According to a psychologist quoted in the article, “for a lot of people, not even racist people, the sight of a white child with a black parent just sets off alarm signals.” I’m not certain that I would classify someone with this type of response to the loving family described in the article as “not even racist.” That response is racist, even if it’s common. The article goes on to talk about “centuries of poisonous beliefs” that have led to the attitude that “white stewardship” of people of color is natural, but not the reverse. So, why not acknowledge that these poisonous ideas are racist and talk about them? I feel like the article included that specific quote to let (white) people who are reading, those who may admit to themselves that they would freak out a little bit if they saw a black man on the street with a cute little white girl, off the hook. It kind of says, “keep reading, we are not calling you racist.”

What I found most interesting about the article was the discussion of the practices of adoption agencies with regards to transracial adoption. According to the article:

At present, agencies that receive public funding are forbidden from taking race into account when screening potential parents. They are also banned from asking parents to reflect on their readiness to deal with race-related issues, or from requiring them to undergo sensitivity training. But a well-meaning policy intended to ensure colorblindness appears to be backfiring. According to a study published last year by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, transracial parents are often ill equipped to raise children who are themselves unprepared for the world’s racial realities.

One adoption agency that I was associated with made prospective transracial adoptive parents reflect on race-related issues and made them sit through a “cultural diversity” training. I don’t think it was illegal. I’m not surprised, though, that a study has found white parents unprepared to raise children of other races. I found that many simply did not even know that there was anything to prepare for. A woman who was going to a adopt a girl whose biological parents were Mexican (I had nothing to do with that placement decision) told me that “I know she’s Hispanic but that’s not going to change anything about the way we live.” The family profiled in this article took steps to help their adopted daughter deal with being raised by a family of a different race, like the “Kiss Me I’m Irish” t-shirt and making sure she is in a diverse school. But many white parents seemed incapable of any acknowledgment that race was an issue they would ever need to face as parents. We would ask during the process whether parents would be willing to move if their child faced racism or discrimination in their neighborhood. A surprising number said no. I remember one woman responding with “I’ve moved around enough, I’m ready to settle down and start a family.”

So, I guess it’s not such a bad thing if, as the article suggests, Congress will be asked to include race as a consideration in adoption placements. I’m no expert on issues related to transracial parenting (I actually know nothing about any kind of parenting), but if current practices are leading to children of color being adopted by white parents who won’t even acknowledge racism in their neighborhoods or incorporate aspects of their child’s culture into their lives, then something should change.

Why are we silent about the racism all around us? We don’t live in the ’50s. Our president is a mutt. He and his wife just gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod for God’s sake. We’re so new, so past that but I know I can’t be the only person experiencing racism in St. Louis, so what gives? Do we always have to write about racism in the past tense, like “Native Son” or “To Kill A Mockingbird” or “Chicago 8″? Is the topic too sensitive or are we just afraid to admit that it’s here, now, and raging?

They asked her if she exercised often. They asked if she had a job. For many years, she said. Yes. “Food stamps? Are you on food stamps?” they asked. No, she said quietly. She was not receiving food stamps, and had never, in her life, benefitted from food stamps.

By now, she’d noticed me staring. I was. I was staring at her – and with her- at us in these ridiculous chairs, prisoners of racists – silently. I could tell the woman picking at my toenails to give it a rest, put my shoes on, pay the bill, tell them all off and leave. Or I could sit there quietly and smile sympathetically at this dangerously overweight black woman who knew, I hoped, that I knew that I was a coward. She smiled at me.

I wasn’t angry at Bully. I just didn’t understand why he was angry with me. In an effort to understand what had just happened, I told my swimming instructor what he’d called me. I knew it was bad. Perhaps her intervention would reveal what it meant. Denise (sister to Dennis, also a swimming instructor – thank you, neurons) told me to ignore him or said something equally dismissive. I swam back into line on my back (this I remember too), trying to align my body with the rafters through puddly tears and swallowing gobs of phlegm. Maybe I felt anger then. Maybe I briefly flipped onto my stomach to catch my breath and hold in the soup that had turned into boiling bitterness. I remember it now. I can feel the same, helpless, indignant outrage or I can hold it at bay. That’s why I didn’t tell Jin that we’d been called Chinks today, in the bible-belt, by a covertible-driving Catholic School boy: me in my skirt suit with briefcase in tow (saving the poor) and she, a new J.D. with intolerance only for American fast food. I choose to feel nothing.

The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in Congress again and the Republicans are losing their minds. According to John McCain, EFCA is a “threat to one of the fundamentals of democracy.” EFCA would make it easier for employees to organize a union by allowing the workers, rather than the employer, to decide whether there will be secret ballot election. This is the most discussed provision in the EFCA, but it also includes another very important provision. EFCA will mandate binding arbitration when a union and an employer cannot agree on their first contract within 120 days. Most people are aware that employers bring in union-busters any time there is talk of organizing among the workers, but less well known is that 44 percent of new unions never get a first contract. When the union-busters’ intimidation tactics fail to work in the secret ballot election, they turn their attention to delaying the implementation of a contract (because after a year, another vote is required under current law). So while this provision is currently less controversial, and while the Right is gnashing its teeth over “check card,” this may end up being the provision that does the most to improve conditions for workers.

Rachel Maddow (my current girl crush) does a great job of debunking some of the lies about the “card check” provisions in EFCA.

Also this past week, we learned that there is a new ballot initiative in the works in California. Although in its very early stages, if passed, the Domestic Partnership Initiative, would overturn Proposition 8 and California would begin recognizing domestic partnerships between all couples, while marriage would be relegated to a social ceremony. I have always thought this to be a fine response to the marriage issue, but according to this article, both sides of the Proposition 8 debate hate the idea. What I really like about the idea is that it basically says to the Religious Right, much like you would say to a child “If you don’t want to share, nobody gets to play.”

I’m also very excited that Van Jones is joining the Obama administration. I saw him speak several weeks ago and he is an inspiring attorney and organizer in the environmental justice movement. Read about him.

He says in part:

“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state. Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right even from a group that is otherwise entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”

I’ve recently been reminded that I am not skilled at hiding my unhappiness, my non-enthusiasm with my current position. This made me think about the things I have been telling myself, because I am someone who wants to do “labor law” yet I don’t really know if that’s true or what that means. If it means writing one more brief for the purpose of restoring the job of an underperforming public employee, it’s probably not true. I shouldn’t begrudge my employer for defending some less than deserving workers, because without the traditional labor movement, unrepresented workers would have few of the protections that they (technically) enjoy under the law today. And filing grievances over petty disputes probably does go a long way in protecting more important rights in a Collective Bargaining Agreement. And it’s the traditional labor movement that will do the heavy lifting in getting the Employee Free Choice Act, which has the potential to further expand the benefits of organizing to low-income communities, passed this year. Yet personally, I would rather be out there fighting for the little guy and I feel like those who have the protection of a union have won half the battle. So I’m glad someone is taking care of them, but I am just not passionate about playing that role.

I also wonder about the role of attorneys in poor communities in actually making a difference for that little guy. I recently heard staff from a very successful workers center speak at a conference. What I took away most from this was that the law can do nothing for communities of law wage workers, communities of color, immigrant communities, without community organizing. A staff member actually told a legal aid attorney that her organization was wasting its time on wage claims for farm workers because it couldn’t organize or represent the undocumented. So what is a lawyer to do when legal advocacy might be a waste of time if not sustained by a community of activists making other substantial changes? Many legal aid organizations don’t have the resources to do more than represent individuals with their individual problems, simply helping people keep their heads above water.

A keynote speaker at this conference said that a law degree is the degree of the 20th century, but that today the people changing the world are not lawyers. This was all very discouraging for a lawyer who has few other talents (or resources).

So who are the people changing the world today? Bloggers? Community organizers? Yogis? Social workers? Entrepreneurs? These are the people I’ve been meeting and thinking about lately. I haven’t actually resigned to the fact that lawyers cannot make these kinds of changes. I went to law school partly because I studied community organizing and watched a lawyer accomplish in a class-action settlement a victory for a poor community that could not be accomplished through organizing (we tried). I think the law is at least a part of the struggle for social justice but I’m still figuring it all out.

In 2003, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court had just recognized gay marriage, we wondered what would happen next; whether a string of states would follow Massachusetts’ lead (this has not happened) or whether the inevitable backlash would prevent further expansion of the right (it’s looking like this is the case after the surprising success of Prop 8 in California). We talked about how just a couple years prior, some of us thought we would never be having this debate so soon. I think, like many on both sides of the debate, that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples are inevitable. What I worry about is how long and how ugly the battle will be.

Following the most anticipated oral arguments in recent history, the California Supreme Court will decide the fate of Proposition 8 and provide some answers. Oral arguments are on Thursday. More to come . . .

I’m also one of those people who says crazy things like, “I don’t even know anyone who voted for Bush” after he won two elections or “who watches Fox news? Everyone I know thinks it’s a joke” or “who buys all those country music albums?” The truth is people in my hometown do all those things. Such statements are partly exaggerations for affect and partly denial. I come from the opposite of St. Louis, a red wilderness in a blue state.

Zoe’s comments reminded me of a court opinion I read last week. See, I snuck in a post about the law (this really is a blawg). I wasn’t really that surprised when I discovered that the following events occurred in a high school about an hour south of St. Louis while I was living there:

• A white student urinated on a black student and said “that is what black people deserve.”
• Several white students showed up at a black student’s home with baseball bats and hit the black student’s mother.
• Individuals drove by the house later, threatening to burn it down.
• Harassment at school eventually caused that student to withdraw and his family moved away.
• Students yelled racial slurs at black basketball players from another school and hung a confederate flag in the locker room during the game.

Ah, there it is-the confederate flag. It’s been causing a lot of trouble in schools lately.

The funny thing is that I come from a northern state where it’s not uncommon to see the flag on trucks. I’ve even seen it on flag polls. (“I don’t know anyone who would fly the confederate flag.”)

The school district determined that the flag was contributing to the racial tension and prohibited students from displaying one or wearing one on their clothing. And what did the community do in response? They held a town-hall meeting to discuss the racial tension and ways to resolve it? Nope. The parents went to the school district to come up with ways to help the students of different races get along better? Nope.

The parents stood outside the high school protesting and waving the confederate flag.

Well, kudos to the Eight Circuit for upholding the school district’s decision. You can read the opinion here, but don’t bother because it’s a no-brainer (quick constitutional law review-A school can restrict students’ First Amendment rights if the students’ expression or speech is likely to cause a substantial disruption). Clearly, black students being forced out of school and their families being run out of town is a substantial disruption to the educational process. (Another lie-“That would never happen where I come from.”)

Women receive beads for showing their nipples. Men receive – wait. Men buy beer, become utterly disoriented in every way EXCEPT that they can orient themselves TOWARD drunk women who will accept beads for in-kind pay. Is Mardi Gras a controlled experiment in legal (ignored illegal) prostitution? Before you throw written sticks and stones, consider this:

Assault, rape, overzealous drinking (for the purpose of innocuating nipple-conflict pain) and all sorts of norm-blasting behavior occur around the Mardi Gras tradition. I’ll assume for now that you’ll agree that assult, rape, and drinking of the blackout-inducing category is unhealthy and indicative of maladjustment.

These unhealthy behaviors are correlated with prostitution, but at least when the exchange is honestly consummated, women receive a fungible commodity. What’s required here to adjust our society’s maladjustment? Or am I missing the point? Is the purpose of the Mardi Gras tradition to self-medicate for nipple-conflict? See “I Saw A Nipple” on Dangerous Intersection.

Maybe, deep down (or not so deep down), many Americans are attached to their nipple-conflict disorder.