Eugenics and the Law

EUGENICS AND THE LAW

Theory of Eugenics

In 1883 the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the word eugenics to describe the science that concerned itself with those qualities that contributed to the improvement of the human race. Eugenists, as they were to call themselves, firmly believed, for example, that intelligence was an inherited trait that was relatively independent of any environmental consideration or influence. Eugenists portrayed themselves as being sincerely concerned about the future of the human race and maintained that efforts to ensure that the human race achieved its full potential could be successful only under the following condition: that those who bore the qualities most admired or valued among human beings were encouraged to reproduce those strengths in their progeny. It was, in essence, a theory based upon selective breeding, and it was given some urgency by the eugenists' fears of the reproductive capabilities of those whom they regarded as less qualified to contribute to the advancement of the "race," such as habitual criminals, hopeless paupers, and the "feeble-minded."

Darwinian Connection

The social and moral implications of the eugenists' theories were not as disturbing to many Americans as they later became. This decade was a time in which many people were obsessed with the new field of genetics. The popularization of the laws of heredity by such writers as William E. Castle, a Harvard biologist, was one clear indication of the growing acceptance of the social implications of Darwin's concept of evolution. The word race was used broadly at the time, usually to refer to alleged differences among ethnic groups (the "Teutonic race" or the "Anglo-Saxon race," for example) and just as frequently, and often quite openly, to distinguish among social classes and between "naturally" superior and "naturally" inferior groups. While the eugenists acknowledged the importance of environment in the development of the traits they admired, they nevertheless remained firmly convinced that heredity was the key to the "betterment" of a race. This genetic determinism became extremely popular, particularly among those who stood to benefit socially or otherwise from the conclusions drawn and assumptions made. Theorists and academicians such as Madison Grant, chairman of the New York Zoological Society and author of the best-selling book The Passing of the Great Race (1916), wrote of the need to protect the nation's interest in producing future citizens whose moral fiber, intellect, and physical makeup would measure up to the nation's ideals and potential. In a country that had watched its population increase by an astonishing 10 percent in the previous ten years through immigration alone, ideas such as these attracted considerable interest.

Fears Concerning the "Feebleminded."

The ideas promulgated by eugenists fueled public concerns that society was becoming increasingly burdened by growing numbers of people who were, in the eugenists' scheme of things, unfit. From eugenic principles social theories had been distilled, frequently under the guise of reform, to deal with individuals who proved burdensome to the public, those who were seen as lacking the intellectual and physical energies to achieve independence in a rapidly evolving society. Those who shared this concern convinced several state legislatures that the state itself had a direct responsibility to protect its citizens from the financial cost of maintaining those deemed unfit, as well as from the impact their reproduction would have on society as a whole. By 1912 thirty-four states had passed laws that deprived the insane of the right to marry. Nine states forbade those who suffered from epilepsy to marry. Fifteen prohibited the mentally retarded from marrying one another. The eugenists were motivated by what they proposed as a Utopian vision of the world; they were also motivated by a conviction of the justice of their cause, which they believed was the "betterment" of mankind. What motivated the legislatures in passing such laws, aside from certain economic considerations and arguments, were the concerns many felt about the capacity of the "feebleminded" to assume the responsibilities of parenthood and the likelihood of their producing children who would suffer from similar hereditary conditions.

Institutionalization as an Alternative

The matter, however, did not rest with the passage of state laws and the dissemination of the eugenists' theories; by the early 1910s, feelings against those deemed unfit greatly intensified. In its 30 September 1914 issue Outlook, an influential journal of the time, expressed an assumption shared by many when it declared: "Feeble-mindedness has come to be recognized universally as one of the primary causes of crime, vice, and poverty." The connection between "mental deficiency" and "degeneracy," "social stagnation" and "delinquency," now seemed beyond question to many, and the demand for a solution to the supposed problem became louder. One approach entailed a form of segregation or supervision designed to dispose of a problem for which there appeared no more immediate solution. The first step involved the identification of those who met the criteria, a task that involved enlisting the aid of organizations most likely to encounter the people whom society had classified as "mental defectives." Specifically, it was estimated that in the city of New York there were some fifteen thousand such persons, all regarded as a menace "not only through their own irresponsibility, but through their freedom to beget other imbeciles." Once identified, it was hoped that such persons could be sent to an appropriate institution, where they would receive care and be prevented or discouraged from having children. Proposals such as these received financial support from various governmental organizations and were greeted with widespread approval by the majority of the public. But another, more radical approach began to gain favor—one that tried to use the authority of the law in a manner that would provoke debate for years to come.

Another Alternative

In 1907 Pennsylvania became the first state to enact a coercive sterilization statute; three years later the method of forced sterilization had garnered a large and determined following, including such noted persons as Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, and a leader of the American Socialist Party, Norman Thomas. This movement in favor of sterilization achieved even greater momentum after it received the unqualified support of the American Association of University Women and was later endorsed by Mary Williamson Harriman, founder of the Eugenics Record Office in New York. Increasingly, forced sterilization became the subject of discussion among many professional and lay organizations, particularly as the practice of institutionalizing the mentally retarded spread and thus dramatized the numbers of people involved. In 1912 Dr. Walter Fernald addressed the Massachusetts Medical Society to emphasize the need to act without delay to ensure that problems associated with the feebleminded would be prevented from plaguing future generations. Studies in this period purported to show that families with histories of antisocial behavior were nearly always of low intellect. Such findings, often cited, offered reasons for many to conclude, as the eugenists had maintained, that heredity was the principal agent of high intelligence and dedication to achievement and civility. Increased interest encouraged greater experimentation with sterilization procedures, which inevitably produced a backlash of sentiment, which found full expression in the nation's courts.

Backlash

In the 1910s, despite the interest such legislation had engendered, governors in Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, and Vermont vetoed legislation that provided for the sterilization of the mentally retarded. Gov. Thomas R. Marshall of Indiana, later a vice president of the United States, issued an executive order that put an end to sterilization in all hospitals and institutions receiving government support in his state. Between 1913 and 1921 courts in Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and Oregon found the sterilization statutes previously enacted in those states unconstitutional. The courts' reasoning, however, had little to do with considerations of rights to privacy or to what was later referred to as a right to bodily integrity. The principal complaint to which the courts seemed both sensitive and sympathetic concerned issues of due process; that is, whether the statutes favoring sterilization as an extension of public policy adequately provided for certain fundamental procedural safeguards. It was unlikely that the courts were moved by the objections made by the growing number of social scientists who were even then disproving the assumptions basic to the eugenists' theories. Nevertheless, the outcome generally pleased those who opposed such procedures as invasions of the individual's right to conduct his life free of governmental intervention and those who opposed such procedures on moral or religious grounds. The issue would resurface from time to time, most famously in the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927); but, while the authority of the individual states to pursue such policies was not entirely disposed of, protest against such procedures eventually became so strong that further experimentation with sterilization as a solution to the "problem" of feeblemindedness could not be justified.

Sources:

Editorials, Outlook, 95 (13 August 1910): 812-813; 111 (18 October 1913): 342-343; 108 (30 September 1914): 243;

Donald K. Pickens, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968).