PC abuse
Political correctness is deeply invested in affirming all possible positive stereotypes about whatever group happens to be classified as the victim of straight white male culture (and that would be usually Jewish or Christian straight white male culture). To that end, it shies away from any unpleasant realities that might interfere with these positive stereotypes. This way, its practitioners avoid the risk of victimizing any group that has in same way (or so the PC practitioners think), real or symbolic, now or in the past, suffered because of its victim status.
Sadly, it looks today as if PC sensibilities aimed at protecting British gays left open to injury the most vulnerable members of any population: children. This isn’t my conclusion, incidentally. It’s the conclusion of a formal government report about a child welfare services council in the North of England:
A council’s political correctness allowed a pair of homosexual foster parents to sexually abuse children in their care, a report has concluded.
Managers and social workers were reluctant to investigate Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey for fear of being accused of prejudice.
Instead, they were viewed as “trophy carers” who, by virtue of their sexuality, had a “badge” which made their actions less questionable.
A mother of eight-year-old twins raised concerns about them with social services after finding a photograph of one of the boys using the lavatory.
But the authorities took no action, accepting that the two men had been “naive and silly”.
In reality, they had been using the boys for sexual gratification within months of being approved as carers by the Labour-run Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.
Faunch, 42, and Wathey, 33, were jailed last year for a string of offences against four boys, aged between eight and 14, at their home in Pontefract, West Yorks.
The victims were among 18 children placed with the pair, Yorkshire’s first homosexual foster parents, between August 2003 and January 2005.
An independent inquiry concluded that the children were let down by “failures in performance” of individuals and the systems operated by the council. However, it did not name the staff involved.
The panel, led by Brian Parrott, the former head of Surrey social services, found: “The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.
“These anxieties about discrimination have deep roots, we argue – in social work training, professional identity and organisational cultures, and the remedies for these go beyond the remit of any single council or inquiry report.”
(Read the rest of the story here.)
Importantly, the British report is not about whether or not gay care givers are more or less likely to molest children under their care. Instead, it focuses, laser-like, on the fact that a government organization was so frightened of investigating the reality behind a specific PC stereotype that it rendered itself incapable of carrying out its mandate (which, in this case, was to protect children).
Stereotypes can be a useful means of understanding the world around us. Some are flattering (Asians and Jews are studious), some neutral (fair skinned people always sunburn), and some are mean and vicious (you can fill in your own blank here). And without exception, every single stereotype is wrong in some cases; many stereotypes are wrong in most cases; and a few stereotypes are wrong in every case. In other words, any stereotype is functional only when it serves as the beginning of thought, not the end of rational thought. To accept a stereotype without analysis is the equivalent of no thought at all. And when a government agency takes a stereotype and elevates it to the highest principle in its operating arsenal, leaving employees incapable of using observation and analysis, you can only end with disaster.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has reported this story as well. Incidentally, she has little to say, believing the story speaks for itself, as it does. Her readers are more vocal, with 96 comments and counting.
