Appalling

Edited to add: I apologize to the adoptee community for the lateness of my comments on this issue, which should not be construed as lack of outrage, only as an example of my inability to keep up with life. I encourage my fellow adoptive parents to post about this. We should be rising up en masse and raising our voices!

Many of you may be aware of the new adoption-focused blog the New York Times started this month, Relative Choices. As I'm always late to every party, I found out about it just a couple of minutes ago. And I’m appalled at what I've seen there already (and not just because of the name).

The blog’s contributors include adoptive parents, adoptees (including Katy Robinson, author of A Single Square Picture, and Sume) and a first mother. There’s potential here for excellent dialog.

But a recent post by Tama Janowitz, The Real Thing, makes me suspicious of the New York Time’s motives and abilities. That post, which is another stab at proving how real the adoption bond is, includes these words, spoken by the author to her Chinese daughter while working through one of the little conflicts that make up the stuff of life:

Well, you know, if you were still in China you would be working in a factory for
14 hours a day with only limited bathroom breaks!

This was apparently a shot at adoption humor. To me, it is just plain sick.

What’s worse, though, is that at least thirteen critical comments from adoptees and adoptive parents were censored; comments to this post are now closed. Jae Ran has been tracking the story, as has Racialicious - go read.

So many things disturb me about this situation.

First, I'm amazed that any adoptive parent could speak these words, never mind put them in print. Whether they are here as a crass misjudgment of what the adoption community finds humorous, or as an example of just how little preparation adoptive parents continue to receive - who knows? No matter though, they simply shouldn't be spoken by any adoptive parent to any adoptee.

Second, I'm really sad to see that the Times would censor comments from anyone, particularly in this instance from adoptees. Anyone who posts on the internet has to know that if you toss out something incendiary, you have to expect a reaction. And if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Was this all about traffic to the blog? Or are Tama Janowitz and the Times so out of touch with adoption issues that they honestly thought this was OK? Either way, it’s disturbing.

Finally, I can’t shake the feeling that a new post by Hollee McGinnis, Policy Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, and a Korean adoptee, is there to appease and give an aura of balance. This post, Who Are You Also Known As?, says:

This means we must be willing to talk about the hard stuff – the
discrimination, inequalities, and prejudices that exist in the world. We must
also be willing to change and challenge our societies so that the gift we give
our children – adopted or not – besides the love and security of a permanent
family is a world that values them for who they are and who they will be –
regardless of race, nationality, culture or circumstance.

Refusing to print adoptee responses to words as troubling as those in Tama Janowitz’s post certainly isn’t how we talk about that hard stuff. Shame on the NYT for its actions.