October 19, 2011

Is Glee’s adoption plot in poor taste?

The hit television show Glee, and its executive producer Ryan Murphy, have recently gone under fire for a contentious adoption-themed plot that has developed this season. In the show’s first season, cheerleader Quinn was pregnant and gave her baby up for adoption, only to spend this season trying to take it back from its adoptive mother Shelby (Idina Menzel), who also happens to be the birth mother of Quinn’s glee club team member, Rachel (Lea Michelle).

While the show has been lauded for its progressive story lines and its supportive exploration of various social issues (homosexuality, biracial relationships, adoption, diversity, special needs), the depiction of a birth mother trying to retrieve her child has upset a great deal of adoption activists. Amber Austin is an adoptive mother who set up an online petition against the plot line, asking that Murphy release a PSA that would show a more realistic portrayal of adoption. As reported in the LA Times, Austin “said the show irresponsibly raises fear for adopted children that they can be taken away from their families, and that the plot also could cause confusion for families who adopt. She said the story line perpetuates one of the most pervasive and harmful myths about adoption: that a birth mother can take a child away from a family or pop back into the child’s life.”

Certainly we see why this has become an issue in the adoption community, and why it is upsetting adoptive parents or traditional notions of acceptable adoption practices. What do you think? At what point are fictional devices required to stick to the most realistic interpretations of potential real-life situations? Should Glee be paying closer attention to the message it sends, knowing how strong their voice has been amongst social activists? What about the positive side to contentious plot lines — the fact that they get people speaking and discussing issues that they may not have otherwise discussed?