White Parents, Black Kids, Tough Love

This week comes word that some child welfare groups are calling for changes in federal transracial adoption laws, saying the so-called colorblind adoption system mandated in the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 can do more harm than good to black kids adopted from foster care by white parents. A study by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that while "transracial adoption in itself does not produce psychological or social maladjustment problems in children," these children and their families face "a range of challenges, and the manner in which parents handle them facilitates or hinders children's development."

Among the things the groups want to change is a provision that bars prospective white parents from undergoing any race-oriented training that's different from what any other prospective parent would receive.

Perhaps the single most important thing for a child is to be with a loving, supportive family. And all things being equal, any child of any race should be placed with any qualified parents without restriction or special conditions.

But all things are not always equal.

I would never advocate prohibiting transracial adoptions. Black kids in foster care already have a significantly harder time finding homes than children of other races. But in the case of white parents/black children, the MEPA provision against race-oriented training's gotta go.

White folks, no matter how well-meaning or open-minded, have no true idea what it's like to be black in America. That's not a slam against white people or an accusation of latent bigotry. But the fact is that we all live in an Anglo-dominated society. From the moment we switch on the morning happy-chat shows until we fade to the stale jokes of the late-nite laughers, our news, our information, our assessments, are delivered through the filter of Anglo perspective. Be it liberal or conservative, it's still monochromatic. People of color grow up steeped in "white" culture. The reverse is not true. And, no, listening to hip-hop on the way to work does not count as immersion. Most whites will never know, experience or fully understand the myriad of preconceptions or gentle indignities that people of color have to deal with near daily. And that's prior to getting hit with full-on bigotry. Being of color in America by no means amounts to a constant barrage of negativity. However, unlike being white, being of color means one's race is a constant issue. How to handle it is an experience that is best learned practically, passed from a parent who's lived it to a child who's living it. It is not an experience gained merely by watching the boxed set of Eyes on the Prize (though you should watch it anyway). Short of that, some actual training would be useful. Anyone who believes otherwise is just displaying arrogance.

I would think, at the very least, trained and qualified parents of black children could be established as mentors. This would also help the adoptive parents build a "go to" support group for when their children do have questions and issues.

No doubt the policy barring the training was born of some kind of political correctness. But like most political correctness, it's Pollyanish.

Parents who engage in transracial adoptions are clearly committed, brave and, above all, loving. They should be fully prepared as well.

2:13 PM ET | 05-30-2008 | permalink | comments (42) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

One Bad Barkley Doesn't Spoil All Gaming

Former NBA player Charles Barkley arrives at the opening of Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Las Vegas in December.

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

It happens like clockwork. A racehorse gets put down after having been riding-cropped into running so hard it breaks both its ankles, and all the sob sisters out there want to shut down the whole family-fun sport of horse racing.

And every time a cigar-chomping ex-NBA star gets nearly brought up on felony charges because he fails to pay the $400,000 gambling debt he racked up in Vegas over two days, the moral wet blankets start whining about the ills of the professional gaming industry — and please, people, get it right: It's GAMING, not GAMBLING.

I'll be straight with you: I like gaming. I game a lot. And same as with hot wings and adult Internet entertainment, I can't imagine life without the gaming industry. I might add that I once had the opportunity to game with Charles Barkley — that is to say, I had some action going on the green felt at the same time he did — and I can safely say one bad Barkley doesn't spoil gaming for everybody. If I had a nickel for every time I was a little slow paying off a marker ... well, I'd play penny slots and win the money back. And $400,000 to a guy like Barkley? That's pocket change. He's already admitted to losing close to $10 million at the tables, which, if those stories about Bill Bennett are true, barely puts Barkley in that league of pathological gamblers.

Gamers. I mean pathological gamers.

And the whole concept of pathological — uncontrollable, addicted — gaming is little better than legend anyway. Just check out the American Gaming Association Web site. They give you the unvarnished truth about gaming, the way only a gaming industry trade group can. By their reckoning, only a lousy 1 percent of the population can be classified as Level 3 — pathological — gamers. Are we going to let a few Level 3s ruin it for the rest of us?

And, really, how sure can we be that those Level 3s are truly "pathological"? A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2005 found that "Pathological gambling is highly comorbid with substance use, mood, anxiety, and personality disorders, suggesting that treatment for one condition should involve assessments and possible concomitant treatment for comorbid conditions."

Comorbid. They exist at the same time. Need I say more?

So I say to Sir Charles, keep doing what you're doing. And while you're at it, lay a bet for me.

3:11 AM ET | 05-16-2008 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

It's All Down at the Upfronts

Actress Holly Hunter of TNT's Saving Grace rehearses her portion of the Turner Entertainment Upfront presentation in New York on Wednesday.

Richard Drew/AP

It's Upfront season! That wonderful, magical time of year when the television broadcasters show their wares for next fall to all the Madison Avenue advertisers, set their ad rates and rake in their billions. A little more than $9 billion by the collective networks last year.

The Upfronts are kinda an entertainment-centric affair, but like Fashion Week and Internet hoaxes over the years, they've taken on a life of their own: big parties, paparazzi, live blogging from bloggheads ...

But all that sybaritism is in the past.

This year, the Upfronts are a very subdued affair. It reflects the rather somber state of post-writers' strike Hollywood, which — much like post-war Europe — is struggling back to some kind of normality. Because of the strike, few pilot episodes of new shows were filmed, so there's little to "dog and pony" for the advertisers. In place of lavish, star-studded presentations held at SRO venues like Radio City Music Hall, there are smallish events one observer compared to a trade show-like expo. One network's presentation consisted of the titles — just the titles — of potential — yes, potential — new shows flashed on a movie screen with slight descriptions of what the show may or may not be if it's ever filmed.

Imagine trying to figure what cut of your ad budget you're going to allocate to a network based on that.

The ABC network's basically not even bothering with new shows this fall. It's only premiering two shows: one an Americanized version of the Brit dramedy Life on Mars; the other a reality/game show.

And if you're thinking things in TV Land can't get much worse, they're about to. While real Hollywood — the "working stiffs" rather than the high-paid celebs — are still trying to dig out from under the writers' strike, the community is staring down a June 30 work stoppage by the guild representing the actors.

Tokyo, say hello to Godzilla.

What does this mean for you? Maybe no new fall TV season at all. At least not with scripted shows starring professional talent. So, all those reality shows, YouTube clips and oldies you were digging on iTunes? Bookmark 'em, 'cause you may be getting re-familiar with them come September.

5:38 PM ET | 05-14-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

In Memory of Mildred Loving

Mildred Loving and her husband, Richard, shown in 1965, challenged Virginia's ban on interracial marriages.

AP

Mildred Loving passed away with little notice last Friday. You may not know her name, but Mrs. Loving was a civil rights activist. Like many who played a role in the civil rights movement — Emmett Till, Rosa Parks — Mrs. Loving wasn't looking to change the world by her actions. All she was looking to do was be married to her husband, Richard. Richard was white, and Mildred was black and when they were married in 1958, interracial marriage — "miscegenation" is the pejorative — was against the law in their home state of Virginia, as well as 16 other states.

Interracial marriage was once a concept so odious that in 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia tried to introduce an amendment to the Constitution banning such unions. To his colleagues in Congress he lectured, according to the Chicago Daily Tribune:

"It is contrary and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is contrary and averse to the very principles of a pure Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. ... No more voracious parasite ever sucked at the heart of pure society and moral status than the one which welcomes or recognizes everywhere the sacred ties of wedlock between Africa and America."

Aren't you glad we're living in a time when politicians don't use relationships between consenting adults as wedge issues?

I digress.

The Lovings spent time in jail for the high crime of being married to each other, were forced to move from Virginia...

Then, in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Lovings' ACLU-supported challenge to the Virginia law banning interracial marriages.

Forty years later, there's something like 4.3 million mixed-marriage couples in the United States. Never mind the number of people legally allowed to love as they please, Mildred Loving never thought she personally had done anything special. "It was God's work," she told the Associated Press in an interview last year.

Though their only desire was to be together, it was not meant to be for the Lovings. Richard was killed in a 1975 car accident.

Well, they're together again now.

It's a pity that unlike Mildred, Richard Loving could not live to see the son of a relationship once considered contrary to "every sentiment of pure American spirit" one step removed from the highest office in the land.

2:37 PM ET | 05- 9-2008 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)