A Brief History on the Eugenics Movement

Eugenics, initiated by Sir Francis Galton and influenced by Darwin’s theories, is a discredited pseudoscience promoting racial superiority and discrimination based on genetics. This ideology led to forced sterilizations and shaped Nazi beliefs. Despite declining in popularity due to flawed research, remnants persist in scientific discourse, raising ongoing societal concerns.

6/8/26

Eugenics is a largely discredited pseudoscience and social philosophy. Its movement has encouraged policies where people with better genetics benefit in society and people with worse genetics are punished.

Inspired by the American eugenicist movement, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party went for disabled people before he went for Jewish people. But eugenics officially began with Charles Darwin’s half-cousin, Sir Francis Galton. In case you’re in need of a refresher, Charles Darwin was a biologist and a geologist credited for his contributions to evolutionary science. He developed the theory that all species of life have descended from common ancestors and that different populations will adapt to their environments. The well-known phrase, “survival of the fittest,” is attributed to Darwinist evolutionary science. Unfortunately, it’s widely misunderstood and misused. Survival of the fittest does not mean that the strongest animal will survive out of the group. It means that the animal with the best traits for its environment will most likely survive in that given environment.

Now, back to Sir Francis Galton. He coined the word “eugenics,” which comes from Greek and means something along the lines of “good in birth.” To me, it just sounds and looks like it’s spelling “good genes.”

Galton was a proponent of controlling human evolution and development. He also believed abstract human traits such as intelligence was a result of heredity. He claimed only the “higher races” of people could be successful.

When the first groups of the eugenics movement began to form, a German biologist named Alfred Ploetz, coined the term “racial hygiene.” He proceeded to publish a book emphasizing the racial superiority of Nordic and “Aryan” people. This concept significantly influenced Nazi beliefs.

In the early 1900s, a loud, racist man named Charles Davenport asked the American Breeders Association to study eugenics. This organization had been committed to researching plant and animal breeding, alongside studying and promoting genetics.

By 1910, Michigan and Pennsylvania tried and failed to pass sterilization laws but Indiana had succeeded. Under this law, people with intellectual disabilities as well as certain criminals were forced to become infertile. In addition, any woman deemed “feebleminded” or “promiscuous” could also be sterilized. Around this time period, state officials believed that crime and poverty were caused by poor genetics.

Notable people of this time period were in support of this movement such as John Harvey Kellog and Alexander Graham Bell. In fact, Kellog (known for the cereal) and philanthropist Mary Williamson Harriman, funded Davenport’s research. Questionnaires were created for American families and fieldworkers were trained to compile data on traits like “feeblemindedness,” “criminality”, and “alcoholism.”

Eugenics started losing popularity in the 1930’s when many of its previous supporters vocalized how research was based on flawed experimental methods. Their application of knowledge was simplistic and their research was tainted by racist and classist biases. Proponents of eugenics tried to use their scientific knowledge to control immigrant populations. During this time period, European immigrants in America were seen as inferior to Nordic populations. They explained that non-Nordic European immigrants were prone to higher rates of criminality and other problems for genetic reasons. But eventually, more people were outspoken about the fact that non-Nordic Europeans were not any more likely to be criminals than Nordic Europeans. By this point, 30 states had already passed sterilization laws. Some of these laws were still in effect up until the 1980’s.

And then the 1990’s saw a resurgence of eugenics beliefs. Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray, along with James Watson, the former director of the NCHGR, have spouted ideology declaring that black people and Europeans are genetically predisposed to having lower IQ scores. And that these lower IQ scores led to criminality. Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray even co-authored their beliefs in a book titled “The Bell Curve.”

Eugenics, to this day, remains a problem in the scientific community and in society at large.

On Being an Educator, Post-COVID

The educator expresses the complexities of teaching adolescents, especially post-COVID, feeling both love and frustration towards her students. As a disabled Latina educator, she questions her place within a flawed system and grapples with the decision to leave her role, fearing her absence may deprive her students of needed representation and support.

How would I describe being an educator for adolescents and preteens? Near impossible, soul-sucking, liberating, and sickeningly sweet. Especially with it being post-covid and I love my nonbiological kids (the scholars) so much. I would die for any student in my class, literally.  But it’s so hard to teach. It’s one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. Teachers are nurturers. And as nurturers, they are overworked and underrewarded. 

You get so invested trying to ensure your littles become kind, happy, well-rounded adults. It’s so hard to not feel like mistakes are personal failures. Like you’re a failure. You can, at times, take things personally. 

But at the same time, I have questions about the whole system. And if I were to ask them aloud, I wonder if people would accuse me of skirting personal responsibility? 

Can I, a disabled woman, really succeed in a field that was built for white able-bodied Americans? I mean, the system was built with the idea it can maintain white supremacy. And I’m a disabled Latina immigrant educator. Not that I’m saying me being Latina gets in the way of anything, though. 

Anyway, as the summer approaches and my third year in education comes to an end, it’s looking highly likely that I’ll be stepping away. It’s a bittersweet, terrifying, and exciting departure from what I had previously envisioned for myself. I feel bad for the kids though. Did I mention my students are also disabled? I feel like by having to step away, I’m failing them. I’m them from the future. Representation matters. If I can’t do it, can they? And of course I know they can, but they need someone around who knows that and stands in that truth. What does that mean if I can’t represent them anymore?