Eugenics redux? Exploring the genetics of ‘success’ and social mobility – Genetic Literacy Project

[O]ver a century after the beginning of the eugenics movement, scientists are carefully dipping back into the controversial research that looks at the influence genes have on certain behavioral characteristics.

While eugenicswas once used to justify entrenched inequality and systemic racism, some now argue that understanding the role of genetic predispositions can help achieve equal opportunities for all.

In the last decade, a new approach to genetic research has been on the rise, one that argues for understanding its role in social mobility as a way to achieve greater equality for all. A recent studytested the role genetics plays in parent-child association in education attainment.

Researchers foundthat the likelihood of a child going on to higher education is heavily influenced by their parents education. But while previously, this was largely attributed to environmental factorsthe new study indicates that genetics may also play a role. Until now, Genetics is largely ignored in this dialogue, said [lead author] Ziada Ayorech.

[However,] the researchers emphasize how their research could be used to promote social mobility. Ayorech suggests that even in a scenario where equal educational support has been provided for everyone, childrens outcomes will still vary.

[Read the full study here]

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Mindful of eugenics dark history, researchers are reexamining the genetics of social mobility

View original post here:

Eugenics redux? Exploring the genetics of 'success' and social mobility - Genetic Literacy Project

Is One Judge Trying to Implement Eugenics? | CBN News – CBN News

In todays politically divided society, its rare that an issue sparks bipartisan moral outrage. But thats exactly what happened recently over a Tennessee judge who offered to cut the prison sentences of inmates who received vasectomies or long-lasting contraceptive devices.

Back in May, General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed a standing order that allowed inmates at White County jail to have their sentences reduced by 30 days if they agreed to receive a vasectomy, or for women, a Nexplanon birth control implant that lasts up to four years. In in an interview with Tennessees WTVF-TV last week, the judge shared that the sterilization and contraceptive services were provided cost-free by the Tennessee Department of Health.

White County inmates were also offered two days off their jail sentences if they completed a State of Tennessee, Department of Health Neonatal Syndrome Education Program, which aims to educate people about the dangers of having children while under the influence of drugs.

I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves, Judge Benningfield told WTVF.

Judge Benningfield explained that his goal was to help break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who often enter his courtroom on drug related charges, and when they are released, cant afford child support and have trouble finding jobs.

I understand it wont be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe thats two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win, he added.

Dozens of inmates signed on, but as news of the program spread, the words unethical, unconstitutional, and eugenics began circulating among the general public.

District Attorney Bryant Dunaway, who oversees prosecution of cases in White County, shared his concerns about the program with WTVF.

Its concerning to me, my office doesnt support this order, Dunaway said.

Its comprehensible that an 18-year-old gets this done, it cant get reversed and then that impacts the rest of their life, he added.

Last Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee released a statement regarding Judge Benningfields order:

Offering a so-called choice between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community overseeing individuals childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

Amid the widespread criticism, Benningfield rescinded the order yesterday in a one-page court filing, The Washington Post reported. He wrote that any inmates who elected for the procedures and took serious and considered steps toward their rehabilitation would still receive credit toward their sentences, but that the plan was otherwise terminated.

Further, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Health told the Post that state health officials opposed Benningfields policy from the start and denied the judges claims that the procedures were state-funded.

Benningfield, however, maintained that the department was involved. In his filing Thursday, he wrote that he was forced to rescind the order because the department had decided it will no longer offer free vasectomies to White County inmates and will not provide the free Nexplanon implant in exchange for shorter sentences.

I wasnt on a crusade, Benningfield told the Times Free Press on Thursday. I dont have a mission. I thought I could help a few folks, get them thinking and primarily help children.

The problem with Bennigfields statement is that it mirrors the rhetoric of eugenicists throughout history who advocated for the sterilization, institutionalization, or death of entire races and classes of human beings.

Many pro-life advocates have identified abortion as the eugenics movement of our day. But as this case highlights, the attempted undermining of human dignity comes in many forms.

Sadly, abortion is far from a bipartisan moral issue in this country. It is particularly noteworthy, therefore, that a vocal majority of people in the medical, legal, and media communities were able to unilaterally denounce Bennigfields policy as the gross violation of human rights that it was. Thank God for that.

Original post:

Is One Judge Trying to Implement Eugenics? | CBN News - CBN News

Is One Judge Trying to Implement Eugenics? – CBN News

In todays politically divided society, its rare that an issue sparks bipartisan moral outrage. But thats exactly what happened recently over a Tennessee judge who offered to cut the prison sentences of inmates who received vasectomies or long-lasting contraceptive devices.

Back in May, General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed a standing order that allowed inmates at White County jail to have their sentences reduced by 30 days if they agreed to receive a vasectomy, or for women, a Nexplanon birth control implant that lasts up to four years. In in an interview with Tennessees WTVF-TV last week, the judge shared that the sterilization and contraceptive services were provided cost-free by the Tennessee Department of Health.

White County inmates were also offered two days off their jail sentences if they completed a State of Tennessee, Department of Health Neonatal Syndrome Education Program, which aims to educate people about the dangers of having children while under the influence of drugs.

I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves, Judge Benningfield told WTVF.

Judge Benningfield explained that his goal was to help break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who often enter his courtroom on drug related charges, and when they are released, cant afford child support and have trouble finding jobs.

I understand it wont be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe thats two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win, he added.

Dozens of inmates signed on, but as news of the program spread, the words unethical, unconstitutional, and eugenics began circulating among the general public.

District Attorney Bryant Dunaway, who oversees prosecution of cases in White County, shared his concerns about the program with WTVF.

Its concerning to me, my office doesnt support this order, Dunaway said.

Its comprehensible that an 18-year-old gets this done, it cant get reversed and then that impacts the rest of their life, he added.

Last Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee released a statement regarding Judge Benningfields order:

Offering a so-called choice between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community overseeing individuals childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

Amid the widespread criticism, Benningfield rescinded the order yesterday in a one-page court filing, The Washington Post reported. He wrote that any inmates who elected for the procedures and took serious and considered steps toward their rehabilitation would still receive credit toward their sentences, but that the plan was otherwise terminated.

Further, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Health told the Post that state health officials opposed Benningfields policy from the start and denied the judges claims that the procedures were state-funded.

Benningfield, however, maintained that the department was involved. In his filing Thursday, he wrote that he was forced to rescind the order because the department had decided it will no longer offer free vasectomies to White County inmates and will not provide the free Nexplanon implant in exchange for shorter sentences.

I wasnt on a crusade, Benningfield told the Times Free Press on Thursday. I dont have a mission. I thought I could help a few folks, get them thinking and primarily help children.

The problem with Bennigfields statement is that it mirrors the rhetoric of eugenicists throughout history who advocated for the sterilization, institutionalization, or death of entire races and classes of human beings.

Many pro-life advocates have identified abortion as the eugenics movement of our day. But as this case highlights, the attempted undermining of human dignity comes in many forms.

Sadly, abortion is far from a bipartisan moral issue in this country. It is particularly noteworthy, therefore, that a vocal majority of people in the medical, legal, and media communities were able to unilaterally denounce Bennigfields policy as the gross violation of human rights that it was. Thank God for that.

Follow this link:

Is One Judge Trying to Implement Eugenics? - CBN News

Modern-day eugenics? Prisoners sterilized for shorter sentences – Salon

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

A Tennessee county has greenlit a modern-day eugenics program under the guise of offering prisoners a better future. Judge Sam Benningfield of White County issued an order in May that reduces jail sentences for inmates who agree to undergo birth control procedures. For male inmates, a credit of just 30 days is offered in exchange for vasectomies, which are permanent. Women who sign up for the program receive a Nexplanon implant, which is effective for up to four years.ABC 15reports that 32 women and 38 men have enrolled in the program.

I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children, Judge Benningfield told local outletNewsChannel5. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves.

The program is described as voluntary, though it stretches the definition of that term, basically putting inmates in the position of bartering their fertility for sentencing reductions. Considering that prison sentences are often the collateral damage of life issues from poverty to addiction to crime, it seems callous to ask already vulnerable people to forego a basic human right to shave time off their sentences. The ACLU argues that pretending the program gives prisoners real options is deceptive and perhaps unconstitutional.

Offering a so-called choice between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional, Tennessee ACLU head Hedy Weinberg wrote in astatement. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it.

Theres also the matter of the programs resemblance to the eugenics programs that populate American history. The Equal Justice Institutenotes thatsterilization programs in the United States date back to the 1920s, when many states authorized forced sterilization of thousands of undesirable citizens people with disabilities, prisoners and racial minorities on the theory that, as the Supreme Court put it in upholding Virginias forced sterilization law in 1927, three generations of imbeciles are enough.

In recent years, groups likeProject Preventionhave paid drug-addicted women as little as $300 to be sterilized. (One ad advises potential enrollees, Dont let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit.) NPR points to a previous Tennessee state effort that penalized pregnant women who used drugs under a fetal assault law. The legislation was abandoned after officials realized that women avoided prenatal care so they wouldnt face jail time.

Judge Benningfield told NewsChannel5 that he launched the program with input from the Tennessee Department of Health, though the agency has distanced itself from the effort in news coverage.

Neither the Tennessee Department of Health nor the White County Health Department was involved in developing any policy to offer sentence reductions to those convicted of crimes in exchange for their receiving family planning services, Shelly Walker, the agency spokesperson, told theWashington Post. We do not support any policy that could compel incarcerated individuals to seek any particular health services from us or from other providers.

Judge Benningfield seems surprised by the outrage his program has been met with.

It seemed to me almost a no-brainer, he told NewsChannel5. Offer these women a chance to think about what theyre doing and try to rehabilitate their life.

See more here:

Modern-day eugenics? Prisoners sterilized for shorter sentences - Salon

The Sordid History of Eugenics in America – Church Militant

During the so-called "Progressive Era," the United States became the first country in the world to implement wholesale compulsory sterilization laws with the aim of weeding out "inferior stock," i.e., eugenics, in order to produce a more "perfect" race.

Multiple states passed laws requiring forcible sterilization of inmates, with the American Eugenics movement gaining traction among intellectual elites in the early 20th century. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1926 with the aim of "improving the genetic composition of humans through controlled reproduction of different races and classes of people."

The American Birth Control League, headed by one Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, worked out of the same office as the American Eugenics Society, and pushed the same eugenic goals.

The American Eugenics Society published propaganda to persuade Americans that the "unfit" must be breeded out. Among those deemed "inferior stock" were individuals suffering from blindness, deafness, mental defects, disease, physical deformity and "feeblemindedness" (i.e., low IQ).

Sometimes promiscuous women, including women who got pregnant out of wedlock, were sent to homes for the feebleminded, where they could be subject to compulsory sterilization. One such woman was Carrie Buck, placed in a home for the feebleminded after she was raped by a neighbor, ending up pregnant. Under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Buck was sterilized.

Even worse, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the compulsory sterilization as constitutional. In an 81 vote, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority in Buck v. Bell(1927), found:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ... Three generations ofimbecilesare enough.

The women most affected by forcible sterilizations were from ethnic minorities, including Native Americans and African Americans. One study showed that 60 percent of African American women in Sunflower County, Mississippi were sterilized against their will or without their knowledge, some of these procedures taking place unbeknownst to them during childbirth.

American eugenics practices went on to influence the Nazi eugenics program, which ended up with about 350,000 compulsory sterilizations from 19341945, paving the way for the Holocaust.

Watch the panel discuss this dark history in The DowloadToday's Eugenics.

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Like our work? Support us with a donation.

See the article here:

The Sordid History of Eugenics in America - Church Militant

Mindful of eugenics’ dark history, researchers are reexamining the genetics of social mobility – Quartz

Mention of the movement to improve human genetics known as eugenics today evokes myriad horrors, including its association with forced sterilization, American racism, and Nazism.

But over a century after the beginning of the eugenics movement, scientist are carefully dipping back into the controversial research that looks at the influence genes have on certain behavioral characteristicssuch as intelligence, the likelihood of going to university, and even the amount of time a teen spends on social media.

While eugenicsthe term derived from Greek words for good and birthwas once used to justify entrenched inequality and systemic racism, some now argue that understanding the role of genetic predispositions can help achieve equal opportunities for all.

Francis Galton is widely known as the father of the eugenics. A younger cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton was the first to apply a version of Darwins theory of survival of the fittest to humans. In Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, Galton argued that everything from criminality to love of poetry was thought to be in the hereditary nature of humans, says James Tabery, a philosophy of science professor at the University of Utah. And, the theory went, that if society wanted less criminality and more poetry-loving people, then criminals would have to breed less and the people who love poetry breed more.

Of course, Galtons ideas didnt remain confined to academia. In the UK, the government passed the Mental Deficiency Act in 1913, which emphasized one principle; the separation of people with learning disabilities from the rest of the community. Though the act had near unanimous support, one of the MPs who condemned the law, Josiah Wedgwood, said: the spirit at the back of the Bill is not the spirit of charity, not the spirit of the love of mankind. It is a spirit of the horrible Eugenic Society which is setting out to breed up the working class as though they were cattle.

The US went even further. An estimated 60,000 people were sterilized in the US between the 1930s and 1970s. The federal backed procedures largely targeting the disabled, mentally ill, people of color, and the poor, were finally repealed in the 1970s. Eugenics was also used to justify the miscegenation laws that prevented people from different races from marrying, and it fed into anti-immigration rhetoric.

American sterilization efforts apparently inspired Adolf Hitler, and eugenics ideas helped inform Nazi Germanys final solution, where millions of Jewish, disabled, Roma, and LGBT people were murdered.

Following this litany of horrors, the 1940s saw a recoiling from eugenics, and a scientific undermining of the movements basic principles. Leading academics instead highlighted sociocultural explanations for differences and inequality.

This didnt mean that efforts to improve the human race through genetic selection were completely sidelined. The field slowly morphed into a field of science now known as human behavioral geneticsa field of science where researchers explore how genetics influences human behavior.

US behavioral geneticist David Lykken is a notable example. In 1998, Lykken advocated for a so-called parenting license. He argued that couples interested in having children should need to get a license, but those who were unmarried, unemployed, or disabled would be denied. The licensure of parenthood is the only real solution to the problem of sociopathy and crime, Lykken noted in his infamous paper.

In the last decade, however, a new approach to genetic research has been on the rise, one that argues for understanding its role in social mobility as a way to achieve greater equality for all. A recent study published in the journal Psychological Science last week tested the role genetics plays in parent-child association in education attainment.

Researchers found, as in previous studies, that the likelihood of a child going on to higher education is heavily influenced by their parents education. But while previously, this was largely attributed to environmental factorsthe argument being that parents who have been to university can provide more support in the early secondary years and advice when their child is applying for universitythe new study indicates that genetics may also play a role. Until now, Genetics is largely ignored in this dialogue, said Ziada Ayorech, the lead author of a recent study.

Ayorech, from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at Kings College London, and the other researchers looked at a sample of more than 6,000 families with identical and non-identical twins in the UK. They categorized the families into four groups:

The researchers used two methods to figure out to what extent social mobility is mediated by genetic differences. The first method is the traditional twin study design, in which researchers compare identical and non-identical twin pairs. If identical twin pairs were more similar in social mobility then non-identical twin pairs, then this was the first clue that genetics is important.

The second method used polygenic scores, a new scientific technique at the forefront of genetic analysis. Unlike the first method, which relies on comparisons between twin samples, polygenic scores is a predictive method based directly on DNA. Researchers looked at unrelated individuals, within the four groups, whose DNA they had information on. They looked at the extent to which genetic differencesthose differences in the letters of someones DNAcontribute to differences in social mobility.

With the first method, we found genetics played a substantial role. It explained 50% of differences in whether families were socially mobile or not, Ayorech explains. The second method mirrored the twin results, she adds.

The polygenic scoreswho had the most bits of DNA associated with higher levels of educationdiffered across these four groups. Those families that had the highest level of education had the highest polygenic scores. The lowest score was found in the families where the parents and children did not have higher education.

The researchers were keen to stress that though their results indicate that genetics played an important role in social mobility, genetics doesnt work in isolation from socioeconomic factors. Its always an interaction between the two, Ayorech says. Finding genetic influence on something that is traditionally seen as an environmental measure should highlight the fact that genes and environment are working together, Ayorech says. Even if something is highly genetically drivensuch as heightit doesnt mean genes are the only factor. Diet and their lifestyle also impact height.

The researchers also emphasize how their research could be used to promote social mobility. Ayorech suggests that even in a scenario where equal educational support has been provided for everyone, childrens outcomes will still vary. The students themselves will differ in the extent they take on these opportunities, in their aptitude, and in their appetite for education. Knowing the role genetics plays can lead to more tailored, personalized support to maximize the potential for each child, she argues.

She points towards preventative measures that are currently championed in medicine. People at risk of type two diabetes are put in prevention programs, where they get tailored, personalized support to reduce their risk. She says the same could be done in education. Children are already genetically screened for a whole host of conditions, and researchers could one day look at a genetics risk score that predicts learning disabilities. Rather then waiting until the child comes into school and then struggles, Ayorech says, early intervention can be put in place to provide more tailored support. We are a long way from applying this research effectively, Ayorech acknowledges. Researchers dont yet have the sophisticated tools to genetically screen a large enough sample size of children to do educational intervention.

Still, thats a fairly new idea, Tabery says. For the longest time, if anybody was introducing talk of genetics and intelligence with policy implications, they were doing it in the name of inequality, and these authors are trying to use it towards equality.

There lies the difference between genetics research in the 1930s and now, Tabery says: They are really going out of their way not to fall into the traps of the really reprehensible stuff.

Read this article:

Mindful of eugenics' dark history, researchers are reexamining the genetics of social mobility - Quartz

Modern-Day Eugenics? Prisoners Sterilized for Shorter Sentences … – AlterNet


AlterNet
Modern-Day Eugenics? Prisoners Sterilized for Shorter Sentences ...
AlterNet
A Tennessee judge says he wants to give inmates a chance "not to be burdened with children." A Tennessee county has greenlit a modern-day eugenics ...
Tennessee Judge Pushes Sterilization on Those Incarcerated for ...Truth-Out

all 3 news articles »

Read the rest here:

Modern-Day Eugenics? Prisoners Sterilized for Shorter Sentences ... - AlterNet

The unspeakable evil of the Tennessee eugenics program – The Week – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Under existing asset forfeiture laws, it is legal for government officials to seize your gambling winnings, your Dan Brown paperbacks collection, your Lucky Charms collectible cereal bowl and spoon sets, or a bag of paper clips you might have lying around. If you want to get out of jail early in White County, Tennessee, you might have to let them take your fertility too.

I wish I were joking. But there is actually nothing amusing about Judge Sam Benningfield's standing order signed on May 15 awarding inmates 30 days worth of credit toward their jail sentences if they agree to undergo a sterility-inducing procedure a vasectomy for male offenders, a Nexplananon implant for females. Both procedures are available free of charge courtesy of the Tennessee Department of Health.

This is not some kind of innovative crime-reduction plan. It is eugenics.

How exactly it is possible for a judge in a general sessions court with juvenile jurisdiction to impose this order and arrange the gratis performance of these operations with state funds is a question best left to legal experts. The ACLU has released a statement denouncing the program as "unconstitutional." The local district attorney has called it "concerning," citing the difficulties of reversing a procedure undergone by impressionable young offenders looking for a speedy way out of their difficulties. But I am not interested in the constitutionality of the program.

It is evil.

Benningfield says his decision followed conversations with the health department, and that he hopes offenders will "make something of themselves." He claims that too many "drug addicts" have come to him unable to pay court-mandated child support. "I understand it won't be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe that's two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win."

A win-win for whom? For a young man who on the spur of the moment and for understandable reasons wants to get out of jail but decades down the line finds himself unable to have a family? For a young woman unaware of the long-term consequences for her fertility posed by having an implant? For the taxpayers of Tennessee who would rather pay for one snip or rod than look after children and the poor and the marginalized? For the children who will now never be born?

It has been decades since this country has had anything resembling a serious public debate about the morality of contraception. Even conservative Catholic politicians with rare exceptions feel comfortable not following the logic of the church's teaching about life to its explicit and logical conclusion. Instead their focus tends to be on abortion, something that most evangelical Christians in this country oppose.

The closest we ever come to having it out about birth control is when the question of eugenics is raised. But the two questions cannot be separated from one another given the history of what used to be the contraceptive movement in this country. I will never understand why reputable mainstream politicians eagerly receive awards from Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a woman who explicitly recommended the enforced sterilization of those she considered "unfit" or "feeble-minded" or "idiots." It would take an act of willful obtuseness to pretend that the practice of hawking free contraception and abortion today can be neatly separated from the ideology out of which the practice arose. Contraception and sterilization are eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, would certainly agree with Judge Benningfield about our moral duty to prevent those convicted of crimes from having children. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically," she once told an interviewer. "Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin that people can commit."

The lack of charity involved in the assumptions that people who have been convicted of crimes are incapable of repenting and that being parents can only abet their seemingly innate criminality, and that their children are predestined to commit crimes as well, is horrifying. People are not machines. Birth is not a technology that can be harnessed by the state for its sinister purposes. Nor is it a privilege that must be earned by supposedly upstanding citizens, revocable upon the first instance of bad behavior.

Go here to read the rest:

The unspeakable evil of the Tennessee eugenics program - The Week - The Week Magazine

HRBooks review: ‘Imbeciles’ takes deep dive into Virginia’s role in America’s eugenics – Daily Press

Before I tell you about this historical, shocking and true story of eugenics in the United States, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, let me tell you about the author.

Adam Cohen is a former member of "The New York Times" editorial board, a former senior writer for "Time" magazine, author of several books and a graduate of Harvard Law School.

"On May 2, 2002, the governor of Virginia offered a sincere apology for his state's participation in eugenics, Cohen writes.

With the support of medical personnel, lawyers, academics and the courts, Virginia forced the sterilization of more than 7,450 citizens between 1927 and 1979. They were considered unfit, feeble-minded, criminals or epileptics. In the court case "Buck versus Taft," the United States Supreme Court approved the sterilization of Carrie Buck, with some of the most important names in America presiding, including William Howard Taft, Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The vote was 8-1. Buck was from Charlottesville and taken in by a foster family. When she became pregnant out of wedlock, she was declared feebleminded."

Eugenics is the science of improving the human population by controlling breeding, thus improving the chances of what are considered desirable traits. In the 1920s, the U.S. began its drive to improve the population. Its model came from England and the writings of Charles Darwin. John D. Rockefeller Jr., Alexander Graham Bell and Theodore Roosevelt were among the supporters of eugenics. The methods to improve the U.S. population included changing immigration laws and keeping those deemed unfit from reproducing. In the end, sterilization became the chosen solution.

Virginia was cautious about eugenic sterilization and did not enact it until 1924, 17 years after the first state, Indiana, had started to use the practice. Four of the nations most respected and powerful professions supported eugenic sterilization medicine, academics, law and the judiciary. The U.S. sterilized 60,000 to 70,000 citizens during this manic time in history, according to Cohen.

The Nazi Party used U.S. laws as a model for its own eugenic sterilization program. Buck vs. Bell has never been overturned. There was a tendency to favor the powerful in American law.

This book covers in great detail the famous men who influenced eugenics and the ultimate support of Buck vs. Bell.

The list includes Albert Priddy, Harry Laughlin and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. As you read this book, consider what was occurred during the years of eugenics, how many citizens of Virginia had their lives turned upside down. They lost their right to choose where they lived, their ability to have children and ultimately, the course of their lives.

This country stands for freedom, but where is the freedom here?

Adam Cohen ends this unforgettable book with a long list of acknowledgments and 323 notes and references. This 402 page book includes eight pages of historical pictures. It can be found at Amazon in paperback for $12.14 and in Kindle for $11.99. It can also be reached at Powells Books for $18 in paperback, $19.50 in hardcover, and $45 on CD.

Vicky Coiner has been a school nurse in Hampton for more than 19 years. She has a master's degree in psychology and is working toward a Ph.D.

More here:

HRBooks review: 'Imbeciles' takes deep dive into Virginia's role in America's eugenics - Daily Press

The Long Tail of Philanthropy and Eugenics: Judge Trades Shorter Sentences for Sterilization – The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

July 21, 2017; Washington Post

A recent standing order issued by General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield allows the prisoners incarceratedin White County, Tennessee, to gain 30 days credit toward their jail time if they volunteer to be sterilized. Reports about the action come even as a memorial was established on Malaga Island in Maine to commemorate the 40 or so mixed-race residents of that island who were removed from the island in 1912. Some of the residents were sent to the then-new Maine School for the Feebleminded. Even the graves on the island were dug up, and the contents dumped into five caskets, which were buried on the grounds of the school, now called Pineland.

So, what connects these two stories? Bill Schambra has explained many times in his treatises about eugenics (in particular, in his 2012 article in Nonprofit Quarterly, Philanthropys War on Community) that the eugenics movement was supported generously by some of the fathers of philanthropy, Carnegie and Rockefeller among them, and that its legacy is still with us in certain philanthropic and public practices. Rick Cohen wrote about this in his article linking eugenics and the practice of real estate redlining:

The Rockefeller Foundation funded German research institutions in the 1930s, some employing well known and future Nazis such as Ernst Rdin and Josef Mengele, while the Carnegie Institution, founded by Andrew Carnegie, provided support for eugenicists for decades. The Hudson Institutes William Schambra adds other foundations to the list of general-purpose foundations that granted philanthropic credibility and capital to the eugenics movement, including the Carnegie Corporation. He has noted in several articles that the foundations that provided support to the eugenics movement, spawning state-sponsored sterilization programs from Virginia to California, have never apologized for their actions, much less provided compensation for their roles.

As Schambra points out,

Malaga is, of course, just one episode in the long and tragic story of eugenics in America. It seemed to justify the mandatory institutionalization of hundreds of thousands of so-called defectives, and the involuntary sterilization of some 60,000 American citizens.

Benningfield, who was first elected to the bench in 1998, told NewsChannel 5that he issued the order after consulting with the Tennessee Department of Health and that it was intended to helpbreaka vicious cycle of drug offenders passing through his courtroom who could notfind jobs or afford child support.

I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children, he said. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves.

Hedy Weinberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, however, says, Offering a so-called choicebetween jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it.

The PBS documentary seriesIndependent Lens writes:

Coerced sterilization is a shameful part of Americas history and we dont have to go back very far to find examples of it. Used as a means of controlling undesirable populationsimmigrants, people of color, poor people, the disabled, the mentally illfederally funded sterilization programs took place in 32 states throughout the 20th century. Driven by prejudiced notions of science and social control, these programs informed policies on immigration and segregation.

Many do not understand Schambras tenacious focus on philanthropys promotion and use of eugenics but he firmly believes that until philanthropy owns up to its role in supporting this dehumanizing concept, its ideological fruitssocial engineering, strategic top-down philanthropy, and even more explicit offshoots like this judges ordercannot and will not be eradicated.

The foundations that provided the financial support for eugenics have never issued formal apologies, he writes. Indeed, if you look under e in the index of any of the leading histories of American philanthropy, you will find not one word about eugenics.

Cohen explained the long tail of that in this way:

No one, however, should imagine that the eugenics hasnt spawned successor ideas that have infiltrated into the publics consciousness even now. Polls suggest that surprising numbers of whites believe that the explanations behind racial inequity are the personal behaviors and genetic limitations of black people, not structural issues and policies. There are studies that have revived eugenics thinking as applied to immigration reform, that potential immigrants should be selected based on IQ and other more desirable characteristics so that they would not be a burden on society and on taxpayers, not a big leap from that to the innuendo and more of Donald Trump that Mexican immigrants are infiltrated (a favorite word of eugenicists and redliners) with criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.

Ruth McCambridge

Read more here:

The Long Tail of Philanthropy and Eugenics: Judge Trades Shorter Sentences for Sterilization - The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

Kangana’s reply to Saif after ‘eugenics’ mix-up shows vocabulary isn’t inherited – The News Minute

}rH8Ck$M$j5KK-eI*; A$He*aoy9'3rUweHr?;|r@v<~w';~c5|PhDA |[`I+McD>* 7+M%iju8Vl(| X_6OiD=A5+Y hpXP#EAF5@5S#U,1fsP&^~f-nvY}#VtSdZT;BL'^q#Y o ,`Q5@fa@)YmFmh4mZs{vS?Ws/*?@pEc0H}Be MyT4`1 G ;iloGq^CpiC{XdWOdi12/XU5)%GO>( 8F`sr;q[6/e'zH8K+g x=n.;foY7.6^]w:8e}z.icOmu:lk}?ip6?'65.9;Cx^7 @a$e yAuR4IY#t1UAPMUJOvVUc{!6d7csxO=,7}+1yGVjpYRh-dJgt> S{|k~s6onn{0Nsfjc^;?tV_76~kT8o`7=^wGk/G+.=me' ,tyYri_+/%C{gm;k+~TT(gb,?z}pWvhKTpCa%D<1 [P1 V8@!~@2zey;K &_fU^X+%/|hkQ/[al?)Kk*0|{X ^B kro HBTT$$[@Rn|@He'Zb Dk9i;_pg^.Wb1i;i(pm|^7v$m!$wIT:WqQ+)sVw20^`ahr~:4Nba^ZgWZT/w^mt:^Ov:vo>}aDjc*J71pf~ ,+^Z|`m};vGFw 1%0V>G6`~n=;#x#tc}Q%en&w vBwZ*Gt.G/O@bm&N(}`F3N_ >wf*s?4G/__oVbTk2;Kq/U1gUzDu#T;4)ohT%nQeWI0A $u@%.G}u`E2Db^ " IwgP:(nT|8;_;nMRj x&>d0?l(5Q~X k!?uR|2zSG_&fEle_or6.tsaa`zu1#P#(WQMA*iH7'{{wVMx`u,jagW#jzkLg]9o|_)T%nFwm(t%+ gzU'zN)`4p`(Cgk>3"vVpB'T]R2K(nJR(@Q2jfQ_Ke96%T>;1ttrL/KXM0U]"+F")BU*)C3eM^g6c ]n4X_ol(i+Kumc Q-% ?KO;6FWc23>1HAX.0~ /g>|w$Hpt%jzy@v,;{J1QvA?_qN*6>$z"m Gxt=E1&L-P_B''yd:ZOTk?MerPNb;wc~%_[uTA1edo "o'D8Sx4wf2#J~$Rl,Z&l8f^XA3[^Yr.>nhE_lnIGc-4ZU|B,Thl|ab81yAlf;cApQxQ:P!rZ, .,2u eX=>q;&m|Zr*GHN[xl7$ NMh5Q}>Czwsp~A?%N 9nx`&wu}}yN{q>pzx{5O@pqn6w{U$wo=k7![9%H%K3f1K3oN/i^>c Z% yZoE)?knevG= 4Y);xXL#3MG"MCVc/Pb1/C@eDO_A&g8&]KqTT#b}v)Bns"/rs.1cxDU/w[oUw`OT0?3Cfk(-%"Qd +[9[5|7 f/T0S U Yr/yyt6Pn3cPEsQ54Fmumk(V^7zscc gK02n!yDsyeRbl c~=@3A |R@'(8_u1V?ya:[MBNf^#H=)FBX.)u;;=x ;7?3J70f%E"o*$275K ocGSA`U?[x1?xEq?#1**v<'^HscJKc`Syx['Buyqa}xyihB$)}y|X?qA,iawq-cqS(Sa YBL-G458875WSEQ]o~!#:CgT'7pw:U%)C|mQNA2 l&|K. 20Q5ti"!"_}?s7Q@.X'fO%rgipgD[uL7"0QA;F.[cK)gj hp tq#)a cZNy<* ;$v6DQh|D$;ytf, 1xrUIu:OS^r PCT,0/!V bti -&R(*5o8$(};I|3 {`b(RJv+k3elF3j)F!WW$jz0~a``fAWW@I#V00rvi@([9M1Fjgiw~~ _eJc? SI(#ua. _B2tA&~VJPq1L5J1_< .@UFPDe3F:q*G j(Nr JD#3%>:N SXTKbCj94"7#0Tfv+,$:+Jn8@*@HNX$Jp4c7&E6X,hpRRA e`K|rfl6@H*kv7+2DnzgiD*SY 2r++ O&B"aTP[=rkK

Read more from the original source:

Kangana's reply to Saif after 'eugenics' mix-up shows vocabulary isn't inherited - The News Minute

Putting the You in Eugenics – National Catholic Register (blog)

The idea of eugenics fell out of favor after the Holocaust, and the journal Eugenics Quarterly finally changed its name to Social Biology in 1969. This repudiation of Nazi beliefs may be coming to an end, though, as the eugenics movement gains a new wave of sympathizers.

Blogs | Jul. 21, 2017

Current arguments in favor of eugenics seem oddly familiar.

Since being spoiled for a few decades by the Nazis, eugenics is becoming all the rage again. The most recent example is a new program in White County, Tennessee, which offers inmates the option of having time removed from their jail sentence if they agree to undergo a vasectomy or a birth control implant.

General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield said that when he signed the order he had the best interest of the inmates in mind. I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves, Benningfield reportedly said. I understand it wont be entirely successful but if you reach two or three people, maybe thats two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win, win.

Don't you just love it, when government officials are looking out for you?

Male inmates can undergo a vasectomy while women can agree to be given a contraceptive implant. If they agree to it they will have 30 days taken off their jail time. According to news reports, 32 women have thus far received the implant and 38 men are awaiting the scary scissors.

I'm horrified by this. But I kind of just figured that this was some wacky judge who came up with a crazy idea. I was therefore a bit disturbed to see that it seems pretty popular. In perusing comments on news stories, there seems to be a number of arguments in support of this no good horrible very bad idea.

Here's some brief snippets from some of the arguments I saw online which were wildly in favor of this plan.

The "It's about the children" argument.

The Ruth Vader Ginsburg school of thought.

The I heartcontraception crowd.

Straight-up racism or as I call it "The Margaret Sanger Theory of Social Purification."

Big picture argument!

And then the argument for fiscal sanity!!!

And how about this interesting anti-abortion argument for coerced vasectomies?

These arguments have all been made before, folks:

The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses. Adolf Hitler

Read more:

Putting the You in Eugenics - National Catholic Register (blog)

Eugenicist Tennessee judge cuts off jail time if inmates get vasectomies – Washington Examiner

A Tennessee judge is redefining what it means for convicts to pay their debt to society: Go under the knife in White County to get a vasectomy or a birth control implant, and prisoners can get 30-days off their sentence. "Hopefully while they're staying here we rehabilitate them so they never come back," Judge Sam Benningfield explained to a local news crew.

But what does sterilization have to do with rehabilitation? Absolutely nothing.

It's cruel, it's unusual, and it literally meets the clinical definition of eugenics.

Down on their luck, 70 inmates (32 women and 38 men) have taken the plea deal. They'll get credit toward their sentence and a permanent reminder courtesy of county government that, because of their crime, they're sub-humans not fit to have a family.

In short, society finds them undesirable and would prefer if they not reproduce. Upon their release, convicts won't be burdened with unwanted children and heck, given enough time, perhaps little White County can weed out criminal imbeciles from the gene pool.

Except no, human nature doesn't work that way and nothing good has come from eugenics. The United States has its own uncomfortable and not too distant history with the practice. A total of 32 states enforced eugenics laws by 1935 and California didn't ban the practice of prison sterilization until 2014.

It's no exaggeration to say that the horrific practice has wiped away generations, snuffing out potential families ? especially from Asian, black, and Hispanic communities.

But in the backwoods of White County, Benningfield is more modest than say, a Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's not trying to wipe away three generations of imbeciles. "If you reach two or three people," he explains, "maybe that's two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs."

Put another way, he seems to believe sterilization solves all problems?no man, no problem.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read the rest here:

Eugenicist Tennessee judge cuts off jail time if inmates get vasectomies - Washington Examiner

Eugenics: What is the meaning of eugenics and what does it have to do with nepotism? – GQ India

In his apology to Kangana Ranaut over the IIFA controversy, Saif Ali Khan said it was easy to confuse nepotism with genetics. Maybe, he said, There is something in the genes too that makes many of Raj Kapoors descendants actors or Pataudis cricketers. I think its actually eugenics and genetics thats coming into play. Obviously you wanted to know what the meaning of eugenics is and just what it had to do with nepotism. But youve had a long week and youre too lazyto look it up yourself. So we did.

Thanks to the good folks over at Merriam Webster Dictionary we now know that eugenics refers to the study of improving population through controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. In simple English, it is a belief that discourages the mating of people who have genetic defects and encourages reproduction between fit people so as to improve the genetic quality of a group of individuals

While the first recorded use of eugenics can be dated to the late 1800s, the concept itself goes back to ancient Greece. Plato, the Greek philosopher, had suggested selecting mating so as to build a class of warriors.In fact the word itself has Greek roots and is derived from the Greek word eu suggesting well or good) and genes meaning born. And so eugenics can be loosely translated as well-born.

The word was coined by one Francis Galton, who would have for ever lived in the shadow of his far famous half-cousin Charles Darwin until the time hesuggested that that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits. Galton wanted to extendDarwinstheory (which essentially seeksto explain the development of animal and plant species) and apply it to human beings. Darwin, of course, disagreed with this elaboration. A year after Darwins passing, in 1883, Galton went ahead and named his research, eugenics.

What made eugenics controversial in modern times was the idea that human character was affected purely by genes and ones surroundings and education had almost nothing to do with how a person turned out.

Like with all things, arguments can be made for and against the belief. Negative eugenics suggests eliminating those who are deemed undesirables through abortions and sterilisations. These could includepeople who are morally, mentally or physically deviant. The Holocaust is the most apt example of negative eugenics that involved the mass murder of not just homosexuals and the physically disabled but also attempted to wipe out an entire race of people.

Positive eugenics is usually aimed at creating a genetically advantaged race of people through processes such as in vitro fertilization and egg transplants. AndRobert Klark Graham, the optometrist who made his millions for inventing plastic eyeglass lenses, is a classic example of positive eugenics. Graham, who hoped to create a master race of intelligent children, started a sperm bank that only accepted donations from Nobel Laureates. 217 children were born out of the programme and some, whove revealed their identity, have displayed remarkable intelligence. The programme was shut down soon after Grahams passing away. (ALSO READ The oddest and most unnecessary things of the worlds richest people have done)

On that, we are as clueless as Saif Ali Khan is in the picture above.

NOW READ

This 3D-printed artificial heart functions exactly like your real one

Scientists from Harvard just successfully inserted a GIF into a bacteria

This is the one thing that poses the biggest risk to humanity, according to Elon Musk

> More on Get Smart

See the original post here:

Eugenics: What is the meaning of eugenics and what does it have to do with nepotism? - GQ India

New Rauner hire compared abortion to Nazi eugenics in blog post – Chicago Sun-Times

One of Gov. Bruce Rauners new communications aides has argued that abortion is being used to rid the world of disabled and other unwanted persons comparing it to Nazi Germany.

Communications specialist Brittany Carl has also taken on organized labor in her on-line posts, contending that teachers unions should be dissolved.

Carl, a $45,000-a-year communications specialist was hired this week as part of sweeping changes within Rauners administration. Carl, who goes by Brittany Clingen Carl or Brittany Clingen in online articles, is listed as the editor and publisher of Reclaiming Feminism, a conservative blog.

In an April blog post, Carl commented on a Huffington Post article about a Catholic high school in Canada that had been criticized for screening an anti-abortion video that compared the procedure to the Holocaust.

Certainly nothing matchesthe atrocity of the Holocaust, but its undeniable that abortion is being used to rid the world of disabled and other unwanted persons a fact the Left and their pro-abortion allies dont want discussed, Carl wrote.

Carl also wrote about parents aborting babies diagnosed with Down syndrome: Attempting to rid the world of people with Down syndrome simply because they are different constitutes the dangerous and morally reprehensible practice ofeugenics not entirely unlike what was practiced in . . . Nazi Germany.

In a story posted oneagnews.orgin May 2013, Carl wrote about a Stanford University professor and author who said teachers unions have created insurmountable problems for effective schools and should be stopped.

Its clear that the faster the teachers unions are dissolved, the faster we can begin to restore the education system and ensure its benefits for those whom it was created for the children, Carl wrote.

Asked about the posts against abortion and unions, a Rauner spokeswoman said they are Carls personal opinions.

Any of the writing Brittany did before she worked for the state reflect her personal opinion, not the opinion of the administration, said Laurel Patrick, Rauners new communications director in an email. If youre going to quote from her past writing, she asks that you please quote accurately and with full context.

Rauner last week began a series of firings, including all of his communications team. Employees of the conservative-leaning think tank the Illinois Policy Institute have now taken key posts in Rauners administration.

The transition has not gone smoothly. On Monday, the governor fired Ben Tracy, his handpicked body man, after his staff found a series of homophobic and racially insensitive remarks on Tracys Twitter account.

The governor has always portrayed himself as a social moderate, focused more on fiscal issues than social ones. Rauner and first lady Diana Rauner have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to abortion rights groups jointly and through their familys not-for-profit foundation.

But the shift in Rauner administration employees shows hes moving further to the right. Many staffers who were either fired or resigned were moderate Republicans and said they were able to get Rauner away from an anti-union and right-to-work agenda to focus on attainable reforms.

A Republican operative said Diana Rauner should be concerned. I would like to know, the first lady, who is a known pro-choice advocate, how she feels about this, the operative, speaking on condition of anonymity, said. Really she should be weighing in.

Carls husband is Jared Carl, who is listed as vice president of development for the Illinois Opportunity Project on his LinkedIn page.Rauneron Mondaynamed that groups president Matthew Besler his new campaign chief, following the exit of Mike Zolnierowicz.

The free market Illinois Opportunity Project is co-founded by conservative radio talk show host Dan Proft, a Rauner ally.

Personal PAC, an abortion rights group that took aim at the Rauners earlier this year, blasted them on Wednesday for the recent hires.

This is just further evidence as to what a complete fraud Governor Rauner and Diana Rauner truly are. They have spent tens of millions of dollars lying to Illinois voters about being pro-choice and moderate, Terry Cosgrove, Personal PAC CEO said in a statement. Hiring racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic right-wing activists to run Illinois government puts them on a race to the bottom in competition with Donald Trump as to who can be the most destructive.

The local chapter of the Anti-Defamation League also called on Carl to retract her statement.

Any analogy comparing the Holocaust to the national debate over abortion is historically inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive especially to survivors and their families, regional director Lonnie Nasatir said in a statement.

But Illinois Right to Life dubbed Carl a strong intelligent pro-life woman, and called attacks on her a discriminatory smear campaign.

Our state is on the verge of financial collapse and pro-abortion Democrats are standing knee deep in dredging up abortion quotes rather than fixing our states current financial crisis, the anti-abortion groups executive director Emily Troscinski said. Democrats seem more upset that Gov. Rauner didnt consult them when hiring his new, well qualified staff than with the real problems facing Illinois.

Go here to see the original:

New Rauner hire compared abortion to Nazi eugenics in blog post - Chicago Sun-Times

This Short-Lived Political Party Embraced Socks With Sandals – JSTOR Daily

Policing womens fashion has always been a modern pastime, from making fun of Marie Antoinettes hair to pushing strict dress codes at school. But men arent always exempt from attempts to restrict clothing, writes Barbara Burman. Britain once had an entire political party devoted to reforming the way men dresseda party that had ties to the eugenics movement.

It was called the Mens Dress Reform Party (MDRP), and it came out of a broader call for health in 1929. At the time, the heavy suit reigned supreme. Members of the MDRP wanted liberation from dark, tightly-knit textiles, and they sought it in clothing that looked downright Elizabethan.

The Mens Dress Reform Party endorsed loose clothes, shorts or breeches, high socks, and sandals.

Mens dress is ugly, uncomfortable, dirty (because unwashable), unhealthy, wrote one supporter. The solution was to ditch pants, hats, closed-toe shoes, and ties. Instead, the MDRP endorsed loose clothes, shorts or breeches, high socks, and sandals. These relatively laid-back outfits, complete with open shirts and fabrics like silk and linen, were supposed to improve the health and streamline design.

But it didnt quite work. As new fabrics entered the market and tailored clothing became even more mass-produced, writes Burman, the MDRP failed to notice that men, too, followed fashion. The amateurish garments produced by party members couldnt hold a candle to mens clothing. Party members were repeatedly photographed in garments of their own design which appeared fussy or amateur in cut, writes Burman. The new outfits didnt project the masculine authority that was embodied in other clothes, she adds, or underscore consumption like more tailored garments.

MDRP members doubled down, creating new arguments for their clothes. It wasnt fair that women got to wear loose garments, they claimed. Why should men have fewer options? But there was an even more unpalatable argument for dress reform: eugenics. If superiority was based on race, then the chosen race must be as strong and healthy as possible. Clothing could make men healthier and more attractive, increasing the chance that the purer races reproduced and prospered.

Viewed through modern eyes, the garments beloved by mens dress reformers bear an unfortunate resemblance to the knee-socked, shorts-centered uniforms of the Hitler Youth. For Burman, its time to consider how philosophies of race like dress reform may have influenced design. Ultimately, she writes, the movement was doomed to fail because it never really found its voice. Instead, it adopted clothing that either looked juvenile or womanlyand its ambiguous vision of pedantic concern for hygiene and moments of flamboyance never really caught on. The party folded in 1940.

The movements legacy can still be seen today, though. Next time you see a guy rocking socks, Birkenstocks, and a drug rug, or extolling the virtues of sustainable fabrics, its worth thinking of the fashion fad that never really came to be.

By: Barbara Burman

Journal of Design History, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1995), pp. 275-290

Oxford University Press on behalf of Design History Society

Comments are closed.

Read the original:

This Short-Lived Political Party Embraced Socks With Sandals - JSTOR Daily

When Is Speech Violence? – New York Times

Your body also contains little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes. Theyre called telomeres. Each time your cells divide, their telomeres get a little shorter, and when they become too short, you die. This is normal aging. But guess what else shrinks your telomeres? Chronic stress.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech at least certain types of speech can be a form of violence. But which types?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. Trigger warnings are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for microaggressions.

This idea that there is often no difference between speech and violence has stuck many as a coddling or infantilizing of students, as well as a corrosive influence on the freedom of expression necessary for intellectual progress. Its a safe bet that the Pew survey data released on Monday, which showed that Republicans views of colleges and universities have taken a sharp negative turn since 2015, results in part from exasperation with the speech equals violence equation.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldnt be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture.

Entertaining someone elses distasteful perspective can be educational. Early in my career, I taught a course that covered the eugenics movement, which advocated the selective breeding of humans. Eugenics, in its time, became a scientific justification for racism. To help my students understand this ugly part of scientific history, I assigned them to debate its pros and cons. The students refused. No one was willing to argue, even as part of a classroom exercise, that certain races were genetically superior to others.

So I enlisted an African-American faculty member in my department to argue in favor of eugenics while I argued against; halfway through the debate, we switched sides. We were modeling for the students a fundamental principle of a university education, as well as civil society: When youre forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but its a good kind of stress temporary and not harmful to your body and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.

Whats bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, thats the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. Thats also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Thats why its reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but its only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade. There is a difference between permitting a culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly oppose. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health); the latter is the lifeblood of democracy.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, is the author of How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 16, 2017, on Page SR9 of the New York edition with the headline: When Is Speech Violence?.

Here is the original post:

When Is Speech Violence? - New York Times

Issa participates in DC eugenics event – Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)


Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)
Issa participates in DC eugenics event
Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)
Embattled Congressman Darryl Issa (R-49th District) on June 28 participated in the eugenics founded and funded Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) annual Hold Their Feet to the Fire event at Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington, D.C..

Go here to read the rest:

Issa participates in DC eugenics event - Escondido Grapevine (registration) (blog)

‘Study’ finds fewer children would help climate change liberals … – Washington Examiner

It's not uncommon for liberals to applaud abortion rights; it's less unusual for them to straight-up advocate a kind of soft eugenics in order to improve, of all things, climate change. This is not only authoritarian and immoral but a natural extension of being fanatically pro-choice.

Liberals are applauding the study cited in this Guardian piece, originally published in Environmental Research Letters, which finds that "the greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions."

Vocal pro-choice proponent and feminist Jill Filipovic approves those suggestions and took it a step further, revealing an inside look at how many of her peers feel about where children rank on the scale of importance, next to the all-consuming, scientifically-proven armageddon of the future: climate change.

The study also found that, while having fewer kids could also somehow help the planet fight its own demise, "there are other things, like "selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet." Not only do scientists fail to agree climate change poses an imminent threat to the world 40 percent doubt man-made global warming but notice a difference in the scale of important things people can do to lessen climate change? One has to do with mostly material stuff, and the other is about procreating a human.

For liberals who are vocal about the right of women to abort their own growing, unborn babies, it stands to reason the same group would applaud the concept of merely avoiding having babies altogether, or at least family planning, for the environment's sake.

Children are not only a gift, but a boon one of those babies might actually become the person who cures cancer or invents the newest Apple-like product. I wouldn't expect a group who rallies for eugenics and abortion to understand that.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Here is the original post:

'Study' finds fewer children would help climate change liberals ... - Washington Examiner