Jewish World Review July 20, 2000/ 17 Tamuz, 5760
Kathleen Parker
Lack of judgment --- our critical flaw
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
"WHO are we to judge?''
The question leaps off the page each time I see it, and I
seem to see it everywhere these days. My most recent
sighting was on the editorial pages of a boarding-school
newspaper in a commentary praising the decision of
several prep schools to permit gay and lesbian couples
to serve as dorm parents.
Andover hopes to have one or two homosexual couples
ensconced in the coming school year. Exeter is moving
toward the same, as are others.
Historically, most boarding schools haven't allowed
unmarried couples to serve as dorm parents because, at
least in the past, schools wanted to provide positive role
models for students. The fact that unmarrieds were
denied cohabitation privileges in dorms necessarily
precluded homosexual couples sharing campus quarters.
Unmarried is unmarried. Of course, the move to permit
gays to serve in loco parentis surely eliminates any rule
against unmarried heterosexuals cohabiting among teens
trying to figure out how to live their lives. But, hey, who
are we to judge?
The question of whether unmarrieds and homosexuals
should act as surrogate parents and role models is surely
a subject deserving of more serious treatment than this
space allows. Surely, too, few mainstream Americans
care about the travails of the privileged few who attend
private boarding schools, though they should.
Many of the children educated today at Andover, Exeter
et al someday will direct legislative and judicial actions
that will determine lifestyle in Dayton.
In the meantime, the more bothersome issue is our
attitude toward such questions and the ubiquitous
chorus: Who are we to judge? Apparently, ``we'' are no
one, and no one is to judge anyone ever under any
circumstances. Even parents shouldn't be judgmental,
apparently.
The same day I read about gay dorm parents, I
happened across an Ann Landers column in which a
mother complained that her 14-year-old son's girlfriend
had presented him a gift - a collage of naked women in
various poses - which he promptly hung on his bedroom
wall.
Mom didn't like the ``art,'' thought it inappropriate and
wondered, basically, what her rights were. Could she
object, she asked Ann?
Dear Ann, who must have determined that God is a
nihilist, told the mother to calm down. The boy has the
right to put anything he likes on his walls, she said. Who,
we might infer, are we to judge?
I've never pretended to host a democracy at my house.
Ours is a benevolent dictatorship - on my good days. In
short, I rule, with consenting nods from Dad's end of the
table.
In any case, posters of naked women do not adorn
walls in our home, nor would it ever occur to my
15-year-old son to put one up. Why? Because he
knows Queen Mother would remove it without even her
usual diplomatic courtesy. Furthermore, he's been taught
that we don't do that in our family. He can hide his dirty
pictures inside the covers of Ulysses as all the other nice
children do.
Who are we to judge? We are the parents, adults and
moral standard bearers of our homes, schools, cities and
states, not to mention a pretty large chunk of what
remains of Western civilization. It was once understood
that certain moral absolutes exist independent of
subjectivity.
If we don't know what those are any more, we'd better
figure them out and soon. Someone has to judge, or
there won't be anything left worth
judging.
JWR contributor Kathleen Parker can be reached by clicking here.
07/18/00: 'Progress' for women often a step back
07/11/00: School essay watchdogs cannibalize our children
07/06/00: Youths fear marriage --- blame boomers
06/28/00: Eminem might just have a point
06/21/00: Bridging the day-care divide
06/15/00: N.Y. baby case ends up with multiracial scrambled eggs
05/31/00: The war only time wins
05/25/00: The opposite of sex
05/18/00: World War II gave us our true heroes
05/11/00: Boy Crazy! stacks deck against guys
05/09/00: Finding out where the boys are
05/05/00: A born Ms. Leader -- Barbie for prez
04/25/00: From here to paternity
04/14/00: Boys should be boys, not viewed as criminals in training
04/11/00: Oh, for a standard of what is socially, morally acceptable
04/06/00: Womyn's Contempt for Commitment --- and the bastards it creates
04/04/00: Sue-happy American society is out of control
03/30/00: Duct-taped baby serves as warning
03/28/00: Stay-home parents know that their kids need them
03/24/00: No 'Great Expectations' when schools shun the classics
03/21/00: It's common sense to restrict Internet usage in libraries
03/17/00: You want to be just a mom? For shame!
03/14/00: Colonoscopy: Important, but bad TV
03/10/00: I made a mistake about trigger-locks
03/08/00: After this school shooting, no easy target for our contempt
03/03/00: Car crash helps bridge our divide
02/28/00: Nasty politics? Americans like it down, dirty
02/14/00: College testing via
Lego-building -- yeah, right
02/02/00: Bubba should spare us phony love theatrics
01/26/00: What sets off Those Who Speak for Women
01/13/00: Fools in love: Premarital counseling could help school kids
01/11/00: Who funds these studies!?
12/29/99: Grandparents' rights impinge on family autonomy
12/13/99: When did fathers become fair game?
12/09/99: Don't be stupid about at-risk kids
12/07/99: Pokemon is no substitute for a father
12/02/99: Blaming the victim --- men
11/30/99: Baby-killer's story has less-than-Precious ending
11/23/99: Pendulum swings back toward discipline, responsibility
11/18/99: Put the babies first in this mighty mess
11/11/99: Skip the applause for this baby news
11/09/99: Gore could benefit from a secret in Wolf's clothing
11/03/99: Who needs 'birds and bees' when we have MTV?
11/01/99: Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say
10/26/99: Children's needs must take priority in divorce system
10/19/99: The deadbeat dad is less a scoundrel than an object of pity
10/15/99: Bullying boys ... and girls
10/12/99: Divorced dads ready to wage a revolution
10/04/99: A father's best gift? His presence
09/30/99: Sorry, guys, Faludi is no friend of yours
09/28/99: Science's new findings: Scary future for families
09/23/99: The great blurring of need and want
09/21/99:Focus on more than baby's first 3 years
09/16/99: Commentary from kids sheds no light on day-care debate
09/14/99: Fathers' group seeks to right inequities
09/09/99: Son now has a license to grow up
09/07/99: A slap in the face of domestic violence
09/01/99: No, ma'am: Legislation on manners misses the mark
08/26/99: For better boys, try a little tenderness
08/24/99:The ABC's of campaign questions
08/19/99: Male 'sluts'
08/11/99: Language doesn't excuse bad behavior
08/09/99: When justice delayed is still justice
08/03/99: Unemployment? Not in this profession
07/30/99: It's not about race -- it's about crack babies
07/22/99: Tragedy tells us what's important
07/19/99: Study denouncing fathers sends danger signals
07/15/99:'Happy marriage' belongs in the
Dictionary of Oxymorons next to 'deliciously low-fat.'
07/11/99: 'Brother Man': An American demagogue in Paris
07/08/99: Only parents can fix broken families
07/06/99: America is home, sweet home
07/01/99: Tales out of Yuppiedom
06/28/99: Men aren't the only abusers
06/23/99: Is the entire country guzzling LSD punch?
06/20/99: The voice remains -- as always -- there beside me
06/16/99:Stating the obvious, a new growth industry
06/14/99: Calling for a cease-fire in the gender war
06/10/99: We owe children an apology
©1999, Tribune Media Services
|