It Matters Too Much Not to Speak

Last updated on: December 24, 2013 at 12:01 am By Libby Anne

It may or may not surprise regular readers to hear this, but I have never pushed back against my parents’ homophobia. And it’s not that it doesn’t come up, it does. When it does I don’t participate. Instead, I just sit in silence. But I can’t justify doing that anymore. I can no longer remain silent.

My former coworker Dave was sixteen when he attempted to take his life, ten years ago. He grew up in a Baptist home in a family very involved in church activities, and he could not reconcile his religious beliefs with his sexuality. And so he swallowed a bottle of pills. He blacked out and woke up later, surrounded by blood and vomit. It was not until he left for college and found LGBTQ-affirming friends that things finally looked up for Dave, and he was finally able to embrace who he was.

I cannot stay silent for Dave.

My friend June has to be careful where she and her family travel. June’s partner, Ann, has legally adopted their son, Patterson, but that adoption is not recognized in many states. In those states, Ann is a legal stranger to both June and Patterson. June and Ann cannot marry—their state does not allow it. June and Ann have been together over ten years, and they conceived Patterson together through in vitro fertilization. And yet, in many states if there was an accident June’s estranged parents would be called in to make life or death decisions for June and Patterson while Ann would be shut out completely.

I cannot stay silent for June and Ann.

My friends Steve and Jared would love to marry and start a family together someday. They tell me that they will have to choose carefully what state to live in based not only on its marriage law but also its law on things like adoption and surrogacy.

I cannot stay silent for Steve and Jared.

My friend whom I will call Kate has been broken up because her Christian college recently censored her alumni profile. It makes her sick that she has been treated as less than by her own alma mater. This has been really hard for her.

I cannot stay silent for Kate.

My friends Haley and Melissa are raising their four biological children together. They chose the city where they now live because it had a reputation for being a safe place for LGBTQ individuals, and when you’re a lesbian couple that includes a transgendered woman, safety matters a great deal.

I cannot stay silent for Haley and Melissa.

I have a double digit number of siblings. Odds are, one of them is queer. That sibling may not know that I support them. That sibling may only hear condemnations of who they are, whether from my parents, from my parents’ church, and from their conservative homeschool community.

I cannot stay silent for my siblings.

I have the luxury of being silent. Dave, June, Ann, Steve, Jared, Kate, Haley, and Melissa do not have the luxury of being silent. For them, this is their life. These comments my parents make? These comments effect my LGBTQ friends in a way they will never effect me. I cannot justify staying silent any longer. I will not be complicit in their oppression.

These holidays, when my parents make a homophobic comment, I will say something.

It matters too much not to speak.

Michael Farris’s Lies, Damned Lies, and Bad Sources: Testimony before the Senate on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Part 1

Last updated on: December 25, 2013 at 6:53 pm By Libby Anne

A Guest Post by Rachel Lazerus

Last year, Michael Farris, homeschool advocate and founder of the powerful Home School Legal Defense Association, was instrumental in blocking the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), despite its complete irrelevancy to homeschooling issues. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is now bringing the treaty back to the Senate, hoping to ratify it in this current session. Last week, Michael Farris was a witness for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, testifying on why he thinks this treaty would be bad for the U.S.

You probably didn’t watch Farris’s testimony last week, and his followers probably didn’t either. In fact, Michael Farris is banking on them not having seen it. You see, Michael Farris hopes they will accept his description of the hearing, of how mean and unbalanced it was, and how vicious the “Democrat” senators are. Farris hopes his followers will call their senators and demand that they vote no on the treaty. And of course, Farris hopes his followers will donate money to HSLDA in their outrage!

The problem is that Michael Farris’s description does not match up with reality. While Farris told his followers that the Democratic senators sought to “vilify and destroy” him, in actual fact many of Farris’s legal analyses were respectfully addressed and effectively countered by the other witnesses and the senators. Furthermore, Farris’s demeanor throughout the hearing was aggressive and at some points incredibly rude and disrespectful. And the “petty, silly, and personal attack” that Farris decries was, in fact, a response to Farris’s appeal to his own authority, one which he has used both here and previously to brush off criticism of his legal analysis.

In this post I will examine Farris’s description of the hearing, what actually happened, and some of the issues involved. I will look at Farris’s exchanges with Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez, and contrast what actually took place with how Farris portrayed what took place in a fundraising letter he sent out to HSLDA members later that day. In my next post I will delve more into the legal issues at hand. I believe that this is an issue you should care deeply about, because the political power that Farris has is predicated on his position as leader of HSLDA, and his rejection of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is entirely consistent with the philosophies he’s built his political base around—and also because there are compelling reasons for the U.S. to sign the CRPD.

Of course, you don’t have to take my word for any of this. You can watch and read Farris’s testimony for yourself and judge whether or not my description is accurate. First, you can watch the Senate hearing here (or here). Second, you can read my own transcription, which I made while watching it, my curiosity piqued by Sarah Jones’ description (my transcription is not perfect and may have some flaws or typos). I was not able to transcribe the entire two-and-a-half hours of the panel, and therefore I have not included all of the arguments or debate on the CRPD, but I was able to cover all of Farris’s testimony, as well as his back-and-forth conversations with Senators Corker, Boxer, Durbin, Johnson, Menendez, and Coons.

Background

Before I dissect Farris’s arguments and his back and forth with the various senators, I want to lay out some basic, noncontroversial, unchallenged facts about the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD):

The CRPD has already been ratified by over 130 countries around the world.
The US has signed but not ratified the CRPD.
Until the US ratifies the CRPD, no US representatives are able to take part in the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which monitors implementation. This limits US involvement in implementation of disability laws in other countries — of concern to US citizens traveling abroad — and in the interpretation of the treaty by the UN.
Michael Farris is the most prominent voice opposing the ratification of the CRPD. Farris’s argument is that because there is no explicit mention of parents’ right to determine their children’s education, ratifying the treaty could potentially affect homeschooling. This is not in line with legal precedent of how the courts determine the US’s obligations under treaties such as these.
Under debate currently in the Senate are a number of RUDs—reservations, understandings, and declarations—that the US may attach to its ratification of the treaty. While these are a common practice by the US and other countries, Farris is arguing that the only type of reservation he would accept is one invalidating the treaty.
According to his opening testimony, Farris agrees with the emotional and political arguments in favor of ratification, but he believes that despite every assurance he has received to the contrary, ratifying the CRPD will change US law.
If Farris had not decided to protest the CRPD, it is very likely it would have been ratified last December.

While Farris has characterized the pro-treaty side as being “Democrat” and “left”, this is not actually the case. The CRPD has bipartisan support in the Senate, with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all being in favor of the treaty. While Farris noted that two of the witnesses were “sitting senators”, he neglected to note that both Mark Kirk (IL) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) are sitting Republican senators, or that the other pro-treaty witnesses included Tom Ridge, a Republican who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, and Richard Thornburgh, a Republican who served as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. The Americans with Disabilities Act, on which the CRPD is based, was signed in 1990 by President Bush and passed the House by a vote of 377 to 28 and the Senate with a vote of 91 to 6. Several of the at the committee hearing made note of the remarkably bipartisan nature of this bill, and made it clear that supporting the rights of the disabled and of veterans is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue, but a human rights issue. Farris’s characterization of the treaty as a plot by “the left” is thus both fundamentally dishonest and a cheap ploy to get donations from people who dislike the “Democrat” party.

Barbara Boxer’s “Attack”

With this background, we now turn to the substance of Farris’s characterization of his interactions with three Senate Democratic committee members. Farris described his back-and-forth by Senator Boxer this way:

After we gave our introductory remarks, the personal attacks began. Senator Barbara Boxer (CA), the second most senior Democrat senator on the committee, asked me if HSLDA or ParentalRights.org has ever raised money during our battle against UN control over children and families with disabilities. Instead of asking her if she had ever raised money during her campaigns for U.S. Senate, or whether any of the pro-UNCRPD organizations raise money for their fight, I explained that HSLDA is funded by you, our members. ParentalRights.org is funded solely by donations.

Senator Boxer’s attack, however, was not really against me or HSLDA. It was against you, and every other homeschool family who has ever supported HSLDA because you believe in our mission to defend the God-given right of parents, not faceless bureaucrats, to care for and educate our children. Senator Boxer thinks that your membership in HSLDA and your support of our critical work to defend homeschooling, support widows and single parents through the Home School Foundation, and the work of ParentalRights.org to pass a constitutional amendment makes you an evil special interest that must be vilified and defeated.

Contrast this description with what was actually said during the two minutes that Senator Boxer spent addressing Farris. You can view the relevant video here or read the transcript as follows:

Boxer: “Now, Dr. Farris, you say that you’re speaking for the disabled, but your statements are directly contradicted by organizations that work every day, 24/7, to protect disabled kids, like the United States International Council on Disabilities who states, quote, ‘this treaty protects parental rights and highlights the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities.’ Unquote. And TASH, you know that organization, says quote, ‘nothing included in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling. This treaty embraces the spirit of the Individuals with Disability Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and all disability non-discrimination legislation.’ But you, Dr. Farris, argue the opposite. You once even said, and I quote, ‘the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty and so my kids – my kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled. Now the UN can get control of them.’ Well, I have to say in my opinion, that is nonsense that if a child wears glasses [Boxer touches her own glasses], then the child is considered disabled. So I wonder what is behind your fight. And I just ask this question for the record. Have you ever tried to raise funds by telling parents this treaty will limit their ability to decide what is best for their children?”

Farris: “Senator, our organization is funded by membership dues, not by contributions.”

Boxer: “So you’ve never sent out an e-mail asking for funds to fight—”

Farris: “No, the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association, um, is associated also with a group called ParentalRights.org. Parentalrights.org has indeed sent out fundraising emails—”

Boxer: “Thank you very much.”

Farris: (overlapping) “But, Senator, the substantive answer is, the treaty doesn’t ban homeschooling. What the treaty does is shift the decision-making power from the parent to the government. That is what the meaning of the best interests standard is.”

Boxer: “Well, that is not something that I agree with, nor do any of the organizations.

Farris: (overlapping) “Well—”

Boxer: “Thank you very much.”

Farris lied when he categorized Boxer’s questioning as an attack on HSLDA families. Boxer was not attacking, or even coming close to attacking, any HSLDA family. She simply asked Farris a question—whether he was using his opposition to the CRPD as a fund-raising cash cow—that he was embarrassed to answer. She never used the words “evil special interest”—an interesting choice of words by Farris, given that he has done more than anyone else to turn homeschooling families into a special interest group. Perhaps Farris, flushed in his residual embarrassment after his performance, accidentally admitted his private categorization of HSLDA families.

What Senator Boxer was actually getting at was Farris’s practice of issuing bald-faced lies about the implications of the CRPD in order frighten homeschooling parents so as to raise money for his organizations. And the fact that Farris turned around and sent this letter out—including a P.S. asking for money (“Finally, even though Senator Boxer doesn’t want you supporting the battle against the UNCRPD and for U.S. sovereignty, you can donate if you wish”)—is an example of his inability to understand either what Senator Boxer was getting at or that what he is doing is fearmongering and wrong.

For the record, this very e-mail reveals that Farris is officially sending fundraising e-mails from HSLDA.org in order to fund “the battle against the UNCRPD and for U.S. sovereignty”—the exact thing he denied doing just hours earlier in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when he claimed that he only sent out such emails from ParentalRights.org. Senator Boxer was onto something. Farris is indeed making inflammatory and incorrect assertions about what happened in order to raise money. Ironically, his attack on Senator Boxer justifies her line of questioning.

Senator Durbin’s “Misunderstanding”

Next came Farris’s mischaracterization of Senator Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois. Here is Farris’s description of their interaction:

Next, Senator Dick Durbin (IL), another senior Democrat on the committee, falsely argued that HSLDA’s position is that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the threat to homeschool freedom. The fact is that HSLDA strongly supports the ADA and other laws advancing the freedom and dignity of persons with disabilities which our democratically elected representatives have passed. What’s more, the UNCRPD would actually threaten parental rights which are enshrined in the IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]. I explained to him that it was the UNCRPD, not the ADA, which was the threat. He ignored me and persisted in stating that HSLDA believes the ADA was the threat. Logic teachers call this a straw man argument, which is used by people who do not wish to debate the merits of an issue.

Again, Farris’s recollection is simply incorrect. You can view the relevant video here, or read the transcript as follows:

Durbin: “I am just stopped cold with this argument by Mr. Farris that the Americans with Disabilities Act is going to put an end to homeschooling in America. Is that your position?”

Farris: “That’s not my position. My position is that the treaty changes the, the legal requirements in this country that it’s just not correct to say that there is no duty to change American law in accordance with the treaty. So, since I believe there will be required to be, uh, an implementation act that complies with the requirements of the treaty I think that at that point in time that’s when the problems will arise.

Durbin: “Mr. Farris—”

Farris: (overlapping) “Not under the ADA itself.”

Durbin: “Mr. Farris, the fact that the administration is not asking for an implementation act and made it clear that it’s not seeking it because the Americans with Disability Act already is controlling, and has been extensively litigated, sets disability standards in our country higher than any in the world, you don’t find that convincing.”

Farris: “That’s the same administration that’s prosecuting the homeschooling family to try to expel them from the United States who came here—“

Durbin: “Under the ADA? Under the Americans with Disabilities Act?”

Farris: “No, they came here under our law of asylum. But the question of the case is—that case is also pending before the Supreme Court, and the question is—”

Durbin: “Well, Let me just say Mr. Farris—”

Farris: “I guess you don’t want me to answer the question.” *flounces back in his seat*

Durbin: “I don’t think you can answer because you want to talk about something other than the American Disability Act or the convention on disabilities, and that’s what we’re here to discuss.”

Farris: “The convention with disabilities has a different legal standard than the ADA.”

Durbin: “I can tell you—“

Farris: (overlapping) “There are numerous disability organizations that say so. I include their citations in my written testimony. I’m not the only one that says that. The CRPD committee agrees with me.”

Durbin: “And I would just say to you, Mr. Farris, that if we’re going to have a battle of the organizations supporting or not supporting this, I think we’re going to prevail. Because we have the mainstream disability organizations across America who are supporting the adoption of this convention on disabilities. And I—I just, I struggle with this notion that we are somehow going to stop this effort, this effort to extend the rights to the disabled around the world for fear of something which you can’t even clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. […] This is not going to affect homeschooling, it’s very clear that it will not. And the Americans with Disabilities Act for twenty years has not affected homeschooling. I yield back my time.”

Far from “stating that HSLDA believes the ADA was the threat”, Durbin is very clear: because the US is already bound by the ADA, which holds the US to a higher standard than the CRPD would hold the US, there will be no changes required in US law should the US ratify the CRPD. As Farris originally got involved with this treaty obstensibly in order to prevent changes in homeschooling law, this is not an irrelevant point that Durbin is making.

(Farris actually talks quite a bit about the Romeikes, a German family that is trying to get asylum in the U.S. on the basis of Germany’s essential ban on homeschooling. I personally don’t see the relevance of the Romoike family to the CRPD, and connecting the two seems to fall under the slippery slope fallacy. You can read more about the Romeike family here, here, here, and here.)

It is also clear from the video and transcript that Farris is not exactly acting with the proper decorum expected in a senate hearing. He is rude, interrupts the senators multiple times, and, when frustrated, resorts to mouthing off. Once I got over my initial shock, I found myself full of questions. Personally, I was not homeschooled, nor have I ever participated in any type of moot court. Is this kind of display in this sort of formal setting considered acceptable for homeschooled students? For participants in moot court? Wouldn’t judges dock points for display of temper? Surely Farris knows that when giving testimony as an expert witness, it is advisable not to behave like a lawyer on “The Good Wife”?

But let us not let this distract us from Farris’s legal disrespect of Durbin’s very sound arguments. Durbin, a former trial lawyer, makes numerous strong legal points that poke holes in Farris’s flimsy argument. For example, a large part of Farris’s argument relies on the assumption that US law will need to change in order to accommodate the new treaty. As the treaty is non-self-executing, this would have to be accomplished with an Implementation Act passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. However, as Durbin pointed out, this is not necessary in the case of the CRPD. This is corroborated by the UN website on the Treaty on Disabilities:

Except in the rare case that the laws in a country already conform fully to the requirements of the Convention, a State party will normally have to amend existing laws or introduce new laws in order to put the Convention into practice.

As Durbin states, the US is exactly that “rare case” that the laws already conform to the requirements of the Convention—because the Convention was based on our current disabilities law! Perhaps Farris should consider this an example of American exceptionalism in action?

It is also incredibly ironic that Farris describes Durbin as using a logical fallacy (“straw man argument”) when in fact a large part of part of Farris’s own argument against ratifying the CRPD relies on a logical fallacy–the slippery slope fallacy. See for example what Farris said in response to a question by Senator Menendez about whether or not Farris views this treaty as a “wedge issue” (you can also view the video here):

“I believe that, uh, this treaty would be the first in a—in a line of human rights treaties that would be coming before this treat—before this committee. The committee—the convention on the rights of the child—Senator McCain misspoke, I’m sure, earlier—we have not ratified that treaty. And so, I think that would be coming next. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, that would be coming after that. I think that, that this treaty is the first of many treaties that would be in this, in this range, that is what is intended by that comment.”

As Farris should be well aware, a slippery slope fallacy is often “used by people who do not wish to debate the merits of an issue.” Perhaps he would agree that it is used only by those who lack the ability to make more substantive arguments.

Senator Menendez’s “Dismissal”

This leads us to discuss Senator Menendez’ questions. Although Menendez’s questioning of Farris lasted over eight minutes (you can view the full video here), Farris seems to have only remembered a brief snippet of the exchange (which you can watch here). In Farris’s own words:

And finally, near the end of the hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (NJ) said, by way of dismissing HSLDA’s legal arguments about how the UNCRPD is binding under international law, “I appreciate that you have an LLM from London which is as I understand from a distance learning course….” The room packed with supporters of the treaty burst out in rude and loud laughter, forcing Chairman Menendez to gavel the room to order.

Again, while this was a personal attack aimed at me intended to sideline my arguments, Chairman Menendez was admitting that he had no response to HSLDA’s arguments about the dangers of the UNCRPD and international law. He showed that he will resort to petty, silly, and personal attacks rather than substance.

Let me first say that I find it repugnant for anyone, regardless of where they obtained their education, to dismiss anyone else solely on the basis of their education. It is a sad truth that access to education is not equally distributed across the world, and very often access is limited to people who are already relatively privileged in money, time, and social status. Distance learning courses and degrees can be used to change this: in fact, it is very likely that due to Article 24 of the CRPD, on educational rights of persons with disabilities, would lead to the increasing availability of distance-learning courses and degrees such that “persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability.”

However, I do not believe that this was an attempt by Senator Menendez to attack Farris in order to distract from “substance.” Rather, I believe that Senator Menendez’s comment about Farris’s degree is justified by Farris’s earlier attempt at credentialism and, in yet another logical fallacy, an appeal from authority.

In his opening statement, Farris said to the committee (view the video here):

Turning to the issue of homeschooling, uh, I’ve been criticized by many in the press for, uh, fearmongering on this topic. But I have never seen anyone write a legal analysis. It’s just simply conclusions, just assertions that I have incorrectly analyzed the lawness. I have an LLM in International Law from the University of London, I have coached six—excuse me, seven—national championship moot court teams that debate constitutional law, I have written the legal analysis and I dare anyone to read my legal analysis and answer it with legal analysis, not conjecture and raw assertion.

Farris is the one who introduced his credentials—the only person testifying to do so, and in my opinion a rather gauche move—as his authority for making this legal argument. Farris, while mentioning that he did receive his LLM from the University of London, notably did not include the fact that it was from the distance-learning program, leading the casual viewer to believe that Farris attended the University of London in-person, rather than through the distance-learning program.

In fact, this is something of a pattern for Farris. His bios on both HSLDA.org and ParentalRights.org mention the LLM from the University of London but do not indicate that it was a distance learning program. He also represented himself this way to a reporter from the Boston Globe:

Farris, meanwhile, stood by his assertion that he understood the treaty better than Republican supporters such as Thornburgh. Farris, a graduate of Gonzaga University School of Law, said he has better legal training when it comes to treaties.

“I have an LLM in international law from the University of London,” Farris said, referring to a postgraduate degree that is similar to a master’s program. Asked for details, Farris said he didn’t go to London for the degree; it came in a “distance learning” course and culminated in a proctored exam at a local community college.

“He is just flat wrong,” Farris said of Thornburgh’s sworn testimony that the treaty won’t change US law. “If he wrote that on an international law exam, at any law school, he would fail.”

Farris is misrepresenting himself and his law degree in public all the time, and yet he uses this misrepresented law degree as the authority backing his legal opinions. Does Farris believe that there is a distinction between “University of London” and “University of London, distance learning program”? If not, why does he continually forget to mention the type of program he went through?

In short, I believe that contrary to Farris’s account, Menendez was not making fun of Farris’s degree at all. He was instead making fun of Farris’s appeal to authority. If Farris was honest about the provenance of his degree, if he did not so frequently use it as a justification for his legal theory, then Farris would not be able to be so easily and frequently embarrassed by anyone pointing out the actual program he attended. And if Farris’s legal arguments were stronger, he would not need to resort to the fallacies of credentialism and appeals from authority at all—which is, by the way, yet another fallacy.

(As a side note, Farris complained on his Facebook account after the hearing that “they attacked me personally for ‘fear-mongering,’ misrepresentation, fund-raising, political motives, and having earned an LLM through distance learning.” As I listened to the video of the entire conference, I kept count: the only reference to ‘fearmongering’ made during this Senate hearing was the above reference made by Farris himself. That said, I myself prefer to interpret this as Farris accusing himself of fearmongering.)

Perhaps it’s because he was so embarrassed with the jibe about his degree, but Farris does not seem to have understood any of Menendez’s actual legal points, some of which will be discussed in my next post. As a matter of fact, Menendez actually states Farris’s position more clearly than Farris is able to articulate it: “you argue that the treaty creates obligations others do not see, and then you suggest that the United States must follow your interpretation as in terms of ratifying the treaty.” In short, Menendez does engage with Farris’ legal arguments and legal reasoning.

Menendez goes on to say:

“I think that where we have a fundamental disagreement here, is that under the Constitution, the President and the Senate determine our obligations under international treaties and therefore the reservations, understandings, and declarations are the resolution and consent—are what are binding.”

Farris is welcome to all the opinions he likes—that’s his Constitutional right as an American. But his opinion of legal theory is not considered binding. The Senate determines the boundaries of the reservations attached to the treaty—this is its Constitutional duty under Article II, Section 2. In Farris’s attempt to protect the United States from encroachments on its sovereignty by the UN, he seems to be ignoring the parts of the Constitution which guarantee the American people freedom from him.

Conclusion

But don’t just let Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez convince you that Farris’s arguments are ridiculous. I may not have a law degree, but I’m willing to do a little bit of legwork when it comes to research. Farris claims again and again that his opponents have attacked his motives or his degrees rather than attacking his actual evidence—a claim that is false, as we have seen. Farris also continually pads his arguments with citations from other legal scholars, using these experts as a buoy to support his claim that his interpretation of the CRPD is the correct one. In my next post, I will do what Farris urges—but what I don’t think he actually expects anyone to do. I will read the experts he cites to back up his interpretation—and I will do so in their original context.

Call Your Senators!

If you live in one of these states, please call your senator and ask them to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As long as the US refuses to ratify the CRPD, we look silly and backward and provide other nations with an excuse for refusing to sign the treaty or refusing to implement it. We need to lead by example, and ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is part of setting that example.

HSLDA has helpfully provided an app on their website which will provide you with contact information for each of your representatives in Congress. I use it here as a wonderful information source, and I express my sincerest thanks to the good folks at HSLDA who make participatory democracy possible.

Sen. Bob Corker (TN) – (202) 224-3344

Sen. Thad Cochran (MS) – (202) 224-5054

Sen. Rob Portman (OH) – (202) 224-3353

Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) – (202) 224-5754

Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ) – (202) 224-4521

Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) – (202) 224-3643

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA) – (202) 224-3521

Sen. Debra Fischer (NE) – (202) 224-6551

Sen. Ron Johnson (WI) – (202) 224-5323

Sen. Michael Johanns (NE) – (202) 224-4224

Sen. Roy Blunt (MO) – (202) 224-5721

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) – (202) 224-4944

Sen. Dan Coats (IN) – (202) 224-5623

Sen. John Boozman (AR) – (202) 224-4843

And if you appreciate the effort Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez put into dismantling the arguments of Farris, call them and tell them so.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) – (202) 224-3553

Sen. Dick Durbin (IL) – (202) 224-2152

Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) – (202) 224-4744

Let’s get involved and get this treaty ratified.

—————

Rachel Lazerus received her MPP from the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago in 2012. She is currently researching comparative methods of reporting homeschooling achievement.

Quick Hit: How the Christian Orphan Movement May Be Enabling Child Abandonment

Last updated on: September 28, 2013 at 10:58 pm By Libby Anne

I recently came upon a post on the blog Rage against the Minivan that I found it highly intriguing and thought I’d share. Here is an excerpt from the beginning:

How the Christian Orphan Movement May Be Enabling Child Abandonment

Last week I got to speak at Idea Camp about orphan care. I shared my concerns about the trend of churches opening orphanages in third world countries instead of working at keeping children together with their parents. I suggested that the solution to poverty orphans (children who are placed as a result of poverty instead of the death of a parent) should be to provide resources to the family, instead of requiring the child to move into an orphanage for assistance. I shared my belief that the funds spent on feeding a child in an orphanage would be better spent funding that child’s birth family to keep them, and that perhaps we are even enabling families to abandon their kids when we show up in impoverished communities with a shiny new building with beds and three guaranteed meals a day. If the orphanage seems like the best option in town for giving your child an education and getting them fed, who wouldn’t drop their child off? I’ve seen far too many children living in orphanages who have loving, living parents.

After my talk, a lot of people affirmed me for “speaking truth” and “going there” and “bringing it”, and you know what? It made me sad. I’m concerned that the notion of family care is a novel idea when we are talking about orphans. I’m worried at how myopic we’ve become when we prioritize orphanages over family care. It’s disconcerting that the orphan care movement is so willing to throw money at the institutional care of a child, but not at parents who are capable but poor.

That’s not to say that some people aren’t helping keep families together. There are plenty of people sponsoring children in 3rd world countries, which is definitely a good model for preventing orphans. But in conversations with people who work in most of these large child sponsorship programs, I’m hearing that they get repeated requests from sponsors that they want their child to be “an orphan” . . . because for some reason that makes people more willing to help. I’ve heard the same thing from friends who run programs for young mothers. People are much less likely to support a young mom than they are to support an orphan.

Don’t get me wrong – I think supporting orphans is important. Vitally important. But I want to make sure that we aren’t creating and sustaining a child’s orphan status because it’s the only way we are offering a family aid. An orphanage is not a good way for a child to grow up. We have tons of research supporting the idea that children raised in institutional settings will struggle relationally, cognitively, and emotionally. In the US, we see that non-family care leads to horrible statistical outcomes: less likely to go to college, more likely to be in prison, less likely to gain employment, more likely to be homeless. Therefore, when we talk about “orphan care”, our goal, when possible, should be family care.

An orphanage should only be a triage situation, where we do crisis management and then assess our next steps. We shouldn’t, as Christians, be taking children from reluctant parents who only bring their children out of desperation. If we have the funds to feed a child, let them live with the family while we feed them. Why is this a novel idea??

Read the rest.

This article is especially interesting when read in tandem with Kathryn Joyce’s Mother Jones article on the evangelical adoption movement and Billy Graham’s recent statements arguing that sexual abuse is a bigger problem in the evangelical world than in the Catholic Church (and that this is especially true on the mission field).

The Father-Removing Gay-Procuring Child Abuse Racket

Last updated on: September 17, 2013 at 3:39 pm By Libby Anne

[Trigger warning for child abuse denialism]

I promised in my earlier article on Stephen Baskerville’s Faith & Reason lecture that I would devote more attention to his views on child abuse. Here I am, ready to fulfill that promise! To summarize Baskerville: First, mothers are the true abusers and it is removing the father from the home that is the real cause of child abuse. Second, child protective services exists to take children from innocent heterosexual families and sell them off to gay and lesbian couples. Oh yes.

Let me start by quoting from Stephen Baskerville’s 2002, article, “The Truth about Child Abuse.”

As the Heritage report confirms, the safest place for a child is an intact, two-parent home — that is, a home with a father in it. Children’s natural protectors are their fathers. Even feminist Adrienne Burgess observes that “fathers have often played the protector role inside families.” Removing the father is what exposes the children to danger.

Yet removing fathers is precisely what family court judges routinely do at the mere request of mothers, who file two-thirds to nine-tenths of divorces. Ironically, this is often effected with trumped-up charges of child abuse, though statistically biological fathers seldom abuse their children . . . .

. . .

The logic is marvelously self-justifying and self-perpetuating, since by eliminating the father, government officials can then present themselves as the solution to the problem they themselves create. The more child abuse — whether by parents or even by the social work bureaucracies themselves — the more the proffered solution is to further expand the child abuse bureaucracy. . . .

If we do not have the courage to tell the truth about who is abusing children and the role of government in permitting and even encouraging them to do it, then all our professed concern for children is mere posturing.

Oy.

Baskerville’s comments are clearly the result of paranoia. The idea that the government is intentionally breaking apart families so that it’ll have business for its social services and child protection divisions? Really? That’s one heck of a conspiracy to keep the top on. Further, Baskerville suggests elsewhere that he wants to do away with no-fault divorce, because apparently forcing women to stay married to men they do not want to be married to (or vice versa) would totally make things better for their children. Except, not.

Does Baskerville seriously think that child abuse didn’t exist before no-fault divorce? Does he think dysfunctional, broken, and abusive families did not exist before no-fault divorce? You really can’t get more naive or ahistorical than that. Baskerville speaks of a “child abuse epidemic.” It’s as though he doesn’t realize that the reason we’re so aware of child abuse today is that we’ve finally recognized it as something that is a problem and in need of fixing. It’s also as though he doesn’t realize that child abuse rates are currently going down.

Now let’s talk about causation and correlation. What Baskerville is doing here is the equivalent of saying “Look, married families are stabler and better off financially—it must be because they’re married! Everyone should get married and then every family will be stabler and better off financially!” Why is it that so few people seem to be able to consider that perhaps those families are married because they are stabler and better off financially, and not the other way around?

It is true that by a number of factors, children in married households fare better than children not in married households, but it does not follow that children currently in unmarried or divorced homes would be better off if their parents would just get married. There are a variety of factors that explain why children in married families fare better (including the fact that married families are generally better off financially, and include two parents who have chosen to parent cooperatively and presumably have a positive relationship with each other). Forcing or pressuring couples to marry or stay marry who would not otherwise have married would not necessarily replicate those factors.

Next, Baskerville says that fathers are children’s “natural protectors.” Like I said in my previous post addressing his statements, it seems as though Baskerville is always ready to assume the best of men and to assume the worst of women. Is it so hard to say that both fathers and mothers are children’s “natural protectors,” but that either can also fail in their role as protector and instead mistreat a child? Instead, Baskerville does a whole lot of minimizing of abuse perpetrated by biological fathers. I showed Baskerville’s article to a friend who was abused by her biological father (and for whom a divorce ended that abuse), and her response was “that man is insane.” I can’t say I disagree.

For the record, I did some digging and it appears that women commit slightly more than 50% of child maltreatment, and that most of the maltreatment committed by women is committed by biological mothers while roughly half of the maltreatment committed by men is committed by biological fathers. This shouldn’t be surprising given that women (and especially biological mothers) do by far the majority of the child rearing and caregiving. As a percentage of the child maltreatment they commit, biological mothers are more likely to neglect children while biological fathers are more likely to physically abuse children; in other words, the type of maltreatment committed by mothers and by fathers differs. (Also, as a reader pointed out, if fathers do seek custody they are actually very likely to get it, including primary custody. The reason more women get custody of children than do men is that fathers are less likely to ask for it.) But you don’t get any of this from a reading of Baskerville’s article.

I’m not saying that children shouldn’t have their fathers in their lives, or that fathers are more dangerous than mothers. What I am saying is that Baskerville is dead wrong in his assertions. Baskerville’s suggestion that forcing people to marry or stay married will put an end (or nearly an end) to child abuse because it will ensure that fathers, children’s “natural protectors,” remain in the home ignores so many facts and factors and variables that I’m not sure why anyone would take him seriously.

Now I want to quote from Baskerville’s 2004 article, “Could Your Children Be Given To “Gay” Parents?”

In the debate over gay marriage, strikingly little attention has been paid to the impact on children. Some question the wisdom of having children raised by two homosexuals, but the best they can seem to argue is that serious flaws vitiate the literature defending it.

Almost no attention has been devoted to what may be the more serious political question of who will supply the children of gay “parents,” since obviously they cannot produce children themselves. A few will come from sperm donors and surrogate mothers, but very few. The vast majority will come, because they already do come, from pre-existing heterosexual families. In Massachusetts, “Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families,” according to Democratic state Sen. Therese Murphy.

Sen. Murphy seems totally oblivious to the implications. “Will you deny them their rights?” she asks. With some 3 percent of the population, gay couples already seem to enjoy a marked advantage over straight ones in the allocation of supposedly superfluous children.

But whose rights are being denied depends on how deeply we probe and what questions we ask. Granting gay couples the “right” to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else’s children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them.

Not necessarily. Governments that kind-heartedly bestow other people’s children on homosexual couples also have both the power and the motivation to confiscate those children from their original parents, even when the parents have done nothing to warrant losing them.

. . .

This is the bureaucratic milieu – largely hidden from all but those who must endure it – into which gay marriage advocates want to inject millions of new couples in search of children to adopt.

The number of truly abused children cannot begin to fill this demand without government help. We know that statistically child abuse in intact two-parent families is rare, and two-thirds of reports are never substantiated. Yet even in those instances of confirmed abuse, a little digging reveals the pernicious hand of the government generating business (and children) for itself.

Child abuse is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of single-parent homes. Government and feminist propaganda suggest that single-parent homes result from paternal abandonment. In fact, they are usually created by family court judges, who have close ties to the social service agencies that need children. By forcibly removing fathers from the home through unilateral or “no-fault” divorce, family courts create the environment most conducive to child abuse and initiate the process that leads to removal of the children from the mother, foster care, and adoption. Gay adoption is simply the logical culmination in the process of turning children into political instruments for government officials.

What this demonstrates is that same-sex marriage cannot be effectively challenged in isolation. Opponents must bite the bullet and confront the two evils that pose a far more serious and direct threat to the family than gay marriage: the child protection gestapo and the even more formidable “no-fault” divorce machine.

Blatant homophobia alert! The gays are coming for your children! Because yes, that’s actually what Baskerville says here, plain and simple—that child protective services exists to take children from healthy heterosexual families and sell them off to gay and lesbian couples, who cannot procreate on their own. Way to drum up hatred and fear! The idea that there might be children out there legitimately in need of adoption, and that gay parents might help relieve the pressure on the foster care system by adopting some of the children now considered unadoptable, does not even register for Baskerville. Let me draw out a specific sentence for a moment to illustrate the extent of Baskerville’s dishonesty:

In Massachusetts, “Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families,” according to Democratic state Sen. Therese Murphy.

First, it’s Senator Therese Murray, not Senator Therese Murphy. Second, while I did find the reported quote in an actual news article, Murray was quite simply wrong. According to an estimate reported by the New York Times, “65,000 adopted children live in homes in which the head of the household is gay, or about 4 percent of the adopted population.” In other words, Baskerville has built his entire argument on a blatant falsehood. (As an aside, Murray may have actually meant to refer to the statistic that 40% of adoption agencies have placed at least one child with a gay or lesbian couple.)

Baskerville’s continual profiling of single-parent homes as being the ones with child abuse problems while married homes are free from the problem of child abuse is also starting to grate on me. Yes, certain factors, such as stress or financial tension, can make child maltreatment more likely. However, Baskerville almost seems to give married households a free pass entirely when it comes to child maltreatment, and I don’t think it should be hard to see why that is a problem. Child maltreatment is committed in married households, and assuming that it is not or that accusations of abuse in a married household must be false will mean that child maltreatment in married households will go overlooked. (Self fulfilling prophesy, anyone?) After all, part of the reason for the imbalance in child maltreatment statistics between married households and unmarried or divorced households is already that child maltreatment in married households is easier to hide and cover up.

And then there is Baskerville’s severely conspiratorial view of the world. I can’t help but feel that Baskerville has started with his conclusion and worked from there. Baskerville wants to believe that marriage is always best, and therefore he asserts that marriage somehow makes children immune to abuse and that when social services steps in the charges must be false. Similarly, Baskerville wants to believe that gay marriage and the “homosexual agenda” is insidious, so he asserts that they’re using child protective services as a tool to take children from healthy heterosexual families and claim them for themselves. I wonder what Baskerville would say if the statistics showed that single parent households had lower rates of child maltreatment than married households. Somehow I’m doubting he would suddenly become an advocate for divorce.

Of course, even more problematic than his suggestion that child abuse allegations regarding children in married households should be assumed to be false (given that kids in married households don’t get abused, of course) is Baskerville’s view of child protective services. The entire system, Baskerville argues, is a racket. Now, is there some abuse in the system? Sure. Name the system, there generally is. But is there some sort of national conspiracy to kidnap children from their parents and adopt them off to gay couples? No. Child maltreatment is a real problem and child protective services serves a critical role helping protect our weakest and most defenseless citizens. One way to improve child protective services would be to properly fund it, because as it is case workers run large case loads for tiny salaries. But that’s not going to happen as long as there are people like Baskerville running around arguing that child protective services is a child-stealing racket.

And you want to know what’s scary? Patrick Henry College, which is closely allied with (and shares a founder with) the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), hired this guy. What does this say about the positions taken by HSLDA, which not infrequently becomes involved in child abuse cases and is explicitly working to change child abuse laws and the way child protective services operates?

Then Why Didn’t You Tell Us That, Mom?

Last updated on: August 31, 2013 at 4:03 pm By Libby Anne

“I want you to know that I never actually believed everything in those Above Rubies magazines,” my mom told me when I was visiting home a while back.

“Then why didn’t you tell us that, mom?” I asked. “I read every issue of that magazine cover to cover, and I always thought it was completely approved material.”

I don’t know why my mother made that admission to me when she did. It was before the Mother Jones article about Kathryn Joyce’s new book on evangelical adoption, which sheds light on the Above Rubies/Liberian adoption scandal. My mother knows I identify as a feminist and that I’m critical of at least some aspects of the culture of the Christian homeschool movement, but that’s about it. Beyond that, we have a strict Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Except, I suppose, for the Pearls child training methods—that we’ve discussed on more than one occasion. But the Pearls don’t run Above Rubies magazine. Nancy Campbell does.

Regardless of what prompted my mother’s admission, I think there is something incredibly important to be learned here. Kate and I were talking a few months ago, and she told me she doesn’t think her parents realized quite how many extreme patriarchal/purity ideas she picked up and took to heart through Christian homeschooling culture. Her parents, she said, were always quick to condemn reading material, organizations, and leaders they believed promoted ungodly ideas or false doctrine. Because of this, she always assumed that materials that entered the house under the banner of Christianity and without condemnation were things they approved and endorsed.

My experience was very much the same.

My mother subscribed to Above Rubies and read each issue thoroughly. The ideas contained within the magazine aligned at least generally with beliefs I heard my mother espouse. When my parents disagreed with a religious leader, they were quick to say so. In fact, I grew up hearing James Dobson described as too wishy-washy and soft. Yet, I never heard my mother call Nancy Campbell or her magazine into question, so I assumed that the messages contained therein were approved, and that it was something I should read, take to heart, and learn from. And read, take to heart, and learn I did.

I’ve talked to many homeschool graduates—some I knew growing up, some I’ve met in person since, and others I’ve connected with over the internet or through facebook. This thing I’m talking about? This thing is important. Once homeschool parents enter the Christian homeschool subculture, if they don’t vocally and openly condemn, question, or contradict what that subculture teaches, their children will assume that the ideas and ideals of that subculture are approved—something the should listen to, take seriously, and imbibe. I’ve talked to more than my fair share of homeschool graduates who grew up in this culture and took to heart things they later found out their parents never even realized they were learning.

Christian parents who choose to homeschool their children but do not ascribe to the ideals of the Christian homeschool subculture, especially things like Christian Patriarchy or Quiverfull, need to be on guard against this. It’s not uncommon for homeschool parents who happen to be Christian to find themselves in the same homeschool circles with Christian parents who homeschool out of religious conviction. And it’s also not uncommon for their children to find themselves in those circles whether their parents actively frequent them or not. In this kind of situation, parents may not realize the toxic ideologies their children taking in through osmosis from the Christian homeschooling culture around them.

In my mother’s case, it’s not that she disagreed entirely with the Above Rubies magazine. My mother was more mainstream than many, but she definitely ascribed to the outer circles of Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull ideology. To be honest, I don’t actually know what parts of what Above Rubies she takes issue with—I was too surprised by her admission to think to ask. There is one thing I was not too shocked to make sure to tell her, though:

“You need to tell the girls, mom,” I said. “They read Above Rubies just as I did at their age. You need to tell them you don’t agree with all of it, because if you don’t, they’ll think you do.”

Guest Post: An Outsider Reads Elsie Dinsmore, Part III

Last updated on: September 9, 2013 at 10:09 pm By Libby Anne

A Guest Post by Tracey

So, most of the cat is out of the bag; Elsie nearly dies before the book wraps up. The last piece of the story involves Elsie’s extreme reluctance to do anything of a secular nature on the sabbath. Her only acceptable Sunday diversions are reading the bible and The Pilgrim’s Progress (a religious allegory). So, of course, when Horace asks Elsie to read him secular story on Sunday, she refuses, saying its against God’s law. Remember that Elsie has already run into problems with this, such as the time she would not play a secular song on the sabbath in the first book. Anyway, this time Horace works himself into extreme sickness, then after his recovery he punishes her until she is so distraught she falls into illness—all because he has this bizarre desire to see her submit to him in all things, no matter how small.

Over the course of six chapters Horace takes away all of Elsie’s freedoms including her correspondence with Miss Rose (remember the Christian friend she met in the beginning of book 1?), her travel privileges, even her Mammy, and then he threatens to sent her away to boarding school. He finally even leaves the house so as not to accidentally cave in and give her any sense of victory whatsoever. He promises to relent only when Elsie agrees to give up her obsession with placing God first, which she’s never gonna do.

Hilariously, the detail that sends Elsie over the edge into actual sickness is the mention of being sent to a Catholic boarding school. Elsie freaks out, saying, “They will try to make me go to mass and pray to the Virgin, and when I refuse they will put me in a dungeon and torture me!” Aunt Adelaide and even the author herself do very little to dispel the reader’s bad image of Catholicism, calling the religion “superstition”. I was raised a Catholic and this part just made me laugh.

The morning after the “Catholic scare,” Elsie is found feverish and weak, causing some family members to worry for her very life. And they are correct. She declines so far that she is actually pronounced dead at one point, until they figure out her heart still beats, barely. This crisis produces the long expected change of heart Horace needed. He decides to no longer make Elsie obey when it goes against her conscience. Great. She still has to unquestioningly obey all the other times of course.

The rest of the book is basically about how inseparable Horace and Elsie are now that they are both true Christians. Oh, did I mention Horace had a mini-conversion from whatever lackadaisical Christian he was originally? This book makes it clear there are right kinds of Christians and wrong kinds. Presbyterians get all the good adjectives, so they are obviously right. Catholics get bad adjectives, so they are wrong. The book does very little to elaborate on why this is so.

One thing that really got to me during the reading of this book was how assured the storyteller is of the themes she embeds in the story. I mean, I know I’m not sinning by reading, say, Memoirs of a Geisha on a Sunday. But to Elsie? There would be no question of the worldly, even carnal nature of my chosen entertainment. I doubt she’d approve of it for even a weekday, let alone a sabbath. Her certainty (and by extension the author’s certainty) makes me highly uncomfortable. I’m starting to realize how much I truly value honest discussion and the ability to think about things and change one’s mind. This story seems to actively encourage the opposite of that. I actually felt like I was upside-down reading some of this. It was so absolutely convinced of itself that I wondered if I’d fallen into a different reality. I literally took a break from reading for two days at one point. It was just so disheartening.

I thought the story had a lot of problems from the nitpicky (author has no sense of subtlety) to larger issues such as Elsie’s extreme emotional attachment to Horace. I had a hard time with the idea of the “true father” the books seem to endorse. There’s really nothing magical about a child having its parents’ DNA that should automatically make that child and parent “right” for one another. But Elsie seems to think there is. Otherwise why would she put so much stock in the affections of a man she knows so very little? And speaking of misplaced affection, what is Travilla’s character really after anyway? Throughout the books he repeatedly tells Elsie he wishes her to live with him. Somehow I doubt he’s really talking about adopting Elsie. I can’t think the author, with all her “true father” nonsense, is a big adoption fan. I think he’s hitting on her. This is another spoiler actually; Travilla and Elsie wind up married in a later book. That’s all kinds of weird.

Another thing about this book I’ve been kicking around inside my head is the author’s definition of love. At the beginning of book one, Elsie keeps going back to the refrain, “If only Papa would love me!” She seems to think Horace only loves her whenever he is pleased with her. I don’t treat the idea of love like that. I maintain that I still have love for a child or adult with whom I happen to be angry. To me love speaks to something deeper than pleasure, encompassing the fact that I would put myself on the line for a person I love, regardless of my current surface emotion. The books are treating love as if it is a trivial emotion akin to liking something. When Elsie thinks Papa doesn’t love her, she’s really experiencing times Papa doesn’t seem to like her. I wonder if the definition if love has changed or if humans just have trouble grasping its meaning, each of us using a different definition. The author’s definition strikes me as somewhat shallow.

Which brings me to the author. I said I’d mention what little I know about her, so here goes. Her name is Martha Finley. She was herself Presbyterian born in 1828 and lived through the Civil War. She lived in a variety of places during her life: Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. She was a teacher and also a writer, penning things for the Presbyterian Publishing Board. She wrote Elsie Dinsmore just around the time of the Civil War—it was published in 1867. The books (a single manuscript divided in two) was so well liked she was able to write many more books about Elsie (28 total) and other similar stories. She was still writing stories until within a few years of her death in 1909.

No one seems to have information about what Finley was like herself. I mean we can guess some of it based on what she was writing, but it’s not like we have interviews or a back flap description for Ms. Finley. I’ll give her this—her writing is something compelling. Some of the over-emotional scenes are weirdly fascinating. I found myself hooked, waiting to see what ridiculous thing Horace would do next and what Elsie would cry over in this chapter.

In conclusion, I’m really not a fan of these books. They make me very determined to pay attention to my (future) kids’ reading habits. I’m thinking I don’t want to teach them to avoid certain books—I want to instead teach them to think about why a books gets written, so they can feel free to disagree with the author. We could play this game after every book and talk about the story, even when they are little. It will totally be a fun bonding activity.

Before I go, I will leave you with this amusing thing I discovered. I think it’s possible Elsie is a nudist. Remember that Mammy is constantly having to dress her? She MUST be shedding clothes. And if that’s not enough evidence for you, on page 20 of Elsie’s Holidays at Roselands I found the following exchange:

“What are you going to wear to Isabel Carleton’s party tonight, Elsie?” asked Lucy at the dinner table.

“Nothing,” replied Elsie, with an arch smile.

In actuality, Horace isn’t letting Elsie attend the party—another punishment for another small offense—but that’s good because the other guests will all have dresses!

Guest Post: An Outsider Reads Elsie Dinsmore, Part I

Last updated on: September 9, 2013 at 10:09 pm By Libby Anne

A Guest Post by Tracey

My name is Tracey and I write a blog describing my religious journey through local churches. In my blog surfing I became interested in the Elsie Dinsmore series, so I borrowed books 1 and 2 from the library. Functionally, I found them more like one long story than two, so I read them in succession. I would like to present an adult, outside (non-homeschooled non-evangelical) perspective on these first two books. The books I have read are, as far as I can tell, the original versions. They are called Elsie Dinsmore and Elsie’s Holidays at Roselands.

Let’s begin with a chapter by chapter look at the first part of book 1.

Chapter 1—Introducing Elsie

In chapter one we meet Elsie. She is a timid little thing with fragile emotions who seems really very put upon indeed. The other five kids in the house AND their private tutor torment Elsie constantly. Actually Elsie is the daughter of an elder brother to this sibling group. Her classmates are her aunts and uncles. Elsie’s mom (also named Elsie) and dad (Horace) getting married caused a big scandal for Horace’s family, because they wed so young. And something about Elsie Sr. having the wrong kind of wealth; it comes from trade. To deter the new marriage from blossoming, grandpa Dinsmore (Horace’s dad) sent his 17 year old married boy to the North and then to Europe. Eight years later he’s still there. Meanwhile, Elsie Sr. gave birth to Elsie Jr., then died of a broken heart a week later. So Elsie’s been stuck with the Dinsmore clan ever since with only her dear Mammy (her slave nurse) to raise and love her.

In this chapter we also meet Arthur, Elsie’s chief tormentor. And we meet Rose Allison, a family friend from the North that we learn is Christian just like Elsie! They talk about God and Jesus for awhile and the chapter ends on a happy note. I found it striking that the character I was drawn to most was the justice-loving Lora, the only one of the siblings that doesn’t treat Elsie like trash. I really don’t relate to Elsie, she’s such a little mouse.

Chapter 2—“jes de same as if I was white”

In chapter 2 we get to meet Mammy, and immediately a few questions spring to mind:

If Mammy raised Elsie why don’t they sound the same when they talk? This story is set in the South, sometime before the Civil War. The slaves wait on the family’s every need but are referred to as “servants,” and are given adjectives like sable, dark, dusky, Negro. And they all talk in heavily accented English. So why doesn’t Elsie have this accent?
How does Mammy understand so much about Christianity? She is called “entirely uneducated” yet she has memorized all kinds of bible verses and articles of faith such that she can remind Elsie just what Jesus asks of her at any given time.
If this woman really raised Elsie, why doesn’t Elsie view her as a mother? And while we’re on the subject of parents, why is Elsie so attached to her absent father? As someone interested in adoption, I may one day parent a child who is not biologically of my body nor perhaps of my race. The constant obsession with biological parenthood in this book drives me mad. Mammy is Elsie’s mother if anyone is. And Horace doesn’t deserve to be called her father.
Why is this book in my local library? The racism in here is very bothersome. Mammy talks about her love for Jesus because “He loves me jes de same as if I was white . . .” While technically true that Jesus loves black people just as much as white people, there’s no reason to frame it this way . . . unless you believe black people are less deserving of love. It sounds like the author does.

The other important thing that happens in chapter 2 is an incident with Arthur. He asks (demands) Elsie to loan him money to buy a splendid little toy ship he wants. Elsie says she’s going to think about it and he calls her stingy. Then she buys it for him outright. In return he stops teasing her. For a while. So I guess the price of kindness is a sailboat.

Chapter 3—Papa and Travilla

This chapter introduces Elsie’s dad who finally returns home from Europe and Mr. Travilla, a friend of his since boyhood. On their very first meeting Elsie chokes, finding herself unable to run up to her father and just give him a hug. Her father remarks how terrified she seems and she flees the scene sobbing. Get used to this folks because this is how their dynamic persists for a long while yet. Also get used to the sobbing. Elsie cries for maybe 80% of the time.

Mr. Travilla is an interesting character who immediately takes a liking to Elsie. It is in this chapter that he first suggests he wants her as his own daughter. I know those of you who have read the entire series will find this particularly strange given their adult relationship later.

Chapter 4—More awkward interactions

Elsie and her father continue in this newly established pattern of him disapproving of nearly everything she does and of her responding with tears and attempts to not be “naughty”. It is noticeable that not only is Elsie in agony over having displeased her papa, she is in agony that by doing so she is being wicked, which displeases Jesus. Never mind that Papa’s orders are arbitrary, closed to questions and sometimes given after the event.

The whole rattlesnake incident pisses me off too. Horace tells Elsie never to go into this large meadow on their grounds.

“Why, Papa?” Elsie asks.

“Because I forbid it,” he responds.

Okay, there’s a giant rattlesnake down in the meadow. Elsie is eight and she’s old enough to understand what that means. Heck, telling her would probably help her remember the warning better, so she wouldn’t get into trouble. But Horace has to control Elsie in every way so he forbids the questioning of any command, and then punishes Elsie when she forgets and goes in the meadow. Then the author holds up the finding subsequent and killing of that snake as proof Horace was right to keep his daughter in the dark. After all, he was only doing it for her protection. I find myself wondering who this author was and why she was writing.

The other thing about this chapter is the weirdest scene in the book so far: Papa takes Elsie on a visit to Mr. Travilla’s house. After dinner Travilla finds Elsie reading in the library. He tells her to put away her book, but Elsie just wants to finish the book before Papa takes her home. Travilla responds, “He is not to take you away. I have made a bargain with him to let me keep you . . . call me papa in the future.” This freaks Elsie out immensely and she runs crying to her dad. At this point, if it were me I’d run too, but not to the dad who I barely know. It’s obvious this is some weird joke that only Travilla is in on, and no one else found funny. What possesses Travilla to do this? No idea. I did not know what to make of this part. I assume it’s just more “biological father = true father” crap.

Chapter 5—The Watch

This chapter mostly focuses on another incident with Arthur in which a watch belonging to grandpa Dinsmore is found broken. They hold a short trial/interrogation in a room of the house and evidence is given and witnesses questioned. Arthur, cast as the villain, is of course to blame. Elsie is the key witness and fears Arthur will plot revenge. Papa happens to be on Elsie’s side at the moment, so he tells her, “Don’t be frightened daughter. I will protect you.” All well and good until . . .

Chapter 6—Nope you are naughty

Elsie somehow does wrong again and her father shuts her out again. This time it’s because she loosed a hummingbird he had trapped under glass (hello, it could die in minutes in there) thinking it was Arthur’s doing. She is punished for not being able to read Horace’s mind. Also, who collects hummingbirds?

Chapter 7—Bread and water

Elsie still hasn’t learned divination or how to be a stepford child. She fails a single lesson at school and Horace makes her have bread and water for dinner. You know, it’s really getting remarkable how much of this book is dramatic dialogue. So much “Oh Papa!” and “You cry too much” and “I am terribly naughty.” Stop writing the whines and can we please get back to some story already?

Chapter 8—The workbook incident

So this whole business with the school workbook is something of a turning point in the story. Elsie manages to write cleanly and legibly for a month in her school workbook. She can’t wait to have Papa see that she isn’t naughty after all! Unbeknownst to her, Arthur has found the workbook and surreptitiously stained and written in it to make it appear messy. The work is so sloppy, (and Horace is such a maniac) that Horace decides to really punish Elsie. He drags her by the arm into his room and picks up a horsewhip. Just then Lora rushes in, just in time to save Elsie from a beating she didn’t deserve! Lora says that Elsie’s workbook is always neat and she wouldn’t lie about not knowing the scribbles were there. Horace immediately believes Lora (for some reason) where he did not believe Elsie a moment ago. He calls Elsie “My darling, my own precious child!” and apparently he’s pretty upset that he almost beat her half to death for no reason.

He begins to treat Elsie with tooth-decaying affection, spending most of his spare time with her. He lavishes epithets of love on her and scolds anyone who mistreats her. So of course this means Arthur gets what’s coming to him about the notebook. Now that Elsie is in her father’s good graces, what could go wrong?

To be continued . . .

Tracey blogs at The Church Project.