Thread by @Craig_A_Spencer

Hey my medicine and public health people!

How much do you know about eugenics?

Just old pseudoscience, you say?

Any idea how much it continues to influence us?

Answer: A LOT.

I taught a class on the history of eugenics and public health today. Here's what we covered: 🧵

Eugenics is Greek for 'well-born'. But it wasn't coined by the Greeks. It's a late 19th century term made up by Francis Galton. He LOVED data. We will come back to that.

Eugenics had the biggest impact on the approach to mental illness, immigration, and reproductive justice.

We will dig into each.

But first, you gotta know the background and key players.

For background, eugenics arose in an environment obsessed with progress, but also frustrated with economic and social realities.

Public health pioneers like Chadwick (UK) and Shattuck (US) paved the way for health departments to address hygiene, sanitation, and other threats to public health (a lot of things we call 'social determinants of health' today).

Folks like Jacob Riis were highlighting the plight faced by many during increasing urbanization, especially newly-arrived immigrants.

In looking to understand the roots of the problems and propose solutions, eugenics would ultimately look to data and statistics.

Earlier in the 19th century, Adolphe Quetelet applied ideas from astronomy to better understand human society and behavior.

To him, statistical laws explained social phenomenon.

He crunched some numbers and came up with some statistical descriptors of the 'average man'. He also created the BMI.

(Sidebar: he's also why we have S, M, L clothing. Lincoln loved him, and demanded a more standardized approach to how Civil War fighters were dressed)

But it wasn't until Galton that eugenics took off.

Francis Galton (1822-1991) was Charles Darwin's half cuz and LOVED numbers.

His motto: “Whenever you can, count.”

He came up with correlation and regression, statistical tools we use ALL the time.

Whereas Quetelet loved the 'average', Galton was most interested in what happened at the deviations.

You see, it was there that there was OPPORTUNITY!

Galton saw statistics as the path to progress.

This is ultimately what gave rise to 'negative' and 'positive' eugenics.

Negative eugenics was trying to decrease what happened on the left, the 'bad' elements of society.

Positive eugenics was on the right, and trying to increase the 'stock' of 'good' populations.

Other famous statisticians used data to argue for even more ardent eugenic ideas.

Karl Pearson (1857-1936) is profoundly important in stats.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient, p-value, Pearson’s chi-square test, histograms. Those are all his contributions.

But boy was he also an ardent eugenicist.

Pearson started Biometrika, a journal for the 'statistical study of biological problems'. He also started the Annals of Eugenics in which he used data to rail against immigration, especially of Jews.

Karl Fisher (1890-1962) has been called 'the founder of modern statistics'.

His contributions: Student’s t distribution, Fisher information, randomization, ANOVA, significance testing, and many more.

Also, surprised, Fisher was also an eugenicist. In fact, he was the Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College London.

And editor of the Annals of Eugenics.

Next up is Charles B Davenport.

Davenport was a zoology professor who taught at Harvard and led summer classes in Cold Spring Harbor, NY on experimental evolution.

Then he met Galton, and his focus ultimately changed.

He wanted to apply our understanding of Mendelian traits to improving the human lot.

So he started the Eugenics Record Office (1910) in Cold Spring Harbor.

No place had a greater impact on the eugenics movement. His impact was MASSIVE.

Last up is Harry Laughlin.

He's been called the ‘Workhorse of American Eugenics’

He helped lead the Eugenics Record Office.

In 1922, he published a book, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, that contained a model sterilization law later used by many states.

And he later served as a eugenics expert (1922-1931) on the US Committee on Immigration and Naturalization where he pushed heavy restrictions on immigration.

There were LOTS more people involved in pushing eugenics in the 1900s. It wasn't fringe at all, and folks like Alexander Graham Bell and MANY Presidents were on board.

In public health, many presidents of the American Public Health Association were known eugenics supporters, too

Similarly, movies were a big source of eugenics ideas.

Black Stork was a movie about a surgeon who refused to operate on a 'deformed, defective' baby. He believed it better to let the baby die. The surgeon, Harry Haiselden, started a national conversation & starred in the movie.

At the same time, all around the country, 'Better Babies' events were teaching principles for raising health children. Progressively, these events and those of the 'Fitter Families' focused more on breeding 'better' individuals and families.

They were like touring eugenics roadshows. And they were HUGELY popular!

(They also featured a friggin' clown named Cho-Cho who was supposed to teach about health but looks scary af to me personally, but kids LOVED him!)

Around this time, books like Madison Grant's 'The Passing of the Great Race' and Stoddard's 'The Rising Tide of Color-The Threat Against White World Supremacy' made it clear what was at stake.

They were concerned the primarily White, Protestant populations were having fewer kids

While the 'worst' parts of the population were having way more. Not to mention the flood of incoming immigrants.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, the White population was committing 'race suicide'.

In 1921, the Second International Exhibition of Eugenics was held at the American Museum of Natural History in NY.

Look at the image on the invitation. A 'Eugenics' tree, tall and strong, formed by the roots of EVERY other scientific pursuit.

Eugenics was everything.

Ultimately, many of the same people pushing eugenics ideas in books or at conferences started organizations to push their bigger goals—reproductive control and limiting immigration.

On immigration, the Immigration Restriction League was formed in 1894 by the ‘Boston Brahmins’

The Boston Brahmins were rich, White Protestants, most who have 3 word names).

They first pushed for a literacy test to limit immigration.

Later, they were influential in dramatically slashing immigration by pushing for quotas.

In 1917, they succeeded by getting a literacy test as part of the Immigration Act of 1917.

This eugenics-inspired legislation did a lot to limit immigration:

Established literacy test

Created a “barred zone” extending from the Middle East to SE Asia from which no persons were allowed to enter the United States (Chinese excluded since 1881)

Expanded “undesirable” list —epileptics and political radicals

$8 tax on every immigrant

But they didn't stop there.

In 1921, the Immigration Quota Act was passed.

This established the nation’s first numerical limits on the number of immigrants who could enter the United States:

“the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the US in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the United States as determined by the US census of 1910”

In 1924 Johnson-Reed Act went one step further, slashing immigration yet again with a fervent focus on eugenics.

Meant to "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity", this act used the census population from 1890 to dramtically limit 'undesirable' immigration

From 1924 until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, this is the law that stood (with some small exceptions, including the end of the Chinese Exclusion Act).

The nation of immigrants had closed the doors to newcomers, a win pushed forward by eugenics.

With respect to reproductive health, both 'negative' and 'positive' eugenics played a massive role in policy in the early 1900s and throughout the rest of the century.

Eugenicists and public health folks worked together to limit marriages between those with 'hereditary taints'.

They pushed miscegenation laws, preventing the marriage of Blacks and Whites for example.

But perhaps the greatest impact was on sterilization.

At one point, the MAJORITY of states had laws allowing the state to forcibly sterilize people.

Who was targeted? The 'feeble-minded', institutionalized, communities of color, the poor, & more. Tens of thousands were sterilized against their will and/or without their knowledge.

Fannie Lou Hamer, the voting rights activist who had been unknowingly sterilized, would later call the practice 'the Mississippi appendectomy' because women would go into surgery for one thing and be sterilized.

This wasn't just a thing that happened 'way back then'.

This continued into VERY RECENT HISTORY.

The law allowing sterilizations in California was overturned in 2010!

And Supreme Court’s Buck V Bell (1927) allowing sterilization on the basis that 'three generations of imbeciles are enough' STILL HASN'T BEEN OVERTURNED TO. THIS. DAY.

This is all hard to believe, right?

But what's worse is that we just assume this is all in the past.

These ideas are still with us.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

But let's remember why eugenics went from wunderkind to (mostly) unspeakable by the 1940s.

Adolf Hitler is reported to have written to Madison Grant, the author of 'The Passing of the Great Race'. In his letter, he wrote: "Your book was my Bible”.

And Harry Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree in 1936 from a university in Nazi Germany.

After it became clear how much the Nazis relied on American eugenics (and oh, how they did!) to carry out their unspeakable barbarity, eugenics lost its appeal in the U.S.

Over a century ago, Charles Davenport from the ERO said: "Can we build a wall high enough around this country…so as to keep out these cheaper races, or will it be a feeble dam…leaving it to our descendants to abandon the country to the blacks, browns and yellows”

And recently, former President Donald Trump said immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country...all over the world they're pouring into our country.'

Eugenics faded from 'polite' conversation.

But it isn't gone. Not at all.

END

(although the story isn’t over, and this isn’t even a full account. For example, it doesn’t even address the controversial and ongoing discussion around Margaret Sanger’s role and the origins of Planned Parenthood. To be continued…)

nytimes.com/2021/04/17/opi…