A Debate on Forced Sterilization: Perspectives on Eugenics

Assignment Instructions: The Values, Ethics, and Social Responsibility of Eugenics

Learning Objectives

•   Demonstrate ability to recognize the differences between original historical source material (primary sources) and later scholarly interpretations of those sources (secondary sources).
•   Demonstrate ability to develop interpretive historical arguments drawing on primary and/or secondary sources.
•   Identify the sources and functions of values that guide human practices in science and technology.
•   Demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethics, values and social responsibility in science and technology for individuals and for societies through the history of science and technology.

Background:

Sir Francis Galton, a British statistician and first cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term eugenics in 1883 before the discovery of genes. Eugenics means “good genes” or “born well.” As a field of scientific study, eugenics sought a means of improving society through selective breeding. In practice, eugenics meant that certain individuals who were considered “undesirable” by society, would have their reproductive capabilities taken away or severely limited in hopes that the “undesirables” would eventually become extinct within two generations.

Charles Davenport was the Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and founder of the Eugenics Records Office. Working with Morris Steggerda, a Mesoamerican anthropologist, Davenport studied the interbreeding of races and found that the offspring of an interracial relationship were unfit for society.

Harry Laughlin was the Superintendent of the Eugenic Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island in New York. He wrote a model law calling for the forced sterilization of men and women who were deemed “undesirable” by society. The law was adopted in some fashion by 38 states prior to World War II.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States in 1927 when the case Buck v. Bell was brought before the court. Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion in the case upholding the constitutionality of forced sterilization.

Dr. John Hendren Bell succeeded Dr. Albert Priddy as the Superintendent at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded when Carrie Buck was admitted to the home. Bell, with the help of Irving Whitehead, an attorney appointed by the Court to represent Carrie Buck’s interests, tested the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced sterilization law. 

Required Reading:

Primary Sources:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell 274, US 200 (1927 

Secondary Sources:

Margarita Tartakovsky, “Eugenics & The Story of Carrie Buck,” PsychCentral (January 24, 2011).

Allison White and Ina Hofland, “Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced Sterilization,” Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia, 2004

Essay Prompt:

Complete a close reading of the selected primary and secondary sources. Assume the historical persona of anti-eugenicist in the 1920s when Carrie Buck’s case is being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Write a dialogue (like a play) between your assumed historical persona and one of the four individuals listed above (Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, or John Hendren Bell) where you advocate against the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck while the other individual argues in favor of Carrie Buck’s sterilization.

Some things to remember as your write your dialogue: In the 1920s, your viewpoint arguing against Carrie Buck’s forced sterilization is in the minority. Eugenics was seen as the correct ethical response to improving society and the human race. Eugenicists believed it was their social responsibility to improve society and the human race. Your dialogue needs to address the ethics and social responsibility beliefs of the eugenicists. Your dialogue should also address the community and personal values of society at the time. Your opponent will use the science of eugenics to discredit your arguments. If you chose to argue against Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, you will want to consider the legal values, ethics, and social responsibility of the Court’s decision.