COVENTRY, England – Political philosopher Adam Swift wants parents who read to their children at night to feed guilty because less fortunate children don’t have the same advantage.

Swift, of England’s Warwick University, recently gave an interview on his book “Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships” for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in which the far-left prof contemplated whether “having a loving family is an unfair advantage,” Australia’s 9 News reports.

Swift told ABC that the tradition of parents reading bedtime stories to their children confers an unfair advantage on them, but shouldn’t be banned because the benefits outweigh the discrimination.

“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t – the difference in their life chances – is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those who don’t,” Swift said.

AdamSwift“You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these (desired) familial relationship goods,” he said, according to 9 News.

But Swift also believes parents should consider the unfair advantage their children gain because they care about them. They should be aware they are putting other children at a disadvantage with bedtime reading, he said.

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” Swift said, according the news site.

The whole focus of Swift’s research at the Warwick University Center for Ethics, Law and Public Affairs is to decide for parents what would be best – and fairest for everyone – in raising their children, he explained.

“We needed … a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairness for other people’s children,” he said, according to the Canadian Lifesitenews.org.

In his research Swift also considered options like abolishing the family, but rejected it as “a really bad idea,” ultimately because the benefits to equality would be outweighed by the drawbacks to healthy child development, according to the news site.

Swift also discussed a parent’s right to send their children to private schools, and take them to church.

From Life Site News:

But then Swift considers private schools. These he is ready to toss. The advantage they provide to child development is smaller than that delivered by love—or, as they like to say at the Centre of Ethics, Law and Public Affairs, by “filial intimate relations.” And like inheritance it results in highly unfair, unearned, and unequal conditions between the two classes of offspring. Away with private schools and legacies.

What about parents taking their children to church? asks ABC’s interviewer. Clearly Swift, who admits readily he never goes to church, sees no benefit in it to children at all. (There is, in fact, plenty of empirical evidence of the advantages, collected here by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute).

Swift sees church as a detriment. On the one hand, he finds it acceptable for parents to pass on their preferences for sports (for no apparent reason other than that Swift himself likes taking children along to cricket matches, at least in theory). But on the other, for parents to use their authority to teach children their religious beliefs “we think gives parents too much influence” over “distinct entities with their own moral status.”

But what Swift fails to address is the alternative: if parents do not teach their values to their children, who or what will provide them? The state? The entertainment media? Or, may heaven help us, public universities such as Warwick U? And what is likelier to produce adults who are “distinct entities with their own moral status”? These institutions, or parents?

FrontPageMag.com columnist Daniel Greenfield likened the “liberal egalitarian sociologist’s” research to “a balloon filled with stale toxic gases,” and offered his view on another important world inequality issue that’s been largely ignored.

“They should feel guilty… for being good parents. This is the logic of the left. And if you’re not illiterate, check your bedtime reading privilege. You enjoyed the advantage of parents who cared about you. You should feel guilty. Very guilty,” Greenfield wrote.

“But I’ve come to the conclusion that the West is unfairly advantaged by having so many sociologists, critical race theorists and social justice warriors. If we all deported them to poor countries, they could finally catch up to us in the field of social justice.

“As much as it might pain us to lose these demented parasites respected academics, it’s the right thing to do. No longer will we enjoy our vast advantages in sociology and theories on gendered icebergs (yes it’s a thing). The rest of the world will now be able to benefit from having a declining economy and an academic environment that consists of crazy people denouncing others for thoughtcrimes.”

Comments are closed.