Angered by the recent release of a postage stamp honoring gay-rights activist Harvey Milk, the American Family Association has asked its members not only to avoid purchasing the stamp, but to refuse to accept or open any letter or package postmarked with one. In a recent email from AFA, the following was recommended:

1. Refuse to accept the Harvey Milk stamp if offered by your local post office. Instead, ask for a stamp of the United States flag.
2. Refuse to accept mail at your home or business if it is postmarked with the Harvey Milk stamp. Simply write ‘Return to Sender” on the envelope and tell your postman you won’t accept it.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m tired of Christians acting homophobic. Of course, I don’t believe every Christian is homophobic. (Full disclosure: I am a Christian.) There are plenty of Christians who choose to adhere to their own moral code without imposing it onto the lives or rights of other citizens, recognizing that imposing religious beliefs on others is a dangerous thing. And there are other Christians who take a different interpretation and affirm gay relationships. I’m not talking about those Christians today.

Related: Tony Campolo’s Response to the Troubles of World Vision

I’m talking about the Christians who are making homosexuality the issue that dwarfs all others in the Christian moral code. I’m talking about the Christians who seem relatively quiet about other behaviors with biblical mentions (divorce, gluttony, greed, for example) but who rally with furor over gay rights.

I’m talking about the trend of Christian homophobia . . . especially the brand of homophobia coming from organizations like the American Family Association or Focus on the Family.

Every time I’ve hinted at this, it’s been met with much protestation. But we’re just stating our beliefs! We’re speaking the truth! We are trying to hold to our own values! We’re standing for biblical truth!”

Okay. Sure.

Let’s have a look at the list of individuals who have appeared on US stamps. There are some colorful personalities on them. Buddy Holly, Jimmy Hendrix, John Barrymore, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, James Dean . . .and hundreds and hundreds of other folks.

And now, let’s compile a list of all of the times Christians have organized a boycott in which they refused to accept mail from someone on this list because that person did not align with their own moral code of Christian behavior.

Also by Kristen: White Privilege, and what we’re supposed to do about it

Go ahead. Make a list in the comment section. Again, we’re looking for people on a postage stamp who behaved in ways outside of the Christian code, and then corresponding mail boycotts.

Be my guest in proving to me that this is not about homophobia but just about standing up for truth because someone who is perceived as a sinner is depicted on a stamp.

I’ll wait.

On Monday,  Christianity Today reported on a shift in World Vision’s employment policy in regards to sexual morality. World Vision is a Christian organization dedicated to serving impoverished children, and has always held a pretty rigid code of morality for employees. Specifically, employees are not to engage in sex outside of marriage. But recently, the organization decided that it would not discriminate against professed believers in a legal, same-sex marriage, . World Vision did not take a public stance on scripture or same-sex marriage, but rather chose to remain neutral on what CEO Stearns describes as a divisive issue among Christians.

“It’s easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there. This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate, ” Stearns said. “Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues.”

News of this policy change spread like wildfire, with many Christians applauding World Vision’s decision. Still, others were quick to denounces World Vision, threatening to drop the children they sponsor though the organization. Several Christian leaders were vocal with their disapproval. Justin Taylor of the Gospel Coalition, Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Denny Burk, professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (and apparent self-appointed gatekeeper of Christiandom) had condemning responses up within hours of the news.

Farewell, World Vision. @drmoore http://t.co/x3vdPD5P6o

— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) March 24, 2014

This response is disheartening to me on many levels. First, because I don’t believe that World Vision really even took a stance on gay marriage. They are an aid organization dedicated to ending child hunger. In my opinion, their employee mandates are what I would expect for church employment, but a bit rigid for a non-profit working on poverty issues. My view is that as Christians, we should be willing to partner with anyone wanting to advance our call to help the poor. You have 13 sexual partners each week but you want to help me build a school in Haiti? Alright. Get your work shoes on. Of course, it is Word Vision’s prerogative to hold the standards they do, but for me to lend support they are unnecessary. I don’t live in a world where I require everyone I do business with to follow my exact moral code.

Related: World Vision & the Sad State of American Evangelicalism

But I’m also dismayed because I suspect that none of this would have been front-page news or worthy of outrage if World Vision had simply removed their rules about employee sexual conduct in general.Somehow, same-sex “sin” is the issue that Christians get riled up about. If World Vision had said, hey, you know? We’re not going to comment on the sex lives of our employees, period . . . I just really doubt World Vision would be getting “Rob Belled” right now. People would probably not care, because there are plenty of Christian organizations that don’t require every employee to sign behavioral contracts. Call me cynical but I really suspect this is more about the idea of gay employees than it is about issues of purity amongst World Vision employees.

More than the frustrating subtle homophobia, though, is the fact that people are willing to make starving children the victims of a socio-religious debate.

This is so sad to me. We’ve sponsored children through World Vision for over 10 years, and anyone who sponsors a child knows that World Vision creates a very personable relationship between the sponsor and the child.

We currently sponsored Santiague, who is 15 and lives in Haiti, and Dalvin, who is 7 and lives in Uganda. Santiague lives with his parents, 3 brothers, and 2 sisters. His parents struggle to provide for the family. His mother and father are farm laborers but they are  not able to meet their family’s needs. With our help, Santiague is in school, and his community is provided with seeds and training on new farming methods. Dalvin lives in a community gravely affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and has lost his parents. He lives with his sister and grandmother. Our sponsorship helps meet his basic needs, and also provides healthcare improvement for the entire community. Theses are the referral pictures we got when we first signed up with World Vision:

It has been a blessing to get updates over the years and watch them thrive.

It is unfathomable to me that people would choose to punish and drop the child they sponsor over a difference in doctrine . . . or in this case, an organization’s decision to allow for differences. I visited the World Vision facebook page and was so incensed by the number of people announcing their dropped support of sponsored kids. As my friend Nish said on twitter:

Wanna piss me off? Pick debatable doctrine over giving a child food, water, healthcare, safety and education.

— Nish Weiseth (@NishWeiseth) March 24, 2014

Is access to food, water, and education trumped by keeping gay people out of a job at a nonprofit? If we want to serve people, we should not make distinctions about who we serve, and we should not deny those we serve out of disunity or division. It’s astounding to me that Christians would take food from starving children because a gay person might have helped in getting it there.

I’m concerned that children who are served by World Vision will suffer, and I’d hate to see that happen. I’m also concerned that the exhiling of Word Vision from certain Christian circles will further erode the divide of believers who are at odds on the issue of same-sex marriage, when their entire purpose was to avoid the division inherent in this issue. Are we really ready to excommunicate one another on this issue? I’m so tired of Christians trying to remove a seat from the table from people who have different views on this.

Also by Kristen: Duck Dynasty, first amendment rights, and Christian values

I’m also just so, so dismayed that this is yet another instance in which Christians are telling the world that their feelings about gay people are stronger than their compassion. That their anger over gay employees is greater than their anger over starving children.

I am thankful this does not represent all of us. I would love to see people concerned about this pick up the slack of Christians who are dropping their children over this.

I’ve decided today to sponsor another child. I’d love to see 100 more kids sponsored today. Will you consider it?

NOTE: Let’s not have the comment section devolve into a debate on the scriptures about homosexuality. We’ve heard them. We know them. We’ve all got difference opinions of how they apply. There are plenty of places online to have that debate, but I believe it’s a derail to this discussion. World Vision did NOT take a moral or scriptural stance on this issue, but rather stated that they are “deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues.”  So let’s talk about World Visions decision, it’s implications, and our feelings about it, but avoid the “is it a sin or isn’t it” debate. World Vision has chosen to side-step that question, reminding us that they are a global aid organization, not a theological gatekeeper.

Featured Image Credit: World Vision

I was thinking on my own childhood, trying to recall if there were books and movies that impacted my own view of racial reconciliation. In truth, I cannot remember a single story or film. I can’t even remember a conversation about race. So how, then, did my parents so clearly communicate these values to me? They lived it.

As a young child, there were two men that I remember clearly as close friends of our family. Bill was one of them. He was a tall, middle-aged black man with eyes that crinkled when he smiled. My parents were very involved in Tae Kwon Do, as was he, and the developed a close friendship. Bill was a gentle and funny man. He and his wife got married at our house . . . probably the first time I was in the minority in a situation as a child, but definitely not the last.

Related: Stop Celebrating Martin Luther King

The other man was Minucher, a jovial Iranian-American who was also involved in karate. He developed a friendship with my parents in the mid-80’s, at a time of great hostility towards Iranians. He was a burly man with coffee-colored skin and a thick moustache. I remember many road-trips with Minucher as we traveled to karate tournaments around the mid-west. He had a daughter our age, and he loved to make us laugh. When we got bored and cranky in the car, he would point to imaginary rabbits and deer outside the car window. We knew he was pretending but we still played along.

My parents never talked to me about “tolerance” or acceptance in relation to Bill and Minucher. They could have, but they didn’t need to. They were living it. These men were a part of our lives in real and significant ways. And later in life, when the media and society-at-large told me that black men were to be feared, or that Middle-Eastern men warranted suspicion, I didn’t have to recall a book or a DVD or a platitude I’d been told. I had grown up in relationships with real, in-the-flesh people who dispelled these stereotypes in a way that no story ever could.

It’s easy to give our kids lessons from a book, but if we really want to honor Dr. King’s dream, then diversity should be reflected in our lives. It should be reflected in our friendship circle, in our church community, and in the people we welcome into our home. Otherwise, when we talk with our children, diversity is simply a “do as I say, not as I do” concept. If we teach our children to value people of all races but don’t live a life that reflects that value, then our underlying message is that racial diversity is a merely lip service . . . something that sounds nice to say, but that we don’t really mean.

Martin Luther King Jr. paved the way for possibility . . . but if we don’t take hold of that possibility and truly be in fellowship at the “table of brotherhood” with people outside our own race, then his dream is not yet realized.

My  feed has been lit up with people responding to the suspension of Phil, the patriarch of A&E’s popular Duck Dynasty reality show. For full disclosure . . . I watch this show and enjoy it. Sarah James turned me on to it and I find the family to be inexplicably endearing. They all have a great sense of humor about themselves and I appreciate the clearly loving family dynamic. They live a lifestyle that is completely different from mine, yet I find them somehow relatable and refreshingly normal. So I was disappointed to read what Phil had said, and to hear of his suspension, even though I understand why A&E made that decision.

However, I have also been disappointed to hear so many Christians respond to his suspension by defending him as representing Christian values, and by perpetuating a narrative that Phil is being persecuted for his faith. Let’s talk about the first amendment issue for a second. The first amendment gives us freedom of speech. It does not give us freedom from accountability for our speech. It ensures freedom from imprisonment . . . it does not dictate what an employer has the right to address within the workplace. And thank goodness – can you imagine a society where employees could say any hateful thing with no repercussion? Whether you like A&E’s decision or not, this is not a first amendment issue, and it’s a little frightening how many people believe that it is,  .  Phil Robertson’s freedom of speech has not been threatened . . . he can continue to talk about whatever he wants to talk about without fear of being thrown in jail. But A&E, as a business, has the right to decide that he is no longer a good fit for representing their brand.

Related: Duck Hunting, Defrocking a Minister, and Other Gay Tidings

Now, regarding the idea that Phil is being persecuted for his faith – I think it’s really important to look at what he actually said rather than jumping on a bandwagon of religious persecution. I don’t believe that Phil was suspended for his faith. Phil has been preaching Christian values for a long time. Literally preaching.  at Saddleback Church. He and his family have been incredibly vocal about their Christian beliefs, both on the show and in countless interviews. His vocal views about his faith have never put him in jeopardy of losing his job and I would argue that this is still the case. It’s not a belief in Jesus Christ that got him into hot water. It’s the way he framed homosexuality as a societal ill and LIKENED IT TO BESTIALITY.

Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine…Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men, ”

To me, this moves from talking about personal views into homophobic territory. But there’s more:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

To reduce a person’s sexuality to an oversimplified and graphic question of where to put the penis is dismissive and homophobic. And honestly, I don’t think it represents most Christians’ views on homosexuality. Even most conservative Christians believe that same-sex sexual attraction is not a sin in and of itself. But Phil depicts gay people as deviant, and that’s a big problem. And if his words above represent “Christian values” then we need to have another look at Jesus.

But Phil’s problematic rant didn’t stop there. He later included Nazis and Islamists in a list of reasons the world is suffering, and also made some really ignorant remarks about black people:

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

I don’t even know where to start with this one. Comparing black people to white trash is cringey, but suggesting that black people were happier during segregation? That because Phil never heard a black person publicly complain BACK IN THE ERA OF LYNCHING means that they must have been satisfied with the state of things? This is so racially tone-deaf that it reminds me of the time the slaves as being “like family”. Not to mention, the subtext of his remarks is that black people nowadays are entitled, unGodly, discontented welfare recipients. So when I see people as “standing with Phil” based on their Christian values, I really have to ask . . . how does an apologist for our country’s ugly Jim Crow legacy represent Christian values?

Also by Kristen: The biblical definition of marriage, and its relevance to marriage equality

As a Christian, Phil’s views on gay people and on black people do not represent me, and I’m embarrassed by those who are holding him up as a martyr or an example. I get that Phil is dear to many . . . he’s a likable guy and a very public Christian. But that doesn’t excuse his ignorant remarks, nor does it mean that he gets a pass from accountability.

Regardless of where we fall in the “is homosexuality a sin” debate, as Christians, our greatest charge is to LOVE. I don’t feel that Phil’s remarks were loving to gay people or to black people. And I don’t believe the blind support he is getting from Christians is very loving, either.

For some alternative views of Christian values as they relate to the LGBT community, check out the  project.

A few months ago I got to speak at Idea Camp about orphan care. I shared my concerns about the trend of churches opening orphanages in third world countries instead of working at keeping children together with their parents. I suggested that the solution to poverty orphans (children who are placed as a result of poverty instead of the death of a parent) should be to provide resources to the family, instead of requiring the child to move into an orphanage for assistance. I shared my belief that the funds spent on feeding a child in an orphanage would be better spent funding that child’s birth family to keep them, and that perhaps we are even enabling families to abandon their kids when we show up in impoverished communities with a shiny new building with beds and three guaranteed meals a day. If the orphanage seems like the best option in town for giving your child an education and getting them fed, who wouldn’t drop their child off? I’ve seen far too many children living in orphanages who have loving, living parents.

After my talk, a lot of people affirmed me for “speaking truth” and “going there” and “bringing it”, and you know what? It made me sad. I’m concerned that the notion of family care is a novel idea when we are talking about orphans. I’m worried at how myopic we’ve become when we prioritize orphanages over family care. It’s disconcerting that the orphan care movement is so willing to throw money at the institutional care of a child, but not at parents who are capable but poor.

That’s not to say that some people aren’t helping keep families together. There are plenty of people sponsoring children in 3rd world countries, which is definitely a good model for preventing orphans. But in conversations with people who work in most of these large child sponsorship programs, I’m hearing that they get repeated requests from sponsors that they want their child to be “an orphan” . . . because for some reason that makes people more willing to help. I’ve heard the same thing from friends who run programs for young mothers. People are much less likely to support a young mom than they are to support an orphan.

Don’t get me wrong – I think supporting orphans is important. Vitally important. But I want to make sure that we aren’t creating and sustaining a child’s orphan status because it’s the only way we are offering a family aid. An orphanage is not a good way for a child to grow up. We have tons of research supporting the idea that children raised in institutional settings will struggle relationally, cognitively, and emotionally. In the US, we see that non-family care leads to horrible statistical outcomes: less likely to go to college, more likely to be in prison, less likely to gain employment, more likely to be homeless. Therefore, when we talk about “orphan care”, our goal, when possible, should be family care.

Related: Rethinking the $3000 Missions Trip

An orphanage should only be a triage situation, where we do crisis management and then assess our next steps. We shouldn’t, as Christians, be taking children from reluctant parents who only bring their children out of desperation. If we have the funds to feed a child, let them live with the family while we feed them. Why is this a novel idea??

A few months ago, my friend Tara wrote a really compelling post about why Christians need to stop building orphanages in Haiti.  I linked to it before,  and I will again.  I hope you will take the time to read the whole thing, but here is one quote that merits repeating:

We’ve all seen that adoption can be a beautiful and redemptive thing, the problem is, most kids will never be adopted. Most orphanages are not even licensed to offer adoption as an option. Because such a tiny percent of children are ever eligible for adoption, churches that start orphanages are signing up to raise kids in an institution for life. That’s not a small commitment.

 

What does life in an institution really mean? Among other disturbing things,  this article stated:

 

“It may seem obvious that an isolated, parentless toddler — with or without social contact with peers — will suffer emotionally from lack of parental love. What’s not obvious is that without devoted, repeated acts of love, a child’s brain doesn’t make the growth hormone needed for proper mental and physical development and numerous other imbalances are also created.”

How can we believe that investing the time, energy, and money into building an orphanage and institutionalizing children in a country and culture that we don’t understand is best practice?

I want to bring this up again because of some recent issues that have been brought to light about two “Christian” orphanages. Last year, an orphanage in Haiti was shut down after 60+ kids were found to be neglected and malnourished. The children were dispersed to live at other orphanages. A few children had to be immediately hospitalized due to rat bites. Some were near starvation and needed an IV. If you look at the photos it is clear that these children were living in circumstances that were completely unacceptable. It’s a cautionary tale to anyone thinking about starting an orphanage.

In another more recent situation, it was discovered that a pilot, who used his position to fly to Nairobi and Uganda to volunteer at an orphanage several times a year,  had sexually abused many of the orphans. Children living in orphanages are the most vulnerable children in the world. They are vulnerable to adult predators and to child trafficking, but they are further vulnerable because they’ve been placed into a situation where there are other children of multiple ages and very little supervision. Sexual acting out is quite common in orphanage settings.

I think it is very easy to look at these situations and assume that these things are isolated events that occurred because the orphanage directors were corrupt.  I don’t really know the details in each case, but here is what I do know: most orphanages, at some point, are started by a well-meaning religious organization. The thing about starting an orphanage, though, is that it is a LIFETIME COMMITMENT.  When you take in a child, you need to have a game-plan for that child’s entire life.  Starting an orphanage essentially means that you are adopting all of the children in that orphanage’s care, until they are adults. And those kids do not stop being dependents just because your church cuts their budget, or finds a new pet project, or changes staff.  Starting an orphanage is a major, major endeavor, and to be honest I’m getting a little tired of how quickly and flippantly churches are getting involved in orphanage work, without a clue as to how they will care for these kids in the long-term.

Many orphanages may manage to take care of a child’s basic human needs, but will still fail to offer a child the nurture, attention, and supervision that any of us would consider basic parenting standards in the US.  In fact, I would venture to say that most orphanages are failing to offer this . . . even the very best ones.  That is because an institution can never replace a family.  Parenting ishard.  It requires presence and focus and determination. It cannot be achievement in a large-group setting with a rotating door of staff..  It is unrealistic to think that any institution can properly “parent” a child. Third world children do not deserve to be raised in a setting that we would never approve of for our own kids.

I recognize that orphanage life is the only option for some children.  However, I think that the overabundance of churches that are building orphanages are harmful in a number of ways:

1. They are taking in poverty orphans. I will say it again: a child should not have to be abandoned at an orphanage to receive aid. If we can feed and educate a child in an orphanage, we can feed and educate a child living at home.

2. They are focused on providing a destination to missions groups. It’s sad to say this, but I’ve heard it from numerous people: the church wants to build an orphanage so they can visit and “love on” orphans when they take short-term trips. NO, PEOPLE. No no no no. Orphans are not mission-trip props.

3. They are motivated by the romanticism of starting an orphanage and how heroic that will make them look. People want their name on the building. It motivates people to donate when they feel ownership. Opening an orphanage looks good on paper. I get it. Still not best practice.

4. They are failing to provide adequate supervision to at-risk children. Orphanages in third-world countries tend to be poorly staffed, with high child-to-caretaker ratios and a high staff turnover. It is rare than an orphanage in a third-world country would meet even the minimum standards to be a licensed childcare facility in the U.S., and yet we are somehow satisfied with sub-standard care because they are poor.

5. They are not focused on permanency planning or family reunification. I cannot tell you have many orphanages I’ve visited where the children have living parents who even visit on weekends and there is absolutely no plan in place to get the kids back home.

6. They are raising children to be ministry partners instead of psychologically healthy adults. I have often heard orphanage directors talk about how they are raising the “future generation of Christian leaders” by raising kids in an orphanage. Except that our goal for kids should be to raise them into adults with a healthy sense of self . . . and the best way to do that is in a family, not in a “future Christian leader warehouse.”

Imagine if an organization decided to take in children in order to raise them to be future cotton farmers.  Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with cotton farming. It’s a noble, needed profession, and there is a scarcity of cotton farmers. Raising kids to be cotton farmers is convenient, because they can be trained from an early age, and because early indoctrination produces loyalty.  This organization gets to benefit from a generation of future cotton-farmers, and justifies not placing kids in permanent families (and in some cases, even justifies keeping kids away from able-bodied biological families) because the need for cotton farmers outweighs that child’s basic human right to a family.  This would be outrageous, right? We would consider this an abuse of human rights.  So why do we think that  it’s allowable for a child to be denied a permanent family in favor of being raised to be a “future leader” or future pastor?  EVERY CHILD DESERVES A FAMILY. This should be foundational.  And every child deserves to make their own way in live, discovering their own passions and calling.

If I sound cynical, it’s because I am. I have researched the effects of children growing up in orphanages, and it isn’t pretty. But I’ve also watch my child live it, and overcome it. I don’t want kids in orphanages if there is an alternative. This should be Orphan Care 101.

So . . . here are some questions that I think WE ALL need to start asking. If you go to a church, or support an orphanage, ask these questions. If you know someone involved in orphan care, asked these questions. We need to create a dialogue around orphan care that does not settle on orphanages as the first solution.

Questions every church should be asking about their involvement in orphanage support:

1. Are the children’s basic needs being met?
2. Are the children being treated with the same standard of care that we would expect to be given to our own children?  Are they receiving enough food, love, attention, education, supervision, and medical care?  Is someone checking in on a regular basis to make sure that this is true?
3. Are there children living there who could live at home if the parents received financial support?  What efforts are happening to get this child back with their family?
4. Are there children living there who are legally free for adoption?  What efforts are taking place to find that child a permanent family, through local or international adoption?
5. Is this orphanage denying children the opportunity for a permanent family in favor of  raising future ministry partners?
6. Is there a plan in place to assure continuity of care until each child reaches adulthood?  Is there a plan in place for when a child ages out?
7. Is there a long-range plan for insuring the orphanage is well-staffed and meeting standards going forward, until the children are adults?

These are not easy questions to ask, but I think they are necessary. It has been my experience that some of the most well-intentioned missionaries are content to house children without much thought given to permanency or psychological development. It has surprised me, in my travels, to visit such orphanages. One we visited was in India, and run by an organization we had supported for years. The organization showed us the children’s home and seemed proud of how many children they packed into a small building. The children slept head-to-toe like sardines on the floor of a crowded room . . . both genders in the same spot. The missionary reasoned that it was better than going hungry. Most of the children had family that visited on weekends. When I asked if they were trying to seek adoption for any of the kids, I was told that they were training up India’s future leaders.

Also by Kristen: On respect, responsibility, and Mrs. Hall’s open letter to teenaged girls

After seeing the conditions these children were kept in, and knowing that most of them had families that could provide them with the love and attachment they weren’t getting in the orphanage, we decided to stop supporting this ministry in favor of one that offered nutritional and educational support to children without removing them from a family environment.

I really think that Christians need to be more vocal about the way we are approaching orphan care, so that we are not doing harm. We need to stop setting up ministries that encourage desperate parents to relinquish their children, and funnel our resources into programs that support families.

If this is striking a chord with you, I encourage you to talk to the missions pastors at your church. Forward this to the people in your life who are change-agents. Dialogue with your family and friends about how we can do better.

Here are some ideas for further action:

• consider supporting an already-established orphanage that works towards permanency
• consider supporting foster-care programs in third-world countries, or orphanages that run a family model
• consider supporting an organization that assists at-risk mothers to raise their children, like Heartline Haiti or Mercy House Kenya.
• consider supporting a ministry that rehomes children like the Rileys in Uganda
• consider child sponsorship

Do you have any thoughts on doing “orphan care” better? How can we better support vulnerable children? Do you know of any organizations that are helping to keep kids in families, or preventing children from being orphaned?

Photo Credits: atm2003 / Shutterstock.com | coloursinmylife / Shutterstock.com

Last week I saw dozens of people linking to a post written as an open letter to teen girls from the mom of several boys. Almost as quickly as that post went viral, the backlash hit. It seems like the post struck a nerve – some feeling like it expressed their very own thoughts, and others feeling like the message was problematic.

I am in the latter camp, and my first reaction was to write a snarky post . . . my own open letter back . . . maybe some satire to skewer what I felt to be a condescending and sanctimonious tone. But I thought better of it, because the more I thought about this mom and her need to write something like this, the more I felt for her.

When I really look at this post and the message behind it,  I actually feel sad. I feel sad for this mom and sad for her boys. I think the attitude in this post reflects a lot of fear . . . fear of her boys growing older, fear of their sexuality, fear of their autonomy, fear of their potential. While we may land in different places, I get that fear. I think a lot of parents do. I desperately want my kids to have a healthy sex life as adults. But when I think of the possibility of one of my kids having a sloppy makeout session behind the portables or looking at porn or being pressured to have sex, I kind of want to curl up into a fetal position. But hiding my head in the sand about the fact that my children are sexual beings does not benefit me, nor does it benefit my kids.

Mrs. Hall and I probably have a lot in common. We probably have anxiety about the potential problems and heartache that could result from early sexual behavior. We probably want our kids to grow up into respectful adults. We probably want them to be respected, too. We want to be involved parents and we want to be cautious of their online life. We want our kids to become moral, upright citizens of the world.

But Mrs. Hall and I have very different approaches for how to get there. She seems to think she can best help her sons with their sexuality by externalizing the problem. She puts the responsibility of their thought life on their female friends. She blames the girls for any potential objectification. For example:

“Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it? You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?”

Whether or not boys are capable of only thinking of a girl in a sexual way after seeing her in a bathing suit or pj’s is a problem to address WITH THE BOYS. Granted, parents of girls should be having discussions about how they present themselves online. But parents of boys should be having discussions with their boys about their own behavior, and how they will conduct themselves in a world that screams to girls that they need to be sexy.

There is a lot of pressure on girls to be sexy. Our culture tells us in overt and covert ways that sex sells, that being sexy = power, that the shape of our bodies communicates our worth. It’s not the least bit surprising that girls feel tempted to express themselves this way, and this is a worthwhile conversation to have with our girls. However, I don’t think the context of this conversation should be about boys. It should be about self-empowerment. Because no girl is responsible if a boy can ONLY look at her in a sexual way. And the dangerous message that Mrs. Hall is sending her own sons is that they are powerless to the objectification of women if certain modesty conditions are not met.

The irony here is that Mrs. Hall is objectifying these girls. She is rejecting them if they have stepped outside of he code of behavior which involves only one trait: modesty. She’s not asking about their other qualities. She’s not looking at context. She states that they get only one chance. And she is teaching her sons that they have two options when confronted with a sexually attractive girl: objectify or reject. I’m afraid this practice is only reinforcing the idea that boys could not possibly view someone who looks sexy without objectifying them. She isn’t teaching her sons to respect women. She is teaching them that only certain woman are deserving of respect.

Our world is bombarded with sexual imagery. Unless we have our boys walking around in blindfolds, they are going to see it. It’s on billboard and commercials. It’s on magazines at the checkout aisle and at the gas station. And yes, it’s on instagram and Facebook. Our goal shouldn’t be to have sons who never have to deal with this…our goal should be to have sons who are equipped to deal with sexualized images. Because they will.

I think it is vital that we teach our boys that there is a difference between finding someone sexually attractive vs. reducing another person to a sexual object. We would do well to teach our boys that one does not have to lead to the other. (We would also do well to reassure our children that sexual attraction is TOTALLY NORMAL).

Speaking of sexual attraction being totally normal, something else really bothered me in Mrs. Hall’s post. She said:

We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.

I’m going to ignore the age specifics here, since she’s referring to her boys who are in high school. But I want to point out that many men of integrity DO linger over pictures of scantily-clad women. The fact that Mrs. Hall thinks these things are mutually exclusive is not going to prepare her sons well, either. In my counseling practice I’ve seen MANY men of integrity who struggle with looking at pornography. I’ve seen pastors of mega-churches, Christian authors, elders, church leaders with this problem  . . . I’ve seen great husbands and exemplary dads who struggle with their impulses as it relates to sexual imagery. And I’ve also seen that most of these people had families that shared a pattern of behavior:

• They were taught to be ashamed of their sexual feelings
• Their parents emphasized female bodies as “forbidden fruit”
• They were taught all-or-nothing thinking in relation to sexuality (i.e. Good men don’t even like this stuff)
• Their families lived in denial about adolescent sexual behavior
• Their families never normalized sexual feelings
• Their families held the reigns too tight, failing to equip them for life in the real world

These kinds of parental behaviors often lead to the very thing the parents are trying to avoid, because when we pair shame with normal sexual attraction, over and over, we are telling our boys (and girls) that there is something wrong with them. We’ve got to normalize sexual feelings and within that, teach self-control and respect. Our kids need to learn to do this in the context of the real world. Because one of these days they won’t have mom around to block the accounts of their friends.

We can’t control how others dress. We can try to help our own daughters make good choices. But when it comes to our sons we need to focus on teaching our boys to manage their own thoughts. That’s their job and no one else’s. Trying to protect them from seeing real-life friends dressed in objectionable ways simply leaves them with under-developed self control and a mentality that blames women for their impulses.

A Prayer for Labor Sunday

God, help us to build a new world in the midst of the old. A world where all worker are valued. A world where those who clean houses are able to buy houses to live in. A world where those who grow food and afford to eat their fill. We pray for the coming of a world where all workers everywhere share in the abundance that you have given us. We ask these things knowing that you give us the courage and strength to live out our faith in the workplace and in the marketplace, as well as in the sanctuary. Laboring God, as you labor with us, may we labor for you, ever committed to do your world in the world. Amen.

written by Edi Rasell

A Prayer of Confession

We are workers, God, just like you. But we confess that our work is not always done in a manner that affirms and honors each other. Our work is not always done in a spirit that is pleasing t you. We confess that, on some occasions, e have blindly bought goods made by people who are paid too little or work in unsafe conditions. We admit that we have failed to end an unjust system in which some workers have jobs that provide good wages, health insurance, sick leave, a pension, paid vacations, and other benefits, while others have jobs that do not. Merciful God, forgive us. Help us this Labor Day, to work for justice and build a new world where all people share in the abundance you have given us. Amen.

written by Kimmberly Calytor

White privileged is a difficult concept. It can cause a lot of confusion and defensiveness. In the diversity class I teach to graduate students, this topic is more heated than any other topic we touch on. Similarly, this week I’ve seen people pushing back against the idea of white privilege as if it’s an indictment that they are a racist (it’s not.) I even watched a blogger (who is white) criticize my friend Kelly (who is black) for her suggestion that people confront their white privilege. The blogger suggested that Kelly called white people “white supremacists” . . . as if “white privilege” and “white supremacists” were interchangeable terms (they’re not.) Confusion abounds when we talk about white privilege, and I think it’s confusion that often leads to offense at the term.

Simply put, privilege refers to an unearned advantage. It’ usually refers to something inherent . . . something you were born with rather than something you worked for. There are many types of privilege: economic privilege, gender privilege, heterosexual privilege, and of course . . . racial privilege. Racial privilege can take many forms, from minor things to life-threatening things. White privilege can look like being able to grab some shampoo at the grocery store and being confident they carry products for your hair type. White privilege can look like being able to find a band-aid that matches your skin tone. White privilege can look like waling through an upscale residential neighborhood without anyone wondering what you are doing there. White privilege can look like wearing a baseball cap and baggy pants and no one assuming you are a criminal.

Related: Cure for the White Savior Complex – by Shawn Casselberry

At it’s essence, it’s a simple concept:white privilege refers to the both minor and significant advantages that white people hold in American society. But still, people seem to struggle with both believing it exists and figuring out what to do with it. Here are some of the questions I often hear asked about white privilege”

I had a hard time growing up, too. We’ve all had hardships.

Of course we have. The concept of white privilege does not deny individual hardships. Hardships can be circumstantial, they can be born into, they can be at our own doing, or they can be outside of our control. Some hardships, for some people, ae related to race, and those who haven’t experienced those particular race-related hardships hold white privilege. That doesn’t negate the hardships others have faced because racial privilege refers only to race.. It doesn’t mean that Nor do the hardships not related to race negate the very real discriminate some people have faced.

I have a black friend who was raised with way more privilege so how can I be the privileged one?

Again, white privilege only reflects racial privilege. It’s possible for people of other races to hold other kinds of privilege. They don’t negate it other . . .  we’re not playing oppression olympics. When we ignore one form of privilege because another exists, we’re being dismissive. The fact that I’m white does not mean that I don’t sometimes experience sexism. That fact that a black person was born to a well-off family doesn’t mean they never experience racism. Imagine going to your boss to complain about sexual harassment, and being told that it shouldn’t bother you because you have a nice corner office.  When we deny white privilege exists because there are other forms of privilege, we are deflecting a very real issue for some people.

What do they want me to do?

I think that the biggest reason people refuse to acknowledge that there may be some privilege inherent in being white is the fear that it means they owe someone something. I’ve seen a lot of people this week push back against the idea that white privilege exists for political reasons . . . but this isn’t a political or legal concept. I can’t speak for all minorities but for most people I know, the biggest thing they want from me is for me to LISTEN. To hear what their experience is like. To believe them when they describe their own experience.

There is nothing threatening about acknowledging your privilege. Being more empathic to the experiences of others is not a sacrifice to anyone’s politics.

Am I supposed to feel guilt for stuff I didn’t do?

White privilege is not a value judgment. It’s not meant to be hurled as an insult or use as something to invoke guilt. On the contrary, I think it’s guilt that often compels people to deny that discrimination exists. I’ve seen a few folks make comments about white privilege that infer that it’s a made-up concept by liberals to add more white guilt on ourselves. But self-loathing is not the goal. It’s possible to have a healthy self-concept and racial identity while acknowledging the imbalance of racial privilege. A part of self-worth is acknowledging your strengths and weaknesses. In my experience, bullying and abuse is usually perpetrated by people with a low sense of self. So I think it’s valuable for white Americans to identify what it means to be white: what they like about their own culture and values, and what they want to change.

Also by Kristen: Finding Justice for Trayvon – 7 action steps for our outrage

The only aspect of white privilege that should invoke guilt is if you decide that because you don’t experience racism, that you don’t have to listen or care when other people do.

Owning my white privilege means that I am more empathic, but it also means I can use my privilege to talk about race without being accused of “playing the race card” for self-interest. A person’s political leanings should not effect the empathy and listening ear they extend to others. Similarly, a person’s race should not dictate whether or not they believe the experience of others . . . and allowing our seat at the Majority Table to cloud our empathy (or deny the experience of others) is the crux of what white privilege is about. What to do about it? Start with listening.

To learn more about white privilege, I really recommend reading this insightful checklist from Peggy McIntosh about “Unpacking the Invisible Backpack”.

What is your reaction to the term “white privilege”? Is it confusing . . . comforting . . . guilt-inducing? Do you think it’s politically loaded? Is so, why?

—
Kristen Howerton is the mom of four children within four years via birth and adoption, and has been blogging at Rage Against the Minivan as a coping skill since 2004. Kristens is also an adjunct professor in the psychology department at Vanguard University, where she teaches on diversity, counseling skills and addictive behaviors. Kristen uses her background as a family therapist to write an advice column for the local family magazine OCFamily and is also a contributing author to The Huffington Post. She likes to waste time on Twitter at @kristenhowerton.

Ads by Google

Any plausible deniability about the negative bias that black men face in our country was pulled out from under me during our first adoption process. Americans love to see themselves as “colorblind” . . . to describe our country as a post-racial melting pot with a black president and a smug sense of satisfaction for not being as racist as the previous generation. But race preference in adoption tells another tale, and in my mind, perfectly exemplifies the disturbing social status of black males. Black males are the hardest children to place in adoptive homes. Of prospective adoptive families, only about 14% are open to an African American child, and of that 14%, even fewer are open to black males. When I asked social workers why, the answer: people are afraid they will grow up to be criminals.

When we began the adoption process from the foster-care system in Los Angeles, we received calls for placements immediately, because we were open to any race. A few calls involved biracial children, and the social workers were always quick to highlight that the children were “half-white” and “light-skinned”, as if this was some kind of selling point. We were eventually matched with our oldest, who is black. I can vividly remember having a meeting with an elderly social worker in Compton. “Now I want you to realize . . . black boys turn in to black men. Are you prepared for that?”  I remember feeling so disgusted by his question, as if he were speaking some kind of prophecy into the character and potential of my new son. My son who was six months old.

Since that time, my eyes have been wide open to the discrimination, stereotypes, and suspicion that black men face in our society. But just as keenly, I’ve been aware of how these experiences of discrimination, stereotypes, and suspicion are dismissed by some white people. Black men who speak out about their experiences are deemed as paranoid or angry or “playing the race card”, despite ample evidence of the contrary.

I have seen a shift in the last year, though, and I think the Trayvon Martin case served to rattle some people out of complacency in regards to bias against black men. Like many, I was deeply disappointed to hear the news that George Zimmerman was acquitted. While I suspected that he wouldn’t be charged with murder, I absolutely believed that he was guilty of manslaughter.  Defined as“the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder”, I think Zimmerman should have at least had some criminal responsibility for the death of this young man. I find it disturbing that someone can be 100% responsible for starting a confrontation, but then not at all responsible for what results.

Related: Trayvon Martin and the American Judicial System – by Andrew Marin

I felt sickened when I heard the verdict, for the message it sends to black men . . . that they can be followed on suspicion of being a thug for appearance alone, and then killed if they don’t defer. After I shed some angry tears and talked about it with Mark, I logged onto facebook, expecting things to look similar to the days following Trayvon’s murder. I expected to see people of color expressing outrage, and most white people staying silent. I was comforted to find that, at least in my feed, my white friends were just as outraged as my friends of color. And not just transracial parents, who have been ejected from the privilege seat because they have a stake in the game. I saw people of all races and generations, equally disturbed that a young black man was followed and killed with no consequence.

Of course, I also saw people who denied that race had anything to do with it. And if you are one of those people, I hope you will keep reading. Because this isn’t just about Trayvon. His death is a catalyst for this conversation, but regardless of what happened there, the issue of bias and black men remains.  It’s evident when people call the police on a black person attempting to break a bike lock but walk by (or offer assistance to) a white person doing the same thing. It’s evident when a group of children are asked about the photo of a white man and a black man and they assume the black man to be a criminal and the white man to be a teacher (despite the fact that the pictured men were Timothy McVeigh and a black Harvard professor). It’s evident when people assume a black man to be a criminal over a white man at first glance. It’s evident when children look at photos of two children on a playground and a majority of them assume ill intent on the part of the black child. It’s evident when we look at the shameful “stop and frisk” habit that profiles young black men as potential criminals.

Trayvon just brought to light the oppressive stereotypes that all black men are living under. And the case illustrated that it can sometimes be a matter of life and death.

I’m heartened to see that white people are acknowledging the race aspects of the case, but I’m also worried that after this story falls off the news cycle, the issue of race will again be ignored. And honestly, it’s likely that it will be, because for the majority of Americans this story does not have a personal impact. Parents of black children are burdened by concerns for their child’s safety as they navigate the world, but why should this injustice be left for black people to deal with?

If you are looking for ways to channel your outrage about the Trayvon case, I’ve got some ideas. But even if you felt the verdict was just, I think (and hope) we can all rally to make sure that the dynamics at play in the links above are eradicated for the next generation. (And if you aren’t buying that there is racial bias against black males, go watch the links again. Watch until it sinks in.)

As the media fury dies down, let’s remember our frustration, and move it into action:

Push back against racism when you encounter it.

To fight against racial bias, it’s vital that we create a society in which racism is not tolerated. This will only happen when enough people become vocal that the perpetrators of racism are motivated to change.Racism is more covert, but many of us still encounter it. It’s time to speak up and ask questions.

Stop being so touchy about our own racial bias.

All of us will hold racist thoughts from time to time. And there is not a one of us who is immune to racial bias . . . we are swimming in it. Social conditioning means that we all hold it. Let’s stop pretending we have to be a card-carrying KKK member to hold racial bias. It’s implicit. It’s possible that George Zimmerman wasn’t a day-to-day racist and it’s also possible that he racially profiled Trayvon. It’s messy. Racism is not so polarized anymore. We need to deal with the nuance and be willing to confront the ways we’ve all been shaped by media and stereotypes.

Talk about racism.

Race is one of those topics nobody wants to touch. Like religion or politics, people seem to want to stay out of it. The problem, though, is that in not talking about race, we are letting it fester. We are putting our heads in the sand and pretending not to see the bias that people have to endure every day. Talking about racism does not perpetuate racism. Let me repeat that: talking about racism does not perpetuate racism. We won’t solve anything if we are too scared to speak about it. One of the comments that annoys me the most, when I blog about race, is when someone says, “Well, you are just passionate because your kids are black.” Shouldn’t we all be passionate? Are we content ignoring a problem just because it doesn’t effect us? Should we ignore bullying unless our kid is actually being bullied? It’s time for everyone to care.

Educate yourself on racial injustice.

If the idea of the black man’s burden is a new concept for you, or if you believe that we are living in a post-racial society, I would really encourage you to educate yourself.  Websites like Racialicious The Root, Tim Wise’s blog, and NPR’s Codeswitch are great resources for learning more about issues of race, and have been hugely helpful for me.

Listen.

I have noticed that many white people feel an innate need to either defend or deny that racism still occurs. I think white people sincerely wish that the world was colorblind, so we pretend that it is . . . even when that involves dismissing the experience of others. But we’ve got to start listening . . . without dismissing, without derailing, without defending. We’ve got to listen to our friends of color and their experiences. Rapper Lecrae said it so well

“I pray my non-black people grasp that there is a cultural identification blacks have with Trayvon and our own experiences that cause deep emotional connectivity and sympathy. He represents our cousin, our son, ourselves, our past present and future. We are very culturally connected and this affects us in incommunicable ways. Blacks are NOT just emotionally blind to the facts and evidence and trying to pull the race card.”

Focus on what you can do.

Too often, I see white people respond to issues of racism by citing that black people are racist, too. It’s predictable that when I post on facebook about an instance of racism, someone will trot out examples where a black person has been racist. Do black people hold some racial bias? Sure! Of course they do. We can find examples of prejudice in every racial group. But just like I tell my children when they try to deflect: “Focus on yourself. Do the right thing. Don’t worry about what others are doing.”

Also by Kristen: Defending Paula Deen, What the National Reaction Can Teach Us About Race

Diversify your world.

Racial bias festers when we fail to develop friendships with people of other races. It’s vital that we diversify our relationships, not just for ourselves but for our children. Too many kids are being raised in homogenous communities by well-meaning parents. They are taught to accept others, but they have limited experience with people outside their own race. We need to make sure that the media is not our kids’ first encounter with people of other races. We need to make sure that Lil Wayne and Snoop Dogg are not the cultural ambassadors to the black community for our children. If we are not intentional, our kids will develop views about other races from stereotypes instead of from relationships.

Black Male, Re-Imagined II: Performance by Daniel Beaty from Open Society Foundations and The American Values Institute on FORA.tv

The nation is paying attention to the burden and risk of being a black man. Let’s move to action. I was heartened to see the protests tonight, and to observe that the crowds were very diverse. I felt that the verdict yesterday sent a horrible message to black men, and I hope the protest sends a message that many people care. But we can’t leave it at a protest. We’ve got to tell young black men that we’ve got their back today, and every day. That is what community looks like. That’s how we will find justice.

—
Kristen Howerton is the mom of four children within four years via birth and adoption, and has been blogging at Rage Against the Minivan as a coping skill since 2004. Kristens is also an adjunct professor in the psychology department at Vanguard University, where she teaches on diversity, counseling skills and addictive behaviors. Kristen uses her background as a family therapist to write an advice column for the local family magazine OCFamily and is also a contributing author to The Huffington Post. She likes to waste time on Twitter at @kristenhowerton.

Photo Credit: NerdyWonka

Ads by Google

For a lot of people, this controversy has been boiled down to whether or not Paula Deen has uttered the “N” word. She’s admitted to doing so . . . she admitted to using it multiple times under oath but was more vague with Matt Lauer. But for me, and for many others, it’s not just about the “N” word. It’s about the subtext of what she is saying. My point in this post is not to vilify her further. I know some believe that Paula is taking an unfair beating. But I think that her attitudes about race exemplify the covert racism that pervades in society today, and warrant discussion. Most of us recognize that walking up to a black person and calling them a n*gger would be absolutely abhorrent. But what white folks in the company of other white people is another matter. Paula’s admissions reveal that, in certain circles, racism against black people has simply gone underground, and given way to a more slippery version of racism that is harder to nail down. In a society where racism has (thankfully) become less socially acceptable, racism has gotten more obscured. And well-meaning white people are enabling it.

Let me explain.

I have noticed that many white people feel an innate need to either defend or deny that racism still occurs. I think this happens for two reasons: First, I think white people sincerely wish that we were living in a post-racial society, and would like to hasten to the time when we can be free of the sins of our fathers. We wish that the world was colorblind, so we pretend that it is . . . even when that involves dismissing the experience of others. Second, I think white people feel deep shame and embarrassment about racism and colonialism, and in order to avoid a shame-based racial identity, we pretend not to see racism, or minimize it, or rationalize it. I’m seeing this happen all over the place as people react to Paula Deen losing her Food Network contract.

When Paula Deen’s deposition first leaked, most people were pretty outraged by the contents. Someone who answers “of course” when asked if they’ve used the “N” word, someone who plays dumb about the impact of racists jokes, someone who acknowledges that both their brother and husband are in the practice of using jokes with racial epithets, who had knowledge of racist practices within her company but did not fire the perpetrator . . . it was all rather alarming. The accusations from the plaintiff were even more alarming. I wasn’t surprised that companies wanted to distance themselves from her, and I affirm the Food Network’s decision not to renew her contract.

Related: Nonviolence for White People – by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove

But in a matter of days, fans of Paula were taking to the internet, calling for a boycott of the Food Network and citing an insidious allegiance to political correctness as the reason for Paula’s demise. Jason Avant does a great job of addressing the pushback against political correctness in a post on MamaPop:

What you’re saying is that when some of us get upset when a rich and powerful white person uses the word “nigger”, we’re adhering to some sort of liberal nicety. And that when some of us recoil in horror at the thought of putting on a good ol’ fashioned Calvin Candie-style wedding complete with authentic-looking house slaves, we’re just following a manufactured and ideological way of placating oversensitive people.

Over the last week, in addition to the chorus of Deen Defenders, Paula has been doing her own damage control, issuing apologies(sort of?) and making appearances in which she speaks about her character. I’ve seen a lot of parallels between Paula’s defenders and Paula’s own apologies, and I think they highlight some of the deep denial our country holds about race. In fact, I think these statements are almost talking-points among people who want to deny that racism exists while simultaneously ignoring their own racist behavior. Here are a few patterns

“I find racism unacceptable”

Paula has repeatedly said that she finds racism unacceptable. Paula’s online defenders seem to start each protest with this disclaimer, too. But saying that we find racism unacceptable, without action when confronted with racism, means nothing. In the face of racism, we all have three options: we can participate, we can tolerate, or we can fight. Way too many of us engaging in the bystander effect of racism, and Paula’s deposition indicates that she is in this role with the people in her own life. Case in point: the lawsuit alleges that Paula turned a blind eye to her brother’s racist behavior in the workplace, and Paula admits that she was aware of this:

Lawyer: Are you aware of Mr. Hiers admitting that he engaged in racially and sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace?

 

Deen: I guess

 

Lawyer: Okay. Well, have you done anything about what you heard him admit to doing?

 

Deen: My brother and I have had conversations. My brother is not a bad person. Do humans behave inappropriately? At times, yes. I don’t know one person that has not. My brother is a good man. Have we told jokes? Have we said things that we should not have said, that — yes, we all have. We all have done that, every one of us.

Deflecting . . . defending. Not fighting racism. If she truly finds racism unacceptable, she would not have tolerated it in the workplace, and her brother would have been fired. What Paula does with her brother is an eerie parallel to what Paula’s fans are doing for her. In another part of the deposition, Paula acknowledges that her husband makes jokes about people of other races:

Lawyer: Do the other members of your family tell jokes at home?
Deen: Yes.
Lawyer: And they told jokes using the N-word?
Deen: I’m sure they have. My husband is constantly telling me jokes.
Lawyer: Okay. And have — are you offended at all by those jokes?
Deen: No, because it’s my husband.

This is not the behavior of someone who finds racism unacceptable. If Paula wants to issue a sincere apology for her racism, it should involve acknowledging that she has tolerated it in her family and in places of businesses that she owns. If we want to be honest about racism in our country, we all need to acknowledge the ways in which we have tolerated racism by ignoring or defending or minimizing it.

“I am confused. Black people use the ‘N’ word so why can’t I?”

I have heard people use this defense for Paula all week so I was really dismayed when Paula herself used it as well.  In the deposition, when she acknowledged her husband told racist jokes, she said the following:

Deen: [Jokes] usually target, though, a group. Gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don’t know — I just don’t know what to say. I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.

Essentially, she played dumb . . . acting as if she can’t actually know whether or not a racist joke is offensive to others. When Matt Lauer held her feet to the fire on this one, and asked if she was really confused about whether or not the “N word” is offensive, she responded by talking about how distressing it is for her to hear what her black employees say to one another in the kitchen. She then went on to talk about the “problem” of black people using the word and how it has confused her.

PEOPLE.

NO. Just no. None of us are confused about the word n*gger being offensive just because some black people called playfully each other “nigga”. And I will tell you how I know Paula wasn’t confused: she does not go around using that word in public, or on television appearances. She knows well enough that it’s not something she should say in mixed company. If her confusion truly stemmed from black people using it, that would manifest by her walking into the kitchen and shouting, “Hey, nigga”!” to black employees, followed by a record-scratch moment where someone ushers her aside and explains social norms. The fact that this hasn’t happened indicates that she isn’t, in fact, confused. The fact that she has referred to black people using the word n*gger TO OTHER WHITE PEOPLE tells me that she knows the rules, and that she just (allegedly) picked the wrong white person to show her hand to.

Frankly, I’m a little disturbed by the number of people who have cited the use of the word “nigga” by some black people as some kind of defense or deflection for Paula Deen. First of all, it’s not the same thing. It’s pronunciation, spelling, intent, and meaning are wholely different than the racial slur. Whether or not it’s okay for black people to reclaim the word as a playful slang is a separate debate, but I think it’s a derail tactic to minimize the fact that some white people still use it. For the record, I’m not a fan, and my boys will not be using that word while living under my roof. But there are plenty of black people who agree with me on that one.

Related: Stop Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. – by Matt Rindge

Furthermore, why are white people complaining about the “unfairness” or double standard of using the word? If someone else is doing something you deem as wrong, the impulse shouldn’t be to cry that it’s unfair unless it’s something you want to be doing yourself. So white folk: please stop whining about how black people can use the “N word” but you can’t. It makes it sound like you’ve got a hankering to say it, too.  And let’s please stop pretending that a white person calling a black person a n*gger is happening because of hip-hop culture. We all know this problem stems from something else.

“I’m not doing it in a mean way”

Another disturbing aspect of Paul Deen’s deposition is that she seems to have the idea that there is a mean way and an “okay way” to use the “N” word:

Lawyer: Miss Deen, earlier in your testimony you indicated that one of the things that you had tried to — that you and your husband tried to teach your children was not to use the N-word in a mean way, do you recall that testimony?
Deen: Yes.
Lawyer: Okay. And could you give me an example of how you have demonstrated for them a nice way to use the N-word?
. . .
Deen: We hear a lot of things in the kitchen. Things that they — that black people will say to each other. If we are relaying something that was said, a problem that we’re discussing, that’s not said in a mean way. What about jokes, if somebody is telling a joke that’s got —It’s just what they are, they’re jokes.
Lawyer: Okay. Would you consider those to be using the N word in a mean way?
Deen: That’s — that’s kind of hard. Most — most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target — I don’t know. I didn’t make up the joke, I don’t know. I can’t — I don’t know.

Again, there is no nice way to tell a joke with the word n*gger in it. Paula’s underlying message: I find racism unacceptable . . . unless it’s in a joke, because jokes always target someone. It’s just more of the same dangerous rationalization and attempts to deflect from acknowledging racism. Racist jokes are just that: racist.

This line of reasoning (there is a nice way and a mean way to use the word) appears again, when she addresses the allegation that she referred to adult men this way:

Lawyer: Is there any possibility, in your mind, that you slipped and used the word “n—-r”?
Deen: No, because that’s not what these men were. They were professional black men doing a fabulous job.

It’s never okay for white people to refer to black people as n*gger. Never. Even if people aren’t being professional. Even if they aren’t doing a fabulous job. Even if they are lower-class. Even if they are pointing a gun to your head. There are no exceptions that make racist behavior okay. Let’s stop making them.

“Nobody’s perfect”

This has been the most consistent thread for those defending Paula Deen, and while I can’t argue with the premise, I do think it’s an oft-used attempt at minimizing racism. Absolutely, no one is perfect, but in the workplace most of us are required to behave in certain ways lest their be consequence. Paula Deen failed to squelch overt racism within her company, and the consequence is that her “brand” is no longer a friendly face for the Food Network. There has been a lot of talk about the need for forgiveness and grace, but it’s important to note that those two things can be offered without removing the natural consequences of someone’s actions. It’s possible to offer forgiveness while still affirming that something is wrong. Yes, everyone of us makes mistakes. And most of us pay for our mistakes as well. When my children get in trouble for something, I do not lower the offense if one of their siblings was doing it, too. Paula has to reap the consequences of her own actions regardless of what others are doing.

“Slavery was not that bad”

Paula’s covert racism reveals itself in her fantasies of having a “plantation-style” wedding, complete with black men dressed up as slave caricatures, as she herself describes in the deposition:

Lawyer: Why did that make it a -– if you would have had servers like that, why would that have made it a really southern plantation wedding? …

 

Deen: Well, it –- to me, of course I’m old but I ain’t that old, I didn’t live back in those days but I’ve seen the pictures, and the pictures that I’ve seen, that restaurant represented a certain era in America.

 

Lawyer: Okay.
Deen: And I was in the south when I went to this restaurant. It was located in the south.

 

Lawyer: Okay. What era in America are you referring to?
Deen: Well, I don’t know. After the Civil War, during the Civil War, before the Civil War.

 

Lawyer: Right. Back in an era where there were middle-aged black men waiting on white people.
Deen: Well, it was not only black men, it was black women.

 

Lawyer: Sure. And before the Civil War –- before the Civil War, those black men and women who were waiting on white people were slaves, right?
Deen: Yes, I would say that they were slaves.

If black people happened to be the servers, that is one thing. But envisioning some fantasy where the servers are specifically black, dressed up to be “classy” as if they are house negroes, is not okay. Specifically hiring black people to serve as an “aesthetic”, particularly an aesthetic meant to evoke a throw-back to the time when blacks where owned, is not okay. Paula herself knows this is inappropriate, which is why she says the media would be critical.

Her minimization of slavery is also revealed in a televised interview. When asked about learning about her great-grandfather, she focused her empathy on him, rather than on the slaves. She lamented about how hard it was for him to loose all of his “workers” (avoiding the term slaves) and claims that back then, slaves were “like family”. This kind of revisionist history again serves to minimize the realities of racism. Slaves were NOT like family. Family eats at the same dinner table. Families are not bought and sold. Families are not property that are listed as belongings. To pretend they are is to whitewash history and deny the atrocity of slavery.

“I wasn’t raised to be racist”

Another way Paula exemplifies our national preference to minimize racism is her claim that her own family was not racist. In her interview with Matt Lauer she insists that her parents taught her to treat everyone as equals. Yet in her deposition, she acknowledges that in the 60’s, the use of the word “n*gger” was deemed acceptable. Judging by the behavior of her brother, couples with Paula’s own attitudes, I have a hard time believing that her parents did not exemplify some racist attitudes in her home growing up. And yet she insists they did not.

I teach a graduate-level class on diversity and every year, I have the students give a report on their own racial bias. This involves an inventory of the messages they heard about race from their own family. Without fail, a majority of my students describe their families as not being racist. And without fail, those very students go on to describe implicit racist attitudes held by their parents, most often manifesting around who they could date or suspicions surrounding black people in general.

Also by Kristen: The Biblical Definition of Marriage and its Relevance to Marriage Equality

I think this is where racism gets so tricky for people to talk about. It’s hard to acknowledge that our grandparents or parents, many of whom were sweet, loving people that we admired, also held very racist viewpoints. So we minimize or excuse or rationalize or ignore, because we don’t know how to hold this dichotomy . . . the dichotomy that kind, loving people can be racist . . . and that racists can be kind and loving.

In many ways Paula Deen is our national grandma in this situation. People love her. She’s funny and affable and relatable, and so it’s hard and confusing to view as someone holding some negative prejudice. And yet, it’s clear that she does. It’s not an overt, in-your-face brand of racism. But it’s there.

Most of the black people I know are not surprised or hurt to learn that Paula Deen holds these attitude. But they are quietly resigned in their frustration at her denial, and I share this frustration. Paula exemplifies the New Racism . . . someone who understands the talking points of Treating Everyone Equally, but who tolerates racist jokes in her own home, minimizes slavery, minimizes the racism of those around her, and fails to fire someone who is openly racist to his employees. She’s not an evil person. Her attitudes and behaviors represent many people in this country. But she’s also a television personality, and therefore her actions are held to a different standard.

Paula Deen missed an opportunity to be honest. She missed an opportunity to really, truly apologize for the attitudes that she holds, and for some of the ways her upbringing shaped the way she thinks. Instead, she went for minimization and denial. To me, a real apology from her would look like this:

• I’ve tolerated racism in my home and family
• I’ve failed to address racism in my business
• I’ve minimized slavery
• I’ve poked fun at an employee’s dark skin
• I’ve feigned ignorance at the offensiveness of the term “nigger”
• I suggested that slaves could be a quaint scenic touch at a wedding

If our country ever wants to heal from the racism of our past, we’ve got to stop denying that it’s still an issue. We need to own it. To step up and start a national conversation about race. That starts by being honest. We’re not being honest when we excuse the racist attitudes of Paula Deen, or our grandmothers, or our own parents, or ourselves.

—
Kristen Howerton is the mom of four children within four years via birth and adoption, and has been blogging at Rage Against the Minivan as a coping skill since 2004. Kristen is also an adjunct professor in the psychology department at Vanguard University, where she teaches on diversity, counseling skills and addictive behaviors. Kristen uses her background as a family therapist to write an advice column for the local family magazine OCFamily and is also a contributing author to The Huffington Post. She likes to waste time on Twitter at @kristenhowerton.

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Christensen

Ads by Google