Last week I was looking through the Indiana prisons (via the Internet), trying to locate a former student of mine, who has moved from the local county jail to a state prison. As I combed over the website for the women's prison, I found a link that said, "prison nursery" or something like that, which I quickly passed over because I was in a hurry and needed to find her address. But I thought about it later. "Prison nursery"....wait, does that mean there is a nursery for infants born in prison?
I went back to the website to try and find the link, but I couldn't. In fact, I may have misread the webpage. But then I googled "babies in prison" and discovered that many women's prisons
do in fact house nurseries, because so many babies are born to women while they are serving out their sentences. Mexico City requires--requires!-- imprisoned women to keep their children in prison with them up until the age of six. Many, many other countries make arrangements for incarcerated mothers with small children, allowing the children to live with the mothers. I found
this article about it on salon.com. From Cambodia to Hungary to Bolivia and Pakistan, extreme consideration is taken to allow mothers to keep parenting while they are in prison, believing that the mother-child bond is profoundly important, for both mother and child.
This article on NPR shines a light on a women's correctional facility in Ohio where women are allowed to have their babies with them in prison, and are helped in caring for the children.
(The NPR article also points out that more than 1 in 100 Americans are in jail or prison.)
And yet, here at the Kosciusko County Jail, I have a female student who has a 3-month-old son, and she is not allowed to have contact with him. Many of these women have babies or young, young children, and they cannot touch them or be near them. And this is to say nothing of the men, who also often have young children, beyond their reach or touch.
I'm sitting here trying to think what to say about this. I rarely know what charges any of my students are in on, but I do know that something like 85% of the charges in this county are meth-related. This means that a high percentage of our literacy students are in jail for meth-related crimes (possession of meth, trafficking meth, doing bad things while high on meth, etc.). A meth addict (and there really isn't such a thing as a casual meth user) a good parent does not make. So while it's all good and fine to imply that parents should be with their children--for the health and wholeness of everyone--it can also be said that many of the folks in prison were the exact opposite of a model parent when they were on the "outs" and a case could even be made that many of their children are better off without them around.
Then again, in what circumstances do people turn to meth--or heavy alcohol use--or hard drugs--in the first place? I haven't read any studies (and I really need to start educating myself: all suggestions very welcome), but from casual observation I would say that poverty, dead-end labor, and mental-physical-sexual abuse almost always precede heavy drug use, and the kinds of crimes that arise from it. This is so frequently true that one could make a case that unless we take an in-depth look at the economic and psycho-sexual conditions in which people have lived before committing crimes, we have not in any meaningful way studied crime, criminals, or imprisonment.
Part 3
"But what is possible, and perhaps this is what makes the cross so central to the Christian tradition as the great revelation of the path of self-transformation, is that in and through the very pain and the very cruelty and the very undoing is the manifestation of a great grace."
-James Finley
Part 4
Sometimes I sit at the front of class in the jail--we all sit at grey plastic tables, in a square, facing each other--and I look into the faces of the other human beings there--and I think, these people are good and they are holy, and it must paralyze the very angels, to contemplate the fact that they are trapped, as suffocated, as fishes in nets. No matter how they struggle or pound on the doors, they cannot be free. In fact, pounding on the doors will get them a couple days in solitary confinement. Through all of it, they are unable to hold their children, or look at the sky. And then again, I think, as I look at them: they are unfree in a way deeper still than all of that. Unlock the doors, freedom would be as elusive as it ever was, for them and for their children.
Part 5
I do not mean to say that every prisoner is like every other. It is not like that.
One of the great challenges of working with this demographic is the constant temptation to give into class stereotypes. Because, so many of my students come from the working-poor, trailer-trash culture, and here they are in jail, covered in tattoos, speaking grammatically-incorrect English. It just confirms the tired old stereotype. And it is so easy to believe that our goal is to try and shepherd these lost souls (these losers, let's be honest about how so many people think about this demographic) directly into the middle-class, where folks speak English in all the right ways, and do not put their eyeliner on so thick or wear their jeans so tight or get barcode tattoos on their necks.
To peel back the layers, of what we really really really really really really really believe makes a person worth knowing, worth loving, worth considering an equal.
I happen to believe that the heart of Jesus' good news to us is that everyone is equally a child of God, and equally worthy of love. That's what Jesus thought and taught. But what do I think, and what do I embody? Do I believe that everyone is equally a child of God and equally worthy of love though? It sounds so nice and egalitarian, but do I really believe it in my guts?
This is a little litmus test I have invented, to test my own beliefs on the everyone-equally-loved-by-God thing: Say you are having lunch with Joe. You and Joe are having lunch, and then up to your lunch table walks Monica, someone whose opinion and esteem matters a great deal to you. How do you feel about Monica seeing you with Joe? The answer to this question perhaps determines how you really feel about Joe.
I can imagine going out to lunch with any of my students from the jail. But if someone whose opinion I really cared about walked up to me while I was having lunch with one of my students, would I feel the urge to introduce the lunch companion as a "student in the jail," or an "inmate," as a way of distancing myself from that person, so that I wouldn't be directly associated with someone of his/her ilk? So that I would be thought to be a charitable, philanthropic person--giving my time to the less fortunate! Or would I instinctively introduce my lunch buddy as a "friend," with no further explanation needed? To whom am I willing to be charitable, but not really willing to consider a genuine equal? And what, precisely, might be holding me back from considering that I am equally in need of help and hope, equally as fragile and equally as strong, as anyone else?
Part 6
I am a person in process, desiring always to become more human and more divine. I may struggle to believe that every single person is my equal--in fact, I'm about as far away from really accepting that truth as Indiana is from Antarctica--and yet, I can do my best to treat each person as an equal, equally beloved of God, equally worth loving and knowing as the people I most love--meanwhile praying that my heart would be softened anew each day, that I'd daily find new doors into compassion, new doors out towards people and realities I haven't opened to before. My friend Chad reminds me that becoming more loving and more holy is mostly not up to me.
Part 7
If Jesus were born in comparable circumstances to those in which he was actually born, would he perhaps be born in a prison, to a 19-year-old single mother (father unknown!)--maybe white trash, maybe a black or Mexican woman from the ghetto--named Mary?
All Advent I've been hearing echos of Mary's famous song, the one she sang while pregnant with Jesus, now known as the Magnificat. In it she claims that God "has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts, brought the powerful from their thrones, lifted up the lowly, filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty." I picture the incarcerated Mary, poor, lonely, huddled in her cell in her striped jumpsuit, nursing a tiny newborn boy, singing those words. Words that bite into the very reality she lives every day, words that speak of denial as much as anything else. Because God isn't lifting her up, she so lowly. And yet she sings. She trusts that God is there, setting her and others free, despite all the evidence, because evidence, by God, doesn't have the final say.
And who is this boy, this infant she nurses? And will she sing to him this song as he grows?
Maybe he is the one who will say, when he is grown, "Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed...inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'When was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these...you did it to me."