News
Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
News
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
News
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
News
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
News
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
There is a wonderfully telling moment in Bradley Whitman's piece "Welfare's Lost Children." (Opinion, Sept. 30) One can almost see the hand-wave when he says that "such a policy would force many unwed mothers to give up their children to the state, but in the long run, the benefits to society would outweigh the costs." Even leaving aside all of the other laughable defects of this assertion, like the reality that raising a child in an orphanage is orders of magnitude more expensive than raising that same child in its family, there is something idiotically perverse going on here.
Apparently, Whitman believes that the second parent's role is of such paramount importance that we may as well give up on the family if there's only one parent around. Given his statement that children from single-parent households are more likely to end up single parents themselves, I'm surprised he didn't bother to extend this line of thinking to the no-parent household.
I have yet to see a cogent call for welfare reform that doesn't contain at least one serious ellipsis in its logic Usually, however--and unlike Whitman--their authors at least try to conceal such leaps of faith. --James Grimmelmann '99
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.