Experts Gone Awry: Eugenics Movement Revisited

Yesterday I shared how an expert, with major funding, built what was expected to be the first airplane. Instead, it crashed, and the New York Times declared that it would be a million years before we'd witness a manned flying machine. This was 1903, yet before the year's end the Wright Brothers made aviation history. The point being that experts don't always know what they're talking about.

Looking back on a century ago, one might be surprised at how many bad ideas were germinated by so-called experts, especially when you consider the ideas spawned by Social Darwinism. Because of its utopian belief in human perfectibility -- that is, the perfectibility of the human race -- and confidence in it experts, the movement went off the rails by embracing the eugenics movement.

I don't know your thoughts about Woodrow Wilson as a president, but the more I learn the further he falls down the ranks in my book. Woodrow Wilson was a supporter of the eugenics movement and the broader "racial science" prevalent during the Progressive Era. He viewed it as a rational, scientific approach to improving human heredity and social organization. His endorsement of eugenic principles was intertwined with his advocacy for white supremacy, and his policies on segregation.

I never knew that as Governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed a bill in 1911 that authorized the compulsory sterilization of criminals and those considered mentally disabled. It was described as "An act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded, epileptics, rapists, certain criminals, and other defectives". This aligned with similar measures he campaigned for in Indiana in 1907 with the end result that Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. [EdNote: The law was overturned in 1921. However, in 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions. Go figure.]

How could this happen? Well, because educated "experts" persuaded the public this was good and right.

Wilson used the theories of eugenics to justify his belief in the inherent superiority of white individuals, particularly those of Nordic descent. He frequently expressed racist views and viewed Black people as inferior.

On March 9, 1919, the Legislature of North Carolina passed a similar law with the fancy title "An act to benefit the moral, mental, or physical condition of the inmates of penal and charitable institutions." The purpose of this legislation, as the name suggests, was to "improve" the condition of individuals living in state institution by allowing them to be sterilized.

Actually there were a lot of liberal ad ssocialist intellectuals who supported eugenics during the early-to-mid 20th century, including H.G. Wells and the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger, as well as Bertrand Russell. Regarding Russell, I remember hearing Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes fame going on a rant against Christianity on the radio and citing Bertand Russell, "the smartest man of the las 100 years," as proof that there was no God because Russell was an atheist. Which again proves my point: experts don't always know what they're talking about.

[EdNote: This occurred around late February 2004, right after The Passion of the Christ opened in theaters. Contemporary accounts describe Rooney delivering a “mean-spirited diatribe” against the film and Gibson, essentially arguing that a brilliant thinker like Russell (a well-known atheist and philosopher) rejected Christianity, so the movie’s religious premise was suspect or unworthy of serious regard.]

 

The scary part of this story is not what we've done in the past. Rather, how pervasive, influential and damaging they can be when pushed by so-called experts and their media mouthpieces. It takes work to stay informed. When advocates trot out their troves of experts, it does not mean they are right.

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Second International Eugenics Conference

https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/timeline/517228a6eed5c60000000017
includes timeline

September 25-28, 1921. The Second International Eugenics Congress at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, one of three held between 1912 and 1932. Fifty-three scientific papers were presented, most by Americans, and Alexander Graham Bell served as honorary president. The conference was originally scheduled for 1915 but due to the outbreak of the First World War, was re-scheduled.

America's Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement

https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-the-eugenics-movement-123919444/#:~:text=The%20eugenics%20movement%20took%20root,and%20principal%20interested%20in%20breeding.&text=Movies%20and%20books%20promoting%20eugenic%20principles%20were%20popular.

The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.

No one knows for certain how many compulsory sterilizations occurred between the late 1960s to 1970s, though it is estimated that at least 80,000 may have been conducted

Harry Laughlin 

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/eugenical-sterilization-united-states-1922-harry-h-laughlin 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), by Harry H. Laughlin

A 1922 book in which author Harry H. Laughlin argues for the necessity of compulsory sterilization in the United States based on the principles of eugenics. 

Eugenical Sterilization in the United States is 502 pages long and has seventeen chapters. Harry Olson, the Chief Justice of Chicago's Municipal Court, introduces the book, followed by a preface written by Laughlin

 the book reports Laughlin's analysis of how states could benefit from sterilizing their mentally disabled residents, and it reprinted his model sterilization law, which he encouraged state governments to adopt. Laughlin's model sterilization law stressed the need for the sterilization of populations that Laughlin deemed inadequate for reasons ranging from physical appearance to socioeconomic status. The document influenced twentieth century legislation in the US about reproduction and compulsory sterilization. Although Laughlin suffered from epilepsy, he advocated for breeding out specific populations from the general population, including epileptics, the physically disabled, the mentally disabled, alcoholics, the blind, and the deaf. 

Related Links

Bad Ideas: The Eugenics Movement In America

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-ideas-eugenics-movement.html

Shedding More Light on the History of Eugenics: Are These Ideas Still With Us Today?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2021/02/shedding-more-light-on-history-of.html

Eugenics, Revisited

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2010/02/eugenics-revisited.html

One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration

"We have all been here before; we have all been here before."
--David Crosby, Déjà Vu

With immigration policy at the center of our national conversation, I went to the library last week to find a specific book that was referenced in an online debate. What I found (among other things) was another intriguing title: One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over Immigration.

Before tackling our current immigration issues I wanted to set the stage by outlining the various stages of our own immigration history, The Seven Eras of U.S. Immigration History.

Jia Lynn Yang's book, One Mighty and Irresistible Tide, is a well documented deep dive into the decades-long battle over U.S. immigration policy from the passage of the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 through the enactment of the transformative Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In other words, it covers Era Five of the seven periods. 

The 1920's was a strange time in our history. Many people have images of flapper girls and wild parties, inspired by F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. It was also an era of gangsters and turf wars generated by the Volstead Act (Prohibition). Simultaneously, we have images of a "lost generation," the young veterans of WWI having returned to a society they didn't understand, that didn't really understand them either. (See "Soldier's Home" by Hemingway in his first small volume of short stories, In Our Time.)

The early 1900s was also a time when the Eugenics movement gained significant traction,  legalizing sterilization in 33 states lest "inferiors" reproduce. Eugenics was seen as a means for addressing overpopulaton and "over-multiplication of the unfit and unintelligent," among other societal problems. Promoted by intellectual elites, the eugenics movement reached its apex in the early 1930s. More han 66,000 Americans were sterilized against their will.

We should also note here that the Ku Klux Klan had had a rebirth at the beginning of the last century as well and were well represented in politics. According to the Congressional Record the Klan elected about 16 U.S. Senators as well as 11 governors, along with an undetermined large number of congressmen. "Undetermined" means that not all federal officeholders were openly affiliated with the Klan, but owed their electoral success, in part, to Klan support. (This surge in Klan power also contributed to mass migration of blacks from the Deep South to industrial centers in the North. But that's another story.)

The combination of these factors contributed to passage of the 1924 Immigration Act, which imposed ethnically based national quotas on immgration, sharply curtailing immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and nearly banning immigrants from Asia, reflecting widespread nativism and racial prejudice of the era.

Yang's book follows the political struggle to dismantle these discriminatory quotas over the next forty years, focusing on the efforts of key lawmakers, activists, and presidents—from Emanuel Celler, Herbert Lehman, and civil rights advocates to presidents like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—who worked to build coalitions for reform.

This long campaign culminated in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which abolished the national-origins quota system and created a new immigration framework emphasizing family reunification and skills. That legislation dramatically reshaped America’s demographic landscape and opened U.S. immigration to people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America in unprecedented numbers.

Yang frames much of this history through personal context—drawing on her own family’s immigrant experience—while illustrating how the yesterday's debates over immigration policy resonate with ongoing controversies today.

Related Links
One Mighty and Irresistible Tide (Amazon reviews and more)
A More Perfect Union: Eugenics In America
Birth Selection vs Birth Control
Ideas Have Consequences. Bad Ideas Have Bad Consequences.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

Shedding More Light on the History of Eugenics: Are These Ideas Still With Us Today?

Logo from 2nd International Eugenics Congress

It is quite astonishing to consider how widespread the acceptance of eugenics was in this country 100 years ago.  History.com describes Eugenics as "the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by 'breeding out' disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population."

It all sounds so noble.  Let's produce a "better human race." Where it led is quite disturbing. 

What follows is a brief overview of the rise of the Eugenics movement. At the end of this page I will include a link to the more complete timeline this is drawn from.

Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871) planted seeds that germinated in the form of eugenics, even if he himself did not entertain this notion. "Social Darwinism" was the application of continuous improvement in the human species. It came about that many educated people began to conclude that certain hereditary features (such as "feeble-mindedness") should not be permitted to reproduce.

In July 1893, the Kansas State Asylum became one of the first institutions to put this idea into practice, implementing a program of castration for patients they believed should not reproduce. Four years later Michigan became the first state to introduce a bill permitting the castration of certain types of criminals and "degenerates." The bill did not pass.

In the Spring of 1901. David Starr Jordan published a thesis in Popular Science magazine titled "The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit." His aim was to promote eugenics to the general public. It was reprinted as a book in 1902 and again in 1910. He even suggested that the fall of the Greek and Roman empires came about because they didn't take action against the reproduction of inferior people.

Francis Galton coined the name.

In 1904 the Carnegie Institute of Washington opened its Station for Experimental Evolution (SEE) in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The plans for SEE were developed by eugenicist Thomas Davenport. It was initially to be used for the study of heredity and evolution in plants and animals. What it became in a few years would shock you.

[EdNote: I am reminded here of C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength and the National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), in which intellectual elites attempt to re-create the world in the image of their own "noble" ideas about the way things should be.]

In 1906 the American Breeders' Corporation formed a Committee on Eugenics. A year later the Eugenics Education Society was created in England. Prominent names associated with the EES include H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley and others concerned with the problem of overpopulation. Aims included marriage restrictions and sterilization.

[EdNote: There were many events that were taking place in Canada and England which I am bypassing here.]

1909 was a big year for the Eugenics movement. California became the first state to pass a sterilization law. This law remained on the books till 1979! California was soon followed by Washington. Connecticut also passed eugenics legislation that year titled "An Act concerning Operations for the Prevention of Procreation".

Why weren't people speaking out? Or more importantly, why weren't they heard? How did the newspapers cover these issues? I am imagining that this was all being presented in the name of science. "The science says that if we don't do something, it will be the end of the human race." Was that the argument? Or was it, "These are smart people. We should listen to them."

As Home Secretary (1910-11), Winston Churchill expressed his concerns about "the unnatural and increasingly rapid grown of the feeble-minded and insane classes." 

Back in the U.S. Teddy Roosevelt, too, expressed his concerns, writing that "the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type." 

In 1911 Nevada passed a pro-sterilization law, but it was never used. New Jersey also passed legislated that was later found unconstitutional.

As you read through the writings and laws being proposed, it was primarily targeted to feeble-mindedness and sexual deviance. In 1912 New York became the 8th state to pass a sexual sterilization law. That same year the First International Eugenics Congress was held in London. The aim was to address this issue head on: Western Civilization is in danger of collapse unless we deal with the weak and "genetically undesirable".

In 1913 more states passed legislation including Michigan, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Kansas. Wisconsin's law was to eliminate reproduction by "defectives".

In 1917 Oregon, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Idaho followed suit with their own laws. Idaho's legislation was vetoed by the governor, however. 

In 1919 North Carolina passes its first sterilization law. The wording was such that its noble aim is to improve the lives of inmates by allowing them to be sterilized.  Alabama followed with a similar law that same year. Pennsylvania succeeded with such a law two years later.

The Second International Eugenics Congress was held in New York at the Museum of Natural History in 1921. 53 scientific papers were presented. Alexander Graham Bell served as honorary president of this conference. Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's' son and  chairman of the British Eugenics Society from 1911-1928, gave the opening talk. 300 people attended and afterwards a committee was formed to promote eugenic ideas in America. 

G.K. Chesterton

In 1922 GK Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Evils was published. The subtitle was An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State. Much of his research took place before the Great War, but he eventually discarded it because he believed saner heads would prevail. When it became apparent that the eugenics movement had grown stronger than ever, he assembled this book and made a case on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.

In the 20's still more states bought in to the need for sterilization laws. More books in support of these ideas were pushed out into the mainstream. 

Virginia went further than to just pass a sterilization act. They also passed a Racial Integrity act that defined what it meant to be white. If you had "one drop" of non-Caucasian blood then you could not be called White. The aim was to get everyone registered so the state could protect whiteness. Marriage licenses could not be granted until both parties could prove they were of the same race. In 1927 the sterilization law was challenged in Buck vs. Bell. The Supreme Court upheld the law, approving Virginia's right to sterilize people who are "socially inadequate."

By 1925 Idaho finally joined the eugenics/sterilization trend, as did Utah and Maine. (They must have had a new governor.) Minnesota also joined the herd. "An act to provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded and insane persons." In 1928 and '29 Mississippi, Arizona and West Virginia followed. In 1931 Oklahoma and Vermont legalized sterilization of the unfit.

* * *

OK, let's stop a minute and ask how these laws were justified. First, by citing educated people who said "unless we take drastic action, the human race is in trouble." Second, by having articles published that pointed out how expensive it is to finance all these people we have set aside in mental institutions.

In more recent times one of the arguments used to justify euthanasia has been this financial argument. It costs money to keep people alive at the end of their lives. It begs the question, do people only have value when they have a utilitarian function in society? Are the handicapped and elderly expendable?

1932 could possibly be a major turning point in the advance of eugenics. The Third International Eugenics Congress was held in New York, once again at the American Museum of Natural History. Charles Darwin's son Leonard served as chairman. Birth control was being heavily advocated at this time, so vice-chair Henry Osborn addressed this head on. Should we rely on Birth Control or Birth Selection to improve our future humanity?

Osborn began his talk noting how cataclysmic plagues (tuberculosis, malaria, typhus, etc.) bring out the best of mankind's genius to solve, eradicate or minimize their impact. In the next breath he states, "In this world cataclysm of overpopulation, of over-multiplication of the unfit and unintelligent, of the reign of terror of the criminal, of the tragedy of unemployment, eugenics ceases to be the few pioneers like Galton and Leonard Darwin; it is forced upon our attention." 

In other words, the great threat to humanity was reproduction of "inferior" people.

And the proposed solution? "The only permanent remedy is the improvement and uplift of the character of the human race through prolonged and intelligent and humane birth selection aided by humane birth control."

This is pretty bold medicine. How is it to be implemented?

The reason I stated that 1932 was the high water mark for the movement is that in 1933 the newly elected Chancellor of Germany began to implement all these wonderful ideas he received from the eugenicists. He wasted no time getting down to it. That very same year Germany passed "The Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases." What this meant was the the State had the right to sterilize anyone with a hereditary disease. This included the following: congenital mental deficiency, schizophrenia, manic-depression, hereditary epilepsy, hereditary St. Vitus’ Dance (Huntington’s Chorea), hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, serious hereditary physical deformity, and chronic alcoholism.

In other words, if you were using too much alcohol to self-medicate because you were trying to cope with the craziness taking place around you, you could be sterilized if someone reported you for using it to excess.

Germany's next step was to pass a law forbidding intermarriage between races. In Nazi Germany this applied to Aryans and Jews. Both intermarriage and sexual relations were forbidden. In other words, the State had a right to know what was happening in your bedroom. This same year, 1937, Jews were stripped of their citizenship.

In 1939 Hitler enacted Action T-4, a natural outcome around the thinking that produced everything else we have been appalled at here. Action T-4 was "a program of euthanasia, to kill the incurable, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and the elderly." Though purportedly discontinued in 1941 it continued covertly till the end of the war in 1945.

* * *
"Now that we know the laws of heredity, it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock. The possibility of excess and error is still no proof of the incorrectness of these laws. It only exhorts us to the greatest possible conscientiousness." --Adolph Hitler

* * * 

Eugenics laws remained on the books for decades.
Do their ideas and influence remain with us today?

Is this ugly history of Eugenics behind us now? Surprisingly, it's not.  Last summer Forbes published a story about unlawful Do Not Resuscitate orders for disabled patients in England. Gus Alexiou wrote "In the report titled, 'Abandoned, forgotten and ignored – the impact of Covid-19 on Disabled people', several survey respondents attested to being pressured by their doctor to have DNR, or Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation orders placed on their medical records."

This month the National Review published a similar account titled "U.K. Forced Do Not Resuscitate Orders on Covid Patients with Developmental Disabilities." The NR story drew information for the piece from journalism pursued by The Guardian. "People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog."

A story in The Pillar, a Catholic publication, asks the question, "Will Biden oppose the creeping eugenics of Covid healthcare?" One can only hope that ethicists have a voice at the table whenever these matters get discussed.

* * *  

Related Links
A More Perfect Union: Eugenics In America
Birth Selection vs Birth Control
Ideas Have Consequences. Bad Ideas Have Bad Consequences.

PRIMARY SOURCE for this Timeline of Eugenics-Related Events:
The Eugenics Archive Timeline
https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/timeline/5172ef15eed5c60000000023

Hitchcock's Rope a Prescient Foreshadowing of Our Current Crisis

"We agreed that there was was only one crime either of us could commit, the crime of making a mistake. Being weak is a mistake."--Brandon

It's a relatively short film by Hollywood standards, but Hitchcock's Rope has all the elements you want in a good suspense story.

In the very first minute of the film two friends--Brandon and Philip--strangle a third friend David Kentley with a rope and hide his body in a chest. This takes place just minutes before the first guests are slated to arrive for a party that will take place in this very room, with David's body right there in their New York City apartment. The guests include David's father, his fiancee Janet and, most significantly, their former college housemaster Rupert Cadell, played by Jimmy Stewart.

I'd seen the film several times over the course of my life, but current events stirred me to want to see it again.

The set itself had moving walls that could be adjusted as the camera rolled.
The body of David was placed inside the chest where the feast was spread
there in the foreground.

One of the interesting features of several Hitchcock films in this period of his career was the attempt to create a confined space where all the action takes place. Lifeboat was such an endeavor as was Rear Window, with Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly, his most successful. The former takes place in a lifeboat, the latter in an apartment overlooking the open courtyard of an apartment complex. The characters in the lifeboat are stuck in the ocean, the main character in Rear Window is bedridden after badly breaking his femur.

What I find interesting in the Wikipedia account regarding Rope is how much of the discussion has to do with the manner in which it was produced and the critical reception (lukewarm) with little real investigation into what I consider the most significant aspect of this film: the philosophical issue that generated this situation.

When the young men were in college there had been philosophical discussions about Nietzsche's Übermensch and De Quincey's Art of Murder, which they interpreted like this. In Nietzsche's argument, the rules that apply to the "common herd" do not apply to the superior men. Combine that with De Quincey's notion that murder can be a work of art and you've got the setup for the murder of David Kentley.

For Brandon, the killing was exhilarating, and indeed an artistically executed masterpiece of design. Philip, on the hand, immediately begins inwardly crumbling, cognizant that this idea in theory was absurd to carry out.

Brandon has the time of his life bringing candles, plates, food and silverware to the living room and placing them directly on the chest with the body in it. The irony here is that the conversation keeps returning to the corpse, or rather, to why David is late to his own party. (Inside joke: he is not absent.)

Though the other guests seem to be oblivious to the clues, Rupert can see that Brandon and Philip are behaving oddly, each in their own way. Philip is drinking heavily and stressing out, Brandon is exhibiting a certain bravado as if he just conquered San Juan Hill.

Brandon even dares to start a discussion on this topic. "I've always wished for more artistic talent. Well, murder can be an art, too. The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create."

David's mother laughs it off, and a little verbal tussle passes between a few of the guests but it's just another passing moment.

As the guests depart, Rupert Cadell takes a fedora out of the closet thinking it his, but then sees the initials D.K. inside the hat. His suspicions are confirmed that something fishy had been going on, but he leaves without saying anything so that he can return to confront the young men with no one else around.

When he returns, Brandon doesn't want to take any chances and pockets a pistol, just in case. As Chekhov famously instructed, you don't put a pistol into the story unless you're going to use it.

The dialogue here is instructive, I believe.

Brandon: Ideas of right and wrong are for the intellectually inferior and don't apply to the intellectually superior.

Rupert: You've given my words a meaning I never dreamed of. Tonight you've made me ashamed of every concept I've ever had of superior or inferior beings. By what right did you feel you deserve to be superior. You've murdered, you've strangled the life out of someone who loved.

Rupert is stunned, horrified and deeply ashamed, realizing that Brandon and Phillip used his own rhetoric to rationalize this senseless act.

* * * *

The gig is up. (L to R) John Dall, Jimmy Stewart, Farley Granger

Rupert disavows all his previous talk of superiority and inferiority, and after a struggle he acquires the gun and shoots the two young men. No, just kidding. He does manage to secure the gun though and uses it to fire three shots out the window to attract attention. As the police arrive--we hear sirens approaching outside--Rupert sits on a chair next to the chest, Phillip begins to play the piano and Brandon continues to drink.

APPLICATION
I have been thinking a lot about the riots and violence taking place these past two months. I've tried to understand what's going on, why so many people are calling for revolution. I'm fully cognizant that so many of our systems are broken, and understand the criticisms. It is the notion of total revolution that concerns me. I don't believe it is rhetoric. When I read what many of the protesters are writing on Twitter and Reddit, they seem quite serious that their intent is nothing less than overthrowing the whole kit and caboodle. And I believe I understand why (to some extent).

When I was in high school, the team teachers in our U.S. History class did something quite intriguing. They taught U.S. history from the point of view of those who were disenfranchised (the indigenous peoples), and how we acquired lands from Mexico, France, Spain through various wars and ventures. We learned about manipulations and machinations, how Southern wealth was created by the utilization of slave labor, all justified with platitudes.

Turning everything around may have been useful and important, but the 50 years reiteration of this pattern of talk, when overindulged, leaves citizens more ashamed of their country than proud and fails to produce any vestige of patriotic feeling if taken too much to heart.

The net result is a generation that can feel like this: "There's nothing worth defending here. Let the Revolution begin. Let them overthrow this heap of dung."

But is that really what our teachers and academics wanted? Many may well have had quite patriotic feelings, but were seeking to put a perspective on things so we are more humble about our history. Like Rupert, they were discussing ideas, but not really anticipating the consequences. "You're giving my words meanings I never dreamed of," Rupert says to Brandon at one point.

America has helped more people and nations than any nation in history. The whole notion of re-building the economies of countries who fought against you in wars is historically unheard of. How many countries have started a Peace Corps to help impoverished nations in other corners of the world?

Of all the critics, I won't say I have been foremost, but I admit I've been one who's been vocal. I do not believe in "My country right or wrong." The Old Testament prophets were compelled to speak when their leaders were out of alignment with justice and doing what was right. I've never believed in the notion that a revolution would be nothing less than a disaster. I'm old fashioned but "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

I share all this because I believe America, specifically the ideals upon which it was imperfectly founded, is worth defending. Destruction is always easier than building something new. There will never be a perfect world, but we can all try to contribute to make this one better.

EPILOGUE
Whereas this film is just a story, it reflects events that have happened in real life. Progressive intellectuals in the 20s and 30s felt that something needed to be done to purify the human race, to clean up the gene pool. Through aggressive lobbying they managed to get eugenics laws passed in 33 states. This bit of our history was all documented. 66,000 people were sterilized, some for as senseless a thing as being a runaway.

How much of what is going on in the global lockdown is the result of a larger chess game being played by power players? What are the belief systems currently at war in all this multi-layered hotbed of conflicting interpretations of events on all sides? What's really going on?

Related Links
Bad Ideas: The Eugenics Movement In America
Eugenics, Revisited
He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia by Neil M. Gorsuch: A Book Review

The issue of doctor-assisted suicide first came to my attention in 1990-91. My psychologist brother, Dr. Ron Newman, Ph.D. and I were in the process of outlining a book proposal on the topic of suicide, in part because we had both been affected by the suicides of people close to us personally and in part because we desired to help bring comfort to those with broken wings who've been left behind to shoulder the aftermath. While outlining our book and organizing our thoughts, someone asked a critical question that neither of us had yet considered. Dr. Kevorkian had begun making headlines at the time, but I'd never connected it to our theme until asked, "What about doctor-assisted suicide?"

The end result of that single question was a year-long project of researching and writing a series of articles on Ethical Issues In Terminal Health Care. The fifth article in the series addressed the pros and cons of physician-assisted suicide, with insights that I believe continue to remain relevant.

Against this backdrop it caught my attention when Neil M. Gorsuch was being considered as a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court, especially when I learned that in 2006 he had authored a book titled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. (He is now a seated Justice on the bench.)

Justice Gorsuch has impressive credentials in both his education and experience. It should be noted that impressive credentials doesn't necessarily make one correct since people with brilliant minds and excellent cred exist on both sides of most arguments. Trivia note: He went to Harvard as a classmate of President Obama. A little over a dozen years ago he went to England to do research on assisted suicide and euthanasia and received his Doctor of Philosophy degree in law from University College, Oxford. This book summarizes what he learned and his conclusions on this topic.

In the introduction Gorsuch summarizes the two purposes of this book in this manner: "to introduce and critically examine the primary legal and ethical arguments deployed by those who favor legalization, and to set forth an argument for retaining existing law that few have stopped to consider. It aims to be of interest to all of those curious about the ethical and legal aspects of the assisted suicide debate, whatever views they espouse, and contribute to a fuller and more fully informed debate."

Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law affirmed that the book did just that, calling it
"a thoughtful, sober, and thorough work, which should be read by supporters, opponents, and the undecided alike."

I see it the same way. The book achieves exactly what the author set out to do, presenting a thoroughly researched history of the issues pertaining to suicide and assisted suicide as well as a careful dissection of each of the arguments which advocates have used to win public opinion and move the needle toward a more widespread acceptance.

When I looked at the ratings of the book's reviewers, I was surprised at how strong the negative sentiment was. A full 36% gave the book a one-star rating. Why is the book so strongly criticized? Two reasons. First, he draws conclusions that pro-assisted-suicide troops disagree with. Second, Gorsuch draws a connection between the current euthanasia movement and the eugenics* societies and social Darwinists of the 20's and 30's. This latter may be why some of the railing against the book, by detractors, is so visceral.

Currently five states (California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Vermont) and the District of Columbia have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Several other states are reviewing legislation that has been proposed. The topic is relevant and important, especially as more Baby Boomers enter their twilight years.

When I wrote about these matters in the 90's I summarized the pros and cons into what I believed were a succinct set of self-evident observations that I titled Making The Final Choice: Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?.

Gorsuch has distilled a tremendous quantity of research into an organized presentation, providing historical context as well as lucid examination of the nuanced ethical issues that surround this subject. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, I've yet to see a better summary of the primary arguments and their historical antecedents. Here are what some of the reviewers have written at Amazon.com:

This book is written for the general reader rather than the historian, academician nor lawyer. It was a quicker read than I'd anticipated. Statistics are digested and presented in easy to read tables. Vocabulary is distinctly easy to comprehend, confirming my suspicion that there are still some lawyers left in the world who speak English as a native language. --invisible

Legal scholar, and now (EdNote: in 2007) Federal Appeals Court Judge, Neil Gorsuch has written a comprehensive study of the legal and moral issues in the physician assisted suicide debate. This is the right book at the right time because the practical consequences of mindless "reform" have been largely ignored in the current discussions. The author's detailed descriptions of what has actually happened in Oregon and in the Netherlands which have legalized assisted suicide are especially helpful. The author also presents medical evidence from respected sources including the Journal of Clinical Oncology showing that the major motivation behind physician assisted suicide is not unbearable pain but clinical depression. --Robert O Devries

Most of the one-star reviews were also one-sentence dismissals. "This book is terrible." and "Don't waste your time." Still, there were a few reviewers who simply disagreed with his arguments and took the time to lay out their reasons. I believe the book is  worthwhile read for anyone on either side of this issue who seeks to be more informed.

Available here on Amazon.com.


*Eugenics is a topic I've previously written about here on this blog. Our history prefers to sweep certain inconvenient realities into the shadows, including the dark side of Social Darwinism. Here are three articles from 2010 and 2012.
Bad Ideas: the Eugenics Movement in America
Eugenics Revisited

Bad Ideas: The Eugenics Movement In America

Let’s say it again. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Tuesday on National Public Radio I listened to a story about one of the victims of a forced sterilization program in North Carolina. At age 14, when she was giving birth to her first child she was sterilized without her knowledge. At age 19, married and trying to have children, she discovered that a procedure was performed without her permission or even being told about it. Today a panel is recommending she be compensated for her loss.

The shocking part of the story is that this event occurred in 1966, not 1936 or 46. According to Wikipedia, the North Carolina Eugenics Commission was not abolished until 1977. What!?
In early 2010 I was astonished to learn that eugenics advocates managed to get 30 states to put laws on the books making the practice of forced sterilization legal. By 1933, the Human Betterment Foundation had documented over 16,000 such sterilizations. By the time they were finished it's been estimated that as many as 66,000 were victims of these procedures. What were they thinking?

The Winston-Salem Journal’s five-part series blows the lid off this incredible chapter that took place right under our distracted little noses. It went on while Americans were watching Leave It To Beaver. It went on while Americans were dying for freedom in Southeast Asia, and while Americans filled amusement parks from Disneyland to Six Flags. And we never knew.

The story raises many questions. Why did North Carolina continue the practice after most other states had abandoned it? Which raises the next question. How did it come to pass that at least 30 states had laws permitting the practice of forced sterilization.

And then, the spooky question… What are some of the things our government is doing today that we do not even know about, that they do not want us to know about, but which we will learn about in the future when our own kids are grown?

I do not know the numbers, but would guess that the quantity of pills being distributed to children to help with behavioral modification in school may be questioned at some point. It might even shock us the degree to which people in mental institutions are being forced to ingest pharmaceuticals against their will, “for their own good.”

Who are the people making these decisions?

The North Carolina story that has been making news this month, however, has more to do with the problem of how to right the wrongs. A panel has recommended that the state pay one of the victims $50,000. Is that supposed to be the equivalent of justice? That feels like a strange amount to me, a token gesture that says, “Gee, we, uhm, were wrong. Sorry.” No amount of cash is going to make this one right.

The scariest thing to me is that there are still people who believe forced sterilization is good and necessary, and the problem is that those who govern us just don’t have the will to do “what needs to be done.”

I was actually pleased to hear this story being talked about so publicly. It's an ugly chapter in our history, but a good reminder of what can happen when idealism runs amok.

Eugenics, Revisited

Sunday I noted here the connection between the early 20th century eugenics movement and Hitler’s activities to purify the Aryan race. This connection between the ideas of intellectuals and the consequences they generated seems to have been swept under the carpet by historians. Today's blog entry is essentially an attempt to shine the spotlight on how far our own shameful activities went right here in the good old U.S.A. with regard to the implementation of ideas spawned by eugenicists.

We talk about how awful Hitler was (and he was) but when you look at the State approved activities here, it is nothing less than shocking. Let’s start with Paul Lombardo’s article on Eugenic Sterilization Laws.

While some eugenicists privately supported practices such as euthanasia or even genocide, legally-mandated sterilization was the most radical policy supported by the American eugenics movement. A number of American physicians performed sterilizations even before the surgery was legally approved, though no reliable accounting of the practice exists prior to passage of sterilization laws. Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920s.

Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the "socially inadequate" – people supported in institutions or "maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws.

By the time this sterilization craze had run its course more than 30 states had sterilization laws on the books. What’s disturbing to me is how buried this piece of institutionalized national horror has become.


Here is documentation of sterilizations performed in the name of science up through 1933. I love the euphemism involved. The organization keeping these records was the Human Betterment Society!

A more recent event that no doubt escaped our notice is the May 2002 apology by Virginia Governor Mark Warner to a man who had been sterilized against his will at age 16.

"Today, I offer the commonwealth's sincere apology for Virginia's participation in eugenics," Warner said.

"As I have previously noted, the eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state government never should have been involved," he said. "We must remember the commonwealth's past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring."

The law targeted virtually any human shortcoming that was believed to be hereditary, including mental illness, mental retardation, epilepsy, alcoholism and criminal behavior. Even people deemed to be "ne'er-do-wells" were sometimes targeted.

On Wednesday in Lynchburg, two state legislators presented a commendation from the General Assembly to eugenics victim Raymond W. Hudlow for his service as a decorated combat soldier in World War II. Hudlow had been sterilized against his will at age 16 because he was a runaway.

Current research indicates that by the time all was said and done, as many as 66,000 were the victims of forced sterilization.

When history repeats itself, it often comes at us with a new face, but the same heartless soul. We need to be aware that these things didn't just happen "over there" but happened right here. Just a bit of food for thought.