Len Edwards, a favorite on the child welfare conference circuit, is upset about on March 8. The column discussed that calls that most sacred cow in child welfare, Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), “an exercise of white supremacy.”
CASA is the program in which minimally trained volunteers, overwhelmingly white and middle-class, are assigned to families who are overwhelmingly poor and disproportionately nonwhite. Then they tell judges if the children should be taken from those families, sometimes forever. In more than 60 percent of cases, according to a study discussed in more detail below, judges rubber-stamp every single recommendation these amateurs make.
Edwards appears to be most upset about two words in the article: white supremacy. In a comment posted below the column,* he says that my “highlighting a law review article that uses ‘white supremacy’ in the title [sic] is regrettable.” He comes back to this theme at the end of his comment, complaining that my “supporting the law review article with its inflammatory language is harmful as it may simply discourage volunteers to participate in a valuable program.”
In fact, the article does not use “white supremacy” in the title. I used it in the headline for my column. The article does, however, use the term in the text.
The first use of the term comes in response to a comment by a judge who called CASA “a gift, the gift of an important person in a child’s life.” The authors respond by writing the following:
Perhaps Edwards is so offended because the judge who called CASA a gift was – Len Edwards.
But the offense he takes to this column is revealing on another level. How in the world are we supposed to have an honest discussion of race in this country without using the words “white supremacy”? How can anyone, especially a former judge, dismiss a law review article out-of-hand just for using the term? How is it that, in child welfare, “white supremacy” is the hate that dare not speak its name?
This is one more example of the extent to which, unlike almost any other field, much of child welfare is “in denial” – to use a favorite phrase in the field – about the role that racial bias plays in decision-making.
If a black man and a while man try to hail a taxi, does anyone really doubt who is more likely to get the cab? If a black man and a white man walk into a store, does anyone doubt who is more likely to be followed around by store security? Even in the hard sciences, where objectivity theoretically is at its height, black scholars .
And of course, there’s law enforcement, where bias is so apparent that the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year to the African-American community for police treatment of people of color.
Yet in child welfare, despite abundant evidence of over and above the that permeates the system, there is an entire coterie proclaiming that child welfare is The Great Exception. The people in this one field supposedly are so wonderful that racism magically ends at the child welfare agency door, a notion eagerly lapped up by . And now, we have a white, middle-class judge condemning lawyers for even using the phrase “white supremacy” in a law review article.
Edwards also disputes that , which found that it does nothing to improve child safety, prolongs foster care, and makes it less likely children will be placed with relatives instead of strangers. But he offers no data in rebuttal, only anecdotes.
That’s nothing new. CASA never has been willing to face up to this study. when the study became public, it was not commissioned in the interest of objective scholarship. CASA commissioned it to prove how wonderful CASA is. When the results didn’t confirm that, reported,
So CASA is in denial about the study findings, just as the larger field of child welfare is in denial about white supremacy. Sounds like the child welfare field needs to get into “counseling” to face up to all that denial.
But there is one way Edwards could help a lot. He could use his influence at National CASA to get them to look into what’s going on in the Volunteer Guardian program a program accredited by National CASA. I hope he considers behavior in the program that a judge there termed “pervasive and egregious” misconduct to be at least as offensive as seeing the words “white supremacy” in a law review.
*Both this column, and the one to which Judge Edwards objects, originally were published in the Chronicle of Social Change. In what is apparently a fit of pique over my tendency to refer to having written for them as like being the token liberal at the Fox News of child welfare, the Chronicle has moved most of my columns behind a paywall. Columns by a writer who regularly promotes the notion that there is no racial bias in child welfare, and who herself has promoted a pernicious racial stereotype are still free – which kind of proves the point about “Fox News of child welfare.”