Regular commenter Mark Faulkner pointed me to Judith Warner’s latest piece at the New York Times, Dangerous Resentments. Warner argues that
our country’s resentment, and even hatred, of well-educated, apparently affluent women, is spiraling out of control.
But her evidence for this is mighty thin: one case of a professor-mother, Bridget Kevane, who was charged with child endangerment and had the book thrown at her:
The prosecutor pursued her child endangerment case ultra-zealously because she “said she believed professors are incapable of seeing the real world around them because their ‘heads are always in a book,’” Kevane writes. “I just think that even individuals with major educations can commit this offense, and they should not be treated differently because they have more money or education,” the prosecutor wrote to Kevane’s lawyer.
Now, I find the prosecutor’s remarks offensive, myself. My head is frequently in a book (or turned toward my computer) but if I’m with my kids, my ears are still tuned to them (right now they’re making happy playing noises) and my antennae are quivering. While I’ve known a couple of professors who really did inhabit a different universe, none of them spawned offspring. On the whole, intellectuals are not dry, detached, heartless creatures.
Americans do harbor an anti-intellectual streak. Perhaps women bear the brunt of this more than men. I’m not quite convinced of that, though. George W. Bush’s victories over Al Gore and John Kerry demonstrate our collective ambivalence toward intelligent men. Obama might represent a swing of the pendulum back toward valuing intellectuals – or he might be a fluke. After all, suspicion of “eggheads” goes back at least to Adlai Stevenson.
Besides, while female intellectuals face occasional overt prejudice, it’s much less pervasive and damaging than the biases against poor women and women of color. I for one would rather be seen as an absent-minded professor than as a welfare queen. Life in general and motherhood in particular are easier for women with my educational advantages than for most poor women of color. While I’ve had long spells of underemployment, I have a job and health insurance, my kids live in a safe neighborhood, and a very good public school is just a couple hundred feet from our front door. That doesn’t mean it’s illegitimate to point out sexism against privileged women, only that it needs to be contextualized and relativized, which Warner really doesn’t do.
At any rate, Warner can’t make her case with a single example: one prosecutor in Bozeman, Montana, who had a bad case of town-gown resentment. Kevane highlights the town-gown issue in her original essay at Brain, Child, and some of the commenters there also confirm that the university has tense relations with the town.
What’s really at stake here is a set of issues that all parents face: how much freedom and responsibility to give kids, how much we should restrict their lives in the name of “keeping them safe,” and how parents will be judged for their decisions. I say “parents,” but in reality it’s often mothers whose feet are held to the fire, as Kevane’s case shows.
Here’s what happened, in Bridget Kevane’s words:
Bozeman is a small town known for its quality of life, striking physical beauty, easy access to the outdoors, and great public schools. It is also known as a safe community. The mall is considered a family place where kids trick-or-treat in October to escape the cold, and groups of children meet friends, shop, eat and see movies. It is a popular activity both during the long Montana winters as well as the summer months.
The mall is a safe place. There are no signs posted at the mall saying that children cannot be left unattended. No child has ever been kidnapped or molested at the mall. And yet, I was charged as a criminal for dropping children there without my direct supervision.
My oldest daughter, Natalie, and her friend, were both twelve at the time, going into seventh grade. The girls, who had known each other since they were three years old, had attended a babysitting class sponsored by the local hospital for girls eleven and older. The class teaches CPR, infant care, responsible behavior and more. They both also had enough experience babysitting other people’s children that I trusted having them supervise the other kids at the mall—Ellie, eight, Matthew, seven, and my younger daughter, Olivia, who was three.
An outsider, or someone used to a bigger, more crowded way of living, might be shocked to know that I left children that young in the care of two twelve-year-olds. But these kids were a pack. They grew up together in a neighborhood full of children. They walk to and from their local schools together, play together, and frequently spend time at each other’s homes.
My husband and I are particularly good friends with two families that live near our home. We parents depend on each other for support and mutual child care as much as our children depend on each other for friendship. As our kids have grown older, an implicit agreement has formed among us: Our children will wander to each other’s homes, and it is our job to informally supervise them and keep each other aware of their whereabouts. As we all live within less than half a mile from each other, much time is spent going from one house to the other, to the park, or walking around the nearby university, where I am a professor of Latin American and Latino Studies.
So when the older girls asked if they could go to the mall that Saturday, I said yes, if they took the younger kids with them. On that particular day, I was exhausted. The children wanted an activity, and I wanted a couple of hours of quiet and rest. …
The plan was for the kids to have lunch and walk around a bit. I told the older girls the rules. They could not leave the younger kids unsupervised. They could not make a ruckus. They had to behave. Olivia, the three-year-old, had to stay in her stroller. When I called my husband and the other mother to let them know the plan, there was no hesitation on their part. My husband was at his office down the street from the mall, less than five minutes away. I would be at home with my cell phone, and my daughter had her cell phone in case they wanted to be picked up early.
I dropped the group off at roughly one forty-five p.m. and said that I would pick them up at four for the barbeque we were going to that night. It was to be an afternoon activity, as simple as that.
About an hour later, my husband, who was home by then, received a call from the police telling me that we had to come down to the mall immediately. My first thought was that the kids had made a scene, that they had knocked something over, that they had run about recklessly. We jumped into the car.
When I walked into the mall, the children were all in an enclosed security office behind a glass wall, smiling, eating candy, and talking to a security guard and some Macy’s employees. I smiled and waved to them, relieved that everything appeared fine.
That feeling was quickly about to change.
As soon as we entered the office, I was confronted by two Bozeman city police officers. One told me that what I had done was completely unacceptable in his opinion and that he was going to arrest me for endangering the welfare of my children. I asked him if there was a mall age limit that I was not aware of. He told me to be quiet. I tried to explain to him that I had faith in my daughter’s skills and in the safety of the mall, and that I was not an endangering parent. As I tried to keep talking, desperate to clear up what was obviously nothing more than a huge misunderstanding, he warned me that if I “went crazy” on him, he would handcuff me right in front of the children and take me away to jail for the night. He said he had called child services already. They would either arrive at the mall shortly or get his report and be visiting my home this week to check in.
My husband tried to reason with the officer, emphasizing that this was a first-time mistake and asking if we could be set free with a warning, some lesser charge. But the officer simply kept repeating that what I had done was a crime.
I’ve quoted at length because Warner’s column left me feeling pretty judgmental, but after I read Kevane’s essay, I felt much more sympathetic toward her. My own reaction mirrors the disparate tone of the comments at Brain, Child and at the New York Times. Most Brain, Child readers were basically sympathetic. Ditto at the Free Range Kids blog, which reprinted Kevane’s essay. At the New York Times, readers have roundly criticized Kevane’s mothering (and mostly dismissed the point Warner was purportedly trying to make about prejudice toward educated women), as did Jesse at Pandagon.
Kevane’s original essay makes clear that she’s still working through the deep shaming she experienced. However unwittingly, Warner just compounded it by presenting a much-condensed version of Kevane’s story and exposing her to a new round of shaming in the national spotlight (259 comments at the NTY and counting).
I do think Kevane made a couple of errors in judgment. One is that two twelve-year-olds don’t add up to double the babysitters; they add up to double the distraction. The other was to not realize that the mall would quadruple the distraction. At the mall, twelve-year-olds who are otherwise devoted big sisters quickly turn into flighty adolescents. Myself, I wouldn’t entrust a three-year-old with such a young sitter in public, because when the Tiger was three, he had this alarming tendency to run away. He wouldn’t have stayed in that stroller. Maybe Kevane’s little one is more docile, but there’s still a world of difference between a kid who’s still in a stroller and one who goes to grade school.
But here’s my confession: I’ve left my kids in the care of an eleven-year-old! I had a late Friday afternoon work commitment, and my husband got roped into an event that overlapped with mine. After trying a couple of older sitters, who were busy, I asked the sixth-grader two doors down to pick up my boys at school, bring them home, give them a snack, and play with them for an hour until my husband could come home. I was a little apprehensive but it worked fine. Our families are good friends, she’d done some prior “mother’s helper” work for me, she’s taken the Red Cross babysitting course, and my kids adore her. Our kids often form a little posse, much as Kevane describes. My town is a “safe” town, much like Kevane’s. Neither I nor my neighbors lock our back doors during the day, and some folks might think that’s pretty chancey, too.
Would I have sent our young neighbor to the mall with my kids? Heck no. Our mall is like a ghost town; more than half the stores are empty because the owners insist on charging crazy-high rents. Would I have asked her to mind my kids while she had a friend over? No, the conflict of interest would’ve been obvious. But I have sent them all to the playground together. Also, unlike Kevane, I wasn’t reachable by phone when I left our neighbor girl in charge. In an emergency, she could have reached her own mom by phone, but all four of us parents were at the university, a minimum of ten minutes away.
So I can’t totally condemn Kevane. I think everyone involved made some errors: the older girls, the other parents, the police, and the prosecutor. That doesn’t add up to a criminal offense.
Also, I’m just old enough to be a former eleven-year-old babysitter, myself. When my family spent time at our farm (we normally lived in town), I watched my sister, who’s eight years younger, while my parents and brother worked in fields. And by “watch,” I mean I tried to read a book while she played. (See, this nose-in-a-book thing runs deep.) There were no cell phones in 1975. I also babysat for pay at age eleven. It was just blocks from my house and I knew I could call my mom in a pinch, but I was in charge of two preschoolers, sometimes until well after midnight.
I think it’s perfectly okay to let a parent know when she (or he!) has overestimated her kids’ responsibility level. Kevane basically let the Macy’s staff fill the gaps, and that’s uncool and presumptuous. She could have sent the kids outside, or to the playground, which wouldn’t have been such a treat for the kids, but surely would have been the much smarter choice.
But criminal prosecution? Again, you really need to read her essay to get the full flavor of her experience. Also, where’s the outrage about her husband and the other mom agreeing to the situation? Why was only Kevane arrested, and not her husband, who after all picked up the phone when the cops called?
I tend to be overprotective of my kids. But what happens if parents’ decisions that depart from the most restrictive standards in the community become criminalized? We could keep our kids in a bubble, we could encase our kids in amber, and they’d be perfectly preserved. But keeping kids safe isn’t just a moment-to-moment concern. We also have to prepare them, slowly and systematically for life outside that shell. Navigating that tension is tricky. What happens if we haul every parent who makes a misstep into court?
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
In my view, while I’d be happy to let a 12 year old watch a 3 year old in the mall, I might be reluctant to let them watch a 7 or 8 year old in the same place, for exactly what happened – even the most social butterfly and careless 12 year old will probably realize that a 3 year old shouldn’t be left unattended (if not, I really have misjudged the kid’s ability level!), but they might not think the same about the 7 or 8 year old kid.
And that’s exactly what happened. They knew the three year old needed attending, but they figured the 7 and 8 year old could do the job. Which maybe they could (although a 7 and 8 year old together are, as you said, gonna distract each other), but it was against the rules set out for them.
At any rate, even if the mom didn’t dole out the babysitting in exactly the way I did, I do not think her kids were in any real danger nor that she did anything criminal (or prosecution-worthy if it actually was criminal, that not being a matter of opinion but of law), so there you go.
Yep, you bring out the weird caught-in-the-middle position of the pre-tweens. I’ve known 8-year-olds who’d be on top of the situation – and those who would be just helpless and freaked out themselves.
Thanks for your insights into the psychology of third- and sixth-graders!
And I’m with you on the criminalization business. It’s foolish, a waste of resources, and chilling to parents who are doing the best they can and generally *not* dropping the ball.
HI sungold! Yeah, I had much the same response to Warner’s article – not much evidence to back up her claim. I guess I still think that highly educated women actually have quite a bit of privilege, relatively speaking. If they get caught up in this anti-intellectualism thing, there’s really more harm done to those who buy it.
As for the “Mommy story”, I even had sympathy for Kevane after just reading Warner’s article. Living where I do, I have to say it’s unlikely I would leave my kids in such a situation. But my nine and twelve-year old sons did babysit my nieces for periods of time, at home. And when I was a kid, I babysat a newborn, a two-year old, a five-year old and a nine-year old regularly by the time I was twelve and for quite long periods of time. My brothers and sisters. Mind you, I resented it like hell but nothing bad happened. It’s a judgment call for sure.
What I DO think is that mother’s in particular are being harassed to fit everyone’s notion of the “good mother”. But that is most certainly not limited to professional women, oh no, NOT!
Yes, it’s a judgement call, and I can just be glad my mom didn’t task me with watching my sister as a newborn! Who knows if we’d still have the same great relationship today. She does complain, to this day, that I tried to teach her 3-year-old self to take pills by slurping down M&Ms.
If we could just talk over the class and racial divides, we would indeed see that Bad Mothers are everywhere, and we might just make common cause. Superficially, it’s make to look as though we have totally different values and priorities. And that gets in the way of solidarity. Warner unfortunately does her part to maintain that rift, even as she purports to speak for all mothers.
Just to clarify: by Bad Mothers, I mean mothers who are blamed and judged harshly … not women who actually do abandon or seriously endanger their kids.
As I read this, I was thinking back over the times I’ve had to let one of my older children babysit the younger kids. When my oldest was 12, he was responsible for watching his 9 year old sister, his 7 year old sister and his 5 year old brother after school (with a neighbor who checked in on them every so often) while I was working.
He wasn’t the best babysitter, but at home in an environment where I knew there were adults keeping an eye on things from a distance, it was an ok solution to a bad situation (at the time I couldn’t afford food most of the time, let alone child care).
If it had been my older in the same situation at 12, I would have had to quite work. She would not have been capable of taking on that responsibility without disastrous consequences.
Had it been my younger daughter, she could probably have handled it at 10 or 11. She was born old.
And I’ll admit, I HAVE dropped the kids off at the mall with oldest, starting at around age 12, as the babysitter. We are in a very rural area, and the local mall (as well as the local grocery store) are about a 45 minute drive from home. I had no qualms about dropping the four of them off at the mall for an hour or two of window shopping and playing in the arcade (the mall is very small, safe and has adequate security in place for all shoppers) while I went to the shopping center across the street to get groceries.
Not exactly the same scenario, but close enough that I can more than sympathize with the mother in this situation.
Context really does matter, doesn’t it? The discussion thread at Pandagon mentioned malls that are ridden with gangs and drugs. That’s just not the case everywhere, though, and a mall can be a perfectly safe place. My objection to Kevane’s action is not that she horribly endangered the kids (obviously she did not), but she overestimated the older girls and presumed on mall staff to be her backup.
Your examples also show how variable kids are in their maturity levels. I still see this at age 18 and 19, when they land in my classes. Some are really responsible, others are total flakes. I figure it’s a mix of inborn temperament (some kids are just more flighty from the get-go) and upbringing (too many parents don’t demand responsible behavior) I’ve had parents buy their kids’ textbooks, and by that I don’t mean just finance the books. They actually place the order. I ranted about this a while ago after a mother emailed me rather imperiously, wanting to know the title, ISBN, and edition number for the text.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Pega.
I keep thinking that there is one main aspect of the story we are not getting: What is Bozeman like? The politics and the people? I know nothing of the place, and even less after reading these posts…I know that what was okay in Ohio is not necessarily okay in Carolina, and vice versa. One size does not fit all, and a familiarity with place is crucial if you wanna know what is acceptable and what can get you arrested. (you can smoke dope in the balcony of the rock concert, not down on the main level) The way Kevane seemed oblivious, is the reason (IMHO) the prosecutor got all pissed off: “Who do you think you are? Well, we’re gonna show you who WE think you are.” A little humility and joking would probably have worked, but are professors given to humility? I think the whole thing escalated, and yes, class was the reason.
And it isn’t always what you think… like, I could let my three year old run all over the neighborhood unattended when we first moved to Greenville’s west end (which I nicknamed Mayberry RFD, it was so incredibly small-town and safe)… after the neighborhood started gentrification, I was warned by my new snotty neighbors to STOP doing that or they would call the cops on me. (really) So, I stopped, not out of fear of my child being hurt but out of fear that someone would take her to foster care to teach me a lesson….so, there was one standard for the working class and another for the elite. And then when the elite moved in, they subjected US to their values. It’s interesting that this situation seems to be reversed for Kevane; I wonder if her kids had acted more working class ‘rancher’ (that is probably the default working class in Montana? As textile workers and farmers are for Carolina?) –if that would have exempted them from law enforcement attention? Probably.
They were an anomaly, elite kids running around without supervision. If something should happen to them, it’s far more serious than if something happens to poor kids. Kevane is also being punished for not understanding this and making authorities “nervous”…
Kevane was punished for violating the class-borders. THAT is a very serious infraction!
As I read her piece, I wanted to reply to her as a proletarian who almost got the cops called on me by HER class of people:
“Instead, we got caught up in the legal system and wound up learning a different, sadder lesson: that self-sufficiency is shrinking in today’s culture.”
And whose fault is that? Affluent parents that have made the constant overscheduling of children’s every free minute the hard-to-achieve norm.
“Absolutely. I learned it’s not okay to drop the kids off at the mall, not in Bozeman, Montana, anyway.”
Why did you have your head so far up your ass that you didn’t know this previously?
“In the end, the mock jurors told me that if I wanted to win a real trial, I’d have to cry and show remorse, or at least show some emotion.”
What’s wrong with that? If she’d had a real fit with the cop, she wouldn’t even have had to HAVE a trial. But one gets the distinct impression she is too PRECIOUS for that.
And if I get that impression just reading her piece, wonder what the in-person vibe is like?
Again, her mistake was violating the class-boundaries. The rancher who “practically guffawed” said it all; no rancher kid’s mom would have been dragged into court. Then again, how do the rancher kids act in Macy’s? (Does anyone even notice if their parents are present?)
Apologies for length, this subject got me going!
ME: If she’d had a real fit with the cop,
And that’s another thing. She writes:
“As I tried to keep talking, desperate to clear up what was obviously nothing more than a huge misunderstanding, he warned me that if I “went crazy” on him, he would handcuff me right in front of the children and take me away to jail for the night.”
Someone obviously does not know how to handle cops. Obviously, Kevane is not someone who has worried she will be busted. She has never had to sob-on-cue for the cops. No, you don’t “go crazy”–you give the female pound of flesh: silent tears, sweet sobs, the works. Blink those eyes, furrow brow. Whisper softly. Turn it on. Same as you would for a male boss.
Does she know how? (Why doesn’t she?)
And no, when the cops have your children, there is no “huge misunderstanding”; in fact, it is quite easy to understand: They are the cops and they have your kids. Period. Say whatever you need to say. (But see, PRIDE kept her from groveling, and she then had to PAY for that pride.)
Do not try to “correct” the officer that no, you were not going 55 mph in a 35 mph zone. If he says you were, then you were. The issue is, at that point, not to get the ticket. STOP ARGUING, dear God!
Again, class. She didn’t seem to realize who was in charge, and seemed to think she was.
Cops will show you, always, who is in charge, and it isn’t you. There is no “misunderstanding”–there is only cop understanding.
Roughly paraphrasing from Hunter Thompson: Do not arouse contempt in the cop heart.
Daisy Deadhead: “Someone obviously does not know how to handle cops. Obviously, Kevane is not someone who has worried she will be busted. She has never had to sob-on-cue for the cops. No, you don’t “go crazy”–you give the female pound of flesh: silent tears, sweet sobs, the works. Blink those eyes, furrow brow. Whisper softly. Turn it on. Same as you would for a male boss.
“Does she know how? (Why doesn’t she?)”
This is pretty dangerously close to “why doesn’t she know her place?”
Or, “why not just give him the female show of emotion to which he is entitled?”
Yes, that probably would have gotten her off the hook. Not knowing how to play the game means Kevane is privileged, or lucky, or both. But knowing how to play the game doesn’t make someone else morally superior to Kevane.
What if it were a different situation — a policeman determined to look down her shirt and in her bra because she supposedly stole something? I can understand a woman crying, or acquiescing, in order to get it over with. I can also understand a woman holding her ground even though it might result in greater consequences for herself, perhaps in the hope that it will result in cops being a little more controlled rather than controlling.
If the woman didn’t “know better” and just stood up to him out of principle never even considering the sorry game? I don’t think that makes her dumb. I don’t think that makes her arrogant. It means she sticks to her principles, right or wrong.
I guess it’s the old hippie in me, or maybe I’ve watched too many old movies. But I’m surprised at how many reactions here and at Pandagon suggest she was especially wrong to resist police and prosecutorial pressure because of principle.
Are we all supposed to take the most “practical” road all the time? I guess maybe I should dump my husband and look for a rich guy to support me, pretend to be a simpering credulous fool so that men can do my work for me, be whatever is expected of me as a consumer and a citizen and a juror, just to make my life fit more easily into the script that’s been written for me.
Problem is, I have principles, and so does Kevane. Mind you, they’re not identical, and maybe I wouldn’t have done what she did. But we both want to live by our own principles, even when it’s uncomfortable, even when it costs us money or reputation.
Sure, leaving the kids at the mall was more dangerous than not leaving them at the mall. However. There are a million things that increase the danger to a child but are NOT CRIMINAL. The state doesn’t have a right to interfere with the great majority of parenting decisions that are considered “suboptimal.” If it did, kids couldn’t ride horses or bikes, couldn’t climb trees, families couldn’t have a live Christmas tree because it might dry up and then catch fire and burn the house down, kids would have to be swaddled in bubble wrap and carted to school and playdates in egg crates.
Daisy and Oldfeminist -
I agree that class is part of the issue. It’s altogether possible that Kevane radiated a privileged vibe. It’s also possible she simply tried to *explain* her situation and was shut down. Sure, that’s what cops often do. But as one commenter mentioned elsewhere (I think at Pandagon?): If relatively privileged women acquiesce, they’re also failing to challenge standards and assumptions and oppressive practices that are apt to target poor women, too, except that the poor will be hit much harder. I’m not saying that Kevane’s motivation was to crusade for all women and especially the dispossessed, but if she rolled over and gave up, it wouldn’t benefit other women and would allow such treatment to become more entrenched. So I agree with Oldfeminist on this point.
Her essay goes into detail about her Puerto Rican background. She definitely grew up with other influences than the typical American mall culture. She also grew up in a large family with a recent immigrant history. Here’s how she describes it:
That’s not an ultra-privileged background by any stretch. And what she earns as a professor of non-English languages and literature – even as department chair – in Montana may well be toward the lower end of middle-class salaries. Seen in terms of salary, her current class position likely depends on her husbands’ occupation. Seen culturally, anyone with a Ph.D. is likely to have absorbed upper-middle-class values, no matter how little they might earn. However, Kevane’s parenting differs very sharply from that upper-middle-class “bubble-wrap” approach.
Re: “what kind of town is Bozeman?” Her description of the mock jury reveals two cultures, and two clashing approaches to parenting. One of the Pandagon commenters, Ms. Kate, strongly argued that farm work is far, far more dangerous to kids than the mall. Having grown up in a farming community where the kids routinely worked very hard and used heavy, hazardous equipment, I think she has a very persuasive point. Certainly my brother was at greater risk working in the fields than my sister with my lazy babysitting.
Thanks, both of you, for your comments.
oldfeminist, I think you mistook my comments as an endorsement of the status quo, when I was simply describing it as I see it.
Problem is, I have principles, and so does Kevane. Mind you, they’re not identical, and maybe I wouldn’t have done what she did. But we both want to live by our own principles, even when it’s uncomfortable, even when it costs us money or reputation.
One of MY principles is, do not get arrested. Do not go to court. Stay out of the way of all law enforcement. When you -must- interact with them: bow, scrape, agree with everything they say and (most especially) grovel. This is (see Thompson quote, above) the way to avoid arousing contempt in the cop heart. The only way.
So, I am living by my principles too. You describe yourself as an old hippie, does this mean, a drug-using hippie? Because you don’t sound like one who has ever been truly afraid of jail.
I am proud to say I was one of the only radicals in my group who was never arrested. I was the one who bailed other people out. I like to think it is because I mastered the art of cop-appeasing. One of my core principles!
Daisy, I’ve only had traffic stops (though during one of them, I was nervous as hell about what my then-boyfriend might have left in my glove box), but yeah, grovelling will take you far. And I can definitely see using that as a first-line tactic. I’d prefer to pick my battles, and not have law enforcement define them for me.
Was that a test, Daisy? I’m not so stupid as to give away any such information for free. Who knows, you might be a cop, telling everyone to lay down so as to make your life easier and collecting information on people. Anonymous on the web is an oxymoron.
Everyone is afraid of jail, at least, everyone I know. I sure am. But that fear isn’t the only thing directing my life. I’m old enough to have something to lose, but old enough to remember losing things before and living through it.
Staying out of trouble is great. But there is a time and a place to make your stand, even if it gets you into trouble.
Apparently, you wouldn’t choose to pick this battle. Kevane did. Then eventually she dropped her sword by accepting the guilty plea. If she had more money or more visibility then maybe she would have continued, because the principle of being in charge of her own life and her own child-raising practices was very important to her, important enough to use up a year of her life on it.
I think you’re confusing principle with strategy. Never getting in trouble is not a principle, at least not a moral one. It’s a strategy, a practicality.
Do you think you wasted your time and resources bailing out the other radicals you ran with? Why did you do it if licking policemen’s boots is a principle of yours? Wouldn’t you be betraying your principles by helping them?
In a perfect world you still have all your principles; in a perfect world, you wouldn’t get in trouble for not licking a policeman’s boots, so that principle wouldn’t apply to you. I would hope you don’t do it because you think it’s right. You do it because it’s expedient.
[...] there’s anti-intellectualism. Here, we elected a president whose weak grades at Yale apparently served as a qualification for offi… – and we did it twice. Obama represents a departure from this. But voter’s suspicion of [...]