The Eugenics Crusade | Full Documentary | AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | PBS

On August 18, 1934, Ann Cooper Hewitt was admitted to a San Francisco hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Unbeknownst to her, surgeons also removed part of her fallopian tubes, making her infertile. Ann sued the surgeons and her mother for half a million dollars, bringing national attention to the case in 1936. Her mother defended her actions as necessary for society, branding Ann as 'feebleminded,' linking the case to the broader eugenics movement, which sought to control human reproduction based on perceived hereditary fitness.

In 1902, American biologist Charles Benedict Davenport visited London to meet Sir Francis Galton, a pioneer in heredity studies. Galton's work on quantifying traits like height and intelligence inspired Davenport. Believing in the potential of selective breeding to improve humanity, Davenport planned to establish an institution to study heredity scientifically. With support from Galton, Davenport set up a research station at Cold Spring Harbor in 1904, focusing initially on plant and animal breeding before turning to human traits, using Gregor Mendel's genetic theories as a foundation.

By 1906, Charles Davenport's work at Cold Spring Harbor had gained recognition. Davenport believed Mendelian genetics could improve both agriculture and the human race. He shifted his focus to human traits in 1909, collecting extensive data through family histories and institutional records to identify and encourage desirable traits and eliminate undesirable ones. This data collection and analysis formed the basis for his eugenics research, promoting the idea that controlling reproduction could enhance society.

In the early 20th century, American society faced rapid urbanization, industrialization, and immigration, leading to concerns about social deterioration. Progressive reformers sought to address these issues through scientific and government intervention, including eugenics. Psychologist Henry Goddard at Vineland Training School focused on feeblemindedness, using intelligence tests to classify individuals and support eugenics as a solution to social problems, arguing that hereditary defects could be eliminated through selective breeding and sterilization.

Henry Goddard's work at Vineland Training School convinced him that feeblemindedness was hereditary and linked to social problems like crime and poverty. His studies of family histories reinforced his belief in the need for eugenics. Goddard advocated for intelligence testing to identify and prevent the reproduction of the feebleminded, believing this would significantly reduce social issues. His ideas gained traction, leading to increased support for eugenics and sterilization as a means to improve society.

Charles Davenport institutionalized eugenics through the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), established in 1910 with funding from Mrs. E.H. Harriman. The ERO collected extensive hereditary data and trained researchers in eugenics fieldwork. Davenport and his team aimed to use this data to guide reproductive choices and improve the human race. The office's efforts included studying diverse populations and promoting eugenics education, which gained widespread acceptance and influenced social policies.

The ERO's data collection and advocacy led to widespread acceptance of eugenics in the United States. By 1913, prominent figures like Theodore Roosevelt supported eugenics as a means to improve society. Davenport and his colleagues promoted eugenics through education and government intervention, advocating for laws to restrict immigration, prohibit marriages, and mandate sterilizations to eliminate undesirable traits. This movement aimed to create a better society by controlling reproduction and enhancing human heredity.

The Panama-Pacific International Exposition in 1915 showcased eugenics as a scientific and social advancement. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a health reformer, promoted eugenics through the Race Betterment Exhibit, highlighting the potential for biological improvement. The exhibit drew significant attention and support, solidifying the eugenics movement's place in American society. The movement's broad appeal to various reformers helped integrate eugenics into mainstream culture and policy.

By the early 1920s, eugenicists like Madison Grant and Charles Davenport campaigned to restrict immigration to preserve the 'superior' Nordic race. Their efforts led to the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, limiting immigration from certain regions. Grant and Davenport continued to promote eugenics through conferences and propaganda, convincing lawmakers of the need for permanent immigration restrictions. Their influence resulted in the 1924 Immigration Act, significantly reducing immigration and reflecting eugenic ideals in national policy.

During World War I, intelligence testing became a tool for eugenics, with tests administered to 1.7 million Army personnel. The results suggested high rates of feeblemindedness among draftees, fueling fears of genetic decline. This led to increased institutionalization and sterilization, supported by the eugenics movement. Intelligence tests were adopted widely, influencing education, employment, and social policies, and reinforcing eugenic beliefs about heredity and social problems.

In the 1920s, the eugenics movement influenced immigration policy, with laws aimed at restricting the entry of 'undesirable' groups. Eugenicists like Harry Laughlin provided data to support these restrictions, claiming immigrants from certain regions were biologically inferior. The 1924 Immigration Act reflected these ideas, drastically reducing immigration and prioritizing Northern European countries. This policy had lasting impacts, including limiting the escape of Jews from Nazi persecution in the 1930s.

By the late 1920s, the eugenics movement began to lose credibility as scientists recognized the complexity of heredity and the flaws in eugenic science. However, sterilization rates increased during the Great Depression due to economic pressures. Despite declining scientific support, eugenic sterilization continued, influenced by economic and social factors. The movement's principles remained embedded in policies and practices, affecting thousands of lives into the mid-20th century.

Eugenic immigration policies in the 1920s had devastating effects on those seeking refuge from persecution, such as European Jews during the rise of Nazi Germany. The restrictive laws, influenced by eugenic ideas, prevented many from escaping the Holocaust. The case of Otto Frank, who was denied visas for his family, exemplifies the tragic consequences of these policies, highlighting the human cost of eugenics-driven legislation.

In the late 1920s, the case of Carrie Buck exemplified the use of sterilization laws to control reproduction. Buck, labeled feebleminded and institutionalized, was forcibly sterilized after the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's sterilization law in Buck v. Bell. This decision legitimized sterilization practices nationwide, leading to thousands of operations. The case highlighted the eugenics movement's influence on legal and social policies, emphasizing the role of heredity in societal improvement.

By the 1920s, eugenics permeated American culture, from educational curricula to state fairs. Competitions like 'Fitter Families for Future Firesides' promoted eugenic ideals, judging families on health and hereditary traits. The movement's principles were integrated into various aspects of society, influencing personal decisions and public policies. This widespread acceptance underscored the deep-rooted belief in improving humanity through selective breeding and genetic control.

By the late 1920s, scientific and legal challenges to eugenics emerged. Geneticists began to question the simplicity of Mendelian inheritance in humans, recognizing the complexity of genetic traits. Notable figures like Henry Goddard revised their views on intelligence and heredity. The economic realities of the Great Depression further highlighted the flaws in eugenic theories. Despite these challenges, sterilization and other eugenic practices continued, driven by entrenched social and economic interests.

Even as scientific support for eugenics waned, sterilization laws remained on the books. These laws targeted marginalized groups, justified by shifting rationales from hereditary defects to social and economic burdens. By the 1930s, sterilization practices were institutionalized, affecting tens of thousands. The legacy of these policies persisted, reflecting the enduring impact of eugenic ideals on American society and highlighting the need for critical examination of science-driven social policies.