I sincerely hope that the school system doesn't enact "bag limits" on kids who are plotting to kill fellow students or blow up the school. If that happens in the name of diversity, the diversity snake will have come full circle and swallowed its own tail.

Hey Amy! If there's an "essential role" for "fathers in raising law-abiding children", are you ready to concede that Heather having Two Mommies is a bad idea?

Or are you gonna say that another Mommy is just another kind of Daddy?

Obviously this problem can be solved by a full time Diversity Coordinator on site at this school. The school's new Diversity Coordinator then can coordinate the new diversity discipline rules through DC's Diversity Czar. And if disparate rates of teenage subversive behavior are recognized at the school(nothing Islamic though!), the Diversity Czar can immediately ask for help from DHS's Diversity Department. They both then can assist with the diversity coordination if the Diversity Coordinator is unable to coordinate. Problem solved!

Hey, it's all for the kids!

I think it's high time we did away with diversity coordinators and anger management counselors and implemented SKITA instead.

Swift Kick In The Ass.

Works every time its tried.

Cue up white flight to the suburbs in 3... 2... 1...

Good idea, TW. The Diversity Coordinator could develop affirmative action standards for disciplinary action. Members of groups historically underrepresented in detention, for example, could get sent there by committing less egregious misbehavior than others.

ready to concede that Heather having Two Mommies is a bad idea?

That's not what the research shows. There was a piece in NYT magazine this past weekend about it, and Judith Stacey's research shows that as well.

I think it's important to have a continuous male figure in a child's life as a role model, whether that's a brother to the parent, or somebody else, but they must be continuous and consistent.

It seems to be whether there's an intact family that's important. Here's one study I found fast -- maybe somebody can pull the Belkin/NYT piece from this weekend.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/families/a/ParentStudy.htm

I know children of two lesbians (Beverly Hills Republicans!) and they are incredibly well-adjusted girl-crazy heterosexual boys who are great people (late teens), with great values.

But if they are going to go after disparity in #'s of people in detention, fine, but how about disparity in the sexes of people in detension.
I don't know about that school, but others I know had a ratio of about 8 to 1. Even that out.

"Good idea, TW. The Diversity Coordinator could develop affirmative action standards for disciplinary action. Members of groups historically underrepresented in detention, for example, could get sent there by committing less egregious misbehavior than others."

Diversity and "zero tolerance" policies are closely connected. If you can take white middle class kids and expel them from school for bringing a cake knife then the black or hispanic kid that you kicked out for bringing a switch blade and actually cutting someone go into the same pool of "knife related crimes" and allow your statisitics for minority and whites expulsions to balance out. See how clever it is? Isabel

Perhaps it could be phrased differently then, Amy - instead of blaming single parenthood itself. Many of us single parents do have consistent male role models in our children's lives, and our kids are well-adjusted.

It seems the problems are more related to either having no positive male influence or having a bad single parent...and usually BOTH. The single parent condition is a by-product of that bad situation not generally the cause. The studies linking it to negative effects are not weighing whether the single parenting is good parenting or bad.

Let me repost what Melanie Phillips said yesterday on a radio program as it perfectly fits with this story:

"We are gripped by a kind of madness in our society in which demonstrable facts and common sense are turned upside down in the service of an ideology - that is to say a governing idea to which all facts are wrenched to fit - even if it's demonstrably absurd. And this ideology is that people who are members of ethnic minorities, who come from Third World countries, basically can do no wrong and that if we criticize them or if we hold them to account for terrible deeds that they do, we are guilty of racism - because we are The West.

In this mindset the Third World ethnic minorities, who are deemed to be oppressed, can do no wrong. Or to be more precise, if they do wrong they must not be held responsible for that wrong. While we in the white skinned capitalist dominant West must always be held responsible for everything that happens, even if we are the victims.

This is a kind of absolutely Alice Through the Looking Glass, upside down, Orwellian, Kafkaesque, mad world in which truth and lies have been turned inside out, right and wrong turned inside out, justice and injustice turned inside out."

-- Melanie Phillips on Charles Adler's show, November 11, 2009

On single parenthood -- Isn't it economics more than anything? I wouldn't argue against the premise that single parent homes are more likely to be poor homes. I would argue that middle-class or upper-middle class children who come from single parent homes are causing any more problems than their two-parent-home counterparts at private or good public schools. That's one reason the children of gay couples do ok by most measures: economic stability.

Exactly, Momofrae. I'm trying to think of a good parallel for the way these studies are misinterpreted. It's kind of like saying (just as an example), "Kids in families where both parents work are more obese. Therefore, having working parents causes obesity." Parents would then fear that working outside the home could make their kids fat. But, no, it's stuffing their face with fast food that causes the obesity, not the parent working. The fact that working parents might be more inclined to rely on fast food is what causes the problem, not the "working" part.

Single parents are more likely to be poor, less educated, emotionally ill-equipped to be parents, and lacking support. That situation is what leads to negative results, not the "single" part.

Except that studies controlling for income still find the daddy gap. Poor black and hispanic kids from intact families do ok. Rich white kids without do not. They may get themselves into a different kind of trouble than the gangs we usually think of, but they still have problems.

NY Times article on same sex parents

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html

"Except that studies controlling for income still find the daddy gap. Poor black and hispanic kids from intact families do ok. Rich white kids without do not. They may get themselves into a different kind of trouble than the gangs we usually think of, but they still have problems."

That's because it's not just income either. Rich kids from intact familes can be totally maladjusted if they lack love, attention, and/or discipline. Income doesn't provide family structure. Many poor families are filled with love and support, just as many single parent families are. Blaming income status alone is no more factual than blaming marital status.

The problem is, I see so many great single parents, who are economically stable and have provided great family structures, still feeling unnecessarily stressed over this. Even when their kids are doing great and are well-adjusted, many hear the blame being placed solely on "single parenthood" and fear that their single status is like some sort of hidden cancer that will eventually show up and wreck their kids.

So, these parents often overcompensate. They feel guilty if they take a moment for themselves. Any typical childhood rebellion is viewed as a symptom of their single parent status rather than normal behavior that would likely happen anyway. It's an unfair level of guilt and worry to place on parents who are doing great jobs. It would be better to place the blame squarely where it belongs: on poor or completely absent parenting in less than ideal circumstances.

Momof4: They don't have anywhere near the problems. And all kids have one problem or another, and one reason for it or another. What will yours blame theirs on? Better still, what will some study blame their problems on? (I personally blame all mine on my mother feeding me Space Food sticks and Tang so I could be like an astronaut). Again, single parent does not have to mean there is no father or strong male influence in the picture. And, again, I'm sure there are studies that can be interpreted precisely the other way (and I will dig them out when I'm not crashing on deadline, which I have to get back to).

"That situation is what leads to negative results, not the "single" part."

Nonsense.

Well-off kids of single-parent homes are nasty people. Go ask your high-schooler.

Contrary to Crid's gay-baiting, the issue in minority households isn't' rampant lesbianism, but NO 2nd parent period. In most cases, 1st parent is "out to lunch".

My brain hurts.

I know! Send all the kids who would have been displined to Tucson City Hall, the Capitol of Arizona, or even Washington (they can be guests in Congressmans' homes) to teach them elementary statistics.

Why are half of the people here below average?

Duh!

Why not make all the kids the same color?

Having a male buddy isn't the same thing as having a Dad. A Dad is always there for you, no matter what. Of course I love my Godfather, and count on him, as well as my Uncles and Cousins... but Dad's Dad. It's not the same.

"single parent does not have to mean there is no father"

Well, it pretty much does by definition, actually, unless the father is the single parent. If the dad is involved fully in parenting, then you are a coparent, not a single parent. Completely separate situation with different outcomes.

And if you're divorced and daddy takes the kids every other week or whatever, you're not a single parent either. Again, different from someone with a kid and no dad for said kid.

"single parent does not have to mean there is no father"

Well, it pretty much does by definition, actually, unless the father is the single parent. If the dad is involved fully in parenting, then you are a coparent, not a single parent. Completely separate situation with different outcomes."

Legally, and for the sake of studies, momoffour, the definition is "single parent" unless you are married. Let's say Amy and Greg had decided to have kids. I bet they would've made great parents because they have a loving, mutually respectful relationship. I don't care if they got married legally or not, or even lived together. That legal status does not define what kind of parents they would make, and what sort of family structure they would have. Maybe they'd live separately and visit each other's places. Maybe Greg would come over to Amy's, read the kids a story, and tuck them in at night. The legal status wouldn't tell me anything about what sort of family life they'd build.

A single mom may have a wonderful relationship with the father of her children. Mine wanders in and out and often stays here for dinner. Even though we are no longer married, we are partners in our childrearing. Or a single parent may have a great relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

The important thing is that you are demonstrating to your children what a loving, respectful relationship looks like. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing all you can for your children. And I would say the same to married people. You may think your marital status is all that is needed, but if you're bickering, sniping, and treating each other with disrespect, you are doing your children a disservice.

I'll never forget the first time I saw parents passionately kiss each other. Sadly, they weren't my own. It was my girlfriend's parents. It was so unusual as to stand out in my memory to this day, and I envied her for having such a loving family. It wouldn't have mattered if they were two women, two guys, or a man and woman. The message was one of love and genuine commitment, and I believe that can exist in families without a marriage license.

Here's a study that I think treats all the confounding factors of single parenting appropriately:

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/64/9/1089

"Further analysis suggested that most of the linkages between single parenthood and later adjustment were likely to be spurious and to reflect the effects of confounding factors associated with exposure to single parenthood. In particular, exposure to single parenthood was associated with a series of correlated disadvantages, including lower maternal age, lower levels of parental education, poorer socioeconomic status, more family problems, exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse, parental illicit drug use and criminal offending, and lower IQ. When these disadvantages were taken into account, exposure to single parenthood was largely unrelated to adjustment in young adulthood. These findings clearly suggest that the associations between single parenthood and later adverse outcomes largely reflected the social context within which single parenthood occurred, rather than the direct effect of single parenthood on individual functioning....

The weight of the evidence suggests that, for this cohort, single parenthood was largely a marker for an underlying series of social, educational, and familial disadvantages and that when these disadvantages were taken into account, single parenthood was not a predictor of outcomes. All of this evidence points in the direction of policies that focus on the functioning of families rather than on a count of the number of parents in the home."

DaveG writes......>>>I know! Send all the kids who would have been displined to Tucson City Hall, the Capitol of Arizona, or even Washington (they can be guests in Congressmans' homes) to teach them elementary statistics.

I honestly think you're onto something. However, send them to where it will make the most difference. Send the kids who require the harshest discipline (but have exceeded their DDQ -- diversity discipline quota) to the ivory towers of the Elitist Ultra Liberals.

The root of the problem is the disconnect of EUL's, who are the most powerful proponents of these absurd policies, not suffering the effects of it. Once they are made to feel the effects of it? You now have far more moderate thinkers.

Removing the furthest reaches of both sides of the political spectrum is good start to fixing a lot of absurd government policies.

"The important thing is that you are demonstrating to your children what a loving, respectful relationship looks like. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing all you can for your children."

Not really. If you haven't provided them with a dad who loves them above all else and is devoted to them, you aren't doing all you can for your children. Kids don't really care if their parents are passionate and fulfilled, they care that they are there loving them.

I agree constant fighting isn't good. If you aren't in love, be courteous to each other.

I'd be rather pissed if someone felt a need to make-out (oops, passionately kiss) each other in front of my kids. That's for the bedroom. Not appropriate in public, and in public is when others are around.

I live in a nice neighborhood of upper-middle families. There are a handful of unmaneagable acting-out kids in kinder with my girls. Guess who doesn't have daddies around?

I live in a nice neighborhood of upper middle-class families as well. I used to try to simplify things to that level. I was married. Others were not. Therefore, I was a "better" parent than them, even though my marriage sucked. Still, I believed my kids would do better simply because I was married.

You'll find that by high school almost 50% of your kids friends will be from divorced homes. Then, you'll see that some do well and some do poorly in each group. At least in our socioeconomic level, the parents marital status is not the determining factor.

"I'd be rather pissed if someone felt a need to make-out (oops, passionately kiss) each other in front of my kids. That's for the bedroom. Not appropriate in public, and in public is when others are around."

I didn't say they were making out. It was a simple kiss at the kitchen counter...but the kind where you could see the twinkle in their eyes, and know they really meant it, not the perfunctory kiss a lot of (unhappily) married couples use.

I believe kids benefit from seeing that couples can feel that way towards each other. It helps them understand what to look for when they're older.

Again, kids from divorced homes still HAVE DADS. There is an unfathomable difference in having a dad and not. Rich or poor. Not that divorce is great for kids-it's crappy, but at least they know where and who they come from.

>>On single parenthood -- Isn't it economics more than anything?

Y'all never give up.

When Kennedy got divorced years and years ago, his son within months was in serious problems with the law. Being a Kennedy, it was eventually covered up, but he acted out as well.

Actually, though, y'all are over-intellectualizing this. Simply go to prisons and find out which prisoners came from a two parent family (with the man living in the home, not coming around when Mommy lets him) and which come from single/divorced mommies.

Hint: this has been done several times and the results never change no matter how hard man-haters close their eyes and wish themselves back in Kansas.

Stop making excuses for a failed family model.

Not that I care. I am in Mexico, and don't have to put up with the results of your great social experiments. (Note most criminals here also come from houses without the biological father in the home.)

Yes, it is known why, but there is no point in explaining when people have accepted a failed model.