Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

In Adoption, Does Race Matter?
The return of the biracial Cheerios family, and the image of Mitt Romney’s black grandchild, have re-ignited the public conversation about race and adoption. It might seem like an outdated argument, like whether it is “conventional” to gag about interracial couples or whether birth control is just for women with out-of-control libidos. But both sides of the issue have passionate defenders. Does transracial adoption harm children or communities? Is it ideal for children to be raised by parents who look like them?
* biracial = 두 인종의(으로 이루어진); 혼혈의/ reignite = 재점화되다(하다)/ outdated = 구식인/ conventional = 극히 평범한; 관습적인/ gag = 농담하다/ interracial = 다른 인종간의/ birth control = 산아 제한/ out-of-control = 통제불능의/ libido = 성욕/ transracial = 인종을 초월한

 다른 인종간의 입양은 아이(들) 또는 지역 사회에 나쁜 영향을 주나요? 같은 인종의 양부모가 아이들에게 좋은가요?

1. Not a Deciding Factor, but Not to Be Ignored
Cultural needs of children can be met by different-race parents who are committed to the best interests of their child.

2. Consider Black Children and Black Families
When remaining with birth parents is not a good option, the National Association of Black Social Workers calls for children to be placed with relatives.

3. Take Race Out of the Equation
Children should go to the earliest available nurturing permanent homes, regardless of color. But some laws conflict with this goal.

4. No Time for Identity Politics
Untold numbers of children are tangled in the foster care system or languish in orphanages and group homes all over the world.

5. The Racial Biases That Aren’t Examined
Saying black children should be placed with black families is controversial. But most white prospective adoptive parents prefer white children, which raises few eyebrows.


Sample Essay

Take Race Out of the Equation

Since the mid-1990s, United States law has prohibited any effort to keep children within same-race families and prevent transracial adoption. Congress will not go back on this law, the Multiethnic Placement Act.

The racial matching regime outlawed by MEPA was aberrational – inconsistent with our nation’s constitutional and legal tradition making any use of race highly suspect. Racial matching failed to meet the narrow affirmative action exception to that tradition: It hurt rather than helped black children, by locking them into foster care and denying them available nurturing homes.

Congress should not go back on MEPA. There is no evidence that transracial adoption hurts children or communities, nothing that would satisfy the heavy burden of justification required for any use of race to define permissible family formation.

The real issue is whether MEPA should serve as a model for other adoption law, both domestic and international. MEPA is based on the beliefs that children do not belong to their racial groups of origin and that children’s interests are served by placement in the earliest available nurturing permanent homes, regardless of color. Other laws, including the Indian Child Welfare Act, conflict with these principles; American Indian children are treated as resources belonging to Indian tribes.

International laws and policies governing the adoption of unparented children worldwide are similarly inconsistent with MEPA principles, locking children into their nations of origin regardless of whether those nations provide nurturing care. A law pending in Congress, known as Children in Families First, would begin to change this picture, redefining U.S. policy to support international adoption as one of the best options for meeting children’s basic human rights to parenting. This law deserves our support. MEPA should be seen as the model for the adoption of American Indian children and children abroad.