Retired Judge Thomas Wexler and a recent letter writer make a strong argument that a good home and a good family are of supreme importance in the social, mental and intellectual development of young people ("The basis of morality, stability is family," Readers Write, Jan. 24, and "We must find, nourish root cause of moral decency," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 21). And I agree that if we had fewer dysfunctional families in our communities, we would see fewer instances of violent crime committed by our young people. But are they implying that being a dysfunctional family is a choice that people make?
There are too many dysfunctional households in our communities. I take that not only as a fact but as a condition of our society at large. These households did not become dysfunctional in a vacuum. The argument made by the writers fails to take into account the kinds of influences that all of our families are subjected to — the widening income gap, homelessness, food insecurity, lack of affordable child care for two-income families and lack of access to physical and mental health care. It has been demonstrated time and again that these conditions are detrimental to the formation of any family in our society.
Our government can and must be a positive agent for change with respect to the factors affecting our kids and their families. As a democracy, our government and its policies should reflect our values as a society. I would argue that our present government does not.
Gregory P. Olson, Eden Prairie
•••
I find myself furious as I consider both Wexler's opinion piece and a letter writer's response. Wexler frames his argument with an anecdote about crimes committed by some people who happened to be Black, and circled back, as these people always do, to the moral imperative of having a father in the home. Yes, having a father in the home was a real cause of moral decency for Ethan Crumbley — a kid (who appears to be white) who shot up a school with the gun that was his Christmas present from his parents.
Then we have the letter writer, who notes that "I visited homes where the father was absent, the mother was at work, and the grandmother was left to try to manage ... her grandchildren." He does not stop to reflect that the father might be absent because he is dead, or abusive, or imprisoned for a crime he may not have even committed. Or that the mother is at work because rent needs to be paid and the kids need food and shelter. He's just happy to note that "If there is no moral compass there, no amount of money, no social program and no law will ever cure the disease."
What we perhaps have are writers whose economic fortunes have allowed them to enjoy the upper echelons of Maslow's hierarchy without ever having to wonder where their next meal was coming from or if they would be living in their car or under a bridge next week.