Date on which each State inaugurated its eugenical sterilization law (view in Eugenics Archive)

In 1914, eugenicist Harry Laughlin published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people “maintained wholly or in part by public expense.” The law included sterilization of the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” Laughlin’s publication was the basis for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, passed in 1924, which was first tested in the well-known Buck v. Bell case.

It can be debated whether North Carolina’s offer of reparation is enough or appropriate compensation. At one time or another, 33 states had statutes under which more than 60,000 Americans were involuntary sterilized. At $50,000 each, that’s a staggering $3,000,000,000.

Visit the Eugenics Archive for images and information on sterilization laws and eugenicists’ justification for them.

“In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.”

Almost 100 years ago, eugenicists were very concerned with race mixing. In 1913, 29 states had laws forbidding mixed-race marriages, and 22 penalized for miscegenation — with fines and/or prison terms. Eugenicists actively supported the strengthening of old laws and the enactment of new ones such as the Virginia Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between a white person and anyone with a trace of blood other than Caucasian. It took until 1967 for these laws to be dissolved.

Anti-miscegenation Laws of the Several States - 1932

Visit the Eugenics Archive and explore the “Race Mixing and Marriage Laws”, “Mate Selection and Counseling”, and “Race and Ethnicity” topics, which are sadly rich with examples of these beliefs.

“Better Babies” contests, originally conceived to promote child welfare and physical development, were the first eugenics contests run at a state fairs (the first held in 1908). By 1920, “Fitter Families” contests were also held at state fairs, where human “stock” was judged alongside cows, pigs, and produce. Contestants completed family trait forms, were examined physically and psychologically, and were graded and awarded prizes as a result. The image below may indicate that there was even a swimsuit competition!

Visit the topics “Better Babies Contests” and “Fitter Families Contests” on the Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement site to explore images of the movement.

Though the majority of sterilizations endorsed by eugenicists in the last century were involuntary, this initiative isn’t far from involuntary. An individual suffering from addiction and desperate to maintain it is not capable of weighing the decision to be sterilized. The program also likely eliminates any hope an addict may have for change and improvement. The funding for this program, which is mostly by donation, would be better put to use improving public health and programs that provide rehabilitation assistance to addicts.

The Progress of Eugenical Sterilization

Explore the Archive for reasons for sterilizations, especially the topic “Sterilization Laws.”

Population control was a key aspect of the eugenics movement. Not only did eugenicists encourage population control (both by sterilization as well as abortion) of classes of people they deemed genetically inferior, but they discouraged its application among the intellectual families that were the most likely to practice it, which was known as positive eugenics. Explore the topic “Birth and Population Control” in the Eugenics Archive to discover some of the arguments made by the eugenicists. Margaret Sanger even makes a guest appearance.

New York

In contrast, there was a an effort to prevent hereditary blindness within the eugenics movement. Its proponents collected pedigrees, drafted legislation to prevent marriage of blind individuals, and surveyed ophthalmologists to assess causes of blindness and the cost to society to provide for the blind in specialized homes and schools. Their intent was to eliminate blindness in future generations. However, this was eugenics because affected individuals would not have been allowed to decide for themselves if the trait was undesirable, or what steps to take eliminate it.

Pedigree of a family with blindness

Explore the Eugenics Archive, especially the “Hereditary Disorders” topic, for many examples of how eugenicists viewed inherited diseases.

The similarities are numerous. A poor woman sterilized against her wishes, judged by others to be unfit (just read the public comments on the news sites featuring Tessa’s story), and having children out of wedlock. There is even a slight physical resemblance. Expert testimony during the Buck vs Bell case in 1927 argued that members of the Buck family “belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites.” The Supreme Court concurred “that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” Whether Tessa’s doctors were thinking the same thing or just made a mistake, they sent the same message.

Tessa Savicki (image from the Boston Herald) and Carrie and Emma Buck

It’s hard to believe that 83 years separate these stories. Read more about Carrie Buck on the Eugenics Archive site.

Not surprisingly, eugenicists considered sense of humor as a trait to be studied, and the archive features a complete family case study focused on humor, as well as high blood pressure, rheumatism, and interest in electricity. Written by Margaret Kessler, a student, it’s sure to bring a smile when you read “the family shows inheritance of the typical Irish humor,” or “she is a jolly good sport” (yes, really!).

Kessler's Pedigree Chart of Sense of Humor

It seems this family didn’t fully express this trait. Not likely that they are Colbert’s long lost ancestors….

Especially in the United States, eugenics was firmly grounded in agriculture. Many of the leaders of the American movement had backgrounds in plant and animal breeding. For example, prior to becoming superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, Harry Laughlin had corresponded with Davenport about their shared interest in breeding fancy chickens. During the first decade of the 20^th century, Davenport was secretary of the eugenics section of the American Breeders Association, and his slight book made clear the agricultural connection, “Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding.”

Another of Davenport’s Cold Spring Harbor institutions, the Carnegie Station for Experimental Evolution, also followed an agricultural bent. Its researchers used domestic plants and animals to set up controlled experiments to test evolutionary theory. At the same time that Laughlin and Davenport were establishing the ERO in 1910, Carnegie researcher George Harrison Shull was finishing a series of experiments on hybrid vigor in corn. For several generations he bred individual corn plants against themselves, watching as each inbred line grew less productive and more susceptible to disease. However, crossing two inbred lines maximized heterozygous traits and produced vigorous, highly productive offspring.

Shull’s work on hybrid vigor flew in the face of the eugenic pronouncement of “like with like” and the ERO’s campaign against inter-racial marriages. Race Crossing in Jamaica, published in 1929, was Davenport’s final attempt to provide a scientific rationale for racial purity. After more than 400 pages of data and analysis the best he could conclude was that that race mixing produced  “physical, mental, and instinct disharmonies.” On mental tests, he judged a higher proportion of  “browns” in Jamaica were “muddled and wuzzle-headed,” whatever that means. Eugenicists extended the concept of race to different ethnic and religious groups, so eugenics provided the Nazis a “scientific” justification for their ban on inter-racial marriages between Germans and Jews that began the march to the Holocaust.

Ultimately, Shull’s method was used to increase corn yield five-fold in the U.S., whereas the restrictive marriage laws promulgated in the U.S. and Germany led to heartbreak. Of course, Shull’s method of crossing inbred lines could not actually be applied to humans. However, his sense of hybrids accentuating the fundamental qualities of two different biological lines has actually been born out by centuries of harmonious cross-cultural and cross–racial marriages. There never was any biological basis for restricting mixed-race marriages, and eugenicists’ “data” on this subject was colored by bigotry.  People, like corn or any other organism, benefit from gene mixing that increases heterozygous traits.

These definitions stress differences that occupied either end of a continuum of eugenics practice. At one end, Galton’s definition stressed social control, or laws, to control human reproduction. At the other end, Charles Davenport’s stressed an individual’s own control over their reproduction. Social control ultimately embodied “negative eugenics”– limiting mixed race marriages, restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and sterilizing mental and epileptic patients. Self-direction embodied “positive eugenics” – taking personal measures to improve one’s own genetic heritage through mate selection.

Of course, things weren’t that simple. Galton never strongly advocated for negative eugenics, and England never inacted coercive eugenics legislation. To the contrary, Davenport’s Eugenics Record Office successfully lobbied state governments and the U.S. congress to enact restrictive eugenics legislation that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the premise of compulsory sterilization.

The Holocaust represented the nadir of eugenic practice, but it would be wrong to think eugenics ended with the Nazis. As examples, ethnic cleansings continue to this day in Darfur, and disincentives against large families trump personal reproductive wishes in China. At the same time, fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization extend reproduction to infertile couples, and pre-implantation DNA diagnosis puts the ultimate slant on the notion of self-directing of human evolution.

And somewhere in between is the simple act of picking the healthiest, most virile mate we can find to help us propel our genes into the future. We all lie somewhere on the continuum of eugenics practice.