Euphemism
I wince when I hear the word "orphanage." The institution, which actually was a euphemism for poorhouse, was established as a haven for children deprived of support by parents who died.
In providing shelter and sustenance these facilities undoubtedly fulfilled a need. But for the most part children led a regimented, sterile lifestyle, particularly in orphanages funded under public auspices.
The vast majority of orphanages were founded in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Many came under religious auspices: Associated Catholic Charities, Methodist Board of Child Care, Baptist Home for Children in Bethesda, the Episcopal Home in Easton.
Others came about through the generosity of private benefactors: The Egenton Home and the John Frederick Wiessner Home in Baltimore, for instance.
During the past 40 or so years, the function of these homes changed dramatically. Social Security, federal and local assistance programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and survivors' benefits enabled children to remain with their families.
Instead of orphans, we began hearing about dysfunctional families and of neglected, abused, abandoned children, including many with severe emotional problems.
Meeting the needs of these youngsters, who could adjust neither to their own families nor to foster care, required a drastic change in institutional functions and programs, including better trained staff, psychological and psychiatric services and experienced administrators.
It also required increased funding in order to provide with some degree of adequacy the kinds of settings required by the increasing number of troubled youngsters spawned by the changing cultural lifestyles of our society.
As a result, a number of smaller institutions found it necessary to close their doors. Others, like the Woodbourne and the General German Home, revamped their services in order to meet the newer challenges.
Associated Catholic Charities and the Methodist Board of Child Care closed their existing institutions and moved to new facilities better suited to the more demanding requirements of the troubled children coming to their doorsteps.
Maryland's experience is not unique. Other states have undergone the same trend. In fact, the state has referred some of its more troublesome youths to out-of-state facilities with specialized programs.
If Rep. Newt Gingrich, or anyone else for that matter, thinks it's economically advantageous to pack kids off to orphanages, he is whistling in the wind.
Group care far exceeds the cost per child of maintaining a youngster at home -- perhaps as much as 1,000 percent.
Even more problematic is the fact that orphanages in this country are mostly non-existent. And orphanages never were equipped to handle infants. What would happen to very young children under Mr. Gingrich's proposed Contract with America?
Resolving the problem posed by teen-age motherhood is a daunting undertaking. When actresses, the famous and not-so-famous all give birth to out-of-wedlock babies, why should we expect more from those far less advantaged?
When we became foster parents for pre-adoptive infants in 1966, babies were languishing in area hospitals. If an infant left our home for adoption in the morning, a replacement arrived that afternoon.
Sixteen years later the supply of infants is practically exhausted, primarily because unwed mothers are now, with society's tolerance, taking their babies home.
Denial of assistance would have minimal impact on this trend. As many teen-agers have stated, they want babies in order to have someone to love and who loves them; this is a relationship absent in their own lives.
Instead of a punitive approach, why not undertake something more positive: education, counseling and long-range planning to improve the economic stability of impoverished families.
Abner Kaplan
Baltimore
The writer is former chief of the Division of Child Welfare Standards in the Maryland Department of Social Services.
What Sauerbrey should learn from her loss
This letter is in response to Ellen Sauerbrey's crying and bickering because she lost the Maryland gubernatorial race.
Let's examine this entire scenario. As long as Ellen Sauerbrey had a 2 percent lead throughout election night, she never once alleged fraudulent activity at the polls in Baltimore City.
It was only after all the votes in the state were counted and revealed she had lost the election that Ellen Sauerbrey cried fraud.
Also, have you noticed Mrs. Sauerbrey is not claiming fraud in the areas of the state where she won, but only in those she lost?
If she wanted to be fair and say it's the principle of having an honest election, why didn't she examine all the votes?
Does Ellen Sauerbrey believe blacks are that naive? Well, blacks now know how she thinks.
Blacks in Baltimore City have always voted Democratic. If Mrs. Sauerbrey and her campaign manager had done their homework, perhaps she would have been elected governor.
Furthermore, she never campaigned for the black vote in Baltimore City. She should be thankful for the few black votes she actually received.
In other elections, Republican candidates have tried to persuade Baltimore City blacks to vote for them.
For instance, Linda Chavez came into our neighborhoods and asked for votes. I'm not sure if any black votes were cast in her favor. But the point is, she asked for our vote.
I am extremely annoyed with Ellen Sauerbrey, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of many other blacks in this city, for calling us "cheaters."
As far as she was concerned, blacks were none of her concern. Her reaction shows how she would have treated blacks if she had won.
Now she is crying like a baby because she realizes her mistake and the power of the black vote in Baltimore City.
If Ellen Sauerbrey wants to blame someone, she should start with her campaign manager. She shouldn't blame Parris Glendening and the citizens of Baltimore for her errors.
She should take this as a lesson and learn from it for the next four years.
Monique Perkins
Baltimore
Trade Center lights are ugly and harmful
I take great exception to both the spotlight atop the World Trade Center and the propagandistic tone of The Baltimore Sun's front-page article concerning same ("Harbor strollers take a shine to lights," Jan. 2).
Setting aside for the moment the astonishing hideousness of the lights, it is most disturbing to see the "Brighten Baltimore" campaign so cavalierly indifferent to the environmental issues involved . . . which The Sun, likewise, dismisses in one casual sentence in the article's seventh paragraph.
Migrating birds, many of them endangered or threatened species, can and will become disoriented by these inordinately bright lights.
Flying toward the source of the light, they will crash fatally into the building by the hundreds, possibly even thousands, during migration season.
This is not just the raving of a few extremists, as some would like to believe. This is the opinion of the Audubon Society and other ornithological experts.
Either the people behind "Brighten Baltimore" were not aware of this, in which case installation of the lights was an amazing display of environmental ignorance, or they were aware of it, in which case installation of the lights was an even more amazing display of environmental contempt.
Either way, the campaign has clearly acted quite irresponsibly.
As for Sharon Reuter's question, "How can you not like it?" later in the article, the answer is, "Easy."
As for her husband's statement "I haven't seen a star in Baltimore yet" -- well, Mr. Reuter, I have.
Quite a few of them, in fact -- along with planets, meteors, comets and galaxies, some with the naked eye and some seen through the wonderful telescope of Herman Heyn, Baltimore's street corner astronomer.
In a recent interview on WJHU radio, Mr. Heyn expressed deep concern over the disruptive effect of the "Brighten Baltimore" spotlights on local astronomy, and in this area the campaign has again acted quite irresponsibly.
I have to add that the spotlights are garish, ugly and pointless. Illuminating the World Trade Center is all well and good but ground-level floodlights aimed up at the building surely would have been far preferable from both an ecological and aesthetic perspective.
Finally, it irritates me to find The Baltimore Sun such a rabid cheerleader for this piece of municipal stupidity.
A newspaper should present both sides of controversial issues in a balanced, unbiased manner, but The Sun apparently has other ideas of what constitutes local journalism.
Robin Bullock
Baltimore