Applying Selected SRV Themes to the Eugenic Movement in Canada &the United States, 1890-1972

Thomas Malcomson

Introduction

T HIS AIITICLE eXAMINES THE eugenics move­menr in Canada and rhe Unired Srares, from its first appearance ro the J 970s, as

i( relates to several of the ren themes in Social Role Valori7_arion (SRV) theory. 1 1he present aniclc can only provide a brief hisrory of me eugenics move­rl)ent in ea.ch. COlmtry.2 First, however, is an even

briefer overview of rhe conrext in wh.ich eugenics theory and pracrice made iLS appearance.

The cum of rhe rwentierh cenrury found Cana­da and the United Srates immersed in a period of grear change and perceived rurmoiJ.3 The popula­tions of borh countries were growing primarily as a resuJr of immigration. Ramer than from Grear Brirain and Nonhern European countries, as in the pasc, borh Canada and me United States drew immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe and Asia. Viewed as significantly negatively differ­ent, concerns over the immigrants' potential cor­ruprion of Nonh American sociery occupied rhe pens of the press and orhers. At rhe same time the urban centers, fuelled by great industrial develop­ment, were growing at an alarming rate. Unbri­dled urban expansion and overcrowding brough[ wim it an increase in crime and ourbrea.ks of

conragious disease. No clearer is rhe overcrowd­ing demonstrated than in me work of Jacob A. Riis, who reponed on and photographed me hor­rid living conditions of New York Ciry's working

class poor.' Various reformers presenced solutions

for the identified social problems, from rhe inci­dence of prostiturion and drunkenness to [he ap­parent increase in people labelled 'feebleminded.' Into this milieu came rhe idea of eugenics .

The Origin of Eugenics

FRANCIS GALTON COINED TI-lE TEIUvf eugen­ics in 1883, from me Greek words "eu"

meaning weU and "genos" meaning binh.

Deeply moved by The Origin o/Species, wrirren by his cousin Charles Darwin, Galton set our CO ap­

ply the principle of evolurion to humans, quickly identifying superior from inferior races within [he species.~ The differences Galton noted ran largely along class lines, with the middle and some mem­

bers of the upper class being hereditarily supe­rior ro members of the lower class and those of the upper class who demons[rated characteristics deemed to be degenerate. 111is division favoured Galton and his supporters with the privileged position of superioriry over rhe 'orher.' Eugenics reAected the middle class values of lace Victorian Britain, which labelled the socially devalued char­acteristics as 'degenerate.' l1le list of degenerace ch<l.racterj~cics included many ro,<;.~ibilirje.~, from

imelJeccua\, menral or physical disability or insta­biliey, to poverry, alcoholism, and/or any sexual behaviour deemed aberrant. Eugenicists believed that degenerate conditions were inherited and

would be passed on ro future generacions by af­Aicred parenrs.

June 2008

Galcoo developed several definitions for eugen­

ics over the years. He first defined it as the science

of improving the human srock, with me focus on providjng the "most suitable races and Strains of

blood" with eve_ry advancage co prevail over me "less suirable."t I n his collection of essays -on eu­

genics he defined it as "che science which deals

with aU influences [bat improve the inborn quali­

ties of a racej also with those that develop them

to the utmost advantage."? To obtain this end

Galton encouraged the use of "positive eugenics"

wh.ich involved promoting an increased birth rate

among those people with superior stock or blood. The alrernative action was "negarive eugenics,"

which called for preventing procreacion among the people deemed to be of inferior s(Ock or blood

by various merhods including insticurionalization

and steriliution. The impact of negacive eugenics on the labeIJed human is all roo clear: devaluation

and subsequent multiple wounding ofthe person

through the experience of institutional life and! or

the experience and stigma of sterilization.

Few British academics and professionals paid

anention [Q Galton's ideas uncil 1900, when

the famous statistician Karl Pearson made it his

life's work to spread rhe eugenic gospel. s Pearson

broughr Galton out of a self-imposed retirement

to deliver public lecrures on eugenics. In one lec­tUre, given to the British Sociological Society in

L904, Galcon laid our the seeps necessary ro real­

ize the goals of eugenics . Beyond conrinued re­

search into tbe hereditary transmission of traits,

rhe exploration of the "conditions" of eugenics,

and rhe study of marriage, he encouraged an ac­

rive program to inform rhe public of eugenic

ideas. Concerning the public education in eugen­

ics effon, Ga\ron said,

Firstly it m-us! be made familiar as an aca­

demic que.ltion, until its exact importance

has been understood and accepted aJ foct; Secondly it must be recognised as a subject

whose practical development deserves seri­

ous consideration; and 'D'b-dly it must be

introduced into the national conscience, like a new reDgi.on. 9

35

An Overview of the Eugenic Movements in Canada &the United States

S !MILAR PROGRAMS OF PROPAGANDA, to in­

doctrinare the professional and lay person

ro rhe necessity of eugenics, played a central role in the growth of rhe eugenics movemenrs in

Canada and the United Scares . -The idea of eugen­

ics came to North America in (he late ! 8805 as a

number of academics and physicians, influenced

by Galton and orher Europe:m writers 00 eugen­

ics, began to apply rhe concepT ro the citizens of their own counrries. 1u The North American eu­

genicists lIsed lectures, articles in both academic

and rJle POPUl;H press, books, films and comeses ro advance their ideas of increasing [he numbers

of superior people, and removing a.nd eliminarjng

rhose judged inferior. The creacion of national and

provincial or st<lre eugenic socieries ensured a na­

tion wide chan ne! for co nveyi ng eugen.ic idea5. 11

l1le eugenic societies provided a base from which

members coutd lobby governmenc officials to en­

<lCt eugenic laws . As in Britain, (he eugenic ideaJs

of Canadian and American eugenicists were built on middle class vatues .

Wolfensberger has stared thar as a rheory So­

cial Role Valorization (SRV) is open [Q crearing

either positive or negacive ourcomes for people. A negative applicacion of rhe (en cenrral rhemes in

SRV would creare groups of devalued and vulner­able people. I- Wirh rhis in mind, seven of [he SRV

rhemes can help us understand how rhe various

merhods employed by the Canadian and Ameri­

can eugenic movements, to advance their ideas,

promored rhe acceprance and pracrice of eugenics .

The seven themes are the role of unconsciousness,

[he dynamics and relevance of social imagery, the

power of mind sets and expectancies, role expec­

tancy and ro le circularity, personal competency

enhancement and [he developmental model, in­

rerpersonal identification between valued and de­

valued people, and personal social integration and

36

valued social paniciparion.'-' Eugc.nicis[S produced a mou.nrain of papers. ar­

ticles :lnd books excolling me scientific groUJ1ds of eugenics, rhe ncccssiry [0 engage in it, and the rypes of humans most in need of [he resrrictions, segregation and administrations which eugm.ics en­tailed' /o Dr. John H. Kellogg, in an 1897 pam phlet, assured Ilis readers mar me human race was "cer_ tainly going down physically (award race exrinc­li on." ' ~ The culprirs he claimed were nor only the physically d iS'ablcd, blind and deaf but the crimi­nal. indigene and pauper. All owed [heir "deformi­[ies" to hereditary factors, and were each unable ro change their assigned lor in life. His solution was for iodividuals ro ear properly, Jnd develop good personal hygiene habirs and morals. Kellogg pro­moted posidvc eugenics by encouraging society ro focus on the strengthen ing of the heal thy indi­vidual, instead of arrempting [0 help rhe defective person. Dr. H . C. Sharp, of [he Indiana Reforma­[Ory, published an eleven page pamphlet advanc­ing the case for rhe sterili7.-arion of all degener;ue.s. '6 Sharp stared thar more man half of all [he people with any form of menral or nervous defect were so bec.1use of hered.irary problems. He sugges red ster­ilization as rhe mos[ effective way ro prorc:cr soo­ery from the growing nwnbers of people unable to

care for themselves and who posed a rhre:u ro lhe safery of society. Marriage restricrions would be a second alternative, bur Sharp lamemed rhat m:\f­riage was nor a naruraJly maodatory condition for procrea[jon . incarceration, ro segregate [he male and female defectives, offered a solurion bur would fail due [0 [he high COSlS and frequenr escapes. He !.hen discLlssed [he ease of performi ng vasectomies (withour "anesmeric eimer general or local") on me inmates of me reformarory in which he worked. Eleanor Wembridge in 1927 wrote a fantasy ar­ticle for The American Mercury in wh.ich 'Morons' and 'me Neurotics', who haled from 'Moronia' and 'Neurorica' (respeccively), accounred for all rhe crime, immorality, and disability in rhe 'Normal's' world. 17 Historian Deborah Dolan stares rhat in rhe early twentieth century rhe eugenic movemenr

The SRV JOURNAL

and other progressive era reformers had creared a pro-involUJ1tar}t srerilization movement across me United St.:lres.' Central to this movement was me concern over the social costs lo society of SUppOf[­iog me people declared < d~fecr.ive.'

lbe [WO leading narional figures in rhe Ameri­can eugenic movemenr were Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin. Davenport beaded (he Station for Experimental Evolurion ar [he Bio­logical Research Srarion ar Cold Spring Harbor (1904-1939) and worked t:ireles ly It promoti ng rhe eugenic idea uHoughour the Unired Stare.s .l9

Davenport raised funds , trained eugenic field re­search ,vorker~ and conducted research. 2Q Harry Laugh.lin, a former school principal, joined Dav­eopon ar the Cold Spring Facilicy in 19) O. To­ge ther (hey opened the Eugenic Record Office ar Cold Spring Harbor in 1929 ro coordinace eugen­ic research and rhe dissem i narion of eugenic i n­formation. Their mission reAecred the same gO<'lis as GallOn's call for informing rhe professional and [he public of (he (ruth of eugcnioi . Laughlin fo­cused on sterilizarion and immigration legislarion. Serving as advisor [0 rhe 1923 House Comminee on Immigrarion rhat wrore the Immigration Ace of 1924. his eugenic ide.as forged one of (he most resuictive pieces of immigrarion legislarion in the hiscory of [he Uniced Sra[es.]1 Laughlin's venrurc inco sterilizarion law is discussed below.

The family pedigree srudies formed the central evidence for me American eugenics moveme,rt[. In these srudies a researd1er(s) rraced rhe ances­tors of a parricuJar group of people back several generations . I n each generation they identified the health or illnesses of me various famiJy mem­bers. The studies were used to show thar defeCLive characterisrics (e.g., feeblemindedness, alcohol­ism, immoraliry) were heredirary di seases. Pro­viding social or financial suppOrt for mese indi­viduals and rheir famiue5 would only lead to an increase in the numbers of 'defectives.' The obvi­ous answe.r to rhe problem of deJectiveness was to prevenr the procreati on of chese people. Nicole Hahn Rafter has brought togerher eleven family

June 2008

srudies in ker book White Trash, providing some

annotation and excdlem analysis of (he various

reporu. n Common across me srudies was [he use

of e.xrremcly negative language to describe mem­

bers of the defecrive families. Language conveys

valued and devalued roles to me auruence.lS The

rides given (Q me srudies alone dearly indicah~ me

finaJ conclusion; for example, "The Smokey Pil­grims," "The Hill Folk " and "Dwellers in the Vale

of Siddem ."1~ None of these tides leave a positive

image of the families mey explote. Many family

pedigree studies carried photographs supporting

rhe negaeive labell.ing of parricular smdy subjectS

as defective. Classic among mese photographs was a picture of me 'family' home. The home of the al­

leged 'degenerate' was always a run down shack,

while dle good family had a near, well main­rained, whirewashed home. 25 Along widl words,

piccures can shape positive or negative ideas and

expectations in rhe minds of me audience. The

phorographs of the Family Studies ponrayed rhe

targeted individuals in a negative lighL The obvi­

ous biases and methodological flaws in me srudies seemed [0 escape most contemporary readers"lG

In Canada, Dr. Helen MacMurchy was one of

the main promorers of eugenic ideas and meth­

ods to deal wim the pressing social problems of

poverty, intemperance. crime, immorality, feeble­mjndedness and insaniryY Her book, The Abnosts: A study of the feebleminded, demooscrarcd [Q the

reader, through me review of rhe ficcional lives

of various characrers in works by authors such as

Shakespeare, Hawthorne, and Dickens, rhe hope­

lessness and rhrear to society of people judged [Q

be nor normal.1'lI ]n (he final chapter, she advo­

cared for the segregation and isolation of all fee­

bleminded people. InsoturJonal.iz.ation, with me

separation of the males from females, wouJd pro~

vide [he safety bom me feebleminded and society

requi.red. I( would also ensure me prevention of

h.mher generations of undesirable people by pro­

hibicing their procreation. MacMurchy [Oak her

message from coast [0 coase in Canada actempcing

to influence provinciallegislarors lO creare laws co

37

sl!lpporr her vi,ews.

Psychiarrist Charles K. Clarke also wrote and

spoke on the need lO prevem me people he la­

belled 'defeccive' from reproducing. These indi­

viduals included many of [he new immigranrs

from Easrern Europe who, he claimed, figured

prominenriy among the growing numbers of rhe

epilepric. me feeble-minded. me criminal and me insane.2? Imm.igrams received a good deal of at­

tention from Canadian eugcnici,m. Social Gos­

peller James S. Woodsworrh proclaimed mar rhe

immigram represented a mrear (0 every parr of

Canadian sociery due to the immigrams' inher­

enr defecciveness.JIl Hjsroriaru Jean-Pierre I3eaud

and Jean-Guy Prevost found a clear associarion

berween the eugenic movement's concern over

me degenerarive influence of rhe immigrant on

Canadian sociery and effon.s [0 limir immigra­

rion by government bureaucrars.31 In Bri[ish Co­

lumbia the province [Ook marrers inco [heir own

hands, deporring immigranrs judged [0 be defee­

tivc:Y The deporcarions are an extreme example

of physical disranriarionY I n some of these cases,

[he deponed devalued person had no one (0 assi:~t

chern on rheir rerum to their country of origin.

The 'casting om' by deporration in dlese circum­seances meanr sending [he person inw severe de­

privarion, if nor to (heir dearh.

Bur ir was nor only me Canadian physician or

government officiaJ mar advanced the idea of eu­

genics. A R Kaufman, who owned and operated.

[he Kaufman Rubber Company in Kirchener,

Omario, also supponed eugenics. He belonged (Q the 'Eugenics Society of Canada' and was a key person in me local birth canuol movemenr. He

found thar many ofrus workers, when laid off, feU

iO£o poverry. Kaufman saw this as an indicarion of a hereditary weakness, so he insrrucred his faCtory nurses to discuss birrh control wim his employees.

During the 1930s Kaufman offered sterilization

ro his workers whom he regarded as inherenrly in­

ferior in inrellect or character. As chis was me de­

pression and work was scarce, the pressure he held

as an employer was significam. Between 1930 and

38

1969 he claimed 1,000 male sterilizations had oc­curred in his factory.})

~nle broader eugenic appeals to the public were less academic in their conrenr. Eugenic poseers and diagrams at coumy fairs and public health displays portrayed me ideal marriage mate as strong, call, healrhy. and above aU someone wirh whom you had "compatibility." The poster mighT warn men "nor [ro] gec married unless you are MAN enough.".l6 The ideal male and female we(e

porcrayed wim srereotypica1 mllsculariry for rhe man and buxom beauty for the female. ·The less than ideal male and female figures in the posters were small, noe well defined and given dialogue indicating a lack of self confidence as mey gazed at the perfece human forms. The message in such images was plain for all ro undewand . The Fit­eer Family COntests held across North America in me firsr half of the rwemieth century allowed rhe eugenicists ro promote proper famUy breecling among the general public. Families would com­pere for the ride by performing physical feats of suengrh, providing a record of good healeh and presenting a flawless appearance . For Dr. John Kellogg ehe competidons were an important way ro get rhe average citizen aware of and working toward improving cheif family srock. Those who came to watch might have felt moved (0 copy or imitaee the eugenically good families .

FiJms also advanced the eugenic message. One such film was The Black Srork made by Dr. Ha.rry Haiselden and journalist: and writer Jack Laic. fn late 1915, Chicago docror Harry Haiselden en­couraged Allen and Anna BoUinger, parents of a baby born with severe physical anomalies, ro lee the baby dieY While some of the anomalies could have been correceed with surgery and allowed me baby ro live, Haiselden's view that defecrive infams were bener dead directed his advice (0 ehe parenrs. Haiselden announced publicly char he had allowed orner 'defective' infanes to die in the previous ren years and cominucd his withholding of care from variOliS 'defective' infants through 1918Y The case garnered national news media :menrion as ques-

The SRV JOUR.!'\' AL

tions arose over the docror's actions. No legal ac­tion was taken against [he doctor as it was consid­ered the parent's righr ro deny ue:mnenr for rneir chitd. The only medica.l organization [0 respond negatively to Haiseldcn's Stance was the Chicago Meclical Sociery which removed h.im from the so­ciety for his being roo public about rhe case, not for his withholding of (reannel)(.

Dr. Haiselden made The Black Stork for rhe­auica! release ro convey his eugenic message ro the public. In (he movie a doctor, played by Haiselden, in~mucrs a woman who marries a man from a family wirh a hereditary defect nor ro allow a newborn defective child to survive. Haiselden shows me woman aod the movie viewers a num­ber of people with disablliries, each highlighring a negative aspect of living with a disabili()'. The woman men has a series of visions of the child's future, again all very negative. She elects nor to

save [he baby. As (he baby dies, Jesus appears and carries away the child's soul.

111e film shows (he other side of me hereditary debate as well. A woman refuses to marry her per­fecdy healcby fiance because their children will in­herit her mocher's epilepsy. In the end, they learn mar the 'moeher' is acruaUy only a step-mother. TIle woman marries and produces a very healthy child. The imagery in (he film cleady sends the message rhat defective children were an emorion­aI bu.rden, ao unjusr social expense, led a painful life, contribUted nothing to society and should be killecL The film in several d.ifferent edited forms played in rhearres between 1916 and 1942. Haisel­don's pronouncements of killing babies born with disabilities and his film are examples of caseing the devalued person inca the roles of 'defective' and 'bener off dead.'5~

The eugenic movement offers a frighteningly vivid example of the power of images (borh picto­rial and literary) (0 convince me public and the professional ill uaining of the validity of a partic­ular theory. Eugenicists c.arefuJly used imagery to advance their cause. A consrant stream of nega[ive images reinforced the acceptance of me deviancy

June 2008

of me targeted group and me necessiry of llsing eugenic answers to solve me depicted eugenic problem. [mages of parents with disabled children

complying with the eugenic demands served ro reinforce the eugenic rnovemenr's amhoricy.

NI of these effortS [0 convince the profession­als, politicians and lay people of the co([ecmess of the eugenic movement's view of humans and the treatments they advanced had a pro~ound impact on Canadians and Americans. '(\ While (here were

people and organ izations who opposed rne eu­genic movement , enough people were convinced of irs correctness to see social policy and practice swing ro support eugenics at various federal, state and provinciallevels. lI

The Eugenic Solutions

EUGENICISTS IN BOTH THE Unired Scares and Canada advanced three major solutions ro the perceived problem of degeneracy. First

was (he incarceradon of people assessed as defec­tive, from the feebleminded, the epileptic, rhe in­

sane, and the alcoholic, through to rhe immoral. Dr. Helen Mac.Murchy campaigned for more funding ro construct large institurions in Canada [0 eveneually house all the feebleminded. u The cosr of the insrirurions would be offset by the re­duction of whar she termed wasted spending ro keep rhe feebleminded in (he community. Others suggested that many of rhe insrirurionalized could work ar producing a good or ar Farming, raising money to offset some of the cose of insrjrmional­izing them. 43 All provinces built more and larger inscitur.ions during the first half of the twenrierh

century co segregate labelled individuals from the larger communicy. J\hhough not created solely on the grounds of eugenics, rhese institutions did ar least SUppOT( the eugenic ideas of segregation and the inhibiting of procrea(ion. Some eugenicists re­jected the long cerm feasibilicy of the institutions because of their ongoing costs. MacMurchy her­self suggested that the only sure way ro eliminare the threat of the memally defecrive was rhrough mandatory sterilization programs.4-l

39

The second Line of arrack on (he 'problem' peo­

ple was via laws dictating marriage resrrictions. Thircy states had passed marriage restriction laws by 1914 ro prevent peopk considered defecrive from marrying. The 'defective' label was applied

differelulyacross (he chircy srares, with some ban­

ning marriages of people diagnosed as insane or as idiots, while ochers simply voided marriages of dlOse considered physically or memally inca­pable of understanding. 45 Lucien Howe, a leading American ophthalmologist and eugenicist, "led the charge [Q segregate, sterilize and ban mar­riages of blind people and cheir relatives" during the 1920s:16 By the end ofche 1930s, the eugenic

message on marriage restrictions had spread across America, producing forcy-one scares with laws

proh.ibiting menrally ill and feebleminded people from marrying.'-7 1hese laws denied the valued roles of hushand, wife, and in-law to people al­ready subject ro devaluation through labeUing. lhis increased their devaluation and added further wounding in the person's experience of life. The laws carried various penalries for rhose who broke rhe law, ranging &om one ro three years in prison, fines and even exile from [he srare. In Canada, the

eugen ie concern over marriage did nor impacr on law makers uneil the eve of rhe First World War. In 1913, the Onrario government amended the Marriage Act ro fine or imprison for a year any minister or license issuer who aurhoriz.ed the mar­riage of '''an idiot or insane' or ... wno was 'u nder rhe influence of intoxicating liquor'."1S Eugeni­

cists however were nor convinced thar marriage restrictions offered a sure guarantee for halting rhe procreation of degenerates.

1l1e third solurion concerned the lise of ster­ilization ro guaramee the absolure prevention of reproduction among those judged inferior. The first scare co pass a sterilization law was Indiana in 1907. Sterilizations occurred prio r ro this law, but in 1907 (he state felt a law was necessary ro facilitate s[Opping «the procrearion of 'confirmed criminals, idiots. imbeciles. and rapists' ."~9 By

1920, nineteen states had laws concerning steril-

40

ization, but many S(",HCS did not act on (heir laws

as a resulr of issues over meir consrirutionaliL),.

Harry Laugblin entered the fray, crearing a model

law char would srand a conscicU[ional chaUengc.

Virginja legislarors (Oak Laughlin's model and

creared a steru izarion law in 1923, chall enged in

[he Supreme Coun in 1927 (this story appears

below). After rhe Supreme Courc's decis ion, rhe

number of scares with srerilization laws rose co

rhirty, Almost aU of the smes with pre-1927 laws

re-WfOte theif laws to conform to the new !ega) standard . By 1975, when (he last m:ri I il.acion

law fd l in California, the number or Americans

subjeaed co state sanctioned eugenjc steriliurion

had climbed to over 65,000."" The numbers of

individuals sterilized outside of the scate sysrem,

th rough private arrangements wi rh consenting physicians, is unknown.

In Canada, only rwo provinces (AlbenJ in 1928,

and Brirish Columbia in 1933) passed eugenic sexua.l sterilization lawsY The eugenic movement

in Albena firmly established irseLF in rl\e years

following me First World \'<far. An investigation

of the rising numbers of feebleminded people

in Albcna, by the Canadian National Commit­

tee on Memal Hygiene, poinred to the increase

in Eastern European immigrants as the calise. Comnti rree members believed Eastern Europeans

were more likely ro be feeblemjnded. ~~ 1n 1922,

the Unjted Women of Alberta adopted a eugenic

position towards 'rhe growing problem' of me

memaUy defeceive. The), worked to educate [he

public and [he pOllricians of Alberra on rhe need

to adapt the eugenic theory and use segregation in

inst.irutions or sreriliz.ation to prevent rhe repro­duction of menraJly deficient indi\liduals.~·' The

United Farmers ofAIbena, who formed rhe pro­

vincial governmem, passed a sexual sterilizarion

law in 1928 based on me eugeruc understanciin.g

of menral disorders and feeblemindedness. 111e Sexual Srerilizacion ACT. created a commission of

four people who reviewed the candidates' files and

decided on which people to scerwze.5-1 Inmates of

institurions were the rargeted group. At first the

The SRV JOURNAL

people selected had to give meir approval for Stef­

j lization to occur, unless the}' WCJ:e considered

incompetem, in which case a family member Or

coun appointed guardian. cou.ld give permi.<;sion.

In 1937, an amendment co the law loosened the

neccssicy of gelling me inscicutionalized person's

permission, br allowing the compuJsofY steriliza­

tion of anyone deemed menraJly efecr.ive." in 1942, rbe category of candidates was t:nhrged to

include mental patient'S wirh syphilis, epilepsy,

and Humington's Chorea (who had [Q give th eir

permission).~6 Duri ng its fo rry-four year s of opera­

tion the commirree reviewed 4,785 cases . lr never

said no, bur beld judgement on forry-six C3S~ and

recommended 4,725 people for sterilization, Of

those recommended, srerilizarion was performed

on 2,tl22 people. Peter Lougheed's Cooservarive

government repealed rhe law in 1972.>'

British Columbia followed Albena's example in

1933 when it passed a Sexual SreriJizario n ActY A

commission of three people reviewed {he files of

rhose individuals pur forward for srerilization by

their insritution's direcror. The arguments for the

law included me suggescion jt would be cheaper

to srerilize and release people than keep chern insr-irucionalized during their period of fertility.

The eugenic posirions, thar m emal disorder and

deficiency were heredita ry, and rhe need ro keep

rbem from multiplying and thus desuoyi..ng !;oci­

ery, were front and centre. Women's groups, the

medical community and inpur from American

eugenicists convinced the government to pass the law. The nwnbers acrually sterilized under the law

are unknown as the records have been destroyed.

The Stories of Ca rrie Buck & Lei Ian i M ui r

T HE STORJES OF TWO PEOPLE subjecred to

the eugenic theory and rreal1Tlenrs reveal

the impacc of the unconsciousness of de­

viancy making and the creation of the suppon­

ing mindset and expecrancies .59 Carrie Buck was

born inco the family of Emma and Frank Buck in

1906.60 After her husband left rhe bmil}', Emma

fell into hard rimes and frequent contact wich

June 2008

the local police. Emma lost cusrody of Cacrie in 1909. Carrie went to live wim John Dobbs (one of [he depury-sheriffs familiar with Emma Buck) and his wife. In 1920, Emma was com mined ro the Virginia Colony for me Epilepric and Feeble­minded for life. The grounds for her comminal included prosururion (alrhough not selling sex) and rep eared lying. Her intelligence tesr reve... .. tled a men tal age of seven years or me label of low grade moron. 61 1ne Dobbs regarded Carrie as a hOllse maid for rhe family, kept her disrant from rhe Dobbs' children and even hired her our [0 clean houses for local neighbours. At age seventeen Carrie becan1e pregnan t. The farher of [he child was a nephew of me Dobbs. As the social mores of (he 1920s in Virginia did nor approve of single pregnant adolescents in rhe homes of , res pee rabIe' families, Carrie needed ro be gotten rid of. The answer was ro have her placed in me colony where her mother lived. The grounds for Carrie's com­mirral included "ourbreaks of temper," "peculiar actions" and "hallucinarions."~l Ar the rime of her entry into [he colony Carrie's intelligence measure indicated a mental age of a nine year old, a middle grade moron.") The Dobbs rook in Carrie's daugh­ter, Vivian.

As noted above, in the eady 1920s man>' states with sexual sterilization laws did nor enforce them due to a concern over their vulnerabiliry ro con­stitutional challenge. Harry Laughlin. a self~p(O~ fessed expert and strong advocate of sterilization. wrote a model law for legislators to follow when re-wricing or crearing new sterilization legislation. Laughlin suggested mar sterilization laws needed four main elements to withstand constitutional cha.llenges. First, they needed to esrablish a rigid~ ly adllered to procedure that would be applied to

all candidares for steriliz.arion. Second, once cho­sen, norificarion of cheir selection and me process for an appeal had to be given to me parient in writing. Third, an appointed advocate would help wim the appeal process as i[ moved through (he couns, creating an adversarial system to protect clle person's rights. 1Yi Fourth, [he memod used to

41

srerilize clle person needed [0 be the leasr invasive technique available.

Dr. Alben Priddy, me direc(Or of the Virginia Colony for the Epilep[ic and Feebleminded where born Carrie and her mother resided, used Laugh­lin's ideas to help dra1i: a sterilization law for the state of Virginia, along with (he colony lawyer Aubrey Suode. 111e Virginia legislacure passed the act in June 1924. What eugenicists required was a resr case ro COntest me law all the 'Nay to

the Supreme Court of rhe United Scates. To do mis Priddy needed [0 seiect an inmate from (he colony who would perfeccly represent the eugeni­ciStS' norion of the hereditary progression of de~ generacy. Priddy selected Carrie Buck for r.h.is role when he put her name forward for srerilization in September 1924. A diagnosis of Carrie's seven moO[h old daughter Vivian as mentally defective would prove rhe hereditary namre of rhe case.

Carrie's assigned ad vocate was Robert Sheldon who hired a lawyer irving Whitehead ro defend Carrie through the courts. \Xi'hjrehead had had prior Involvemen[ with rhe colony's administra­tion and was a supporter of eugenics a.nd steril­izarion. Aubrey Strode acted as me colony's law­yer chroughour rhe series of appeals. The Circu.ic Coun of Amherst County heard from a social worker who assessed Viviall as having an odd look abOUt het. It also had a deposition from Harry Laug/1lin arresri.ng to Carrie's umrllstworrhiness, her inability to support hersdfindependenrly and het potential inclination towards prostitution. Laughlin's deposition closely resembled portions of (he Ietrer Priddy had sent to him describing Carrie. Laughlin never saw Carrie, nor had access ro any family information other than whar Priddy wtote.h5 In courr, Priddy gave a damning descrip­tion of Carrie and het family, calling her me low­est of low grade morons. Whirehead apparenrly did not nore the discrepancy between Priddy's di­agnosis and [hat in Carrie's colony file. The COuf(

upheld che sterilization order.(,6111e [ower coun's decision was appealed to (he Supreme Coun of Appeals for Virginia, where once again me judge

42

ruled to upholJ (he steriliz..1.rion order. The stage

was ser for the Supreme Court. Whitehead argued th.roughout the appeal pro­

cess for [he reversal of cbe order based on cwo ac­gumenrsY First, he offered chat rhe stare did not have me right to inftia any harm on a person's body \\ij(hout due process (a Founeemh Amend­

ment co the US Constitution issue). Second, he questioned me stare's srcriJi7.3t:ion of only (he fee­

blemi nded people in the colony on twO gwunds;

one, they were already unable to procreate by rea­son of segregat.ion and cwo, sterilization JiJ noc apply to me feeblemjnded in [he state not living

in an instirution. This last condicion nored mac

o1e law unfairly targeted a select group of cirizens con -ritUring a violation of the Eighrh Amend­

ment to we US Constitution. Whitche'ld did not argue against ellgenics or slerili·,,;uion.

Aubrey Srrode, representing Dr. Bell and the colony, argued (har the srerili7..arion was correct and rhe law prope.r. He offered (.he evidence again

of (he inheritance of feeblemindedness, and thar arrie her mother and daughter were feeblemind­

ed. As to Whirehead's objeccions, Strode noted the

new I:nv's process (0 inform and defend me persoo selecred for srerilization, and [hat sterilization was akin ro the "compulsory vaccination" laws. fu [0

[he Eighm Amendment issue, Strode noted that

any feebleminded person in the stare couJd be in­sdrutionalized and chen subject to sterilization.

On 2 May 1927, Supreme COUrt Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes read me coun's dcci ion.(·· The Supreme Court upheld [he order CO seerilize Car­

rie Buck, claiming mat due process was served. and steriHzacion \Va..', noe ;) cruel or unusual re­quest to make of a cirizen. (I) his statement Hol­

mes said it was nor inappropriare for the country co call rhe weak members to sacrifice whar he felt they would nor miss, given rhe unsel.fish sacrifice

of good men in times of war. He concluded with Ole plea that, '"Three genef;ltions of imbeciles arc

enough." lr is u.nforrunate char me just.ice did nor listen to, or understand better, the labelling sys­rem the eugenicists' advanced. Neither Emma or

The SRV JOlJR!\lAL

Carrie were labelled imbeciles. Emma and Carrie

were diagnosed as morons, which was indicative

of a higher level of functioning [han an imbecile. Vivian's 'defective' label hung on her having an odd look, for she was never diagnosed as moron or imbeciJe. This reveals how people, even justice.

Holmes, d.id not have to undersrand the eLlgenic meory and evidence. but only believe [he eugenic message wa.~ correct in order m ace. Holmes' in­

ability ro rel:ue personally to Carrie Buck's life is

reRecrive of rhe natural tendency to reject and d.isr<llHiacc one's self from cbat which is perceived as an "W1pleasanr srimulus.""·) Ca.rrie's steriliza·

tion mok place at the Colony for the Epilepric and reebleminded in Lyn ... hburg Virginia on ]9 Ooober 1927. When Vivian died of measles, at

eigbt ycars of agc, her school cClChers claimed she \-vas a bright normal scudenr. 70

The scary of Leilani Nluir reveals rhe crush.ing

inAllence and Aawed narure of ellgeni.cs in a Ca­nadian pro-sreriliz.arjon province in me years after rhe Second World War.71 Leilani was born in Cal­

gary, AJberra on 15 july 1944. Wiili her mother in poverry, Leilani and her siblings frequendy lDoved.7.! Her mother cried ro 'dispose' of LeiJani

chrec limes before finally convinci.ng [he province to confine her in rhe Provincia.! Training School for Meneal Oefecrives in Red Deer, Alberta . 111e

early home life involved neglect and abuse, in­c1udi.ng the refusal ro allow Leilani m car wirh me family and at rimes [0 eat a( 311. As. a result, Leilani

stOle food from ocher chUdren's lunches at school. ll1ese incideocs provided (he rationale for her mother's mird effof( [Q remove her daughrer from

rhe famil)' home. Lei Ian i enter·d the Provi DCjal

Training School in rhe summer of 1955 on the eve of her eleventh bi rrhday.

Her rnorher completed rhe application for ad­mi~sion, forging rhe required signarure of [he man with whom she lived. -n1e legally required

home visir by a social worker never occurred. The required medica! and intellectual assessmclHS of

Leilani also did nor rake place before her entry inra rhe instirution. To (he question concerning

June 2008

any heredir.aJY problems in [he t~lInil)' rhe morher

wrote "ni!." LeiJ ani's mother used tbe 'prompting

words' on [he application form to describe her

daughter as "'indolenr,' 'bossy and impulsive' and

'bad tempered' ."n FinaJly she forged her parmer s

signarure for the consent to steri.lize Leilani if the

ProvinciaJ Eugenics Board deemed ir appropriate .

llis 1< r trike against her daugluer W:lS a require­

me nt for admi.s ion [Q me instimrion.

Dr. Ie Vann, uperimcndenr of the Provincial

Training Sella I, recorded only [WO comments on

Leilanj's as e--mt'nr sheer, " Pleasant looking child.

Talks eas ily and volubly."74 Two years larer she ap­

pea.red before the ProvinciaJ Eugenics Board for

::Ln order ro have her sterilit:.ed . While her ~Ie re­

ve;'1lcd she was doing fine in school, able ro read

and do math well it recorded an inrdli,., nee quo·

[ient of 64, placLn g Leilani in the "defe rive car­

egory."?> The file preclicred that she would require

long term strict supervision , 111e report also noted

her Irish· Polish and Carholic background. quick

remper, a trequency (0 be withour privileges due

to bad behaviour, and an interesr in boys.7C' The

board ordered rhe srerilizarion due co rhe "[dlan­

ger of the ua.nsmjssion ro The ptogeny of Memal

Deficiency or Di abiLiry. also incapable of Intelli­

gent parenrhood."77 Leilani Muir was srerilized on

19 January 1959 . .she was told mat she was baving

an appendectomy (which mey also performed)

and nor raid r.hal she bad been srerilized. She left:

me insriwrion in 1965, Fineen years Ia[er LeiJanj

finally learned why she could nor have children,

Her ::1dulr life was Eraugbt with difficulties. in­

cluding failed mar riages, depression and me deep

wounding from the stigma ofinstirutionaliz...·uion.

labelling as a moron, and rhe loss ofber potential

to give birrh ?

The Nbena Eugenics Board passed more people

for sterilizarion prior (0 1945, bur saw more actUal

srcrilizalion of the people passed for sreriliz..'Hion

in the years from 1946 to 1972. In parr, this was

(he result of limired resources due to me depres­

sion and rhe war, and rhe need to have rhe targeted

person's permission, 1n rhe POSt war ye3rs, wirh

43

consent no longer requi red from [hose labelled

menral defective, rhe Board rurn ed (0 Lhe steriliza­

tion of me people living in Lh e Provincial Training

Schools. rhose who could not objecr.19 In 1996, Leilani Mlljr won a lawsuit against the Nberra

govemmem and received an award of . 740,780 in

damages and $230,000 for her legal fees. 1IU

Selected SRV Themes & the Eugenics Movement

THE EXPERIENCES OF BOTH Carrie BLick

and Leilani Muir are symbolic of rhe

impact on devalued individuals of the

course steered br the eugenic movemenr, Segre­

garion, stigma and physical murilarion were the

prim:uy outcomes of the eugenicisr:,' Aawed ef­

fore ro reach their warped sense ot uropia. Along

[his course the eugenicisrs creared a malicious im­

age of people placed in the role of 'dcvianr.' ll1c

professionals whose [raining involved Lhe eugenic

rheory, and many among [he public exposed [Q

eugenics. absorbed rhe negarive images inra {heir

conscious and unconscious mind,~, ll1e frequcnrly

repeated evidence created a mind ser abour the

labelled individuals which produced negarivc ex­

pecratio ns wimin rhe perceiver. The negarive ex­

pectancies produced in the professionals casr their

und ersca_nding of rhe labeUed people wirh whom

rhey deale. Jus[ice Holme.s already believed before

he heard the Buck vs. Bell case of me worthless­

ness of a defeccivc's life and the inappropriateness

of sociecy supporting anyone declared defective.

His pre-oricm;).tjon allowed only one hea ring of

[he evidence presemoo, [hac which conformed to

his mind ser. Laws which in o w rjo n.al.i zed , reri!­

ized and/or resrricted the marriages of de ecrjve

people .1ppeared appropriare [Q legislarive mem­

bers who had accepted rhe mind set created by the

eugenicists, The alleged 'devianr' indjvidual faced

insrirurionali7..arion, sreriliuLion or resuicrions to

relationship in order to prevent meir funher re­

product:ion. In some cases (as wi[h me baby Bol­

linger) they were killed at birth.

44

Images and (he resulcing mindsers established a set of expectarions for rhe rargeted group, leading people ro see omy the expected behaviours and to

act in ways ro elicir most: behaviours from rhe rar­geced group members.~' This illusrrates rhe SRV theme of role expectancies and role circulariry.~l

Acceprance of the eugenic theory, along wim iso­laring and manipulating people with techniques based on [he eugenic ideas, severely limited [he behaviours in which the devalued people could engage. This offered further false verification for me eugenic rheory, encour~lging deeper com­mlunenr (0 it by rhe believer. In their analysis of Albena's Provincial Eugenic Board's decisions, Deborah Park and John Radford found rhat poor "home environment" was JUSt a.s likely co appear as jusrification for sterilization as inhericance of the alleged defectiveness.~3 In their zeal LO fulfill me eugenic mission, board members looked for reasons co sterilize outside of the biological foun­darions of the eugenic lheory. These theorericaUy incoherenr pieces of dara simViy reinforced me eugenicists' belief in their quest co save me middle class, Anglo-Saxon Albertans from the supposed onslaught of defectives. The fact rhat the Alberta Provinci31 Eugenics Board never sa.id "no" [0 srer­ilization, co even one of [he nearly 4,800 cases pur forward for meir perusal, indicaces rhe profoundly rigid eugenic mind sec they held .

The family pedigree scucUes served as a major piece of evidence in (he American eugenicists' effom to convince people of (he herecUtary nacure of defective­ness. Wirh melr repeated 'demonstration' of soci31 COSt, generarion after generation, rhe eugenic solu­cions appeared mandatory. These SOUJces of evidence rook the disposition31 perspective to irs uirimateend, disallowing any influence of rhe environmenr ro ac­couor for the behaviour and physical conditions thar the eugenicists deplored. No marrer what you were, if you were illiterace, poor, a single morher, and/or any other of the many cbaracterisrics they placed within {he influence of (he labels of feebleminded­ness or insanity, the only explanation was hereditary. The devalued person held the entire bl.arne for their

The SRV JOURNAL

assigned place in society, as no acknowledgement of the social construcrion of devaluation ever occurred. Wich eugenic lenses nrmly in place, the eugenic researcher 'discovered' their dara supported the eu­genic cheory. Their mind sers and expectancies did nOt allow for any other inrerpretation of (he condi­tions in which these families lived. In rhe process [hey wrote and displayed phorographic images in a way dur reinforced the readers' mind set of and ex­pectations for people labelled deFec[ive or degener­ate. The eugenic researcher casr the [argered person inro a vicious cycle of 'role circulariry,' resulting in me labelled person's devaluarioo a.nd abuse by rhe eugenicists. The believers in eugenics losr themselves in a closed cycle of 'belief Circularity,' unable to see that their mind setS interpreted the dara in front of [hem in a way to suppon their belieFs, which in rum served ro enhance [heir confidence in (he correctness of meir mind seu and expectancies.

Since eugenicists held the idea mar hereditary endowment explained 311 human developmenc, [be development31 model as understood within SRV did not apply. Furthermore, [he environment and especially modelling was nor (he behaviour shap­ing force chat Wolfensberger has clearly demon­straced it is.1IA Almough eugenic (heory was critical­ly Aawed, me evidence manipulated and distorted, it persisred as a result of the deep unconsciousness among professionals and the public of [he devian­cy role assigned ro people perceived as negatively cllfferenr or as pcoblemaric to sociery. Eugenicists could not see any competency whatsoever in me degenerate person. The labelled person would never develop any socially redeeming or economi­cally valuable qua/ities, 31though many eugenicists advanced the idea rhat they could work ro offset the cosrs of the instirutions in which they lived. Eugenicisrs repeatedly stressed the inabLliry co en­hance defective people. In rhis way tbey worked directly against what SRV would offer within rhe theme of person31 compc(ency enhancement.

In both Cmada and me United States, eugenic approaches [0 dealing with individuals with inre]­lecrual, physical or ment31 problems squashed any

June 2008

possibilicy for social imegration and rhe holding of

\ralued social roles. Insrirucionalization of people

completely denied rhem social imegration and se­verely reduced rhe opporrunities for holding a val­

ued role. Marriage resrrictlons socially isolared rhe

individual in rhe communicy, by denying them the

valued role of spouse and in-law. Srerilization so­

cially isolated the individual within the fabric of 50-

ciecy in rhe twentieth century, as mother and father

were esceemed social roles sought by mosr people.

All (hese interventions created a profound wound­

ing of those who fdl under che eugenicists' glare.

Conclusion

THE STORT£S OF THE Can:ldian :lnd Ameri­

can eugenics movements' efforrs co he­

come the aurhoriries for the understand­

ing and trearrnem of people with a wide variety of devalued qualiries and conditions demonstrate

(he processes fot creating negative images and

experiences for devalued people. This lesson il­lustrates rhe power and miliry of SRV, and how

the ideas described by SRV can be used to crc­

ate either posirive or, sadly, negative outcomes

for people (a poim made earlier). The eugenic

movemem in botb countries was predicared on middle class values and me false assumpcion fhat

the so-called science of eugenics could solve rhe

perceived problems thac both countries faced at

me cum of che rwenriech century.

The dominant middle class thac led (he eugenic

movement claimed professional concrol over chose

with i.nrelleccual and physical disabiliries, addic­

rions, behaviour considered immoral and rhose

experiencing economic difficulties. Their use of

imagery, boch wriuen and visua.l, presented rhe targered groups of individuals in the most negarive

lighr possible for the general pubUc and their fel­low social reformers. Thei.r rhetoric of impendjng

national doom ;u the hands of an Out-ot-concrol

degenerare class of'others' was meant to raise fear

and hurry me eugenic rechniques into pracrice.

1he singularity of direction, taken by rhe insri­

rurionalized eugenic mindset, placed all who came

45

under their ga1.e imo th~ same rrearmems: segrega­

tion, isolarion, and physical mutilation (insti[Ulion­

aiiurion, resuicrions on marriage, sreri I iucion).

The decision of rhe Supreme Court of rhe United

Scates, in Buck vs. Bell, Jnd the Alberta Eugenics

Board's failure to say "no" [0 any or the cases put

berore ie, demons((ates rhis single minded ness.

Eugen ics' assau Iron. th.e lives of Carrie Buck and

Leilani Muir provides a small window of insight

into [he profound \,\founding of those individu­

als subjecced co (he rheory and technology ofthe

movcmenr. Baby Bollinger experienced the ex­

treme of eugenics, the desire co kill those born

\,vith supposed dysgenic qualities, Yet rhose eu­

genicists who promoced i n.~tirutiona.l i7Jation and/

or sreriliz3rion also worked co make rhe ra.rgeted

individuals dead, through isolation and deperson­

alization, and cbe desrruction of their abiliry co

parricipate in the crearion oflife.

Afterword

MUCH OF TI-TIS ARTICLE has been 'hiswr­

ic' in orientation. Some of the stories,

l.ike Carrie Buck's, occurred over eigh ry

years ago. Leilani Muir's experience with eugenics

appears finished, as she received compensarion for

what happened co her. There mighr be a tendency for rhe reader to min.k rhar chis is all behind us

and tha( this piece was an academic exercise in

applying SRV themes (0 pasc devaluacion; buc this

would be a mistake.

Eugenics is alive and proliferacing. The 'new'

eugenics distances irself from the 'old' eugenics

LIse or family pedigree and irs failure co compre­hend rhe complexiry of generics. 8

) The 'new' eu­

genics suggesrs thac it wil.l serve our socicry well if we remove. people ic declares are unwanted. The

unwanred are chose born with intellectual, emo­

rional or physical disabilities, whose lives [he 'new'

eugenicisrs porrray as filled with pain and suffer­

ing, as a burden to others, and/or as an economic

drain on sociery.~ 11ms, the people rargeced by

me 'new' eugenic movemenr are rhe same as were [argered by [he 'old' one. The reasons for rheir

46

diminaeion are also che same. So wlur is diA"c.renr [0 warranr [he tirle of 'new'? The science offered

to explain and justifY the presellt eugenic effon. [he expens claim, is far more ac uraee rhan the

science of (he old eugenics. The new science is rhe science of genetics.

1b e mappIng of the human genome has been heralded as me beginning of a new era in under­

standing human behaviour and disease. Newspaper and popuhr magazi n.e arricles have informed the public [har rhe gene(s) involved in various 'rerrify­ing' cond.ir.iom from c.::mcer ro Alzheimer\ .<;chi7.0-

phrcllia, manic-depression, through the speC[JUJll o r autism. have been located.~7 Rep o rrers suggeSt rhat eradiotion of the disease is [he nex.c goal for researchers. The materiaJism of the genetic orienta­[ion mJkcs :1[1 aspects of humanness biological and

thus open (Q physical alteration or eliminarion. The orher shifr in the 'new' eugenics from rhe

'old' is the supposed removal of the scace in direct­

ing eugenic acriviry. The individual IS said ro be in charge of the decision, of whether or nor [Q

take eugenic choices offered by the professionals. 8B

The invocation of the individual right to decide ro prevenr people being born with [he targeted devaJued condition is an effof[ [0 keep the discus­sion of the 'new' eugen.ic approach from me pub­lic forum, :1.$ j( is said to be a private maHer. This

stance appeals to people holding the current belief t1Ut individual rights will provide chern with a !.ife free of aoy 'unwanted burden.'

The 'private mauer' argtunent is voided how­ever wirh rhe United Sra[E:.S government fundi.ng

research (0 prevent children from being born wirh a 'devalued condition: such as is the case with the

funding for research, treatment and prevemioi7 of aueism.'C, With government fundin a , eugenic

decisions are a marrer of srare policy and thereby

of public concern. The public pronouncemenr of the Canadian Sociery of Obsterricians and Gy­necologists calling for the resting of all foeruses for Down's syndrome, followed with rhe 'oprion'

of abonion if diagnosed. [lm.her erodes the argu­menr rhac [he 'new' eugenics is privare not pub-

Tbe SRV JOURNAL

lic.')U Since the group has appealed·ro me public,

to hear and accept meir stance, the issue is open

to public debate. It is also an example of a pro­fessional group claiming the place of determining ehe devalued characteris ric rhar requires denial ro

be born and (he ones to perform the technique (0

carry our rhe denial. lbe eugenic movemelH has nor ended. Instead,

ie has raken on a new guise, under (he name of

genetics, and cont.inues it,S am::mpr ro elimina[e people through 'prevenrarive' mClsures. The same merhod.~ employed in rh e I:IH Cen n lr) a rt" heine

redeployed in this one, ro convince the public. [he relevant professional groups and rhe politicians of the nece~ity [0 follow (he eugenic mandate, as are the me mods (0 address rhe: 'perceived problems.' Using Social Role Valorizacion to enhance the perceived value of individu<l.1s at risk for devalua­

cion seems ever more criric'll in li.ght of the his(Of)' and the continued srory of eugenics.

ENDNOTES

1. This article will deal with sevm of d Ie SRV themes, noc

includin g the conservatism coroliary, model coherency. and

the power o fimirar.i o n.

2. rOf a more detailed exploration of [he eugenic movc:mcnr liIe reader is referred [Q [he fall wing: M Laren, A. (1990). Ollr own TrUJStn- met': Eugmic! ill Canada, 188 --15)45. To­

ramo: Oxford Unive rsiry Press; Kevles. 0. (1 985). in Ill" flame of t ugofics: Gt!71f!lics arId thl! //Si!S 0/ human beredity. Berkeley: Un iversiry o FCal ifo rnia Press: Per kins, D. (968). ElIgmiu and tilt· progres.riva . Nashville , Ten n: Va nderbilt

Universi ry Press' Rose, C. (2004) . Prt"achiJJg eugenic : Re­/igiow I~'a.d,-,"s and ,I,,: Americon l'IIgimicr movmuml. Ox­ford: Oxtord Un ivt'r iry Prt'SS; Allen , G. (1989). Eugen ic;

"3.nd Ame rican social h i ·co r)'. 1880-1 950. Gmo111e, 3(2). 885·889; Selden , S. (1 999) . Inheriring shame: "]hI' JUJry of i!ugc71ics and racism ill Amn-iCf] .. Nc\v York: Teachers College, Columbia U(liversilY; Weibel, R, (2004). Frum D rlYluiTI !·o

/-lirlcr: Evolu tJ.oJ1 fl.1)' t'lhicf, cIJgt'llic.' . Ilnd rflri;m in Gen>J.flYlY

'ew York: Palgravc MadvWlan; Friedlander, 1-1. (1995). Thc origin.' 0/ No:zi genocidE: From ellthanasia fO :hc finlll JoLl/lion.

Chapel HiJI, NC: Uni\'crsiry of North CaroHna Press.

3. For a significandy more detai led exploration of (he pe­

riod n:.ferted to as the' Progressive Era: see Perkins (968): Chamberlin. E. 6- Gliman, S. (Eds .) (1985). Degenermion:

June 2008

The dark side of prOgl·US. New York: Columbia Universiry

Press; Drlvis, A. (1967). Sperirhtud.< of rtfonn: tbt socirtl

sttt1cmmrs and the progressive movement, 1890-1911. New

York: Oxford Un ivcrsiry Press .

4. Riis, J. (1901; 1971). How the ot},l'" halflive;: Studie, amnng

the tenemmrs of New York. New York: Dover Publlcarions.

5. Darwin. C. (1859). Origin of Jpecies. London: J. Mur­ray. Ga[lOn applied his u nders t<U\d ing of Darwin's work [Q

srudy (he genius and abiliry mac was found in Families of

400 men deemed [0 luve made significant coorriburions TO

B ri rish pol i c ics. mil i cary, science and [he am, in [he I 869

book. Hertditary g,;nitiJ. London: MacmiUan 6- Co. Darwin

published his own ideas on rhe hereJilary nature ofhumans

in 1871, Tht dtscent of man. London: J. Murray.

6. G;;![wn. F. (1883/1907). Inquiries into human focl/lIY and its development. London: J. M. Denr &Co., p. 17, footnote l. llle 200 I eiecrrollic copy or the full rexr in the online Gahon archives was Ilsed in lhis arricle; availab[e al hup://galwn.ocg.

7. Galwn, F. (J 909). &says in ettgenics. London: 1he Eugen­

ics Education Sociery.

8. For a fuller ruscussion of [he Brifish eugenic move­

men[ see Kevles (1985); Mackenzie, D. (1976). Eugenics

in Brirain. Social Stud its of Scima:, 6. 499-532; Soloway,

R. (1990). Demography and degmeration: Eugenics and the declining birthrate in lWeJJlit-tlJ-Cenfury Britain. Chapd Hill, N.C.: Universiry o(Norrh Carolina Press.

9. Galwn (1909), Essays in mgeJJics, p. 42.

10. Sebasri:m Normandin arrribures rhe hrsr lecture on eu­

genics in Canada w Dr. Alexander Reid, Jnnuary 1890, in

Halifux, Nova Scmia. See Normandin, S. (1998). Eugellics, McGill. and rhe Ca[holic OlUrch in Monueal and Quebec.

Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 15, 59-86.

I I. Researchers have focused exclusively on srudying rhe

national and slare or provincial eugenics socieries. We have

no reSe;Jrch on eugenic soderies wi rh a more local commu­

niry focus.

12. Thomas, S. 6- Woll:ensbcrgcr, W. (999). An oveIView

of Social Role Valorizarion. In Flynn, R.J. 6- Lemay, R. (£cis.). A quarter-century of Normalization and Soda! RoLe

Valorization: Evolur/rm and impact. Ottawa; Universiry of

Onawa Press, 125-159. Thomas and Wolfensberger dem­

onsrrare mis poinr ar me end of me aniclc by posing a series of "if-rhen" sraremenrs predicring devalued roles and nega­

rive outcomes; see 156-157.

47

13. These seven SRV rhcmes can be reviewed in Wolfcnsberg­

er, W (1998). A briefincrodllction to Social Role Valom:.prion: A high-order conccpl for ttddressi rig thc pligb of societally deval­ued people, and for strllCf'lIritJg !;uman serviw (3rd cd.). Syra­

CU5e. NY: Symcuse Universicy Training iJ1Scicurc for Human

Service Plan ning, Le;Jdership & Change Agemry, 103-127.

14. Numerous pieces are available for view on the websiccs

of me Disabiliry HislOry Museum foulld at hrrp:/ /lVww.dis­

abilirymuseum.org and rhe lmage Archive 011 rhe American

Euge nics Movemen r loeared ar h rIp:/ /www.eugenicsarchive.

org/eugcnics/lisd.pl operared by rhe Dolan DNA Learning

Cenrer:tr Cold Spring Harbor New York, which is rhe S-lme

loalioll as rhe former American eugenic laborarory.

15. Kellogg, J. H. (1897). Are we a dyilzg race? Imp:/ /www.

disabilirymLlscLlm .org/lib/docs./797c.lrd.hrm. Accessed 12

January 2008.

16. Sharp. H.C. (n.d .. probably early 1900s). Tlu steriliZtZ­

n'on of degenerates. I UPUI Digiral Archive http://hdJ.hancUe.

nerl180511 058. Accessed 12 January 2008.

t 7. Wembridge, E. (I 927). Dwellers in Neurorica. "flJe

AmeriCtln Mercury. 10, 460-465. hup://www.disabiliry­

museum.org/lib/docs/1746card.hcm. Accessed 12 Janu­

ary 2008.

18. Do[an, D. (2007). Psychiarry, psychology, and human

sreri.lization cl,en and now: "Therapeuric~ or in rhe social

inrcresr? Ethicaj HI/man Psychology and Psychi~tl"y, 9(2), 99- L08. See 100.

19. The Carnegie Insritute financed (he Cold Harbor faciliry

after! 921 ~[ld reviewed rhe Eugenic Record Office's (ERa) work in 1935. This review resulted in rhe wirhdraw:J.1 of fi­nancial suppon and cllC closure of che ERO in 1939.

20. Danielson, F. 6- Davenporr, C. (1912). the Hill Folk: Reporr OJ) fI ruml community of hemiJtary defectirm. Cold

Spring H~rbor, N.V.: Eugenics Record Office; and Esra­brook, A. 6- Davenport, C. (1912). !he NarI'J Family: A

study in cacogmiu. Cold Spring Harbor, N.V.: Eugenics Re­

cord Office, deal wirh feeblemindedness, while Davenporr,

C. (Sepr. 1928), Race crossing in Jamaica. 1he Scirntijic MomMy, 27(3), 125-238, deals with 'problems reswring

from interracial pcocrcarion.'

21. uJ mmigrauon Act of May 26, 1924" (Srarures-ad .. arge

92.1: 153-169). Known as the Johnson-Reed Aer, rhis law

restricred European immigration from countries, after 1924,

ro a limit of two percent of the number at that nationality

living in rhe Uniced Scares in 1890. This sysrem favoured

48

British and other Nonhern European immigr:mrs. Ie banned most Asians from immigrating inro (he Unired Sca(c..~.

22. RafTer, N. (Ed.). (19RR). Whitt'trmh: Thi' eugenic fomi/y studies, 1877-1919. Boston: Norrhcasrern Universiry Press.

23. Wolfensberger (998). A brie/illtroduction. 66-67 .

24. In Rafrer (998). sec The Smokey Pilgrims. 55-65; -I he Hill Folk, 81-163; and Dwellers in the Yak of Siddem. 341-378.

25. See Elks, M. (2005). Visual indiCtmenr: A conrexcual analysis of the Kallikak family photographs. Mrn!/ll &raT­dntiorz, 43(1), 268-280.

26. When criricism of Davenporr's papers and books oc­curred, he was quick to reacl. A case in poinr is wirh \VE. Castle's criticism of the "Race crossing in Jam~iCl" article (and subsC()ucnc book) (see Casde. WE. Gune 1930). Race mixru re and physical disharmonies. Science. 71 (1850). 603-606J. Davenport's respOnse (() Castle's comments (and apparently some by Bri(ish eugenicisl Karl P~.'arson) at­Lacked his critics' research abiliries and findings. and offered other rese.l rcher's evidence to prove ills own C4.!iC. Sec Oav­enporr. C. (Nov. 1930). Some criticisms of "race crossing in ]amaic.l." Science, 72 (1872), 501-502. Edwin Black slales tbat D,wenpon reacled quickly [Q any crieicism, firsc assur­ing his financial backers (har the critic could be dismissed; see Black. E. (2003). The wl1Ttlgninst the weak: £lIgCTIieJ and Americdr campaign to creare a rn/1.Jur mce. New York: bOUJ Walb Eighr Windows, pp. l02-104.

27. Dr. Helen MacMurchy was an inspector of inscitutions (or (he feeblem i oded in 0 rllarlu frurn 1906 to 1916; SL'C Mclaren (I990). Our own master race, 30.

28. MacMurchy, H. (1920). The almost.s: A study of the feeble­minded. Boston: Houghron Mifflin Company. In (his book. M.acMurchy relied on her power of persuasion without the aid of any statistics or real case srudies.

29. McLaren (1990). Our own mo.ster mce. 56-57; aDd Dow­biggin, 1. (1997). Keeping AmcriCfJ. sal1e: Psychiatry and eu­grnics in ,he Unired Stam lind Car/ada, J 880-/940. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press. 140-158.

30. Chapman. T (Aucumn 1977). E1rly Eugenics Move­mt:nc in Wesrern Canada. Alherta History. 25(4), 9-17. Chapman suggests that Woodswonh's 1909 book. SlTangers within our g0tes. Toronto: Toconto Universiry Press, W:lS a eugenic diatribe espousing segregation and possible Sleril­it.arion of new comers; see p. I I.

31. Beaud. r. 6- Prevost, ,. {I 996) . I m migration. eugen-

The SRV JOURNAL

ics :lnd st:lmw.:s; Mc:.uuriog racial origins in Cal\~.da

(1912-1941). ClZI1l1rii.an £dmic Srudics, 28(2). 1-24. T,'Io key governnlcnr bure:lUcrars involved io advancing a eugen­ic agenru were Roherr H. l.()~r<;. Dirt'nor of rhe: Oomi nion

Bu reau of Scat iSlics from 1915 co 1942. a.nd Pecer I3ryce. Chief Medic:al Officer of the Deparrmenr of Immigration during rhe same period.

32. Robert Menzies examined the deportation of people Iabeiled insane: and feebleminded from rhe province of Brit­ish Columbia prior CO World War IIj see Menzies, R. (Fall 1998). Goverrung mentaljries: The deportation of , insane'

and 'feebleminded' immigrants oue of British Columbia from Confederation [0 World War II. CaJ1fJdiPn/oumIlL of Law and Society, 13(2), 135- I 73.

33. Wolfensberger (1998). A brie/introducrion, 18.

34. Weber. L. (2006). More than JUSt booes! The eugenic and COIl1.mcrcial concerns behind A.. R. Kaufman'5 birth conrrolling activities. UztUJdiLJ11 BuLletin of lYfedicaL HiJl.(}JJ'. 23(1), 119-143.

35. Weber (2006), 129. The majority occurred in 1969. me S3me year he offered co provide free sterilization [0 any par­ems on welfare in the K.irchener area. Weber reporE'S 700 vasecromies were "performed in rhe (aerot)' between Sep­(ember md December 1969."

36. Boul m.:.~~cs ;!ppear 011 a 1942 poster en ti lied "If You :Ire Fir [0 Marrl reminding Californians char [he law re­qu.ired they h~ve a certihcue of health prior to marriage. The poster can be viewed ar lhe Disability His[Qry Mu­seum website [htrp:/lwww.disabilirymusc:um.orgl and is held by tht: Lilmny uf Congrt::;S, Washington. D.C., LC II USF/33/13256-M3.

37. For a complete anruysis of "Th<;; Black Swrko and other eugenic fi] ms sec PCrIl ick, M. (I 996). The block stork: Eugen­ics and the de/Uh of "difectiv£" babies in American mcdici71t' and motion pictures Jince 1915. New York: Oxford Univer-5iry Press. Pcrnick discusses both anri-eug.::nic and pro-eu­genic films berwccn 1904 and 1930 in chapter 7, "Eugenics on Film,n 129-141.

38. In 1919 I-Iaiselden went to Cuba, where he died rwo and half months later, see Pemick, I 1-12.

39. cr. Wolfensberger (J 998). A brief illtYoalJctiolJ. 16.

40. Lombardo, 1'. & DOff. G. (Summer 2006). Eugenics, medical educarion, and (he public he:a.lth sc:rvice: Another perspective on the: Tuskegee syphilis experiment. BlllJuin of thL' HistIJry 0/ Medicine. 80(2). 291-316. These author5 ar­gue rhat the medic.aJ rra.ining of three of the central doctors

June 2008

in these experiments ifwolv d a slrong eugenic comp iltflt ,

linking race with various diseases. including syphilis. Don, G . (May :WOO). Assuring America's placc in the sLln:

Ivey Foreman Lewis and the teaching of eugenics ole (he Un i­versity of Virginia. 1915- 1953. jOUrntlJ of 5quthern HistDlJ\ 66(2).257-296. Dorr suggesrs that a combination of condi ­tions m~de Vi rginia readily accepT eugenics and its incegra­tion inro the university curriculum. Vi rgi nia was a mo re fer­tile ground for eugenics Ihan other soumern slales; see 275 ..

Boz.eman, J. (December 200 ). Eugen ics and Ihe clergy io Lhe early rwcntierh cco mry Uniled Sr:He5. j ournal 0/ Amm­can Culnm. 27(4), 4.22-431 . Bozeman e.x.plorc:s [be varied

involvement of Christian and Jewish religious sects in (he Am~ri alll eugc.nic movement. See also Rosen, C. (200 ). PreadJing eugenics: Religious I,,{/d~rs {wd [h I: AmerictlJ7 I1lJgenjl'

mOlJemmr. New York: O xford University Press.

41. For rhee.xploration (If the conr.cmporary crilics of eugen­ics. see. Rosen (2004) 139-164: and Leon, S. Qune 2004). uA human being, and not a mere social facror": Catholic strategies for dealing with sterilizarion sratutes in rhe 1920.~. Church History, 73(2), 38 .3 -411.

42. Mclaren (1990), Our OW/I tt/Il$t" rIIet:. 39-40.

43. Smith, J. (Sepr. 1914). Marriage, seerilizaejon and CDIll­

mirmcOl laws aimed al decreasi ng memal deficiency. jounwl of 'hr /lm erican Institute of Crimi1Ul/ Law l1nd Cn'mi,,<J!og;\ 5(3), 364-370, 368.

44. Mclaren (1990), Ollr own ImiSft'I' I"I1U, 42.

45. Smilh (914).364-365. Seeaiso Kcvles (985), 99-100.

46. Black (2003). 146.

47. Dowbiggin (1 997), 75-76. Some sr;IJes also bannt:d me:

marriages of epileptics and coollned alcoholics. Christine Ros­en suggests thaI Rev. Walter Sumner's caU in 1913 for eug¢.nic health ccrtiJione decrees before marriages could take plac.e sil>­nificantly helped { O fuel the movement fo r restTictive ma.rri-age legislat ion in (he Uniled t:ltes; See Rosen (2004) , 53-83.

48. Snell. J. 6- Abede, C. (J 988). Regularing nupli::lliry: Re­stricti ng;lcccss (0 ma rri:lge in ea.rly rwentierh-cenwry Eng­lish-speaking Canada. UJl(u/iall HiSliJricllL Rt'vUt1l, 6.9(4), 466-'i89; . . ee p. 472.

49. Landman. J. H. (1932). HUmlln sterilizmion: The hi,rUJY]

of the Jo,',.uzJ Jr.er·ili2illioJl /IIovemt:lu. New York: MacJv1jUnn. 55, as quoeed in Wehmeyer, M. (February 2003). Eugen­ics and Slerili7~lion in rhe hearcland. LY/':11I01 Rnard,7tion, 41(1).57-60.

49

50. Bruinius, H . (2006). Bnter for illl the ularld: The sure! hiJlory affo rced suri1ization and A mnican's q1lm for roao! purity. New York: Knopf, p. 9.

51 . Cbapman. T. (A1Irumn 1977). Early ellgenic.~ movement in weslern Canada. ALba1A History, 25(4), 9-17; G rekul. J .. Krahn, H., 6~ Od)'nak. D. (December 200 ). Stcrilizing the "Feeble-minded": Eugeni :S in A.thena, Canada. 1929-1972. journal of Hisrorieal Socioklgy, 17(4). 358-384 ; Caulfield, T. d- Roberrson , G . (\996) . Eugenic policies in Alberta: From the SYSle.m'llie [Q the systemic? Albertl1uw Rrviav 35(1), 59-79; am! McLaren, A.. (1986). 11,c= creatio n of a haven for 'hum:ln rhoroughbre.ds': The sterilization of the reebJc­minded and the men taJly iJl In British Columbia. V JJJodiaJI

Historical Rellkw, 67(2), 127-1 50 . . Ibni toba r jec(cd a srcr­

il j 7~l tion Bill in 1933.

52. Grekul et a1 (2004) , 362.

53. GrckuJ era! (2004),362; Chapman, Aurumn 1977, 15. Sec also Park. O. 6- Radford, J. (998). From I he case filcs: Reconstructing a history o( involu.ntary slcrilis'ltci on. Di!­

nbi/fry &SocitfJ\ 13(3),317-342; scc 318-321.

54. Se.~ual Sterilization Acr, S.A. 1928, c. 37.

55. Grekul e:t al (2004), 363; Sexual Scerilization Ace, S.A. 1937. c. 47.

56. Saual Sterilization Act, SA 1942, c. 48.

57. See Grckul ee al (2004),364 ; and [or a discussion of lhe law itself see Caulfield, T. & RobensOIl . G . (1 996) . Eugenic poli cies in Albcr ra: From the systematic 10 the SYSTemiC? Al­berMUw ReviroJ, 35(1). 59-79.

58. McLaren (1986). A haven (or 'human thoroughbreds.' McLaren gives the on I)· detailed overvi ew of the sterilizatio n movement in Bril ish Columbi~.

59. Wolfenslxrger{ 1998), A briifimrodllClion, 105-106.

60. The Story of Carrie Buck is d rawn fro m Black (2003), 108-123; Bruiniu5 (2006) 58-77: and Cynkl r, R. ovem­bcr 1981). Buck vs. Bell: -Felt neces5iacs" vs. fundamenral values? C>/ulllbin Ut//) Revieill, 81(7). 14l8-l461.

61. Bruinills (2006), 44. The sc.'!le for the labels assigned to

individua.ls scoring lower men ral ages th;Ul (heir chronologi­

cal age would predicr was created by American psycholo­gisl Goddard and stipulared the following: an Idiol had a menta I age from one to rwo Ye:.lrs. an I nl bed le from r h rec to

seven years, and a Moron from cighr ro rwelve years.

50 The SRV JQUR.l"lAL

61. Black (2003) , 109. 76. Iri h-Polish and C ltholic worked ~aain5r Leilani as many eugenicists in Alberra and dsewhere in Canada hdd

63. Bruinius (2006), 59. imm..igm.nr.s as mosr responsible for an increase in ra tes of menIal def'CCtivencs5 in (he Anglo-Saxon Pror(,;s[3rH-dorn-

64 . Black (2003), 113. inam province.

65. Bruinius (2006), 62; Black (2003), 116. 77. WahJ$[Cn (I9~7), 194; Muir vs. [be Queen ill Righr of

Alberra, 707. 66. Priddy dioo before Ihe ruling came down and Dr. Bell be-came rhe acting DirectOr of the colon), mus hi~ n;ulIc appears 78 . \\Inhlsccn (1997), \95. Oil rhe infa rnol . Supreme Coun decision, Buck \IS. Bell.

79. Grekul cr al (2004). 368-369. 67. For a summary of \'(Thitehead 's posit'lon set C)'n.kar (1981) , 1447-14 8, and (or Sn'ode', ~rgument see Cynkar 80. Muir v . 'nlC Queen in Righr ofAlberra, 69 -698. (198 1), 1448-1450.

68. Holmes was reg;lcdcd as a brilliant jurisr. with .1 lib­eral leaning. He held lha[ the L'iw should reAc:.'c [ rhe \'iews • nd concern$ of the "dominanr group:" Sec Cynkar (1981), 1444. H olmes fcl t lIlar do-gooders wasted their elfom on [hose rhey h :lped, and chac me universe W;tS a predatory place. 'nle Buck vs. !3ell Supreme C Ollt'{ decis ion cw be found at [he Eugenics Archive website: hnp:llwww.eugen­icsarch i ve. 0 rg/b rm II eugenicsl St ll ticl i magesl260. hrm!

69. Wolfensbc.rgcr (199::\), A brie/inlroductioJl, 122 .

70. Cynbr (1981) , 1458; Bruin ius (2006) , 76-77, notes lha t on he r chool repo rt cards . the third-genera rion imbe­cO no{t-d by JUS[jcc Holmes had made rhl' honor roll," 77 .

7 1. Unlike C arrie Buck, and in pan by i~ more reGel)r oc.curreJlce. lhc story of Leijan i M uir has not receivc:.-d 3S

much an uclo n. TIle story of Leilan i Muir is drawn from Wah lsren, D. (1997). l.cil~[li Muir versus [he Philosopher King: EugeniCS on trial in Albena . Gml!tica, 99. 185-198; and Muir vs. The Queen in Right of Albena, Dominion Law Rn/;,'W /32.4 (25 January 1996): iiI<: flo.. 890320759: 695-762. A film h:ls also been made cnrid d "The Srerili",a­tion ofLeUani Muir." Produced by the No rth Wesr Center. N!ltiooal Film Bo;ud ofGnada, 1996.

72. A.r [he time of Leilani's birrh bel' mother's husband v,as serving ovc r5Cas in the mil i(;I.!,),; see Wa.hlstcn (1997). 193

73. Wahlsten (1997), 193.

74. Wahls[cn , 193. Wahlsten suggests war Dr. Ie: Vann pre­ferred uhigh gpcie morons . . . [who] . . . subsoquently served as subject's in his drug studies; , see 194.

75. Muir vs. the Queen in Right of Alberta, 695-762, 70C;.

81. Wol fensberger (1998), A briej'i fllyodliclio lJ. 104-106.

82. Wolfensberger (1 998). A briifintr{)t/IJcriol1 , 106-IOR .

83. Park & Radford (1998), 3.~4-335.

84. Wolfensherger (1998). A bri~rintroduCliol}, 120-121 .

8 ~ . See: Li, C. C. Uan/h:b. 2000) . Progressing from c:ugcn­ics rl.) human gc:netics. Human Heredity. 500), 22-33; Pru­sak, B. (2005). Rcdlinking "libe ral eugen ics." !he Hlutingr emur Report, 3 5 (6), 3 1-42. Prusak sugg(' 1.$ rhat genetics will allow people the full moge of possible imp rovemcnrs [Q

the natu re of their children and r.hcrcfore the new eugenics is nor lhe same as the old and should be practiced.

86. Sec RifKin, J. (Spring 2005) . Ulti mate the.rapy: Com­merc.i:tl eugeni.cs in the _1* century. Harvard InurnatiolJal Rcvicw, 27(1), 44 -48; King, D. (Apr. 1999) . Preimplanra­

rion genetic djagnosis and rhe 'new' eugenics. Journal of M edical Et!Jicj, 25(2),1 76-182; Hume, ]. (1996). " Disabili­

ty, reminism and eugenics: Who has rh e right ro d ecide who should or should nOt inhabit the world?" (p~per prcsented ar the Women'5 Electoral lobby National C onference, Uni­versity o f Technology, Sydney, Australia, 26 January 1996 [paper is :lVailablc for reading ar hup:/lwww.wwda .org.aul c:ugcn . .btmJ); SiLls, E. 6- Palermo, G. (Sept. 2002). Prcim­plantarion generic diagnosis (or elective sex selec[io n, the

rVF marker economy, and the child-Another long da.y's journey intO n.igh t? Journal of Amsud Rt!prodt,cr-ion lind Ge­n~lics, £9(9),433 ... 437.

87. For aamplc see He rpc r, M. &- Langredl, R. (I8 June 2007) . Will you gel cancer? Forb~. J 79(13), 52-58; Home t.CSt fo r scl1izophren.ia opens [he door on gene-Lic testing. TIlt' J(jtchcnl'r- l'0t.url.oo Record. 4 Aug. 2006. Life ~ecrion F3; Rubin, R. Want to know if you're dcstined for A17.heimer's? USA Today, 6 March 2008, Life Secrion 5; Kirkey, S. Gene

June 2008

r looks ~t prostat~ caI1ccr risk . WInnipeg Free PYC'SS, 17

Jan. 2008, Health Section AS; Hyman, S. (Sept. 2003). Oi­:tgnosing disorders. Scientific Amrrical1, 289(3), 96-103.

88. Li (2000) claims mar benNie counsdling is never cli­recrive but always allows parents [0 decide the course of

~ction, as individual rights must be held su preme ro stare inre.res(, see 32-33. The realiry oC hls STaremCnts concerniJlg

genetjc counsell ors is subjccr to deba[e. [-or parr of mis de­bare see Shrive r T. (9 Nov. 2007). Silent eu en ics: Abonion & Do~ n syndrome .. Commofl1oNJL, 10-11. See also Hume' (1996) presentation referen ced above.

89. Snow, [(. (2007). 21') cmlmy (ugmics. hrtp:llwww.disabili ry­isnaturJl.com/anicles/21 sU:ug.hrm. Accesscd 24 Mud, 2008. 90. Docrors say all women who want prenJ[;lJ generic [esc­

ing houJd get ir. The Colllulian PmJ, 6 reb. 2007. Accessed

51

19 March 2008 from EBSCOhosc Can~di3n reference centre (brabase.; Prenatal generic screening. Canadian Mrriic,,1 A$$O­ciation jOllrntd, 176(8), 1074. See also Shriver (2007) noted above, 6- Bauer. I~ Gen~tic rcsl i ng am plifyi ng scigma of Down syndrome. Gu.elph Mercury, 19 Nov. 2007, Opinions A9.

THOMAS M ALCOM ON, PHD, is a professor at George Brown College in Toronto. Co...rutbor of liJe textbook Life-Span De­velopment, hI! teaches tl couru on the history of eugmics.

THE CITATION FOil. THIS ARTICLE IS

M:llcomson. T. (2008). Applying selected SRV rhemes ro rhe eugenic movemen[ in Canada 6- rhe Unired Stares,

1890-l972. lhe SRVjoumnl. 3(1).34-51.