I’ve argued that adoption is a “leap-frogging” of other assimilation processes, notably immigration. What does it mean when adoption is given precedence over and favored above such other processes?
I read today that the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption publishes a yearly list of “Adoption-friendly workplaces”, such as Cornell University [link], whose web site proudly exclaims:
Cornell provides up to $5,000 adoption assistance per child ($6,000 for adoption of a child whom the IRS has defined as having special needs). Cornell parents can also apply for grants to assist with child care expenses of up to $5,000 per year and receive up to 16 weeks of parental leave—some as paid leave—to aid with their transition to a larger family. An on-site child care center, back-up care services and a dependent care consultant also help Cornell parents meet their career/life responsibilities.
“This year, we launched several new programs to meet the needs of diverse adoptive families, including sponsoring a support group for transracial adoptive and foster families that was begun by a Cornell parent; offering an LGBT adoption workshop; and providing workshops on mindfulness-based parenting of teens and tweens,” said Lynette Chappell-Williams, associate director for inclusion and diversity. “Cornell also helps internationally adopted children transition into their new environment by matching college students, as mentors, with adoptee children,” she said.
First question: What does “mindfulness-based parenting” mean?
Second question: What does it mean when a society goes out of its way to reward those who already have? What if this “aid” were also destined to original families? What does it mean when programs such as affirmative action are scrubbed, but “international adoptees” get special treatment?