In her 2006 book Between Two Worlds, The Inner
Lives of Children of Divorce, Elizabeth Marquardt ... is famous
for saying there is no such thing as a "good divorce."
—Illana Simons, Psychology Today
Blog, July 30, 2009
"[T]here's a growing movement to bring back Thrift Week and repair
the public reputation of thrift as a true American virtue (see BringBackThriftWeek.org
and NewThrift.org). Spearheaded by the Institute for American Values
... the goals of the campaign are innovative and far ranging ...."
—Jeff Yeager, San Francisco Chronicle, July 29, 2009
Sixty-two scholars have signed on to a report by
the Institute for American Values and other think tanks called, For
a New Thrift: Confronting the Debt Culture . . . it’s
one of the most important think-tank reports you’ll read this
year.
—David
Brooks, The New York Times, June 10, 2008
In 2001 the longtime student practice of "hooking
up" gained national attention when the Institute for American Values
released a report titled "Hooking
Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and
Dating Today."
—Kathleen A. Bogle, The Chronicle
of Higher Education, March 18, 2008
"I should add that I have begun reading Blankenhorn's
book, The
Future of Marriage. So far, I find it lively, engaging, subtle,
interesting, happily free of jargon, and deeply wrong. It is probably
the best single book yet written opposing gay marriage."
—Dale
Carpenter, Univ. of Minnesota law professor, and gay marriage advocate,
March 28, 2007
According to the Institute for American Values,
which studied 1,500 children of divorce aged 18 to 35, those whose parents
divorced before the kids were 16 often had trouble reconciling their
two worlds. Others feel compelled to carry or keep secrets. So if you
must divorce, don't be fooled into thinking it's going to be a happy
time, at least not for your kids.
—Dr Joyce Brothers, March 10, 2006
Is "good divorce" an oxymoron? That debate
is being rekindled by psychologists and relationship experts across
the country, in part by Elizabeth Marquardt's new book, "Between
Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce," in which
she says there is no such thing as a good divorce.
—Denver Post, February 9, 2006
A recent commission report ("Commission to Study all Aspects of
Same-Sex Marriage and the Legal Equivalents Thereof” New Hampshire
Oct. 31, 2005) frames its argument by citing the Institute's report,
"The Future
of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America":
Based on our months of study, the majority of
the Commission has come to a number of conclusions. First, marriage
matters and it matters a lot. Marriage is an important social institution
that has a number of interconnected purposes including the procreation
and protection of children. A recent report on family law set out
the purposes of marriage this way:
Marriage serves a number of critical purposes
in human culture. It addresses the fact of sexual difference between
men and women, including the unique vulnerabilities that women face
in pregnancy and childbirth. It promotes a public form of life and
culture that integrates the goods of sexual attraction, interpersonal
love and commitment, childbirth, child care and socialization, and
mutual economic and psychological assistance. It provides a social
frame for procreativity. It fosters and maintains connections between
children and their natural parents. It sustains a complex form of
social interdependency between men and women. It supports an integrated
form of parenthood, uniting the biological (or adoptive), gestational,
and social roles that parents play.
In this view, marriage is not merely a private
commitment of two people, but a complex web of relationships and principles
that bring a man and a woman together for the purpose of creating
and raising children
“Does the definition of marriage make
a difference? The Commission agrees with Daniel Cere [author of "The
Future of Family Law"} that “[m]eaning matters, and the
institutions that serve to bear it structure our experiences and to
steer them in a particular direction.”
##
“[T]he Institute for American Values in New
York, [is] a driving force behind the
‘marriage movement’
. . .”
—The Cleveland Plain Dealer,
Dec. 5, 2005
“Of all the millions of words written about September 11 and the
war against terrorism, “What We’re
Fighting For” has been the only statement to initiate an authentic
and honest exchange of views across the Atlantic and between intellectuals
in the U.S. and the Middle East. Its appearance was a moral watershed
that defined the debate that has only just begun and is likely to continue
for generations.”
—Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment
for Democracy, Oct. 2003
“It is hard to find an intellectual in the
Middle East who is not aware of the exchange
of letters on terrorism and Islam/West relations initiated by the
Institute for American Values. The whole exchange has had a tremendous
impact and is a model for the dialogue that must take place.”
—Hassan I. Mneimneh, Director, Iraq Research
and Documentation Project, Oct. 2003
“ The Institute is premised on the idea that values count in public
policy, and has quietly brought together an incredible network of heavy
hitters on the subject of family, culture, and values to enlighten the
public debate.”
—Francis Fukuyama, Johns Hopkins University,
Oct. 2003
“For more than a decade, the Institute for American Values has
tackled some of the toughest issues facing our country, at home and
abroad. Working across partisan lines and with a deep respect for solid
evidence and civil argument, the Institute has helped enlighten public
opinion and shape public policy on matters ranging from marriage and
the family to the Bush doctrine and America's relations with the Islamic
world.”
—William A. Galston, University
of Maryland, Oct. 2003
“Almost everything that is important to a decent society depends
on the family and no group does a better job of documenting its strengths
and finding cures for its faults than the Institute for American Values.
The Institute does more than complain or celebrate: It published important
research and offers constructive ideas.”
—James Q. Wilson, UCLA (Emeritus), Oct.
2003
“ The Institute has become the site of the nation's most creative
thinking on family and civil society.”
—Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School,
Oct. 2003
“Science is reshaping the argument about whether nature or nurture
is decisive in determining human destinies and about whst the answer
means for social policy. Consider a fascinating new report arguing the
scientific evidence for the importance of ‘authoritative communities’
— groups, religious or secular, devoted to transmitting a model
of the moral life. The report is from the 33 research scientists, children's
doctors and mental health and youth services professionals on a commission
jointly sponsored by the Dartmouth Medical School, the Institute for
American Values, and the YMCA of the USA. The report's conclusion is
in its title: Human beings are ‘Hardwired to Connect’.”
—George F. Will, Nationally Syndicated
Columnist, The Washington Post, Sept. 21, 2003
The commission [on Children at Risk] (a creature of the YMCA of the
USA, Dartmouth Medical School and the Institute for American Values)
had just issued a major report —Hardwired to Connect—in
which it argued that the loss of connectedness is devastating American's
youth.”
—William Raspberry, Nationally Syndicated Columnist,
The Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2003
“The...study, Does Divorce Make People Happy?, was released
this summer by the New York City-based Institute for American Values
and adds to what some call a growing pro-marriage movement meant to
slow the divorce rate.”
—Orange County Register, Aug.
30, 2002
“In Germany, a small American think tank has spurred a serious
intellectual debate about the war on terrorism ... making front-page
news and prompting comment in newspapers across Germany.”
—Claudia Winkler, “The US German
Conversation,” The Weekly Standard, Aug. 15, 2002
“[The Institute for American Values is] a New York-based think
thank that has become a leading voice in support of marriage and against
divorce.”
-—South Bend Tribune, Aug. 6,
2002
“[T]he Institute for American Values, [is] a major player in the
marriage movement.”
-The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), Feb.
6, 2003
“During the Clinton years, the ideology of a self-described ‘centrist’
neo-family values movement triumphed over the religious far right, on
the one hand, and progressive family politics on the other.
. . . Indeed, the marriage movement is busting out all over...”
—Judith Stacey, “Family Values
Forever,” an article criticizing the Institute for American Values
and the marriage movement,
The Nation, Jul. 9, 2001
“I always pause when I see material from the Institute for American
Values. It sounds like a group that thinks it has a lock on virtue,
and anyone who disagrees is un-American. But despite the name, the New
York advocacy group keeps putting out thought-provoking reports on family
topics. Its most recent one, on the clash between mother values and
market values [Watch Out For Children:
A Mothers' Statement to Advertisers], is no exception.
—Ann Doss Helms, staff writer, Charlotte
Observer, May 15, 2001
“[T]he Institute for American Values . . . is the source of excellent
monographs about ‘the renewal of marriage and family life and
the sources of competence, character, and citizenship.’”
—George F. Will, syndicated columnist,
May 15, 2001
“[T]he Institute for American Values, [is] a new breed of think
tank. From its base in New York City . . . the institute is blazing
new political and scholarly trails as it documents the nation's cultural
crisis and makes the indispensable case for marriage and families.”
—Editorial, Chattanooga Times,
Feb. 15, 2001
“The pro-marriage movement is gaining strength on both sides of
the Atlantic ...[T]he increasingly influential Institute for American
Values ... has fueled and shaped the divorce debate for over years ...
Set up in New York a decade ago by a group of intellectuals and academics,
the institute has a manifesto called The
Marriage Movement. Its stated aim is to put an end to the ‘divorce
revolution.’”
—Maureen Freely, The Observer
(London), Nov. 19, 2000
“[The Case for Marriage is] part of the endless spate of
pro-marriage, anti-divorce, anti-gender equality books, articles, op-eds,
position papers, TV appearances, and blatherfests produced by the Institute
for American Values...”
—Katha Pollitt, “Book Club,”
an article criticizing the Institute, Salon, Sept. 25, 2000
“The grass-roots ‘marriage movement’ has come of age.
Today it throws down a gauntlet in front of those it says have fostered
a ‘culture of divorce’. More than 100 members of the broad-based
coalition — which includes some of the nation's most noted researchers
on marriage, as well as clergy, judges, divorce lawyers, marriage counselors,
sociologists, and policy wonks — are issuing The
Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles. It blasts the
effects of divorce and calls for a national commitment to marriage.
—Karen Peterson, staff writer, USA
Today, Jun. 29, 2000
“Now, without compromise, let this commentator do the equivalent
of a sign-on: the statement [The
Marriage Movement] is a nuanced, well-positioned, clearly reasoned,
courageous, never shrill address to what has to be called a crisis of
marriage and family.”
—Martin Marty, Sightings, 2000
“The Statement [Turning
the Corner on Father Absence in Black America] draws heavily
upon the work of the Institute for American Values, which has been an
outspoken advocate for civility and traditional morality since its formation
more than a decade ago. The institute and its associates have forcefully
made the argument that a child in a home without the biological father
is at dramatically increased statistical risk for drug abuse, violent
criminality, suicide, homelessness, and virtually every other social
ill of modern life.”
—Ellis Cose, USA Today, Jul. 12,
1999
“The group that endorses the report [Turning
the Corner on Father Absence in Black America] is as significant
as the document itself: blacks and whites, conservatives and liberals,
men and women, scholars and activists.”
-Karen S. Peterson, USA Today, Jun.
17, 1999
“My friends at the Institute for American Values have sent me
a copy of a very interesting proposal (co-authored and supported by
conservatives and liberals, by Republicans and Democrats) that would
do more than pay lip service to the importance of the family: It would
say that commitment to marriage and the family pays off —literally!”
-Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Perspective,
Mar. 1999, referring to the report,
A
Call to Family-Supportive Tax Reform
“With The
Age of Unwed Mothers, Maggie Gallagher has hit a home run. This
report ought to —I believe it just might—reframe our national
debate on teen pregnancy. For thirty years, most people have gotten
this topic wrong. Maggie gets it right.”
—Dr. Laura Schlessinger, The Dr. Laura
Show, 1999
“David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values,
is gaining converts.”
—David Firestone, New York Times,
June 3, 1998
“The timing couldn't be better for the report [A
Call to Civil Society] . . . It insists that moral principles
are knowable, and that in working democracy, we can agree upon them
and put them into practice.”
—Dennis Byrne, Chicago Sun-Times,
May 27, 1998
“Marriage bashing flourishes in college textbooks, according to
a new report [Closed Hearts,
Closed Minds: A Textbook Story of Marriage] from the Council on Families, part
of the Institute for American Values. The Council is a nonpartisan group
convened to examine the status and future of the family as a social
institution. It is not, as its name may suggest, a nest of right-wing
ideologues. It includes prominent scholars and family experts
. . .”
—Editorial, Cincinnati Enquirer,
Sept. 23, 1997
“The Institute for American Values has helped define the recent
debate about the family."
—The American Prospect, 1997
“The Institute for American Values and its associated organizations
have been remarkably successful in attracting favorable media.”
—Family Relations, 1997
“During the past decade, the Institute for American Values has
waged a vigorous, influential, political campaign for neoconservative
‘family values’ . . . Its publicists enjoy a direct pipeline
to the nation's elite opinion-shaping apparatus, securing habitual primetime
appearances on PBS, CNN, commercial broadcast news and talk shows, and
continual coverage of their views in the mainstream print media.”
—Dr. Judith Stacey, Streisand Professor
of Gender Studies and Professor of Sociology, University of Southern
California, and an Institute critic, 1997
“To a remarkable degree the ‘family policy’ debate
of the last three or four years has been won. ‘Dan Quayle was
right.’“
—First Things, April 1996, referring
to the article, “Dan Quayle Was Right” (The Atlantic
Monthly, April 1993) written by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead while she
was an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for American Values
“[Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's Atlantic Monthly cover story,
“Dan Quayle was Right”] skewered trendy paeans to single-mother
heroics and set off a firestorm within the liberal intelligentsia. It
also put the Institute for American Values—the grandly named but
modestly appointed think tank of which Blankenhorn and Whitehead are
president and vice-president—on the national map. If you haven't
heard of them yet, you will soon.”
—Boston Phoenix, 1995
“Clarion calls to save marriages and promote responsible fatherhood
have become too loud to ignore. The latest warning that kids are the
true victims of divorce—or when Dad isn't a meaningful presence
in the home—will be released Friday by the Council
on Families in America, a volunteer panel of academics and policy
analysts. The premise of Marriage
in America: A Report to the Nation stated it bluntly: ‘We
as a society are simply failing to teach the next generation about the
meaning, purposes, and responsibilities of marriage. If this trend continues,
it will constitute nothing less than an act of cultural suicide.’”
—USA Today, 1995
“A few words about the Council
[on Families]: Its members comprise an extraordinary array of scholars,
analysts and social commentators, among them former labor secretary
Ray Marshall, William Galston of the White House Domestic Policy Council,
David Blankenhorn, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Judith ‘Miss Manners’
Martin, San Antonio entrepreneur Gloria Rodriguez, and Allan Carlson.
Their status, I think, may give additional weight to their notion that
children are in trouble because marriage is in trouble.”
—William Raspberry, Washington Post,
Mar. 31, 1995
“The bible of the fatherhood movement is Fatherless
America, by David Blankenhorn.”
—Idaho Statesman, 1995
“With his book, his think tank, and his powerful arsenal of facts
about fatherhood, Blankenhorn has taken the helm as the de facto navigator
[of the fatherhood movement]. Far from promising a trouble-free voyage,
he has begun by making giant waves. Fatherless
America has instantly become a catch phrase.”
—Elizabeth Mehren, Los Angeles Times,
Mar. 8, 1995
“Here is a man preaching that fathers should get married, stay
married, and remain a role model for their children, and that anything
less puts children at risk. It says something about America in the 90's
that that message is so hard to take.”
—Profile of David Blankenhorn, CBS
Evening News, 1995
“The Institute for American Values and the people associated with
it have been important pioneers . . .I like to think of myself
as pushing the edge of the envelope in our public discussion. But what
I particularly admire about the Institute is that you bust straight
through that envelope. In doing so, you create an important space in
which the rest of us can follow with more of a sense of safety.”
—William A. Galston, Domestic Policy
Advisor to President Clinton, 1993
[Back to Top]
|
|
