![]()
Should black children get special consideration against removal-from-race by child welfare agencies?
For white advocates, there may be a sly reason to support a bill like the one proposed in Minnesota, because it recognizes that racial preservation is a worthy goal. If it's good for blacks, why not whites?
![]()
If it's abusive to snatch a black child away from the black community, isn't it just as abusive to stick a white child into a majority-black public school?
My take is that keeping members of any race contiguous is best for everyone's mental health.
The black family, of course, is a nationwide trainwreck, with the overwhelming majority of births being out of wedlock.
White couples—motivated by Christian beliefs, liberal politics or adventurism—think they're being virtuous by adopting black children.
It's less than ideal. Black children belong with black parents.
Child welfare agencies, meanwhile, wield awesome power. They can take children upon the flimsiest of evidence.
Asks Walter Olson:
Which brings us to the most puzzling thing about the Minnesota African American Family Preservation Act: If state child‐services agencies wield too much power to break up families—and maybe they do—why not revamp the law to protect all parents and children, of whatever race, from government interventions of this sort? If it’s good practice not to put children into foster care without checking out the possibility of an extended‐family placement, or to “strictly limit” the termination of parental rights, why wouldn’t that also be a good idea for American children of Vietnamese, Guatemalan, Syrian or Irish descent?
Should black children get special consideration against removal-from-race by child welfare agencies?
If it's abusive to snatch a black child away from the black community, isn't it just as abusive to stick a white child into a majority-black public school?
