What is Eugenics and How is it in American Politics? The Dangerous Return of "Scientific" Racism
Understanding the pseudoscience that shaped American policy and its disturbing echoes today
By Allison | AllisonKnows
"The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner's famous words have never been more relevant than when examining the role of eugenics in American politics. Most Americans think of eugenics as a discredited pseudoscience from the early 20th century, something that died with Nazi Germany and has no relevance to modern political discourse.
They're wrong. BUY A BOOK HERE
Eugenics—the belief that human populations can and should be "improved" through selective breeding and the elimination of "undesirable" traits—didn't disappear after World War II. It evolved, adapted, and found new ways to influence American politics and policy. Understanding what eugenics is and how it continues to shape political discourse is essential to recognizing and resisting its dangerous influence today. The story of eugenics in America isn't just historical curiosity—it's a roadmap for understanding how pseudoscientific racism gets packaged as legitimate policy, how academic institutions can be captured by dangerous ideologies, and how democratic societies can be convinced to embrace policies that violate their most fundamental values. The American Origins: How the United States Invented Modern Eugenics Most people associate eugenics with Nazi Germany, but the truth is more disturbing: eugenics was largely an American invention that the Nazis later adopted and expanded. The United States didn't just participate in the eugenics movement—we led it, developed its theoretical framework, and provided the legal and institutional models that other countries would later follow.
The term "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's cousin, but it was American scientists, politicians, and philanthropists who turned it from a theoretical concept into a practical program of social engineering. By the early 1900s, the United States had the world's most advanced eugenics research programs, the most comprehensive sterilization laws, and the most sophisticated propaganda apparatus for promoting eugenic ideas.The American eugenics movement wasn't a fringe phenomenon—it was mainstream, respectable, and supported by the country's most prestigious institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford all had eugenics research programs. The Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation provided millions of dollars in funding. The American Museum of Natural History hosted eugenics exhibitions that attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors. But perhaps most importantly, American eugenicists developed the legal and policy frameworks that would later be adopted around the world. The 1907 Indiana sterilization law became the model for similar laws in other states and countries. American immigration restrictions based on eugenic principles influenced policies throughout the Western world. And American eugenic research provided the scientific justification for policies that would eventually lead to genocide.
This American leadership in eugenics wasn't accidental—it reflected deeper currents in American society that made the country particularly receptive to eugenic ideas. The combination of scientific optimism, racial anxiety, and faith in social engineering created an environment where eugenics could flourish as both scientific theory and political program. The Founding Father's Vision: Jefferson and the Roots of American Racial Science To understand how eugenics took root in American soil, you have to go back to the country's founding and examine how racial thinking was embedded in American institutions from the very beginning. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the country's third president, was also one of America's first racial scientists, developing theories about human difference that would later provide the foundation for eugenic thinking.
In his "Notes on the State of Virginia," published in 1785, Jefferson laid out a systematic theory of racial hierarchy that presented white Europeans as naturally superior to other races in intelligence, beauty, and moral capacity. These weren't just personal prejudices— they were presented as scientific observations based on careful study and rational analysis. Jefferson's racial theories were particularly influential because they came from someone who was simultaneously advocating for human equality and natural rights. This created a fundamental contradiction at the heart of American democracy: a nation founded on the principle that "all men are created equal" while simultaneously developing scientific theories that argued some men were naturally superior to others. This contradiction would prove crucial to the later development of American eugenics. By grounding racial hierarchy in scientific observation rather than religious doctrine or social custom, Jefferson and other founding fathers created a framework that could be updated with new scientific discoveries while maintaining its essential structure.
The result was a form of scientific racism that could evolve and adapt to new circumstances while maintaining its core commitment to racial hierarchy. When Darwin's theory of evolution provided new scientific language for understanding human difference, American racial scientists were ready to incorporate it into their existing framework. When Mendel's laws of heredity offered new insights into how traits were passed from generation to generation, American eugenicists were prepared to apply them to human populations.
The Golden Age: When Eugenics Became Mainstream
The period from 1900 to 1930 is often called the "Golden Age" of American eugenics, when eugenic ideas moved from academic theory to popular culture and government policy.
During this period, eugenics wasn't just accepted by American elites—it was celebrated as the key to solving the country's social problems and ensuring its future prosperity. The mainstreaming of eugenics during this period was remarkable in its scope and sophistication. Eugenic ideas were taught in high school biology classes, promoted in popular magazines, and featured in Hollywood movies. State fairs held "Better Baby" contests that judged children like livestock, awarding prizes for the most "eugenic" specimens. Universities offered courses in eugenics that attracted thousands of students.
But perhaps most importantly, eugenics became embedded in American institutions in ways that gave it lasting power and influence. The Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, was explicitly based on eugenic principles. State sterilization laws, which would eventually result in the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Americans, were justified using eugenic research. Marriage laws that prohibited interracial unions were defended using eugenic arguments about racial purity.
The institutional embedding of eugenics was crucial to its success because it made eugenic thinking seem natural and inevitable rather than ideological and political. When eugenic ideas were taught in schools, enforced by laws, and promoted by respected institutions, they became part of the common sense that shaped how Americans understood themselves and their society.
This institutional support also provided eugenics with a form of protection that made it difficult to challenge or reform. Critics of eugenic policies weren't just challenging
particular laws or programs—they were challenging the scientific consensus of respected institutions and the expertise of credentialed professionals.
The Legal Framework: Buck v. Bell and the Supreme Court's Endorsement
The legal foundation of American eugenics was established in 1927 with the Supreme
Court's decision in Buck v. Bell, a case that upheld Virginia's forced sterilization law and provided constitutional justification for eugenic policies throughout the United States. The case involved Carrie Buck, a young woman who was sterilized against her will based on the claim that she was "feebleminded" and came from a family of "defectives."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for the majority, declared that "three generations of imbeciles are enough" and argued that the state had the right to prevent the reproduction of citizens deemed unfit. The decision wasn't just a legal ruling—it was a philosophical statement about the relationship between individual rights and social welfare that would have profound implications for American society.
The Buck v. Bell decision is particularly disturbing because it came from one of the most respected justices in Supreme Court history, a man who was celebrated for his intellectual brilliance and progressive views on other issues. Holmes' endorsement of forced sterilization wasn't the product of ignorance or prejudice—it was the result of careful consideration of what he believed to be the best available scientific evidence.
This reveals something crucial about how eugenics operated in American society: it wasn't just promoted by fringe extremists or ignorant bigots, but by intelligent, educated people who believed they were applying scientific principles to social problems. The respectability of eugenic advocates made their ideas more dangerous, not less, because it gave them credibility with audiences who might have rejected cruder forms of racism.
The Buck v. Bell decision also established a legal precedent that has never been explicitly overturned. While later Supreme Court decisions have limited the scope of state power over reproduction, the basic principle that the state can restrict the reproductive rights of citizens deemed unfit remains part of American constitutional law.
The Human Toll: Forced Sterilization and Targeted Communities
The real measure of eugenics' impact on American society isn't found in academic theories or legal decisions, but in the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans who were forcibly sterilized under eugenic laws. Between 1907 and 1963, over 60,000 Americans were sterilized against their will, often without their knowledge or understanding of what was being done to them.
The victims of forced sterilization weren't randomly selected—they were systematically targeted based on race, class, and disability status. Poor women, women of color, immigrants, and people with disabilities were disproportionately likely to be sterilized, revealing how eugenic policies served to reinforce existing social hierarchies while claiming to be based on objective scientific criteria.
The sterilization programs were particularly devastating for Native American communities, where federal policies combined eugenic ideology with colonial control to justify massive violations of reproductive rights. Between 1970 and 1976 alone, the Indian Health Service sterilized over 3,400 Native American women, often without their informed consent.
African American women were also disproportionately targeted by sterilization programs, particularly in the South where eugenic policies intersected with Jim Crow segregation to create a comprehensive system of racial control. The practice was so common that it became known as a "Mississippi appendectomy"—a procedure that removed women's reproductive capacity under the guise of medical treatment.
But the human toll of eugenics extended beyond forced sterilization to include immigration restrictions that separated families, marriage laws that prevented interracial unions, and institutional policies that warehoused people with disabilities in conditions that amounted to slow-motion genocide.
These policies weren't just historical injustices—they had lasting effects that continue to shape American society today. The families that were separated, the children who were never born, the communities that were devastated—all represent a form of social engineering that fundamentally altered the demographic and cultural landscape of the United States.
The Nazi Connection: How American Eugenics Inspired
the Holocaust One of the most disturbing aspects of American eugenics history is how directly it influenced Nazi policies that would eventually lead to the Holocaust. German eugenicists weren't just inspired by American ideas—they studied American laws, adopted American methods, and explicitly acknowledged their debt to American pioneers in the field.
Hitler himself praised American immigration restrictions and sterilization laws in "Mein Kampf," calling the United States "the one state" that was making progress toward a racially based conception of citizenship. Nazi lawyers studied American legal precedents when drafting the Nuremberg Laws that stripped Jews of their citizenship and prohibited interracial marriage.
The connection between American eugenics and Nazi policies wasn't just intellectual—it was institutional and financial. American foundations continued to fund German eugenic research even after the Nazis came to power. American scientists maintained professional relationships with their German counterparts throughout the 1930s. And American eugenic organizations provided moral and scientific support for Nazi policies until the outbreak of World War II made such support politically impossible.
This connection reveals something crucial about the nature of eugenic ideology: it wasn't just a collection of scientific theories, but a comprehensive worldview that could be adapted to different national contexts while maintaining its essential commitment to racial hierarchy and social engineering. The fact that American eugenic ideas could so easily be adapted to support genocide should serve as a warning about the dangers of any ideology that divides human beings into categories of worth and advocates for the systematic elimination of those deemed inferior.
The Postwar Evolution: How Eugenics Survived and Adapted
The revelation of Nazi atrocities during World War II discredited explicit eugenic advocacy, but it didn't eliminate eugenic thinking from American society. Instead, eugenics evolved and adapted, finding new forms of expression that avoided the stigma associated with its Nazi connections while maintaining its essential commitment to racial hierarchy and social engineering.
One of the most important postwar developments was the emergence of "scientific racism" that used new research in genetics, psychology, and anthropology to support traditional eugenic conclusions. Books like "The Bell Curve" and research programs like the Pioneer Fund continued to promote the idea that racial and class differences in social outcomes were primarily the result of genetic rather than environmental factors.
This new form of eugenic thinking was more sophisticated than its predecessors, using statistical analysis and academic credentials to give scientific legitimacy to essentially racist conclusions. But the underlying logic remained the same: some groups of people were naturally superior to others, and social policy should be designed to reflect and reinforce these natural hierarchies.
Another important development was the emergence of "liberal eugenics" that focused on individual choice rather than state coercion. Instead of forcing sterilization on unwilling victims, liberal eugenicists promoted voluntary programs that encouraged "responsible" reproduction while discouraging reproduction among those deemed unfit.
This approach was more palatable to democratic societies because it appeared to respect individual autonomy while still achieving eugenic goals. But it was also more insidious because it shifted responsibility for eugenic outcomes from the state to individuals, making it harder to recognize and challenge eugenic policies.
Modern Manifestations: Eugenics in Contemporary Politics
While explicit eugenic advocacy remains politically unacceptable in mainstream American politics, eugenic thinking continues to influence policy debates in ways that are often difficult to recognize. Understanding these modern manifestations is crucial to recognizing and resisting the continued influence of eugenic ideology.
One of the most obvious examples is the persistent focus on genetic explanations for social problems, particularly in discussions of crime, poverty, and educational achievement. When politicians and pundits suggest that these problems are primarily the result of genetic rather than environmental factors, they're essentially making eugenic arguments about the natural inferiority of certain groups.
Immigration policy provides another example of how eugenic thinking continues to
influence American politics. Arguments about the need to restrict immigration to preserve American "culture" or "values" often contain implicit assumptions about the genetic basis of these characteristics and the danger of "diluting" them through intermarriage with inferior populations.
Reproductive rights debates also reveal the continued influence of eugenic thinking,
particularly in discussions about who should and shouldn't have children. When politicians and activists argue that certain groups of people—poor women, women of color, women with disabilities—should be discouraged from having children, they're making essentially eugenic arguments about the social value of different types of reproduction. Perhaps most importantly, the persistent belief in meritocracy—the idea that social outcomes primarily reflect individual merit rather than systemic advantages and disadvantages—contains eugenic assumptions about the natural superiority of those who succeed and the natural inferiority of those who fail.
The Academic Resurrection: How Universities Legitimize Eugenic Research
One of the most troubling developments in recent decades has been the resurrection of eugenic research in academic settings, where the prestige of university affiliations and the language of scientific objectivity provide cover for essentially racist conclusions. This academic legitimization of eugenic thinking is particularly dangerous because it gives scientific credibility to ideas that have been repeatedly discredited.
The Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 to promote eugenic research, continues to fund academic research that supports eugenic conclusions about racial and ethnic differences in intelligence and behavior. Recipients of Pioneer Fund grants have included professors at prestigious universities who use their academic credentials to promote ideas that would be immediately recognized as racist if they came from non-academic sources.
This academic resurrection of eugenics is facilitated by the structure of academic freedom, which protects professors' right to pursue controversial research even when that research promotes dangerous ideologies. While academic freedom is essential to the functioning of universities, it can also be exploited by those who want to use academic credentials to legitimize racist ideas.
The problem is compounded by the way academic research is reported in popular media, where complex statistical studies are often simplified into headlines that support eugenic conclusions about group differences. Even when the original research is more nuanced, media coverage often reinforces eugenic stereotypes about the natural superiority and inferiority of different groups.
The Political Weaponization: How Eugenic Ideas Shape
Policy Debates Understanding how eugenic ideas continue to influence American politics requires recognizing how they're weaponized in contemporary policy debates. While politicians rarely use explicitly eugenic language, they often rely on eugenic assumptions and arguments to justify policies that disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
Welfare policy provides a clear example of how eugenic thinking shapes contemporary politics. Arguments about "welfare dependency" and the need to discourage reproduction among poor women contain implicit assumptions about the genetic basis of poverty and the danger of allowing "inferior" populations to reproduce. Criminal justice policy offers another example, particularly in discussions of "super predators" and the genetic basis of criminal behavior. When politicians argue that certain communities are naturally more prone to violence and criminality, they're making essentially eugenic arguments about the need to control and contain genetically inferior populations. Educational policy debates also reveal the continued influence of eugenic thinking, particularly in discussions of achievement gaps and the genetic basis of intelligence. When policymakers assume that differences in educational outcomes primarily reflect genetic rather than environmental factors, they're less likely to support policies that could actually address systemic inequalities.
Perhaps most importantly, eugenic thinking shapes how Americans understand social problems and their solutions. When people believe that social outcomes primarily reflect genetic rather than environmental factors, they're less likely to support policies that address systemic inequalities and more likely to accept policies that reinforce existing hierarchies.
The Resistance Legacy: Learning from Those Who Fought
Back While the history of eugenics in America is largely a story of institutional capture and popular acceptance, it's also a story of resistance by those who recognized the danger of eugenic ideology and fought to expose and challenge it. Understanding this resistance legacy is crucial to developing effective strategies for combating eugenic thinking today.
Some of the most effective resistance came from within the scientific community itself, where researchers like Franz Boas challenged the racial assumptions that underpinned eugenic theory. Boas and his students demonstrated that supposed racial differences in intelligence and behavior were actually the result of environmental rather than genetic factors, undermining the scientific foundation of eugenic ideology.
Religious communities also provided important resistance to eugenic policies, particularly Catholic and Jewish organizations that opposed forced sterilization on moral and theological grounds. These communities understood that eugenic policies represented a fundamental challenge to human dignity and the value of all human life.
Civil rights organizations, particularly the NAACP, played a crucial role in challenging eugenic policies and exposing their racist foundations. These organizations understood that eugenics was essentially a form of scientific racism designed to justify and perpetuate white supremacy.
Perhaps most importantly, the victims of eugenic policies themselves provided resistance through their survival, their testimony, and their refusal to accept the dehumanizing labels that eugenic ideology imposed on them. Their stories remind us that behind every eugenic policy were real human beings whose lives were destroyed by pseudoscientific theories about their supposed inferiority.
What We Can Do: Recognizing and Resisting Eugenic
Thinking Understanding the history and continued influence of eugenics in American politics is the first step toward recognizing and resisting its dangerous influence today. But recognition alone isn't enough—we need active strategies for challenging eugenic thinking wherever it appears.
First, we need to develop better media literacy that allows us to recognize when genetic explanations for social problems are being used to justify discriminatory policies. When politicians or pundits suggest that poverty, crime, or educational failure are primarily the result of genetic rather than environmental factors, we need to challenge these claims and demand evidence for their assertions.
Second, we need to support academic research that challenges eugenic assumptions and demonstrates the environmental basis of social problems. This means funding research that examines how systemic inequalities create disparate outcomes and supporting scholars who challenge genetic determinism.
Third, we need to demand transparency and accountability from institutions that continue to promote eugenic research. Universities that accept funding from organizations like the Pioneer Fund should be required to disclose these relationships and explain how they ensure that such funding doesn't compromise their commitment to human equality.
Fourth, we need to support policies that address the environmental factors that create social problems rather than accepting genetic explanations that justify inaction. This means supporting investments in education, healthcare, housing, and economic opportunity that can actually address systemic inequalities.
Most importantly, we need to remember that eugenics isn't just a historical curiosity—it's a continuing threat to human dignity and democratic values. The same pseudoscientific thinking that justified forced sterilization and genocide in the past continues to influence policy debates today, and it's up to us to recognize and resist its dangerous influence.
The past isn't dead—it's not even past. But that means we have the power to shape how it influences the future. By understanding the history of eugenics in America and recognizing its continued influence today, we can work to ensure that pseudoscientific racism never again captures our institutions and corrupts our democracy.
What do you think about the continued influence of eugenic thinking in American politics?
How can we better recognize and resist these dangerous ideas? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and subscribe to AllisonKnows for more investigations into the historical roots of contemporary political problems.
Sources:
• Black, Edwin. "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Rice." Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003.
• Kevles, Daniel J. "In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity." Harvard University Press, 1995.
• Lombardo, Paul A. "Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
• Stern, Alexandra Minna. "Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America." University of California Press, 2016.
• Tucker, William H. "The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund." University of Illinois Press, 2002.