2012

Thomas Sampson

Adoption in the UK: a critical race theory critique By Thomas Sampson There has been a long-standing debate in Britain with regard to the adoption of children by adoptees of a different race to the child. It is sometimes instinctive to agree whole-heartedly in the norms and values within society rather then challenging the social structures, which create inequalities. This instinct becomes even stronger when our children are involved, with their protection and happiness being the root cause of everything we do for them. At least this is what the government says in the defence of its current set of values. It would be unreasonable to accuse the government of not caring about children who though no fault of their own have been left without any parents or guardians, this is simply not the case. However, when you apply Critical Race Theory (CRT) to a social issue such as this, it becomes clear through the transposition of related inequalities in the US, where vast amounts of CRT research have been conducted, that Britain has a long way to go before all have universal rights. Multi-race adoption was not allow disallowed, in fact in Britain it was occurring up until the early 1980s when the government put an indefinite ban on it. There are many reasons why they could have done this: if we take this on face value, an argument could be made that it was not just in the protection of the children but was inevitably to protect the core values of the nuclear family, two white parents of the opposite sex and two white children. A qualifying feature of the nuclear family is the possession of whiteness by its members. This will sound extremely controversial to some, but most CRT does before the grounds of the arguments are explained. The foundations of the nuclear family are protected by the

 2012 Thomas Sampson

nations adoption of the social contract on which all western liberal democracies were founded. The social contract was a classical liberal thought experiment, which in brief is the process of a person giving part of their liberty in exchange for citizenship and protection from a government who controls the citizenship rights. By analysing the early thinkers of liberalism, for example Immanuel Kant and John Locke, their writings show that they were both advocates for slavery and believed that black people and by black they believed race to be biological rather then a social political creation were less than a whole man. It was in fact John Locke who contributed heavily towards Thomas Jeffersons famous sentence in the Declaration of Independence by originally writing in his Two Treaties of Government that the natural rights of man are that of life, liberty and property with property being replaced by Jefferson to read life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So it is fair to say that not only were Locke and Kant racist, but the foundations of liberalism are also racist. It is this, which Charles W. Mills argues is preserved though the Racial Contract which is not a thought experiment but a historical experiment conducted by analysing events through time which in turn underwrites the social contract. Mills believes that liberalism protects whiteness and fuels an on going culture of white supremacy. So how does this all tie into to adoption? An establishment has already been made that liberalism is a racist ideology, and the nuclear family is a product of liberalism, meaning that to protect the core values of this type of family it cannot be multi-racial. The nuclear family is simply a form of segregation that by not allowing a black child to be adopted by a conventional nuclear family, it will stop

 2012 Thomas Sampson

that child from possessing a certain amount of whiteness, which could enable them opportunities that would not be available to them in an all black family. It is difficult to ignore the compelling experiences of some who were adopted by a different race before the ban. Precious Williams is a journalist who was one of these children. She believes that the pressure and confusion which multi-race adoption caused her made her conform so much to white values that she denied her cultural heritage and that this experience has had a long lasting detrimental psychological effect on her. This is what she fears will happen to other children if put into her situation. Precious arguments although compelling and created from involuntary primary research can be easily transposed to US CRT. The paper referred to the nuclear family as a form of segregation, and here is an explanation as to why this terminology was used. Brown v The Board of Education was a ground breaking US Supreme Court Case in 1954 that found the 1896 ruling of separate but equal in Plessy v Ferguson to be unconstitutional, and ruled in favour of desegregating schools across the United States. Leaving millions of African American children in almost the same situation as children entering into a multi-race adoption; fear, uncertainty and the stereotype of whites with life experience to enforce these stereotypes playing on the mind of that person. If a comparison is made between the nuclear family in Britain and an all white school in the US the same debates arise, with the well being of the children at the centre. The first generation of black students to attend a formerly all white school, unlike a non-white child entering into an all white family, were met with abuse, violence and hatred. In contrast care, love and affection experienced by most entering into an all white family. However the

 2012 Thomas Sampson

psychological impact on the child is the same. As mentioned previously the confusion about racial identity and uncertainty can leave a child psychological tormented for life. These children in the US who were affected like this, in the same way Precious was affected are what could be argued as the victims of just change, and by becoming a victim of just change, a person becomes a martyr or pioneer of change whether it is willing or unwilling. What Brown v Board of Education did was challenge the social structures, which protect whiteness and stigmatises blackness. By breaking this structure down, although there are victims in the short term multi race schools, as is seen at the very top of US government in President Obama, have allowed black children almost the same opportunities as whites through intellectual rather than financial accomplishments. By not supporting multi-race adoption, it is very difficult in this context to support desegregated school in the UK, as the majority of its black students will become psychologically affected throughout life. The government in its protection of the segregated values of the nuclear family are exercising the same concept of separate but equal and allowing a key structure in white supremacy to stand up. Why not break down this structure? Although there will be those such as Precious who will unfortunately and involuntary become martyrs of change, in the long term as was the dream of another martyr, Martin Luther King Jr, that black children would have the same opportunities to be successful in life as their white counterparts. Unlike in the short term where it is achieved through the slight possession of whiteness, in the long term it will be achieved through more equal opportunities arising from the destruction of a racist and

 2012 Thomas Sampson

segregated value that is known as the nuclear family. Today the nuclear family should not be defined along racial lines, or sexual orientation but as a family who loves each of its members equally and parents give all of their children, irrespective of what race they are or whether they are biological or adopted, the same opportunities for happiness and wellbeing. With the desegregation of the nuclear family and the introduction of multi-race adoption the UK with strong support schemes, it would help massively towards eliminating ignorance in society today. Although an end to ignorance is still not on the horizon when racism is still at the heart of liberalism, a true neo-liberalism would disregard completely the extreme views and values of its few founding fathers classical teachings embracing that of its adopted neo-liberal fathers.