Last Sunday, August 19, '60 Minutes'
(CBS) had a segment on homeless children in America. Kudo's must first be
offered to the production crew, the editorial staff, and particularly to Ed
Bradley, the interviewing reporter who maintained a role of scholarly
neutrality while still gaining the confidence of the homeless children.
The point of the interviews seemed to be whether or not it was best to
collect these kids each morning and take them to a school of their own (for
homeless kids only) or whether they were being deprived of social
opportunities by not going to a public school. The question was not really
answered but the entire segment would leave an indelible mark on the most
conservative, hard-hearted people who watched it, as well as on the bleeding
heart liberals.
The school for homeless children is located in Phoenix AZ, where the
children were picked up in a school bus each morning at the various
shelters, and bussed to school like the kids in a public school. They had a
normal school day with two hot meals and were bussed back to the shelters at
the close of the school day. An added break for these homeless kids was the
fact that they were given used, but clean clothing, as needed.
How can you turn your back on an innocent little moppet who is wise beyond
her years? When Bradley asked her (a fifth grader) why she thought people
were unkind to her, she said, "That's because most people have never
been homeless" and elaborated (paraphrased) " I like it a lot
better here. The other kids don't tease me because I'm homeless. We're all
the same here." The cherubic face of the little girl, her intelligence,
her sincerity burst on the camera and the viewer like a pan of ice water
thrown in our faces. . Those of us who pride ourselves on brooking no
emotional reflexes to sob stories melted like butter and were bound hand and
foot by childish innocence and natural charm.
The next student was in high school and explained woefully that when his
classmates at public schools remarked about his dirty clothes, sometimes
there were no facilities at the shelter to wash them. Other times, he just
had no money to pay for the washing. Kids can be just about as cruel as
anyone, and the subjects of their cruelty are already off balance because
they are homeless and are hurt severely by such remarks. The third student
was a sophomore in college who stated flat out that he would not have made
it into college without the special school for the homeless.
On the other side of the argument were some teachers who sincerely felt that
the public school offered a learning experience that every child should
have. The argument of these teachers did not stand up to the earnestness of
the homeless kids who unanimously would rather attend the school for the
homeless.
Now comes the hard questions. How do we pay for it? The clothes for the kids
are donated by local charities and individuals. Everything else is paid by
the taxpayer. That includes bus transportation, building maintenance,
teachers’ salaries, books and other school supplies, and food for the two
meals per day. Is this right? Is it wrong? When word gets around to the
homeless of other cities, what is to prevent them from descending on
Phoenix? What safeguards, if any, does the city have to prevent abuse of the
system?
Parents have a moral obligation to raise the kids they bring into the world.
Sometimes, through no fault of their own, this becomes an impossibility.
Should these unfortunate parents be forbidden to bring any more offspring
into existence? Didn't Hitler have a similar plan? Isn't that what they
practice in China and isn't that exactly what is being condemned as a
violation of human rights? Every conservative accepts the axiom that life is
not fair. But ironclad rules of logic falter and black and white reactions
fade into shades of gray and finally to nothing and are useless when
confronted by the wistful earnestness of a little girl.