I've written on this topic before, having experienced the racist attitude that often prevents the adoption of non-white children by white families. In today's Houston Chronicle, there is discussion of the sound reasons for rejecting the racist attitude (promulgated primarily by the National Association of Black Social Workers and other liberal groups) that transracial adoption should be discouraged and prevented -- those who are more interested in racial identity than in human need.

In 2002, the last year for which there are national statistics, 300,000 women aged 18 to 44 were seeking to adopt a child and had taken specific measures to do so.

It's not surprising that about half of the women preferred a single nondisabled child under the age of two. What is significant are the racial preferences of these black and white women toward the race of any future adopted child.

Eighty-four percent of white women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an African-American child as compared with 75 percent of African-American women who would "prefer or accept" a white child, a difference of only 9 percentage points.

Supporting these changing racial preferences, 93 percent of black women seeking to adopt would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white as compared to 95 percent of white women seeking to adopt who would "prefer or accept" an adoptee other than black or white.

These strikingly similar figures, a difference of only two percentage points, speaks to a fundamental shift in family creation and, indeed, reflects a shift in defining what it means to be a family member.

In other wods, most of those seeking to adopt are more inteested in the need of the child than the race of the child. Most of those seeking to adopt have the place in their hearts and homes for a child, regardles of race. And as we move towards a society that is more and more color-blind and multi-racial society (despite attempts by the racists of NABSW and other such groups to frustrate that goal), it is simply unacceptable to live by an ideology that is horrificly wrong and immoral, and which harms children.

For 30 years, scientific data has rejected the idea that children raised in cross-race adoptive families are any less African-American, Asian, etc., than their counterparts raised in racially similar environments. Sure, in a perfect world there would be no need for trans-racial adoption or adoption in general. But the world is very far from perfect and children need families, and families want children.

Morgan Freeman was castigated by some for saying in a 60 Minutes interview that one way to eliminate racism was to not talk about it. Why not try that when it comes to adoption? There is little to no risk.

What is the alternative for thousands of children available for adoption — to remain in foster care when we know the long-term detrimental effects of such long-term placement? How about not talking about race in relation to adoption?

If there's a goodness of fit between an available child in foster care of a race different from an eligible adoptive family, don't talk about race, as Freeman suggests. Just place the child.

Why reject what we know: Children of one race raised in families of another race develop into productive, emotionally healthy, assured, racially comfortable adults.

And let's be very clear -- we know that loving relationships can and do transcend racial boundaries. Over the years, I have had students in foster care and eligible for adoption who my wife and I would have considered bringing into our home, but for the barriers placed in the way of interracial adoption by allegedly well-meaning but thouroughly racist social workers. It didn't matter that their actions violated federal law -- the ideology prevented our moving forward. As a result, kids stayed in the system until they "aged-out" at 18.

In other words, the system is broken and will remain so until there is an actual change in attitude and behavior regarding interracial adoption.