debate?

But indeed, loving black parents DO enter the debate - through their absence. Citations to the National Association of Black Social Workers are often followed by the question, “Why does the supply of black kids exceed the demand of black couples seeking to adopt? We have a surplus of loving white couples; where are all the loving black couples?”

I don’t hold the view that black couples have any special duty to adopt. But when people characterize transracial adoptions as a sub-optimal arrangement, I have to wonder what better arrangement they would propose.

Love …. doesn’t challenge racism.

[F]or white families who transracially adopt, love plus multicultural education is a great start, but this only works on the individual/small group level.

Where better to start?

In fact, in the era of colorblind racism very few people would ever acknowledge “hating” any ethnic group. Racism is not about love or hate; it is really about power. Love may be great for an individual child, but love doesn’t stop racism. Only social activism will stop racism, and if they asked the transracial adoptive parents the right sorts of questions in these interviews, they may find that the parents actually agree with my contention here.

Indeed they may. Yes, racism is about power, just as sexism is. And when powerful people got pissed off at how their daughters were excluded from opportunities, things changed. (For a tangible example, consider university athletics programs.) Right now there aren’t so many powerful people with black kids. But what if we increase the supply of them? Transracial adoption is not irrelevant to fighting racism; indeed, it may be a powerful tool.

Supply & demand - don’t fight it; use it.

Love only provides a softer place to fall. It doesn’t challenge racism, and for white families who transracially adopt love, plus multicultural education is a great start, but this only works on the individual/small group level. In fact, in the era of colorblind racism very few people would ever acknowledge “hating” any ethnic group. Racism is not about love or hate; it is really about power. Love may be great for an individual child, but love doesn’t stop racism. Only social activism will stop racism, and if they asked the transracial adoptive parents the right sorts of questions in these interviews, they may find that the parents actually agree with my contention here.

This is what I was answering to.

You missed the point of the article. I don’t want the focus of the debate to be on the adoptive families, but the whol adoption industry itself.

If I [Rachel] were to reframe the transracial adoption debate…
…I would talk about the structure of the adoption industry and the ways that educational opportunities and job discrimination affect the number of African Americans who can afford adoption.

I wrote a lot more, but deleted it when I realized this is my problem with the post. See, from my view, things like “educational opportunities and job discrimination” are not adoption issue. Thus it seems like you’re not looking at “adoption” question at all. rather, you’re asking “how can we generally solve the problems of race, which, oh yeah, happen to have some effect on adoption?”

And while I think those general questions are a good thing, I think you’re being ridiculous to imply that they should be the focus of the adoption people. Which your post seems to so. Why do people focus on adoption-related issues instead of broader racial themes? because that’s what interests them. After all, you could force anything else (almost) into that same viewpoint, but you lose much of the specifics in the process.

There’s a lot of your post I DO agree with: that the papers, for example, do an atrocious job of presenting things. But I think the overall attack on specificity is flawed.

-The Beatles

The key thing here that many white people who adopt black babies have different priorities than you do, and may want to focus more on their family than to challenging racism 24/7.

I suppose there should be some help for interracial adoption families who are having problems, but IMHO suggesting that everyone needs the wisdom of “multicultural educators” to help them do it “correctly” is somewhat off-puttingly patronizing.