Dear Editor,
Reference is made to “School violence: We’re on the precipice of a slippery slope” (Nov 14). I endorse your view that violence in schools is, unquestionably, a microcosm of a wider problem. It is driven, in large measure, by ‘learnt behaviours.’ However, I don’t endorse your view that: To place blame for this worsening ugliness at any one door would be to misrepresent the nature of the phenomenon. I would blame the breakdown of the family as the single most important factor as the reason for the violence in the schools.
I grew up without a father, in dire poverty. Growing up without a father was devastating and traumatizing. It left a void in my life that to this day decades later, it stills affects me psychologically and emotionally. To this day, it was the worst experience in my life. It shapes who I am today and the trajectory of my life tremendously. After my father left, life was never the same. All the above reasons and experiences led me to a life of violence. Editor, how can we prevent violence in schools? All students have the right to learn in a safe school environment. The good news is school violence can be prevented. Many factors contribute to school violence. Preventing school violence requires addressing the factors that put people at risk for or protect them from violence.
In her book, “The Two-Parent Pri-vilege,” Melissa S. Kearney makes a provocative, data-driven case for marriage by showing how the institution’s decline led to a host of economic woes—problems that have fractured American society and rendered vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Eschewing the religious and values-based arguments that have long dominated this conversation, Kearney shows how the greatest impacts of marriage are, in fact, economic: when two adults marry, their economic and household lives improve, offering a host of benefits not only for the married adults but for their children. As these trends of marriage and class continue, the compounding effects on inequality and opportunity grow increasingly dire.
For many, the two-parent home may be an old-fashioned symbol of the idyllic American dream. But The Two-Parent Privilege makes it clear that marriage, for all its challenges and faults, may be our best path to a more equitable future. By confronting the critical role that family makeup plays in shaping children’s lives and futures, Kearney offers a critical assessment of what a decline in marriage means for an economy and a society—and what we must do to change course.
Editor, simply put, what Kearney is opining is that two parents are better than one for raising less violent, law abiding, productive children, and preventing school’s violence. The two parents’ home not only benefits children financially and academically, but it also curtails and prevents violent behaviours. That said, I believe that the single most important way of reducing and preventing violence in schools is having two parents in the home. In the two parents’ house, the children received the love and nurturing to become healthy and nonviolent.
Sincerely,
Anthony Pantlitz
