A Weblog

I wrote this with the intent of sending it to the Boston Globe, but since time marches on and I’m not the most time-sensitive individual, I pass it off to you to read here. Notice how my professional writing is still vaguely colloquial:

In his opinion piece, “Kids take back seat to gay agenda” (Boston Globe, 15 March 2006), columnist Jeff Jacoby argues that gay activists have pursued their cause, “the normalization of homosexual adoption,” to the detriment of children. He defends the Catholic church’s right to discriminate against homosexual couples. He claims that millions of Americans believe the parents in a family must be of both sexes, and further comments, this is “neither a radical view nor an intolerant one.” Since Catholic Charities can no longer place children with anyone, Jacoby concludes that gay activists and colluding media and state government officials have propelled gay equality forward while relegating children to the back, much like a few rotten apples spoiling the whole bunch. Jacoby is wrong in two different ways.

First, Jacoby ignores the other, very valuable and very laudable work done through Catholic Charities outside of adoption. In addition to adoption, Catholic Charities offers over thirty services, among which include child care, mentoring programs, substance abuse counseling, and homeless shelters and transitional housing. Each year the United Way awards Catholic Charities with a grant, most recently for $1.2 million. Had the State issued a waiver to the anti-discrimination law, it would have put all programs run through Catholic Charities, not just the adoption services, at risk. Most funders, including the United Way and the state government, refuse to grant financial assistance to organizations that discriminate. Many of the budgets of these programs are already sensitive to even slight fluctuations in current funding; if Catholic Charities were allowed to ban homosexual adoptions, the resulting decreased financial backing would ensure a curtailment effecting several other vulnerable populations throughout the city who were not directly involved. In essence, the State’s ruling saved many more charitable programs. Furthermore, it is worthwhile to remember that the Church chose to close the adoption services, not Catholic Charities, and not the State.

Second, the view Jacoby claims to be “neither radical nor intolerant” has no founding in contemporary research, and is, therefore, not only intolerant against gay couples but is also harmful to children. According to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, between 6 and 14 million children were living with a gay or lesbian parent as of 1990. The dozens of studies to investigate the psychology of children of LGBT parents have been motivated primarily by family law, and thus directly address the effects on children of having gay versus straight parents. Evidence shows pretty convincingly that children are not harmed in any way merely by having homosexual parents. In fact, it shows quite the opposite. According to one study by Hoeffer published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, daughters of lesbians, on average, have higher self-esteem than those of straight women; their sons are more caring and less aggressive. Additionally, children of homosexual parents are no more likely than the general population to be homosexual themselves. In light of these statistics, we have no choice but to deny Jacoby’s interpretation of the views of “millions of Americans” and call his opinion what it is: unreasoned, unjustified, and harmful to children.

In response to yesterday’s post, I received an email asking if it meant that I “loved abortions.” I responded privately but there’s no reason not to respond publically. What I wrote had almost nothing to do with abortions. This may come as a suprise, especially when you consider the fact that the word appears eleven times. No friends, I not about to betray my opinions and hop on either of the anti-life and anti-choice bandwagons. What I wrote was an attack, though it was never explicitly stated, against the popular culture of immediate gratification.

This bill represented the easy-fix mantra that tends to destroy. Good things, I’m told, come to those who wait. I believe good things come to those who plan. If the writers of the bill want to ban abortions, fine, but think about the consequences first. I made no appeal to the sanctity of life, nor to a women’s right to choose, none of that. All I ask is that when you do something, anything, that has consequences, plan for them.

The representatives did not provide for the new babies. There was no mention of increased funds for medicare, increased low-income housing [the sad reality is that the poorer you are, the more likely this bill will effect you], increased money for education, for food stamps. The law doesn’t make any economic considerations, and neither is there accompanying legislation that does. That’s what I’m against. And it doesn’t matter if you’re for or against abortion, no one can be against responsible law-making.

The short-sightedness of the bill is what upsets me most, not its content. And that’s why I ask you to write a letter to the sponsors who moved the bill asking them to think about the consequences of what they’ve done. There’s a good chance they haven’t already done so. By next Monday I’ll post the letter I’ve sent to each of them so that the lazier among you have little excuse not to follow my lead.

South Dakota recently signed into law [it's not long, only a four-page read] legislation that puts all but a complete ban on abortion. It allows for it only in the most extreme cases which endanger the life of the woman and it denies action to women even in cases involving incest and rape. Coppertosteel first brought this to my attention, but you can also read about it at one of the many internet news sources here. Now, I’m not going to tell you based on some moral, anti- or pro-religious, or women’s rights argument that this is, perhaps, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read — and recently I read this book — don’t let the high customer rating fool you; if the emotionally exploitive nature of this book really compels you, I suggest that instead of reading it, you volunteer at some local non-profit.

According to the figures I found at the CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the US abortion ratio in 2000 was about 25%. This statistic measures the number of legal abortions per live births. It is a composite figures that states voluntarily report to the centers [at least for the CDC]; some states choose not to report, some are very accurate, and, of course, some fall in between. The take home is this: the abortion ratio under-reports. Now, South Dakota has pretty much asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. And this legislation mentions scientific advancement since the Court last made its ruling. If the US banned abortions outright, which for the crude approximations I’m about to make should suffice, the abortion ratio tells us that about 1 million more babies would be born, and remember that number is low. We as a country pick up about 4 million babies each year any way. And here’s the kicker. We don’t have enough money to support them already.

Between the CDC and the AGI, it looks like single or unmarried women comprise close to 60% of those who have abortions [Curious stat: umarried women are 6 times more likely to have an abortion than married women], half of them are under 25, and 20% of them are under 19. I couldn’t easily find demographics on education or economic status, but from a lecture I went to at the Kennedy School in the fall, I can qualitatively tell you that the younger, less educated, and poorer a women is, the more likely she will not give up her baby to adoption. And the older, more educated, wealthier a women is the less likely she will even have a kid. The lecture did not mention abortion, but I’m willing to guess that whatever the numbers are we’re going to have to pour lots more money into the welfare state.

As it is, we have trouble taking care of our kids. There’s just not enough money to go around. The public education system is saturated. Abortions are highest [surprise] in the most populous states. The top three by incidence are New York, Florida, and Texas and rank second, third, and forth by population. South Dakota happens to be in the bottom four of both lists. [They reported just under 900 abortions of the 1 million reported in 1999.] These highly populated states will have to bear the brunt of the baby boom this law would incur. Just as a matter of resources, don’t change anything just yet. We can barely maintain status quo. As a potential educator, I’m terrified. I don’t know where we’d get more teachers, let alone qualified teachers. My pessimist leanings suggest we start building more prisons and raising funds. Once our schools fail these kids, tax payers will have to shell out about $22,650 per inmate if things stay the same according to the Bureau of Justice. The same report says that annually the prison system is a $38 billon industry. We need so many more teachers and jobs. [That same K-School lecture said we needed more highly skilled labor and turned to immigrants as a potential solution since our kids are too expensive to teach and because the success rate is so low. It's getting harder and harder to out-compete India and Korea, for example.]

If you have the time, please write a letter to Representatives Hunt, Brunner, Deadrick, Dykstra, Gillespie, Glenski, Haverly, Heineman, Howie, Hunhoff, Jensen, Jerke, Klaudt, Koistinen, Kraus, Krebs, Lange, McCoy, Michels, Miles, Nelson, Novstrup, Pederson (Gordon), Rausch, Rhoden, Tornow, Turbiville, Van Etten, Weems, Wick, and Willadsen and Senators Bartling, Abdallah, Earley, Kelly, Kloucek, Koskan, McNenny, Moore, Napoli, and Schoenbeck, who introduced the bill. South Dakota has set up a handy webpage with a form to email each of them directly!

And while you’re at it, send a few letters to your own representative asking them to consider the economic impact of the law. No one wants to spend more money.

While on the road today, a new item caught my attention. Connecticut is the first state to sue the federal government because of the No Child Left Behind Act. Now way back last winter, we debated the distinct disadvantages the new legislation would force on every student attending a publically funded school in the country. The blind focus on some ill-defined and ill-chosen term “literacy” robs the student of crucial skills — those, for instance, associated to physical health and emotional development which are vital for mastery over the soi disant literacy — indeed, the arbitrary and incomensurate resultant metrics the legislation imposes on each state provide a diagnosis that is expensive and after the fact. If a doctor waited for a man to die of cancer as proof of disease before perscribing treatment, he’d lose his license. Yet this is exactly the same approach NCLB legislation takes on education. Even then, the goverment doesn’t provide medicine to under-performing school districts. Instead, NCLB severely penalizes them.

These claims, I admit, aren’t substantiated, and I don’t plan to doing that here. Instead, I want to talk about just a few of the fiscally irresponsible acts associated with NCLB. As documented in the statement of the lawsuit, the USDOE has refused requests from the Connecticut to waive, for example, universal and immediate testing of students in English as a second language programs. In the past, the state gave ESL students exemption for three academic years (or thirty calendar months) in order to, and this is silly, learn English. To wit, even the math exams require English proficiency, as some of the questions are dreadful word problems — which, I take issue with, but, again, not here — and open ended problems — which, aren’t really a special type of a problem. When I tutor Sullivan, for example, I am careful to ask for an explanation and interpretation of his answer. Unfortunately, this sort of inquiry is usually completely overlooked until college mathematics, and even then, isn’t met until somewhere beyond the freshmen curriculum. As far as I can tell, most people never actually engage in what I would call a true math experience. But back to finances.

The DOE suggested that Connecticut simply administer the tests in the students’ native language. The tens of millions required to construct, conduct, and correct the tests in the over 150 languages spoken in the homes of Connecticut ESL students is an impractical and irresponsible number.

Historically Connecticut examined students in grades 3 through 8 every other year. NCLB requires yearly administrations and yearly comparisons, rather than a “cohort” analysis which considers a class of students over its progression through the system. This strategy costs less and is susceptible to short-term disruptions in the system.

Again, Connecticut asked for a waiver to continue with their system, which, as they note, has over twenty years of data. And the data are positive.

Again, NCLB standards were upheld. Rigidly.

The money this thing is costing the at the state-level is stupid. (I’ll find some references, but it’s not hard to believe that) Research has shown that the single most effective resource a school has is its teaching staff. Right now public schools pool from college graduates who rank, on average, in the lowest ten percent of their class. Sad is it is, when the job market opened up to women, all the smart swapped chalk and eraser for power suits and briefcases, and a larger pay check. So, please! invest in teachers.

If nothing else, applaud the politicians and educators in Connecticut for thinking and acting responsible about education even when the federal goverment makes it so hard.

NB: I have yet to listen to NPR’s coverage of the story. I’m sure I’ll have some more to rant about once I do. And if you can think of a way I can support the Connecticut Yankees, please let me know.