Advice from Marybeth Hicks

To: Marybeth

From: Not Crazy About Carpools

This question might be filed under, “What are these people thinking?” My high school freshman got a ride home from a recent sporting event from a teammate’s parent. The conversation in the car turned to a high school party that took place a couple of weeks ago where teens were widely known to have been drinking and smoking weed. Rather than express any dismay or concern about this, the parent laughed, joked and shared stories of his escapades in high school, and essentially said partying was a fun, normal part of growing up. We can’t avoid sharing rides with this family. How should our son respond if this sort of conversation comes up again?

To: Not Crazy About Idiotic Parents (Because really )

From: Mb

A very wise mother once warned me, “The enemies of your child are the parents of his friends.” At the time I thought, ‘Sheesh, that’s harsh.’ But my fourth child is now a teenager, so I know exactly what that mom meant.

There was a time when parents were generally on the same page. We Baby Boomers could count on the moms and dads of our friends to pretty much echo the values and opinions of our parents, especially when it came to their expectations about appropriate behavior for high schoolers.

But parents have changed. Many want to be perceived as the “cool parents” who are close to their teenagers. They think they’ll achieve this closeness by revealing their past antics as a teen — or worse, by facilitating risky behavior for their children.

Versions of “buddy parents” can range from benignly embarrassing to outright dangerous. We’ve all seen the women who dress like their daughters (though the 50-something version is not a good look), or the dads who pull up to the high school parking lot blasting Journey songs through open windows. These folks are cringe-worthy, to be sure.

The parents we need to watch out for are the ones whose lack of judgment becomes an opportunity for our teenagers to engage in high-risk and illegal behaviors. Astonishingly, despite all the known perils and warnings from school administrators, public safety and law enforcement officers, and parent groups, there are parents who believe it’s safer to provide alcohol for their teenagers as long as they collect everyone’s car keys than it is to pressure kids not to drink, based on the theory, “They’re going to do it anyway.”

In fact, that theory is not true. Parental advice about teen drinking has a significant impact on teens’ decision to abstain during high school, and a 2010 study showed that young adults whose parents had the strictest rules against teen drinking exhibited less binge drinking in college.

To be sure, a parent who tells a car full of teens that partying is a normal and expected part of growing up is not helping your cause. It’s also not universally true. While statistics show a majority of teens will have experimented with alcohol by age 18, at least 30 percent don’t. So it’s “everyone,” but it’s not everyone.

That dad did, however, offer you a teachable moment. Be sure to have a conversation with your son in which you state your feelings — bluntly — about the inappropriate nature of that parent’s comments. I’d say something like, “Being an adult doesn’t necessarily mean having good judgment. I don’t think that a parent should joke about partying as a teenager and I certainly don’t think drinking or smoking pot is an expected part of growing up. I appreciate the shared transportation, but just know that we absolutely don’t share those opinions.”

Of course, thanks to that “buddy parent,” you now know whose house party your son should avoid for the rest of high school.

Have a question about parenting in today’s culture? Email marybeth@marybethhicks.com.

Copyright 2013 Marybeth Hicks

Advice from Marybeth Hicks

To: Marybeth

From: Irritated Aunt

My 13-year-old son will be confirmed in a solemn ceremony at our church. We have invited our extended families to join us for the confirmation and, afterward, for a nice dinner in our son’s honor. We would like everyone to dress appropriately (and modestly) for the occasion, but I’m certain that my 19-year-old niece will show up scantily dressed in something ridiculously short, revealing and inappropriate for a church service. This is how she typically dresses and has done so for similar occasions. If I say something to her mother (my sister-in-law), I’ll cause a family feud because I will offend my nieces’ “sense of style” (and tacitly call her a skank). If I mention it to my brother, he’ll shrug his shoulders and say it doesn’t matter. But it does matter to us, and I’d prefer not to be the family at church sitting with the woman who looks like a streetwalker. Any suggestions?

To: Irritated Aunt

From: Mb

Oh, for the days when “proper attire” meant something, and people conformed to the social expectation to dress in a manner fitting to the occasion.

Your problem reflects the need for social conventions. When norms about attire existed and everyone knew and respected them, families didn’t face that awkward moment when you consider confronting a sister-in-law about her daughter’s skanky wardrobe. But there we are.

There’s more to this than a manners issue, though. From a cultural perspective we’ve forgotten — and neglected to teach our children — that the way in which we dress reflects the seriousness or solemnity of an event. Today, folks believe that any special occasion that warrants “dressing up” means you can wear whatever you believe is fancy, irrespective of the neckline or hemline. That’s not really true, and we do a disservice to our children when we don’t instruct them properly about attire.

Then again, this is a family occasion and what’s most important is that those who know and love your son celebrate his confirmation (presumably this is why you invited extended family to be there). When you confirm the plans with those attending, you might do so by email with a line about appropriate attire. (Something like, “Since this event takes place at our church, everyone is asked to dress in their Sunday best. Ladies’ dresses should be modest and appropriate for the occasion.”) If your church has put out a formal statement to this effect, include that, as it would indicate the message isn’t just coming from you.

Since you’d be sending this message to everyone in the family, you would not be singling out your niece. But just to be on the safe side, bring along a sweater you could offer her if her dress is too revealing. You can’t make her wear it, though; you can only offer it for her comfort.

More importantly, remember that your son’s confirmation means he is being brought more fully into the church and will receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit — wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord. This is a great opportunity to demonstrate, by your example, how those gifts inform one’s life and relationships.

If you make a big issue out of your niece’s attire at the upcoming confirmation, especially if you make a comment beforehand about how she always dresses scantily, you’re not likely to advance your relationships. You’ll just be that mean aunt who criticizes someone for the way she dresses. And you’d be “Judy McJudgey-pants,” to boot.

If it turns out that her attire embarrasses you, remember that she took the time to be there for your son, she’s a family member, she probably thinks she looks nice, and there already is someone in that church whose job it is to judge her choices.

And that someone is not you.

Have a question about parenting in today’s culture? Email marybeth@marybethhicks.com.

Copyright 2013 Marybeth Hicks

Advice from Marybeth Hicks

To: Marybeth

From: Nonviolent Video Mom

My son wants to play the same video games his friends play, but I’m concerned they are violent. He’s 15 and says I’m too strict about this issue; he’s not going to become a deranged killer by playing war games. Are violent video games really a problem?

To: Nonviolent Video Mom

From: Mb

Actually, violent video games are a problem, especially for younger children, and unfortunately, violence in games is more prevalent than parents may think. A 2011 study found 71 percent of video games contained at least some mild violence, while 25 percent included intense violence, blood and gore. In fact, research shows children ages 7 to 12 routinely play games rated M for mature audiences — the most violent and graphic kind.

I’m not a social scientist — I’m a columnist and a mom — so I don’t have any academic authority on this issue. With that caveat, I’m not the first person to point out that nearly every recent example of mass shootings in America have involved young men who have apparently had obsessive gaming habits, and the games they played appear to have fed the fantasies that became a deadly and tragic reality for their victims. Does this mean there’s a causal relationship between games such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto and the zombielike violent behavior exhibited in these crimes? Not necessarily. But do the games appear to have a dangerous influence on some young men? Absolutely.

Violent video games also can be addictive as players experience the “thrill of the kill” and seek to feed the emotional response that these games stimulate. Initial studies indicate that teenaged boys are especially susceptible to gaming addiction because of the way their brains respond. It’s the addictive behavior, more so than the threat of becoming a violent criminal, that puts young men most at risk.

There are also consequences for a child’s character and conscience. The combination of realistic graphics and narratives that allow players to explore evil fantasies, vicariously perpetrating acts of aggression, violence and death, creates a morally compromising experience. Even if the player isn’t really “doing” the action, the emotional and psychological sensations are real. Ultimately, they desensitize the player to violent acts.

That 2011 study proved that violent games impact a child’s moral reasoning, teaching children that violence is acceptable and sometimes the best response. Moral reasoning is based on understanding the perspectives of others, but violent video games provide no perspective on the suffering of victims and, in fact, they impede this crucial developmental step.

Assuming your 15-year-old son has had time to develop a conscience and a sense of morality about violence, you may think he’s past the point of being influenced by graphically violent games. But even if he is, the fundamental issue about media consumption remains: Does the content reflect your values?

Which is not to say your teenaged son would be convinced. After all, as he notes, his buddies play these games and they aren’t bad children.

What’s needed is a teachable moment about moral consistency. Ask your son, “How would you feel if I got involved in an online dating environment and fantasized about having an affair? It’s not that I’d actually do it; I’d just enjoy the excitement of imagining it. Would that be a wholesome way to spend my time?” This kind of comparison might help him understand that seeking out immoral thoughts and feelings has a consequence to his heart and soul, even if he doesn’t act on them in “real life.”

• Have a question about parenting in today’s culture? Email marybeth@marybethhicks.com.

Copyright 2013 Marybeth Hicks

Advice from Marybeth Hicks

To: Marybeth
From: Message-reading Mom

My daughter’s smartphone buzzed when she was out of the room. I picked it up to see who was texting her and was puzzled by the message that previewed on the screen, so I read the entire exchange. What I discovered concerned me. When I talked to her about it, she turned the tables on me and said I’d invaded her privacy. The issue I discovered is important and I don’t want to lose the chance to guide her behavior, but now we’re arguing only about privacy and whether I trust her. How much privacy should I allow my daughter?

To: Messenger
From: Mb

How much privacy you allow depends on the child and the record of trust she has built, but your minor child’s privacy is not an entitlement. Parental responsibility for our children means we have the right to know what’s going on. That’s the only way we can guide and teach them.

Beyond that general principal, Rule No. 1 about communicating in the digital age is: There’s no such thing as privacy. The message exchange you read may have been intended for your daughter and her friend, but the friend could easily have taken a screen shot of that message and sent it elsewhere. That’s why it’s so crucial that children understand that technology can be manipulated by anyone who wants to violate their intended privacy.

If you read the text exchange because you were already suspicious that something was up, say so and remind her that you reserve the right to go looking for information when you believe she may be hiding something that could endanger her or someone else (think sex, drug use, covering for others, etc.). This means you may read her texts, see her social media pages and check her phone records.

If you read her message inadvertently or out of curiosity, say you didn’t go snooping and you weren’t worried about her, but you are now. Your glimpse into her friendship raised an issue that you can’t ignore, even if the manner in which you learned of it annoys her.

Kids are quick to back their parents into a corner with the accusation, “You don’t trust me,” as though you are bound to prove that you do. Don’t fall for it. In our house, the answer is, “Of course I do. I trust that you’re a teenager and you’ll make your share of mistakes.” The important thing is not to stay focused on her sense of indignation over her lost privacy, but rather on the concern you now have about the situation you discovered.

This episode is an important reminder that parents should be vigilant, especially when we put the means to greater freedom into our children’s hands by way of a cellular device. Freedom is an important factor in developing responsibility, but it’s also the avenue to poor choices, even risky ones.

What your daughter calls invading her privacy I would call parenting, though progressive parenting specialists might disagree with me. Some say teens deserve privacy and the respect it conveys, just as an adult would. I would argue that the risks of respecting a teen’s privacy are greater than the risk of hurting her pride by inserting yourself into her life.

The key is to foster a relationship in which your teen knows she can talk to you about anything, even things that are difficult. When you respond to unsettling information calmly and demonstrate the maturity you want your teen to emulate, you create the environment for transparency.

Trust is earned and rewarded with freedom, responsibility and yes — privacy. But it’s not an entitlement until that teen is on her own and living as an independent adult.

Have a question about parenting in today’s culture? Email marybeth@marybethhicks.com.

Copyright 2013 Marybeth Hicks

Giving Up but Holding on to Hope in Our Changing Culture

I quit.

I just can’t do it anymore. I give up. I surrender. I call “Uncle.”

For years, I’ve stood at the intersection of parenting and politics, trying to point out the myriad ways in which we are letting our culture change our children, only to anticipate with certain alarm the impact those changes will have on the character and spirit of our families and the communities we share.

It is clear that my analyses, warnings and predictions aren’t going to solve anything. Heck, I wrote a whole book that essentially predicted the attitudes of the youths involved in the Occupy movement, and let’s just say it’s not being made into a movie anytime soon.

But something interesting happened in October 2011. I wrote a column titled “Some belated parental advice to occupiers.” It went viral.

In fact, every time I dish out parental advice, whether in a column, a speech, a parenting seminar or in the pages of my 2008 parenting book, “Bringing Up Geeks (Genuine, Enthusiastic, Empowered Kids): How to Protect Your Kid’s Childhood in a Grow-Up-Too-Fast World,” I’ve sparked in my audiences the one and only thing that ultimately might serve the next generation: hope that moms and dads can and do make a difference.

Therefore, consider this my letter of resignation from the culture commentary business. Starting today, I’m re-enlisting in the army of adults whose experience, insight, wisdom and wit are required if we are to improve as a nation of parents and grown-ups. I’m rolling up my sleeves and getting into the advice arena.

To be clear, I’m not a child development expert, a pediatrician or a social worker. I’m just a mother of four children with a lot of opinions and a knack for writing them down. But I’ve been known to offer some pretty solid suggestions in the parking lot at school, and I’ll be the first to recommend you get professional help if I think you need it.

From week to week, I get plenty of emails pitching questions about how to approach the particular parenting and cultural conundrums that baffle and bewilder even the most well-intentioned moms and dads. Starting today, I’m inviting you to send me your questions, too. No topic is taboo. (Like I said, I have four kids. I’m right there with you.) My goal is to find in each of your questions the teachable moments that will help you instill the faith, character, values and virtues that will prepare your child for a life of greatness.

OK, drumroll, here we go:

Question: My nephew came out to his parents (my sister and brother-in-law) as gay. He’s only a high school sophomore, so it seems early to declare his sexuality. But the issue for us is that we are Christians. Our children are younger and we have not told them about sex yet, much less what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. I would rather not tell my kids about their cousin yet. My sister is angry that I’m “ashamed” of her son. How should we handle this?

Answer: Lovingly. First, remind your sister that you love her and her son, and that his sexual orientation doesn’t change that. (Keep in mind this is a biblical teaching, too.) Second, remind her that your job is to raise the children God put into your care, and that includes making thoughtful, age-appropriate decisions about what and when to teach them about human sexuality. You shouldn’t be guilted into exploiting your children’s innocence just so your sister feels her son is accepted. Simply reassure her that when the time comes for you to teach your children about sexuality, you’ll do it in accordance with your faith and values, and that the principal value of Christianity is love. Therefore, she needn’t worry whether your family approves or accepts her son as a gay person. You’ll all love him and respect him just because he’s family.

Got a question about parenting in today’s culture? Email me at marybeth@marybethhicks.com.

Copyright 2013 Marybeth Hicks

It’s Up to Parents to Pull Plug on the Internet

A week ago, after I gave a speech to a parent group, a mother with a difficult issue approached me. It was something she didn’t want to discuss in front of her school community during the question-and-answer session.

“Basically,” she whispered, “my daughter is totally addicted to Facebook. She is on it all the time — and I mean ALL the time — and if we ask her to click off and join the family, she gets very nasty.

“I feel like I should do something,” the mother told me, choking back her emotion, “but I don’t know what to do.”

This is not the first time a parent has confided in me about struggling with a child’s behavior. When it comes to parenting dilemmas, I’m like the proverbial airplane seatmate. People tend to spill their guts to me because they know they will never see me again. So I figure the good Lord has put me in these situations to speak the truth.

What’s true is that “Internet-use disorder” is going into the international listing of mental diagnoses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — as a condition “recommended for further study,” when the next manual is published in May.

According to news reports, specialists from Australia, along with the Australian Psychological Society, submitted the diagnosis, along with a separate listing for Internet gaming addiction. Medically speaking, an addiction is anything that so consumes a person that stopping it causes withdrawal symptoms.

Certainly, what the mother at last week’s parent conference described to me was withdrawal. She said efforts to curb her daughter’s Web time resulted in anger, irritability, aggressive behavior and depression on the part of her middle-schooler.

Sounds like an ugly month I spent in the ‘80s going cold turkey on Virginia Slims.

But who is responsible for this new addiction afflicting young people? Steve Jobs? Mark Zuckerberg? The Super Mario Bros.?

I blame Al Gore.

OK, no. But someone has to take responsibility for allowing children to be so engaged with a particular type of activity that such engagement becomes a health risk.

Someone has to notice that a child as young as 10 or 12, who formerly was a typical, active youngster, no longer goes outside to play or asks to bake brownies or gets into fights with his siblings, but instead retreats to a bedroom or the basement recreation room, puts on a pair of headphones and proceeds to spend upward of six hours after school on Facebook or playing “Tour of Duty.”

Someone ought to be able to see the change in demeanor early in this addictive behavior, when merely calling the child to the dinner table elicits a negative, argumentative response.

Someone certainly is capable of observing the signs that a child is more interested in being alone with a machine than being involved with family members or the children in the neighborhood or the cat.

I think we all know who that someone is.

To allow technology to be so central to the lives of our children that they become deranged by the thought of turning it off strikes me as a profound act of neglect on the part of the people responsible for their care.

Not that I said any of this to that mother who asked what to do.

To her, I said, “Call a family meeting and say, ‘Dad and I have decided we can do a better job of keeping the Internet from becoming an unhealthy part of our lives. So we are creating new family standards about how we use technology and media.’”
Then, I suggested, write down the rules about how much time your children can spend online, when they may use the Internet and where in the house they are permitted to be. When the time is up, unplug the router and call it a night.

As for the withdrawal symptoms? They’ll subside. The question is, can parents give up being too permissive? That’s a much harder habit to kick.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Looking Out for Eroding of Parental Authority

It’s been an eventful week at the intersection of parenting and politics, that busy corner where decision-making often is affected by the onslaught of traffic from social engineers, liberal educators, public health experts, and civil rights activists who know better than parents what’s best for their kids.

Several news stories seem to indicate that America’s moms and dads are losing ground in the effort to raise their children as they see fit. To wit:

In Rhode Island, the Cranston school district announced it was banning father-daughter and mother-son events because a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union indicated they violate state law. The civil rights group filed on behalf of a single mother who said her daughter suffered discrimination because she doesn’t have a daddy with whom she can attend the daddy-daughter dance.

“This is 2012 and [public schools] should not be in the business of fostering blatant gender stereotypes,” Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU was reported to have said.

Take that, parents.

In nearby New York City, the public school system quietly launched a pilot program in 13 schools called CATCH, or Connecting Adolescents To Comprehensive Healthcare. This progressive health care initiative has schools distributing abortifacient drugs — also known as “morning-after pills” — along with the free condoms they already hand out to any student who wants them, no questions asked.

Parents learned of the program through a letter advising them they could opt their students out of the program.

According to an article at NBC.com, Deborah Kaplan, assistant commissioner at the city health department’s Bureau of Maternal, Infant and Reproductive Health, said, “We wanted to make sure young people who are sexually active have easy access to contraceptive services and general reproductive health services.”

This is because, Ms. Kaplan said, “In any given year, there are about 7,000 pregnancies to girls ages 15 to 17 in New York City, about 90 percent of those are unintended.”

Obviously, since NYPS is trying to solve such a serious problem, undermining the rights of parents to know about the prescriptions their children are taking is not relevant.

Meanwhile, in faraway La Porte, Texas, stay-at-home mom Tammy Cooper was arrested and held in jail for 18 hours overnight for neglectful parenting based on the complaint of a neighbor. Ms. Cooper’s children had been riding motorized scooters in front of their home (situated on a cul-de-sac). She claims to have been watching them from a lawn chair.

Charges against Ms. Cooper were dropped. Not surprisingly, she is suing the city’s police department, the arresting officers and her neighbor.

What do these seemingly unrelated stories have in common? If, like me, you read the news for evidence of eroding parental authority, quite a lot.

The rights of parents to engage in activities they choose for their children, such as a daddy-daughter dance, are under attack by the purveyors of politically correct social policy. Now, an ACLU lawyer is deciding what traditions — or as he calls them, “gender stereotypes” — may be permitted for other people’s children.

(Good luck to the parents who came together to ask the school board to recommend a change in state law that will allow a daddy-daughter dance exception to anti-discrimination statutes.)

The rights of parents to even know about the medical care being administered to their minor children are completely undone in New York and other states, where “reproductive rights” for teens and preteens now trump the rights of parents.

And that’s not to mention the rights of parents to impart their moral and religious values in raising their children, some of which would influence their decisions with respect to contraception and morning-after pills.

Heck, even the right of a mom to decide when and where it is safe for her children to play with certain toys is abridged in America in 2012.

Though, if anyone can stand up for her rights, I’d put my money on a Texas mom named Tammy.

You know what they say: “Don’t mess with Texas.”

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Given a Fighting Chance, Little Pearl Thrives

Ruth and Eric Brown didn’t expect anything to be wrong.

At 20 weeks pregnant, Ruth had no indications her baby was anything but perfect.

So they were completely unprepared for what they learned at a routine obstetrical ultrasound: Their third child, daughter Pearl Joy, was profoundly underdeveloped.

Pearl was diagnosed in utero with alobar holoprosencephaly (HPE), a neural disease in which the brain and facial features do not form completely. Usually, babies with HPE do not survive a full-term pregnancy. Or if they do, usually they die within hours or days of birth.

Usually.

Pearl Joy Brown is unusual. Some would say remarkable.

At 5 weeks old, Pearl is defying all odds and every medical assessment that treated her, from birth, as a person trying to die.

From the day she was born, her parents received medical support in the form of hospice care, on the assumption that their role would be to help their daughter pass away peacefully and without pain.

Pearl had other plans. And she isn’t just surviving, she is thriving.

Flash back to the day the Browns learned Pearl was not perfect.

After viewing Pearl on an ultrasound monitor, the obstetrician curtly told the couple to meet him in his office. There, without much by way of comfort or compassion, he informed them the next step would be to induce labor to abort the pregnancy.

The Browns asked for time to think it over.

They are Christians, and while they are not political people, the Browns are pro-life. Even when faced with a devastating diagnosis, and even though Ruth’s physician recommended that they terminate their daughter’s failing development, the Browns remained true to their most deeply held conviction about her intrinsic value as a human person.

When the doctor rejoined them, they announced their intention to carry Pearl to term, whatever that might entail. That’s when the physician pulled out graphic pictures to show the couple just how malformed their daughter would be. Incredulous that they would not follow his advice, he announced he would no longer work with the couple and referred them elsewhere.

Ruth and Eric were undeterred. Despite a diagnosis that was “not compatible with life,” the Browns accepted that their daughter’s life was theirs to give, but not to take away.

“Having that diagnosis at 20 weeks meant we knew that when we cut the cord, we where cutting off her life supply,” Eric says. “Yet while we waited for her to be born, she was moving around inside of Ruth and it felt like she was with us; like the five of us were all together.”

But cutting the umbilical cord didn’t end Pearl’s life. Instead, she has proven herself a fighter who is defying all odds and using her imperfect, profound little body to reach into the hearts of people far and wide.

Across their Nashville, Tenn., community and into the far reaches of cyberspace, Pearl Joy Brown has stirred friends and strangers alike to rally around her family, enveloping them in care and prayer.

Now, the medical staff at Vanderbilt University Hospital where she is being treated have created a care plan — a life plan — for Pearl, acknowledging that this tiny soul appears to be going about the business of living, not dying.

And just by living, Pearl is changing the world around her.

“I see the humanity of an unborn baby more clearly than I ever did,” her father says. “And because of Pearl, I have fallen in love with humanity once again. For years I was cynical, but even in the worst of this, I see people connecting, responding, and walking with us.

“I don’t know how long we have with Pearl, but I believe one day she’ll be made whole. Now I’m not even sure of what that means.”

Perhaps wholeness means Pearl will be completely developed within a metaphysical body, as Scripture tells us to expect.

Or perhaps wholeness means the rest of us simply will see Pearl as God already sees her — complete and perfect in his image and likeness.

If you want to see what a perfect little baby Pearl Joy is, or wish to offer the family your support, visit PearlJoyBrown.wordpress.com.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Confronted with the misdeeds of our children, we parents often are forced to act in a manner that quickly and emphatically sends a message: Your actions have consequences, not only for yourself, but also for those whom you selfishly neglected to consider.

The goal is to teach an invaluable life lesson: Innocent people are hurt by your selfish actions. That’s what makes them selfish. That’s what makes them wrong.

This week, the NCAA said as much to Penn State by leveling a $60 million fine (to be used by Penn State for programming not sponsored by the university to fight child sexual abuse), banning the Nittany Lions from bowl games for four years, temporarily curbing football scholarships and vacating all Penn State football victories from 1998 through 2011.

The NCAA also released current Penn State recruits from their letters of intent, allowing them to re-enter the recruiting process with other schools and thereby undermining the university’s ability to rebuild its football program for at least the next four years.

The decision, made outside the NCAA’s usual system of investigating and sanctioning college athletic programs, is meant to reflect the heinous crimes of former assistant coach and convicted child sex abuser Jerry Sandusky, as well as the disturbing conclusion of the report released by former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.

Mr. Freeh’s investigation found that university officials — including revered coach Joe Paterno — put the reputation of the football program ahead of the safety of children by not reporting what they knew about Sandusky to law enforcement officials.

In its wake, the NCAA leaves a debate over the fairness of its sanctions. Is it fair to essentially cripple a major college football program when the people who will suffer are students, athletes, coaches and administrators who had nothing to do with the scandal?

After all, Paterno is dead, and the officials who neglected to report Sandusky to the police have been fired, with some facing criminal charges.

Nothing the NCAA did this week can undo the mistakes that were made; they only punish innocent members of the Penn State community.

Is that fair?

No. Of course not. But it’s the right thing to do.

Just as a good parent knows you must exact discipline to teach a hard lesson — even when doing so adversely affects others who are innocent — so the NCAA is demonstrating by its actions that immoral choices have far-reaching consequences.

Innocent people are hurt, not only in the obvious sense — that boys were forever scarred by the sick and twisted selfishness of Jerry Sandusky — but there also are the innocent members of the Penn State community, who trusted their leaders to behave morally and correctly, even when doing so would be difficult and embarrassing and painful.

This is a fundamental life lesson, essential to the formation of a mature conscience. Yet we Americans, obsessed as we are with the concept of fairness, don’t want to accept that immorality always imposes unfairness.

Irrespective of your opinion of the NCAA (mine isn’t typically high), the organization by this decision put the promotion of human decency above college athletics.

In doing so, the NCAA reminds us all that life isn’t fair, actions have consequences and selfishness levies a heavy burden on innocents.

In an effort to protect the honorable and admirable men who participated in Penn State football during the tainted Sandusky years, Paterno and the university ultimately provided a sad avenue for the destruction of at least 10 boys who didn’t warrant “Joe Pa’s” paternal instincts.

It’s tragic, really, because based on everything we know about the storied Penn State culture, I’m certain that had the coach put the question of what to do to a vote of his players, they would have charged the doors to report Sandusky to the police.

Too bad they didn’t have that chance.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

The beliefs and values that once served as the foundation for our government and the moral compass for our society already have been so undermined among our youth that it may take a miracle to restore them.

The Bible says nothing is impossible with God. The spiritual revival we need may test that theory.

Thanks to aggressive atheists who are successfully imposing a pervasively more godless society, our kids’ generation is growing up believing that America is meant to be free of religion, not free for religion.

You might wonder where they get such a notion, until you remember that one of the fastest-growing student groups in America is the Secular Student Alliance, an organization that envisions a future “in which nontheistic students are respected voices in public discourse and vital partners in the secular movement’s charge against irrationality and dogma.”

Even in public schools without active groups of atheists or anti-theists, the American schoolhouse is a decidedly secular place, where students of faith increasingly are told they can’t speak out about their beliefs if such views can be construed as bigoted.

Earlier this year, for example, a student essay in a Wisconsin high school newspaper attracted national attention because the author expressed opposition to gay marriage and adoption on religious grounds. A gay couple in the community complained. The next thing he knew, the student was threatened with suspension and called ignorant by his district’s superintendent.

That’s just the sort of response that promotes religious freedom and teaches kids, “Your right to believe what you wish and speak out about it is protected in America.”

Not.

Similarly, media directed at our nation’s youth is decidedly secular, and even holds religion and religious people in disdain. Watch any episode of “Family Guy” and listen for the jokes about Jesus, and you’ll see what I mean. (Or just trust me on this one, because that’s 30 minutes you can never get back.)

Is it any wonder that in such a culture, researchers say young Americans are dropping out of religion at five to six times the historic rate (30 percent to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 percent to 10 percent a generation ago), according to a 2010 article in Christianity Today.

“Free from religion” appears to be winning.

And if the Obamacare contraception mandate remains intact and ultimately is forced upon religious institutions and other employers of moral conscience, the notion of religious freedom as we know it will be a thing of the past.

On Friday, the “Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally” will take place in 155 cities across the country, focusing on opposition to the Obamacare mandate that requires all employers, including those with religious or moral objections, to provide free contraception and abortifacient drugs as part of the standard health insurance package required by law.

I’ll be among the hundreds of speakers at those gatherings in support of religious freedom, and while I was honored to be asked to speak, I’m dismayed that such a rally is even necessary.

In the United States of America, standing up for religious freedom should sound as odd to us as standing up for the right to drink soda or eat salt or buy a Happy Meal or be born once you have been conceived.

Oh, wait. Those things aren’t a given, either.

Alarmingly, our children are growing up in a time when the freedoms we have taken for granted remain only precariously guaranteed. If religious freedom goes, the dominoes will fall quickly.

Stand up, indeed. For a rally near you, go to http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

It’s official. Brad and Angelina are engaged, succumbing to pressure from family members to finally tie the knot.

Back in the day, that pressure would have come from a worried mother, or more likely, a protective father and the business end of shotgun.

But this is 2012. The family pressure to marry comes, in this case, from the Jolie-Pitts’ six children. Though the couple once said they wouldn’t marry until the privilege to do so was afforded to everyone, their political statement in defense of gay marriage ultimately lost out to the need to make a promise to their kids.

Who knows if this celebrity marriage will have more staying power than most? So far, their devotion to their children appears to reflect a certain level of commitment. But it takes much more than shared parenting to make a marriage.

It takes work.

According to a 2010 study from the Pew Research Center, only about half of all adults were married as of 2008. In 1960, that number was 72 percent. And marriage itself is becoming a luxury of the wealthy and well-educated. The Pew study indicates there now is a 16 percent gap in marriage rates between college graduates and those with a high school diploma or less. In 1960, that gap was only 4 percent.

Worse, growing numbers of adults say marriage itself is becoming obsolete. In 1978, 28 percent of registered voters thought the institution of marriage was an outdated idea. Today, nearly 40 percent think this is so.

If the institution itself has not quite gone the way of the dodo, certainly the expectation that marriage is a lifelong commitment might be considered optimistic, at best.

Divorce is a likely outcome for between 41 percent and 50 percent of first-time married couples (the frequency of divorce depends on which research you believe), with 60 percent of second marriages ending in divorce and a whopping 73 percent of third marriages failing.

As the Huffington Post’s “Divorce” page reminds us, “Marriages come and go, but divorce is forever.” (Huffington Post doesn’t even have a “Marriage” page. Go figure.)

Former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum used his campaign to remind us that successful marriages are crucial to the health and well-being of a society.

“Marriage is a society’s lifeblood,” he said. “Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: It creates and sustains not only children, but civilization itself.”

According to the Family Research Council, marriage is “the most important social act, one that involves much more than just the married couple.”

“To begin with, extended families are merged and renewed through a wedding. It also is through marriage that the community and the nation are renewed.

“Marriage also has beneficial social and health effects for both adults and children, and these gifts benefit the community and the whole society. … The future of the nation depends on the creation of good marriages and good homes for children.”

Of course, we don’t get married to save the nation. We don’t imagine our families as “mitigating structures” for the community, or as an economic force to uplift our towns and neighborhoods.

We marry for love.

Twenty-five years ago today, I married the love of my life, Jim Hicks. We couldn’t know then what it meant when people told us that a lifelong marriage would take work and sacrifice and selflessness.

We couldn’t imagine the frustrations and disappointments along the way, just as we could not have dreamed of the blessings and bounty that God – in his inexplicable grace – has allowed us to enjoy.

We only hoped for children, but never envisioned the four human beings whose mere existence affirms our own and personifies our love.

We simply said, “I do.” And then we did. With prayer and patience, love and laughter, we uphold the covenant we made all those years ago.

Obsolete? Not even a little bit. Love endures forever.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

It might be something minor, like a paper forgotten on the printer at home or gym clothes left sitting in the back hall, with a request to deliver them to the office if possible.

It might be more serious, like a warning to expect a call from a teacher about a poor grade or a behavioral misstep.

On Monday, my son texted after third hour to say the sore throat he had been feeling earlier was getting worse. Could he come home?

On Monday in a small town 30 miles east of Cleveland, students at Chardon High School sent panicked text messages to their parents filled with fear and confusion.

A shooter had opened fire in the school cafeteria, apparently targeting a table of students who were eating breakfast while waiting for the bus to their vocational training campus.

Before the day was over, two students were dead, three were in serious to stable condition, and a community was changed forever.

In the aftermath of Monday’s inexplicable tragedy, there are far more questions than answers. The families of Daniel Parmertor and Russell King Jr., the two students fatally shot in the melee, are likely too stunned to seek out reasons for their sons’ murders.

As if any explanation could make sense of them.

According to reports, the family of alleged shooter T.J. Lane is equally confused. In a statement released on family members’ behalf, they are said to be grieving along with the victims’ families and the entire community over a calamity they never anticipated, never saw coming.

Disconcertingly, though, the media on Monday was quick to label T.J. a “bullied outcast,” as if framing the narrative for a story that would suppose the shooter to have been pushed to the edge of his emotional limits by heartless and insensitive peers.

After all, in a nation where, according to a Josephson Institute of Ethics survey of 43,000 teenagers, fully half of all teens admit they have bullied someone in the past and 47 percent report they have been the victim of bullying, it’s likely that a history of bullying could have played a role in the emotional state of the perpetrator in this case.

Unless it didn’t.

Students interviewed for media reports in the aftermath of the incident indicated T.J. was quiet and may have been considered an “outcast” but was not bullied. An attorney for his family said the young man kept to himself but had friends and was never in any trouble the family knew about.

To be sure, bullying represents a serious societal issue, not only because of the harm done to young people during their vulnerable, formative years, but crucially, because it reflects a crisis in character among our youngest generation. Too many of our nation’s children don’t get that bullying – for whatever reason – is always wrong.

But we would be wise not to allow the label of “bullied outcast” to explain away what appears to be a more complicated and potentially dangerous explanation for this week’s tragedy in Ohio.

The harder yet more damning truth may be that children in this culture cannot escape the relentless messages of immorality that permeate the culture in which they live.

Despite the best efforts of parents and families, schools and communities, the media-saturated existence of our youth – filled as it is with violence and vulgarity, evil and insanity – is defining too many of our children and presenting them with horrific examples of human behavior.

As one student put it in the wake of Monday’s devastation, “It’s so hard to grasp. This is literally something you would see in a movie or video game.”

Except when it’s not.

It’s a school cafeteria on a Monday morning in Chardon, Ohio.

And it’s thousands of text messages from terrified teenagers alerting their parents – and all parents – that something is terribly wrong.

For more from Marybeth Hicks, check out her new book Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Thinking.

That’s right, thinking. But not just thinking – smart thinking.

Imagine what might happen if we stop parenting by thoughtlessly developing habits over time and instead institute fundamental changes in the way we approach our roles as parents. Suppose we all thought more about what we’re doing and used the knowledge we gain in our thinking to do things better.

In a new book by Art Markman titled “Smart Thinking: Three Essential Keys to Solve Problems, Innovate, and Get Things Done,” this renowned college professor and researcher says human beings are “habit creation machines,” and this propensity may be hindering our ability to solve problems, live more creatively and be productive.

Habits aren’t necessarily bad. We’re meant to develop habits – most of them good – to allow us to act in our daily lives without continually having to stop and think about how to do every little thing.

But Mr. Markman, the Annabel Irion Worsham centennial professor of psychology and marketing at the University of Texas at Austin, says many of our habits are “self limiting” – they do us more harm than good.

In parenting, those poor habits could have serious consequences.

On the one hand, habit informs our ability to fold laundry, pack school lunches and execute our morning routines. But we also develop bad habits in parenting that prove we’re not really thinking things through.

“For example, we know mealtimes are so important for our families,” Mr. Markman says. “Research shows us that eating together as a family is the time when we create opportunities to learn about each person and to foster communication.

“But over time, due to lessons or sports practices or other activities, we develop habits about mealtime and before you know it, everyone eats on their own and this is an opportunity lost. It becomes a habit, but it’s not smart.”

In the same way, Mr. Markman says, thoughtlessness about children’s media consumption also creates habits that have consequences.

“Media is a profound source of knowledge for our children. Parents have less and less control over the information that is coming in, and this information really matters.

“Even though it’s a pain to regulate and manage the sources of information through which our children get information, we have to do it because the knowledge they gain has a huge influence on their behavior,” he says.

As with all areas in life, the key to changing our parenting habits is simply to step back, assess our routines and take the time to think about what we’re doing.

There is nothing simple about this. “Habit change is difficult because the whole point of habits is that they allow us to do things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “But in parenting, as in all things, we need to be mindful.”

Mr. Markman says the more we understand about how the brain works, the smarter we can be as parents.

“The more you know about smart thinking, the smarter you can be and you’ll also be able to help your children to think smarter, without them even knowing,” he says.

There is a difference between smart thinking and intelligence, and Mr. Markman isn’t advocating the hypercompetitive attitude that has turned learning into a contact sport. Rather, he encourages parents to be more mindful in all the ways we act with and for our children.

“There is great value in spending some time understanding the impact of doing things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “This is true in all walks of life. Most of us think for a living, but we aren’t doing it effectively.”

Huh. Thinking about parenting and acting mindfully to rear smarter children. Can such a radical notion really catch on?

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

But my favorite trends to watch are in an arena that probably shouldn’t be trendy at all: parenting.

For 2012, the mommy blogosphere offers a host of probable developments among the hippest of the so-called “breeders” (calling parents “breeders” is a trend that hip parents don’t like, by the way.) For example, in the new year, it’s cool to raise “eco kids” — children of the “green” generation who will grow up with an innate understanding of sustainability.

Among baby-boomer parents, the trend is to worry — first, about whether they’re attentive enough to their children, then about whether their obsessive attention to their children is causing their kids to be anxious.

For older parents, the trend will be to refill the nest with college grads who can’t find jobs. No one ever said all trends were good.

Another trend among older parents will be to worry about becoming a burden to their kids. (Oddly, I can’t find evidence of a trend where children worry about burdening their folks. Must be a generational thing.)

Of course, parenting trends aren’t new. Breast versus bottle feeding, spanking versus time out, day care versus home care, family bed versus “go back to your room” — all reflect the fads and fashions of “best practices” in parenting.

Still, my gut tells me the essential job of parenting should not be subject to cultural whim. Unfortunately, that essential job — to instill the values and virtues that mold personal character — seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Concern for children’s self-esteem and a weird preoccupation with their materialistic and media-driven desires has spawned a culture in which developing children’s excellent character seems low on the list of parental priorities.

We need only look at surveys of teen ethics to see the results: There’s widespread and entrenched unethical and immoral behavior on the part of American youths that includes lying, cheating, stealing and bullying. This lack of morality and personal character in our children’s generation isn’t only ravaging their hearts and souls; it’s tearing our nation down.

It’s time to buck the trend toward trendy parenting and focus instead on the values that will rescue our children and the country they will inherit. How? By directing attention on the five traits that will restore America, one great kid at a time.

• Respect — Let’s ditch the notion that kids need to act disrespectfully and talk back to adults as part of the process of “individuation.” Instead, here’s a radical fad: Speaking and behaving respectfully toward others is the sign you’re growing up.

• Obedience — The parenting trend that encouraged moms and dads to seek cooperation from kids rather than expect obedience from them has led to a serious lack of parental authority. Kids who don’t learn to obey their parents don’t obey teachers, coaches, baby sitters, or dare I say, the law.

• Accountability — We’ve somehow disassociated behavior with personal character, so that kids don’t believe their “choices” mean anything about them. Time to reconnect these ideas and instead teach children that their actions speak for the character of their hearts.

• Moderation — Our children’s generation is media-saturated and increasingly physically unfit. It’s time to reverse the trend among kids that now has them spending close to eight hours a day engaged with media. Moms and dads, end the overprotective parenting fad and send those kids outside to play.

• Ambition — Our cultural fixation on equality of outcomes for all children has sapped the natural ambition to be the best. Our children’s generation must be freed to excel. Only the desire for excellence — in character as well as personal pursuits — will rekindle our American spirit.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Editor’s Note: We congratulate our friend and CatholicMom.com family member Marybeth Hicks on the launch of her latest book Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid. Look for a full book spotlight interview with Marybeth coming soon! LMH

Ok, fess up. Are you a good parent or a bad one?

Last week, bad parents were all over the news, so if you weren’t plastered throughout the media for pouring hot sauce down your son’s throat, shaving your daughter’s head for lying, or otherwise terrorizing the little ones in your care, you’re not as bad as some.

The story that typifies bad for me bore this headline: “Brother and sister sue mom; claim emotional distress and bad parenting.” That’s right. They sued their mom.

Siblings Steven and Kathryn Miner, now 23 and 20, respectively, filed suit in 2009 claiming their mother, Kimberly Garrity, caused them emotional harm because of her poor parenting.

Examples of her mistreatment included refusing to buy a new dress for her daughter’s homecoming dance, sending an “inappropriate” birthday card to her son that did not contain money or a check, and not sending care packages to him while he was away at college.

(Excuse me for a second. I have to interrupt this column to call my lawyer and file suit against my 81-year-old mom. If I recall correctly, she made me eat spinach.)

A little family history about the people in this story: Ms. Garrity divorced the children’s father, also named Steven Miner, in 1995. Mr. Miner, an attorney, raised the children in the lavish Chicago suburb of Barrington after their parents’ divorce. They grew up in apparent privilege in a home valued at around $1.5 million.

Mr. Miner claimed he opposed the idea of the lawsuit and tried to talk his children out of it. When they insisted on going forward, he apparently then did the legal research and justified their legal action as a lesson in “accountability.” He even served as one of their attorneys.

The lawsuit made its way to an appeals court in Illinois before being dismissed this week. Unfortunately, Mr. Miner and his clients were not slapped with fines for filing a frivolous case, or for using the court system to act on their bitterness toward Ms. Garrity, though it looks to me as if that would have been warranted.

Instead, the state appeals court said deciding the case “could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.”

If this case is obnoxious in the extreme, it also is true that Americans seem to need outlandish examples of bad parenting to know what it looks like.

Well folks, look no further than Mr. Miner, bad dad of the year.

According to media accounts, Mr. Miner’s children have lived with him since his wife left him in 1995. That means for 16 years of their young lives, he has been the primary parental influence on their values and behavior.

If parenting can be judged (and it can’t always) by the character and values instilled in our children, Mr. Miner’s parenting constitutes an epic fail.

Even if their mother abandoned them in their childhood, allowing and assisting in a lawsuit against her will prove to be an equally deep emotional burden.

He had the chance to teach his children to be forgiving, but he taught them to be bitter. He had the chance to promote compassion, but he inspired pettiness.

He could have encouraged them to be magnanimous in the face of their disappointments, but instead he taught them that their narcissistic self-absorption required others to respond to their selfish desires.

Suing your mom because she didn’t spoil you strikes me as evidence that the person most involved in the upbringing of these young people simply didn’t get the job done.

Oh, and since my mom will read this, I was kidding. I love spinach. Thanks for making me eat it.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

A friend, revealing a touch of cradle Catholic cynicism, joked, “I thought you were looking at Catholic schools.”

Ba dum ching.

Or maybe you need to be Catholic to get it.

The sad reality is, it doesn’t matter where our kids go to college. Almost half of them are likely to lose their Christian faith along the way, according to recent studies.

Despite the fact that up to 80 percent of high school seniors indicate their plan to remain faithful and to practice some form of worship during college, the Fuller Youth Institute has found that almost a third of college students say their institute of higher learning is not helpful in keeping or growing their faith.

Twenty-nine percent also say finding a church where they feel welcome while attending college is at least moderately difficult.

Wobbly faith during the college years isn’t uncommon – after all, as Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” On the other hand, examining one’s faith shouldn’t necessarily mean tossing it out with the empty beer cans.

Examining one’s faith in the intellectually stimulating environment of a college or university could and should lead to a deeper understanding of the theological tenets on which a childhood faith was built. That’s the theory, anyway.

Yet “Young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago).” That’s the conclusion of political scientists Robert P. Putnam and David E. Campbell, presenting research from their book “American Grace” at the May 2009 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, according to a 2010 Christianity Today article.

Nonbelief among young Americans is growing. In a 2009 survey, 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed “none” when asked about their religious affiliations – up from 11 percent in 1990.

Respect for Christianity, in particular, has been in decline among young people. In a 2007 study of teens and young adults, Christian research firm the Barna Group found that 16- to 29-year-olds were “more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.”

At the same time, behaviors and attitudes on college campuses cause justifiable concern. Administrators spend disproportionate amounts of time dealing with the emotional and physical toll of binge drinking, date rape and depression – evidence that the “best years” of our children’s lives often are marred by experiences and emotional problems that speak to a larger, more elemental yearning.

Given that it’s August, parents across America are making the trek to the local big-box stores to pick up items that will make a dorm room feel more like home. We’ll load up the minivan or the sport utility vehicle with beanbag chairs and extra-long twin sheets and new computer printers that come with bonus reams of paper.

But shame on us if we’re not packing the tools to stay sane and safe – a well-formed conscience, a grounded faith based on whatever beliefs we espouse and have chosen to instill, and especially a commitment to pray for and with our young adults as they head out into the larger world.

Most important, when you get to campus, make time to help your student find the ministry office and introduce yourselves to the folks there. Sometimes, just making that connection will be the difference between spiritual isolation and the development of a faith-filled home away from home.

It’s no guarantee that a young adult will keep the faith, but it’s encouragement that may come in handy down the road.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Someone ought to hang that quote in every doorway of every school and office of the Atlanta Public Schools system.

Last week’s release by GeorgiaGov. Nathan Deal of an investigative report on widespread cheating within APS on the state’s standardized curriculum tests raises more questions than it answers.

How did a school system the size of Atlanta’s establish such pervasive unethical habits? Apparently some 178 educators, including 38 principals, are named as perpetrators of this educational fraud, and more than 80 have confessed to their roles in the scoring scam. Cheating took place in 44 of the 56 schools examined in the investigation.

If cheating by teachers, administrators and even the superintendent of schools is occurring with impunity in a major metropolitan school district, where else is it happening? Officials within APS denied for years that cheating was taking place, even as the students’ scores improved in suspiciously dramatic fashion.

Can parents trust their local school districts’ claims of improvement in educational results? APS Superintendent Beverly Hall became known as a “miracle worker” in supposedly turning around a beleaguered school district. She even became part of the “Atlanta brand.”

Business and civic leaders touted her leadership and the quality of the schools as reasons to bring commerce to the city, yet it appears she may not have actually improved the district at all. There is now little reliable data to make that claim.

Of all the public scandals of the past several years, the APS cheating fiasco is the most egregious in recent memory because it proves that corruption is now standard operating procedure in our civic institutions. Who cares if children are left holding the bag, as long as the powers-that-be get the accolades they seek.

The finger pointing in the wake of this story merely demonstrates how broken our system of public education really is. Teachers blame the reforms instituted in Atlanta several years ago that put the focus on financial incentives for performance rather than teacher tenure.

Administrators blame state and federal governments for tying funding to school performance, which in turn “forces” schools to “teach to the test.” (Proving if there’s a way to blame former President George W. Bush for anything, folks will do so.)

If Atlanta teachers had been “teaching to the test,” however, their rampant cheating would have been unnecessary.

Meanwhile, parents don’t know who to blame, but they’re not likely to hold their children accountable because, well … they hardly ever do, so why start now?

Oddly enough, there’s one party no one ever mentions, but who, in my view, is probably the root cause of the decline (and inevitable demise) of our public schools: Weather Underground founder and former University of Illinois at Chicago professor Bill Ayers.

Not just Mr. Ayers, mind you, but he and his cohort of teacher educators who, in the past 40 years, literally hijacked our nation’s schools for their own progressive purposes.

These days, rather than ensure that rising teachers are masters of their fields (Mr. Ayers has written that subject-matter mastery isn’t necessary for teaching), our schools of education train teachers to engage in “social justice” – and even to teach substantive subjects such as math and science in the context of social consciousness.

When teachers don’t view their role as imparting information, knowledge and skills, but rather as preparing students to be “agents of social change” through “critical thinking,” it’s no wonder the kids aren’t capable of passing standardized tests.

It must be said: We aren’t training our teachers to do the job we say we want done in our classrooms.

Why, then, are we surprised that they stoop to sin and avarice to achieve success in a job for which they are fundamentally unprepared in the first place?

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

The issue? Spanking.

As hard as I am trying to fulfill a promise made to myself made years ago while sitting in front of a blank computer screen fighting writer’s block (“I don’t care if I have to type pages of the phone book, I will never, ever, ever write about spanking”), the issue has been put anew into the public debate, and I simply can’t stick my head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I’m reticent, because in nearly 22 years as a mother, I’ve concluded that no topic in the realm of parenting elicits a more vehement response from opponents and proponents. This is one issue about which there is no middle of the road.

If you are against spanking, you’re likely to be in the “spanking promotes violence in society” camp. You may have painful memories of being spanked as a child that inform your opinion. Or perhaps having never been spanked yourself, you are certain it is always unnecessary.

If you oppose spanking, you’re typically an advocate for “timeouts” and other disciplinary tactics to manage unacceptable behavior in children. You’re confident kids will grow out of their childish ways in time, and anyway, you just can’t bring yourself to do it.

You make a number of good points.

If you support spanking as a disciplinary tool, you’re likely to be on the “a little smack on the bottom never hurt anyone and may keep a kid from running into the street” team. Your memories of being spanked as a child are vague, or at least not disturbing, and you certainly wouldn’t call a swat on the rear “child abuse” or “violence” or even “hitting.”

If you think spanking can be OK, that opinion might reflect a general sense that it’s the job of parents to teach children how to behave appropriately in given situations, rather than wait for kids to decide to do this on their own, and you want kids who don’t just cooperate, but who also obey.

Your points would be well taken, too.

In fact, the spanking debate reflects the wide range of tactics parents use in the course of raising their children. Ultimately, spanking is a profoundly personal decision about how best to parent one’s own children, and thus, the reason I’ve distanced myself from the discussion.

Until now.

Last week in Corpus Christi, Texas, Judge Jose Longoria sentenced Rosalina Gonzales to five years of felony probation for spanking her 2-year-old child. (Red marks on the child’s backside were noted by the paternal grandmother and reported to a doctor.)

I don’t know the full story about Ms. Gonzales‘ parenting struggles. News reports say she does not have custody of the child she spanked and two other children, and is working with the state to regain custody. The judge also ordered her to take a parenting class, so perhaps she is an unskilled mother.

What bothers me, and should bother all parents, is what Judge Longoria said when he sentenced Ms. Gonzales: “You don’t spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children.”

To be clear, corporal punishment of one’s own children is not a crime in Texas. It is a crime to use unnecessary force or to physically endanger a child, and it always is considered abuse to physically “discipline” an infant. But corporal punishment in the form of a spanking is not against the law.

Yet.

Soon enough, the government should produce a parenting book so we know what will and will not be permissible in our homes. Is Judge Longoria a fan of grounding teens who stay out too late? Do “we do that” anymore? Are we allowed to closely monitor our kids’ activities via their cell phones or Facebook pages, or is that a violation of their privacy? Better check with the judge.

When a judge – or the government he represents – starts defining best practices in child-rearing, our nation is headed in a direction we do not want to go.

Debate spanking all you want, but let’s hope parents on both sides of that debate agree it is theirs to decide.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Once again, when confronted with behavior that clearly speaks to the character of a man’s heart, we’re being asked to accept that he’s not entirely responsible for his actions because of some unspecified “disorder.” (Maybe narcissism, maybe obsessive-compulsive disorder, maybe chronic nerdism; hard to say without a psych assessment.)

There was a time – in low-tech America – when actions like Mr. Weiner’s would have taken place in a park and involved a trench coat. But there I go again, longing for a simpler era when a pervert was a pervert and not necessarily a guy with a condition.

As it is, now that Mr. Weiner has used Twitter to indulge his icky sexual proclivities and yet refuses to resign from his congressional seat, we’re again confronted with the new American reality: You don’t have to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Not just that. Even if you’re as skeevy as yesterday’s sweaty socks, people who like your politics will tolerate your creepiness. To wit: Mr. Weiner maintains the support of the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, Julie Kirshner. She claims that just because she has learned her congressman is “a 14-year-old boy” doesn’t mean he doesn’t support feminist causes.

Sorry, Ms. Kirshner, but you’re making a big mistake. You can’t simply write Mr. Weiner’s antics off as immature for the purposes of political pragmatism. At least, not without further eroding our national ethos.

Our habit of detaching a person’s behavior from his character is having a deleterious impact on our country, and, at the risk of using hyperbole, is going to be our ultimate undoing. Maybe not in this specific case, as it’s likely the two-week leave of absence that has been granted to Mr. Weiner will turn into an early retirement with well-wishes for a “full recovery.”

No, it’s not Mr. Weiner, but the habit of moral relativism he represents that scares me. The now-familiar pattern – heinous immoral behavior, indignant denial, public humiliation, victimization through disease – is likely a manifestation of our decades-long infatuation with unconditional self-esteem.

Americans are so focused on feeling good about themselves, no matter what abhorrent behavior they put on display, they no longer exhibit the shame that ought to come with wrongdoing. You might say, well, Mr. Weiner must have felt shame because he tried to lie his way out of the mess he created for himself. That was only an effort to cover his … tracks.

No, if he feels shame, he quits Congress. Simple as that. A person of good character knows a congressman would never, could never, do the things Mr. Weiner has done and remain in office. It’s insulting to the office and the constituents he serves, not to mention humiliating for his family and friends.

Which is why this incident doesn’t prove Mr. Weiner is “a 14-year-old boy,” it proves he’s a man without a conscience, and this is what’s wrong with America.

The bad news? It’s only going to get worse.

We already know the next generation of Americans is growing up without a proper moral compass. In its biennial survey of teenagers, the Josephson Institute of Ethics in 2010 once again established the alarming disconnect between the immoral and unethical behavior of our teens – which it describes as “entrenched” – and their positive self-esteem. More than 90 percent say they feel good about their moral and ethical selves despite habitual lying, cheating and stealing.

Can’t wait until they run for Congress.

To be fair, everyone makes mistakes. Actually, to be more accurate, everyone sins. Guilt and remorse are how a well-formed conscience tells us we’ve sinned, and repentance is how we recover and make amends.

But sin has consequences, and in Mr. Weiner’s case, those consequences must be more than therapy.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Some states are mandating the content of school lunches. Others have laws about how old kids must be to baby-sit. All states now have rules about bicycle helmets and federal law dictates when parents can take the booster seat out of the minivan and put it in a garage sale.

In fact, there are even laws about what sorts of toys and child gear can be sold at a garage sale. (Short answer: pretty much nothing unless you have it tested for lead.)

Given the propensity for governments to take it upon themselves to “assist” parents in the upbringing of our children on the assumption that we obviously don’t know what we’re doing, I figured a proposed California statute was just more of the same.

Turns out I’m in agreement with the legislation introduced by the Golden State’s Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, a Democrat. Not only is her bill an effort to empower users of social networking sites and protect their privacy when creating user profiles, but more importantly, Mrs. Corbett’s bill would restore parental authority over the online activities of minor children.

Currently, sites such as Facebook have default settings for new users. When you sign up for a Facebook account, your profile automatically is set to allow “Everyone” to see your information. You then must change to more restrictive settings if you want your profile viewed only by “Friends” or “Friends of friends.”

The California bill would demand that social networking sites do exactly the opposite – default to a restrictive setting that shows only your name and city. You then could open the door to your public profile, rather than close it after the fact.

More importantly to parents, this bill would allow Californians to demand that sites like Facebook take down within 48 hours information about their minor children when parents request it.

Like me, your reaction might have been, I already have the right to demand this, I’m the parent. Unfortunately, according to Facebook’s “frequently asked questions,” you don’t have that right at all.

Facebook didn’t get to be the world’s largest social networking site by catering to concerned parents, after all.

The company prohibits users younger than 13 and cooperates with parents or others who report underage users by deleting their accounts, though if you want to see the information a child posted on Facebook, you “may” be able to do so. It’s not an easy process. (There’s notaries, forms, conforming to applicable laws, etc., to deal with.)

But users ages 13 to 18 are guaranteed privacy by Facebook. Parental authority essentially is meaningless when your child becomes an “authorized” user of Facebook. Rather, the company simply encourages parents to talk with their kids about the best ways to use the site.

We send some strange and conflicting messages to our teenagers. On one hand, we practically encourage their ongoing adolescence with rules that regulate whether they can ride a bike to school, much less get a job or drive a car.

Then again, we let them roam the Internet, facilitating and respecting their privacy without the means to assert our proper protection and judgment over their virtual activities.

There probably are a host of unintended consequences with this bill, but there’s also a germ of respect for parents in it that ought to be upheld more broadly.

Solid parenting usually will alleviate the need to go around a teen and demand that information be removed from his or her Facebook page.

Still, a law that reminds social networking companies of the primacy of parents in the lives of their minor children is a good thing.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks