Transracial Adoption and Gentrification: an Essay on Race, Power, Family, and Community Twila L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Boston College Third World Law Journal Volume 26 Issue 1 Black Children and Their Families in the 21st Article 4 Century: Surviving the American Nightmare or Living the American Dream? 1-1-2006 Transracial Adoption and Gentrification: An Essay on Race, Power, Family, and Community Twila L. Perry [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/twlj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Family Law Commons, and the Land Use Planning Commons Recommended Citation Twila L. Perry, Transracial Adoption and Gentrification: An Essay on Race, Power, Family, and Community, 26 B.C. Third World L.J. 25 (2006), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/twlj/vol26/ iss1/4 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Third World Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION AND GENTRIFICATION: AN ESSAY ON RACE, POWER, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Twila L. Perry* Abstract: In this article, Professor Perry ªnds common ground between the two seemingly disparate contexts of transracial adoption and gentriª- cation. Professor Perry argues that both transracial adoption and gen- triªcation represent contexts in which, in the future, there may be increasing competition for limited resources. In the former case, the limited resource is the healthy Black newborn. In the later, it is desirable, affordable housing in the centers of our cities. After explaining how a competition between Blacks and whites over Black newborns could arise, Professor Perry argues that in any such competition, Blacks will increas- ingly ªnd themselves at a disadvantage stemming from the consequences of institutionalized racism. The article argues that there is a public discourse in both contexts that blames Blacks for the problems facing Black families and Black communities and valorizes whites who trans- racially adopt or move into inner-city neighborhoods undergoing gentri- ªcation. Professor Perry urges increased government involvement to preserve Black families and to protect Blacks against the displacement that often results from gentriªcation. Introduction Ordinarily, most people would not think of transracial adoption and gentriªcation as related: transracial adoption concerns people, while gentriªcation concerns property. This symposium honoring the vision and commitment of Professor Ruth Arlene Howe to the welfare of Black children and Black communities has afforded a ªtting occa- sion to examine the ways in which transracial adoption and gen- triªcation raise related issues affecting Black children and Black *Professor of Law and Judge Alexander T. Waugh Sr. Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law—Newark. This paper was presented at a Symposium entitled Black Children and Their Families in the Twenty-First Century, at Boston College Law School on March 11, 2005. It was also presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in June 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada, and at the 12th World Conference of the International Society of Family Law in July 2005 in Salt Lake City, Utah. This work was partially sup- ported by the Dean’s Research Fund of Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. 25 26 Boston College Third World Law Journal [Vol. 26:25 communities. Professor Howe’s work and my own have shared an ap- proach in which we have urged that transracial adoption be analyzed not simply as an issue involving one-on-one parent/child relationships across racial lines, but rather as an issue requiring a structural analysis that incorporates the signiªcance of race and racism, poverty, political and economic power, and the continuing inequities in the child wel- fare system.1 This Symposium is timely for another reason. The celebration of the ªftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education 2 has stimulated many scholars to examine not only what the Black community has gained as a result of integration, but also what it may have lost.3 While Black people in America are no longer relegated to colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and there is a small but growing class of wealthy Blacks, some in the Black community also believe that inte- gration has had the effect of weakening some Black economic, politi- cal and social structures. Transracial adoption and gentriªcation are two areas where changes some might view as progress toward a more racially integrated society warrant examination from a critical per- spective. Although transracial adoption involves the quest for children and gentriªcation involves the quest for property, both represent contexts in which, in the future, African-Americans may be increasingly compet- ing with whites for scarce resources. In the former, the limited resource is the healthy newborn Black infant. In the latter, the resource is desir- able, affordable housing in the centers of cities. In both of these areas, Blacks may increasingly ªnd themselves at an economic disadvantage 1 I have long admired and appreciated Professor Howe’s work, and I have welcomed her voice in the struggle to change the terms of the transracial adoption debate to reºect the racial, economic and other realities that must be confronted in a full analysis of the subject. 2 Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In this article, the word “Black” will ap- pear with a capital B. See Trina Jones, Shades of Black: The Law of Skin Color, 49 Duke L.J. 1487, 1490 n.9 (2000) (“To reºect my belief that Blacks continue to constitute a speciªc group with a shared (though not monolithic) history, . I shall capitalize the letter ‘B’ and use the word Black as a proper noun.”); Kimberle W. Crenshaw, Race, Reform, Re- trenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Anti-Discrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1332 n.2 (1988) (“Blacks, like Asians, Latinos, and other ‘minorities,’ constitute a speciªc cultural group and, as such, require denotation as a proper noun.”). 3 Several scholars have questioned the gains and explored the losses experienced by Blacks since the Brown decision. See generally Derrick Bell, Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulªlled Hopes for Racial Reform (2004); Sheryll Cashin, The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream (2004); Charles J. Ogletree Jr., All Deliberate Speed: Reºections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education (2004). 2006] Transracial Adoption and Gentrification 27 stemming from the consequences of historical and continuing private and institutionalized racism.4 Moreover, in both contexts, there is al- ready a public discourse in which increasingly, what in reality may al- ready be becoming a competition over limited resources is often repre- sented as a stage in the evolution toward a non-racist society. Thus, while access to non-biological parenthood is increasingly becoming a function of economic privilege, and children are increasingly treated like commodities that can be bought and sold, the white families who transracially adopt Black children are portrayed as humanitarian pio- neers helping to forge the path to a non-racist society. Similarly, the dismantling of historical Black communities by gentriªcation is ob- scured by a discourse idealizing racial integration and urban revitaliza- tion. With respect to both transracial adoption and gentriªcation, the evolution of the law toward principles of race-neutrality facilitates the desires and interests of middle and upper-middle class whites at the ex- pense of African-Americans. Part I of this article will provide a brief review of the historical background of transracial adoption and gentriªcation. Part II will ex- amine the role of commodiªcation and the free market in both con- texts. Part II will also argue that the wealth disparities between whites and Blacks has, does, and will continue to put Blacks at a disadvantage in what is likely to be an increasing competition for healthy infants and for housing in the central cities. Part III will explore the evolving discourse concerning transracial adoption and gentriªcation. It will examine the ways in which advocates of transracial adoption and gen- triªcation have promoted a public discourse in which Blacks are blamed for the conditions of Black families and inner city communi- ties. This discourse lays the foundation for what may be described as a rescue fantasy in the context of transracial adoption and a frontier metaphor in the context of gentriªcation that seek to lend legitimacy to white desires in both contexts. Part IV will explore the effect of the increasing move of the law toward race-neutrality in transracial adop- tion and gentriªcation. Part V will brieºy recommend steps that might assist in the protection of the interests of Black children and Black communities from the free-market forces that undermine the inter- ests of Blacks in both contexts. 4 See infra Part I.A. 28 Boston College Third World Law Journal [Vol. 26:25 I. The History of Transracial Adoption and Gentriªcation A. The Legacy of Segregation in the Family and in Housing 1. From Anti-Miscegenation Laws to Transracial Adoption Housing and family life are paradigms of the ways that Blacks have been historically separated and stigmatized in American society. With respect to family life, under de jure segregation, intimate personal rela- tionships were strictly