The Damage Done: Crack Babies Talk Back
Antwaun Garcia was a shy boy whose tattered clothes reeked of cat piss. Everyone knew his father peddled drugs and his mother smoked rock, so they called him a “crack baby.”
It started in fourth grade when his teacher asked him to read aloud. Antwaun stammered, then went silent. “He can’t read because he’s a crack baby,” jeered a classmate. In the cafeteria that day no one would sit near him. The kids pointed and chanted, “crack baby, crack baby.” Antwaun sat sipping his milk and staring down at his tray. After that, the taunting never stopped. Unable to take it, Antwaun quit school and started hanging out at a local drug dealer’s apartment, where at age nine he learned to cut cocaine and scoop it into little glass vials. “Crack baby,” he says. “Those two words almost cost me my education.”
Antwaun finally returned to school and began learning to read a year later, after he was plucked from his parents’ home and placed in foster care. Now twenty, he’s studying journalism at LaGuardia Community College in New York City and writing for Represent, a magazine for and by foster children. In a recent special issue he and other young writers, many of them born to crack addicts, took aim at a media myth built on wobbly, outdated science: crack babies. Their words are helping expose the myth and the damage it has done.
Crack hit the streets in 1984, and by 1987 the press had run more than 1,000 stories about it, many focusing on the plight of so-called crack babies. The handwringing over these children started in September 1985, when the media got hold of Dr. Ira Chasnoff’s New England Journal of Medicine article suggesting that prenatal cocaine exposure could have a devastating effect on infants. Only twenty-three cocaine-using women participated in the study, and Chasnoff warned in the report that more research was needed. But the media paid no heed. Within days of the first story, CBS News found a social worker who claimed that an eighteen-month-old crack-exposed baby she was treating would grow up to have “an IQ of perhaps fifty” and be “barely able to dress herself.”
Soon, images of the crack epidemic’s “tiniest victims” — scrawny, trembling infants — were flooding television screens. Stories about their bleak future abounded. One psychologist told The New York Times that crack was “interfering with the central core of what it is to be human.” Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the he Washington Post, wrote that crack babies were doomed to “a life of certain suffering, of probable deviance, of permanent inferiority.” The public braced for the day when this “biological underclass” would cripple our schools, fill our jails, and drain our social programs.
But the day never came. Crack babies, it turns out, were a media myth, not a medical reality. This is not to say that crack is harmless. Infants exposed to cocaine in the womb, including the crystallized version known as crack, weigh an average of 200 grams below normal at birth, according to a massive, ongoing National Institutes of Health study. “For a healthy, ten-pound Gerber baby this is no big deal,” explains Barry Lester, the principal investigator. But it can make things worse for small, sickly infants.
Lester has also found that the IQs of cocaine-exposed seven-year-olds are four and a half points lower on average, and some researchers have documented other subtle problems. Perhaps more damaging than being exposed to cocaine itself is growing up with addicts, who are often incapable of providing a stable, nurturing home. But so-called crack babies are by no means ruined. Most fare far better, in fact, than children whose mothers drink heavily while pregnant.
Nevertheless, in the midst of the drug-war hysteria, crack babies became an emblem of the havoc drugs wreak and a pretext for draconian drug laws. Hospitals began secretly testing pregnant women for cocaine, and jailing them or taking their children. Tens of thousands of kids were swept into foster care, where many languish to this day.
Represent magazine was founded at the height of the crack epidemic to give voice to the swelling ranks of children trapped in the foster-care system. Its editors knew that many of their writers were born to addicts. But it wasn’t until late last year, when a handful expressed interest in writing about how crack ravaged their families, that the picture snapped into focus. “I remember hearing about crack babies and how they were doomed,’” says editor Kendra Hurley. “I suddenly realized these were those kids.”
Hurley and her co-editor, Nora McCarthy, had worked with many of the writers for years, and had nudged and coddled most through the process of writing about agonizing personal experiences. But nothing compared to the shame their young scribes expressed when discussing their mothers’ crack use. Even the most talented believed it had left them “slow,” “retarded,” or “damaged.” The editors decided to publish a special crack issue to help break the stigma and asked the writers to appear on the cover, under the headline ‘CRACK BABIES’ — ALL GROWN UP. Initially, only Antwaun agreed. He eventually convinced three others to join him. “I said, ‘Why shouldn’t we stand up and show our faces?’” he recalls. “We rose above the labels. I wanted to reach other kids who had been labeled and let them know it doesn’t mean you can’t succeed.”
As it happens, when the crack issue went to press, a group of doctors and scientists was already lobbying The New York Times to drop terms like “crack baby” from its pages. The group included the majority of American researchers investigating the effects of prenatal cocaine exposure or drug addiction. They were spurred to action by the paper’s coverage of a New Jersey couple found to be starving their four foster children in late 2003. For years the couple had explained the children’s stunted growth to neighbors and friends by saying, among other things, that they were “crack babies.” The Times not only failed to inform readers that crack babies don’t exist, but reinforced the myth by reporting, without attribution, that “the youngest [of the children] was born a crack baby.”
Assistant Managing Editor Allan Siegal refused to meet with the researchers, saying via e-mail that the paper simply couldn’t open a dialogue with all the “advocacy groups who wish to influence terminology.” After some haggling, he did agree to publish a short letter to the editor from the researchers. While the paper hasn’t used “crack baby” in the last several months, it has referred to babies being “addicted” to crack, which, as the researchers told the editors, is scientifically inaccurate, since babies cannot be born addicted to cocaine.
The researchers later circulated a more general letter urging all media to drop the term “crack baby.” But the phrase continues to turn up. Of the more than 100 news stories that have used it in the last year, some thirty were published after the letter was distributed in late February.
Represent’s writers made a more resounding splash. National Public Radio and AP both featured them in stories on crack’s legacy. Inspired by their words, the columnist E.R. Shipp called on New York Daily News readers to consider the damage the crack-baby myth has done. A July Newsday op-ed made a similar plea, and also urged readers to avoid rushing to judgment on the growing number of babies being born to mothers who use methamphetamines.
Still, a number of recent “meth baby” stories echo the early crack-baby coverage. A July AP article cautioned, for instance, that an “epidemic” of meth-exposed children in Iowa is stunting infants’ growth, damaging their brains, and leaving them predisposed to delinquency. In May, one Fox News station warned that meth babies “could make the crack baby look like a walk in the nursery.” Research is stacking up against such claims. But, then, scientific evidence isn’t always enough to kill a good story.
Mariah Blake, Assistant Editor
Columbia Journalism Review