The Smithsonian Institution Is Using a $25 Million Grant to Get Americans Around the Country to Talk About Race – artnet News

Last Thursday evening, the Smithsonian Institution convened an online forum to discuss a topic that most museums have historically avoided: race.

This initiative is our first attempt to foster an understanding of race and racism in the United States, said Lonnie G. Bunch III, the organizations leader, who participated in an early segment of the program. It is important to examine unvarnished history, even when its complicated and especially when it challenges our preconceived ideas.

The evenings discussion marked the first event in a two-year initiative, supported with a $25 million gift from the Bank of America, called Our Shared Future: Reckoning with the Racial Past. Organizers began planning the event last summer when the police murder of George Floyd sparked worldwide protests against racial injustice.

Conversations about race have changed over the past few years, said Sabrina Lynn Motley, the forums host, who also serves as director of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. We are considering race and equity far beyond black and white. Race is a social construct that has a real impact on our lives, and racism is a real device used to fuel systems of inequity and limit equal access to resources and power.

Through the initiative, Smithsonian officials hope to create a space where participants can join the conversation about races role in shaping American history. Although the pandemic has postponed or canceled some original plans for events, organizers still hope to bring town halls, conferences, and pop-events to regions across the country.

Curators see this as an opportunity to help Americans reckon with social inequities, and there are plans to conduct oral histories to capture how event participants experience race today.

We want to meet people in their racial justice journey, said Ariana Curtis, the programs director of content, who also works as a curator for the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. This is an excellent opportunity for us to think differently about how we can all work together moving forward.

Thursdays event brought together Smithsonian curators, university professors, and activists. A mini documentary aired during the program included stories about predatory loans and excessive interest rates, which have limited the access of Latinx communities to bank accounts and credit histories. Another segment focused on the Institute for Healing Justice and Equity at St. Louis University, which helped communities deal with trauma following the fatal 2014 police shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Our Shared Future was also an opportunity for the researchers to directly address the museum fields complicity in upholding racism, which activists have been calling on institutions like the Smithsonian to do for years.

What museums traditionally have done is that they have supported notions of eugenics, Bunch said during the program. And in essence, the challenge for museums is to recognize that those notions have been countered and that museums need to take the other stance.

This is a really good step forward, said Kelli Morgan, a curator and diversity consultant who is about to start a position as a professor of practice and director of curatorial studies at Tufts University. Museums have been the quintessential spaces of racial constructions for Europeans and Americans. I think museums are therefore the spaces where these conversations need to start.

Read this article:

The Smithsonian Institution Is Using a $25 Million Grant to Get Americans Around the Country to Talk About Race - artnet News

Increased Penalties For Street Racing, Ban On Critical Race Theory Among Texas New Laws – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) Hundreds of new laws take effect in the Lone Star State this week.

Among those that begin Wednesday, September 1, measures that seek to crack down on a big problem in the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth: illegal street racing.

The new law will increase penalties for those who are speed racing, driving recklessly, and obstructing a highway or roadway from a class B misdemeanor to a class A misdemeanor.

Anyone caught doing this whos intoxicated or injures anyone, or whos been convicted of these charges before would face increased penalties as well a state jail felony.

The law also makes it a class B misdemeanor for anyone who interferes with a law enforcement officer investigating highway racing or reckless driving.

George Aranda, founder and director of the Dallas Chapter of the National Latino Law Enforcement Organization said Monday, August 30, that some officers have been hurt conducting these investigations, and some of those drivers whove been racing have been killed.

I think its gonna make a big difference with some of these speeder racers finally getting the message especially now that, that were going to be able to seize their vehicles, play some of these spectators in jail.

And, you know, itll be good for everybody good for the officers good for the community and start taking some of these intersections back.

MORE NEW LAWS: Constitutional Carry, Fetal Heartbeat Bill Among Hundreds Of New Laws Taking Effect In Texas

A controversial bill that Governor Abbott signed into law would ban K-12 public schools from teaching students critical race theory.

The theory has been defined as an academic concept that racism is not just an individuals bias but prejudice that has been a part of societys policies.

The law requires students be taught about the history of white supremacy including slavery, the eugenics movement, which advocated for humans selectively breeding to obtain or avoid certain genetic traits, and the Ku Klux Klan and that all were all morally wrong.

The law wont allow the teaching of the New York Times 1619 Project, which the publication says is aimed at reframing U.S. history in the context of when slaves first arrived.

Dr. Joe Feagin, a Sociology Professor at Texas A&M, said critical race theory has not been taught in public schools.

K through 12 teachers, very few of them teach things like this. Theyre not teaching critical race theory. Thats mostly seniors in academic colleges and universities and law students.

Professor Feagin said some public school teachers are worried their classroom discussions could unintentionally attract complaints from parents and lead to them being penalized.

Another law would require the national anthem be played at most professional sporting events.

The law requires professional sports teams that have contracts with the state to play the anthem before the games begin.

A bill was introduced earlier this year after the Dallas Mavericks didnt play the national anthem before games for a short period of time.

Among the other laws going into effect Wednesday, government entities and businesses cant require COVID-19 vaccine passports or require proof of vaccination to enter a business.

Another law would ban government entities from closing places of worship during an emergency such as the pandemic.

The rest is here:

Increased Penalties For Street Racing, Ban On Critical Race Theory Among Texas New Laws - CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

What is the Spectrum 10K DNA study into autism – and why are autistic people concerned? – indy100

Autistic advocates have expressed concerns over a University of Cambridge study, over fears that the research into genetic and environmental factors that contribute to the wellbeing of autistic individuals and their families amounts to eugenics.

Branded the largest study of autism in the UK, Spectrum 10K which also involves researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) looks to collect questionnaire responses and DNA samples from 10,000 autistic people.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of Cambridges Autism Research Centre and project leader,saidthere is an urgent need to better understand the needs of autistic people.

Spectrum 10K hopes to answer questions such as why some autistic people have epilepsy or poor mental health outcomes and others do not, he added.

Public support

Celebrities are amongst those who have backed the initiative, includingTake Me Outpresenter Paddy McGuinness and conservationist Chris Packham, who is autistic.

Commenting on the study, McGuinness said: As a parent of three autistic children, I am really excited to support Spectrum 10K. This research is important to help us understand what makes every autistic person different, and how best to support them.

Im honoured to be an ambassador of Spectrum 10K because I believe in the value of science to inform and support services that autistic children and adults will need, Packhamwrote on Twitter.

Carrie and David Grant, broadcasters and vocal coaches known for appearing on Fame Academy, are ambassadors of the study.

As parents of four children, two of whom are autistic, we understand it can feel like there are a lot of forms and surveys to fill out with little direct benefit.

With Spectrum 10K there is hope that it could have real impact on health outcomes and the support available for autistic people.

Our passion is to see more being done for girls and women on the spectrum and therefore we ask you to read more about Spectrum 10K and consider taking part.

Charities representing autistic people have also praised the project, with Dr James Cusack, CEO of Autistica, saying that it can enable autistic people ... to build a future where support is tailored to every individuals needs.

Autism Wessexs CEO Sin Cranny added that it opens the door to gathering evidence which can inform the journey towards a world that is more accepting of autism.

Elsewhere, autistic people have also come forward as ambassadors, with Eleanor Macy, an autistic adult who also has ADHD, saying: I believe research like Spectrum 10K will help us understand more about the condition, including the positives which I call our superpowers.

Her daughter Katharine, an autistic PhD student, added: Understanding autism and how it impacts the autistic community is vital and thats why this research is so important to me! Knowing the barriers Ill face in the future will help me better prepare.

However, while the team behind Spectrum 10Krepeatedly insistthat they are not searching for a cure for the condition and that they are ethically opposed to any form of eugenics, concerns have been raised over the security of genetic information and the views of those involved.

Eugenics and cures

Speaking in April 2019, Baron-Cohen toldSpectrum Newsthat theres no way we can ever say that a future political leader or a scientist wont use the research for eugenics.

I think responsible scientists can speak out against that and say, these are the positive reasons for doing [genetics research], he said.

Elsewhere, its been revealed that Daniel Geschwind, co-principal investigator of the Spectrum 10K study, has affiliations with an organisation called Cure Autism Now.

He guided development of the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange, founded by Cure Autism Now, and now a program of Autism Speaks, a biography on UCLAs Center for Autism Research and Treatments websitereads.

In a statement toIndy100, Dr Geschwind said: Cure Autism Now (CAN) was founded by parents of children with autism in the late 90s to fund research and bring attention to autism. CAN was acquired by Autism Speaks and has not existed for over 10 years.

Autism Speaks has been branded a hate group by autistic people, over its stance on finding a cure for autism.

Psychologist Thomas Frazier, who is chief science officer at the organisation, toldNBC Newsin 2019: In the beginning, [researchers] were looking more for the magic bullet, the magic pill. We were looking for the autism gene, and we thought that would ultimately lead to some kind of cure of autism.

Then we recognized that we were way off base.

The group previously included the word cure in its mission statement, before it wasremovedin 2016.

Ina frequently asked questions document, Spectrum 10K researchers confirmed that Autism Speaks is not involved in the project, and they have not spoken to them about it.

Data security

In October 2019,The Times reportedthat Stellenbosch University in South Africa had demanded the Wellcome Sanger Institute returns DNA samples collected from indigenous tribes in the country, amid allegations that they had commercialised the health data.

Vice-Rector Eugene Cloetewarnedthat the institutes conduct raises serious legal and ethical consequences.

The claims wererefutedby the Sanger Institute at the time, who said that two separate investigations found that no wrongdoing took place.

The inaccurate allegations refer to specific research that aimed to support scientific discovery with partners working in Africa. The Sanger Institute has not commercialised any products based on this research and it has not received and will not financially benefit from any revenues, astatementon their website reads.

Concerns have also been raised over Spectrum 10Ksdisclaimerthat in some instances, anonymised data may be shared with commercial collaborators, highly secure research databases or potential academic collaborators.

Because commercial and autism have such great history, one autistic Twitter userwroteon Tuesday.

On the issue of data security, Spectrum 10K said in a document: The data is being securely stored on a University of Cambridge safe haven. Your data will not be sold at any point during or after the study.

Responding to concerns over commercial collaboration, they added: Science discovery and research is a fast-moving area. Some companies either today or in the future may be involved in specific research thats not being conducted in academia.

One such example may be the use of machine learning to identify who responds to what therapies for depression and anxiety, thereby tailoring support for people with depression and anxiety. We do not want to exclude such research from being carried out just because its being carried out by non-academic companies.

All research proposals will go through the same process and be vetted by the internal team as mentioned above.

Early steps and feedback

As well as criticism over its ethics, autistic campaigners previously contacted by Spectrum 10K have spoken out about how their initial concerns were allegedly ignored.

Connor Ward, a YouTube content creator,wrote: They approached me last year wanting me to promo it. I wanted a conversation to voice my concerns. We had that conversation.

They never followed up and today I see they ignored my advisories. They knew a year ago yet chose to ignore.

Fellow YouTuber IndieAndyadded: They also approached me last year and I just left it because it confused me greatly. But also the wording was horrific.

Others have found a job advert for the role of project co-ordinator for Spectrum 10K, posted in May 2019, in which it was said that the study aims to understand the broad heterogeneity within autism that ranges from learning difficulties through to talent.

Pardon? So people with [learning difficulties] cant be talented? Is that the thinking?

What range are we talking about, given that autism is not a learning disability,askedAnn Memmott, an autistic expert.

Elsewhere, a grant for the study, awarded in 2018, explained that researchers will combine [the 10,000 DNA samples] with genetic information from 90,000 other people with autism already gathered from around the world.

This large-scale resource will enable us to identify several genetic variants that contribute to the development of autism. This information will allow us to better understand the biology of autism, improve on existing methods for diagnosing autism and investigate if there are genetically-defined subgroups of people with autism, itreads.

On this point, autistic researcher Melissa Chapplecommented: The community have regularly spoken against subgroups. It doesnt help the lives of autistic people and instead risks dichotomisation and so risks more stigma. Support should be individualised not stereotyped using subgroups.

Wider criticism

Speaking toIndy100, Ellen Jones, an autistic LGBTQ campaigner and writer said: The study claims to be trying to improve quality of life for autistic people, but is seemingly attempting to do this through DNA testing, surveys and accessing our medical records - none of those things actually improve the lives of autistic people.

Autistic quality of life feels like an afterthought - tacked on to distract from the eugenics-esque qualities of the study.

Jones went on to add that in an ideal world there would be nothing wrong with investigating genetics related to autism, but we are currently in a world that actively hates and fears autistic children.

Autistic children are regularly forced to undergo conversion therapies, subjected to treatments including drinking dilute bleach and we cannot forget the anti-vaxx movement pioneered by [Andrew] Wakefield justified itself by ensuring there were fewer autistic people.

We have already seen the impact of Down Syndrome prenatal screenings and many autistic people feel they could be next. The study also makes clear that data can be shared with both academic and commercial interests and given the accusations already lobbied at one of the leaders of the study - the Wellcome Sanger Institute [] we have little hope for the data being managed correctly, she said.

Meanwhile, Jasper Williams, a Deaf and autistic consultant, told us: The researchers are promoting the idea that it will improve the wellbeing of autistic people, but if anything it will be doing the opposite. You dont research a genetic mutation unless you are planning on eradication.

Jones and Williams comments are just two remarks made from autistic activists online, with many sharing their thoughts through the hashtag, #StopSpectrum10K:

Spectrum 10Ks statement

In response to concerns raised throughout this week, Spectrum 10K researchers said in astatement: We understand that some autistic people and their families have concerns over the collection and use of genetic data, which is one part of this study.

We recognise that we need to do more to explain the value of this research, the measures in place to protect your data, and other concerns.

We are actively working with autistic people and will be listening to more autistic voices to address these concerns.

We will update our website and social media as this work progresses, they said.

Go here to see the original:

What is the Spectrum 10K DNA study into autism - and why are autistic people concerned? - indy100

New books from WNC writers to read for National Read a Book Day | AVLtoday – AVLtoday

Photo by @malapropsbookstore

In addition to Labor Day, September brings with it another 1 of the AVLtoday teams favorite holidays: National Read a Book Day. Taking place Mon., Sept. 6, its a day to unplug, pick up a book + indulge in the joy of reading. To help you along, were highlighting 5 new releases penned by WNC authors.

The Wind Under the Door by Thomas Calder I Release date: March 21, 2021 I Set in Asheville, the debut novel from the editor of alt-weekly Mountain Xpress explores an artists chance romance thats complicated by the arrival of long-estranged folks from both parties pasts.

The Moonshiner Popcorn Sutton by Neal Hutcheson by Neal Hutcheson I Release date: Apr. 2, 2021 I While author and documentary filmmaker Hutcheson is based in Raleigh, were including him for this extensive portrait of the legendary Haywood County moonshiner that features photos, essays + interviews. Bonus: Theres a foreword from Jackson County-based author David Joy.

And the Crows Took Their Eyes by Vicki Lane I Release date: Oct. 16, 2020 I Madison County-based mystery writer Vicki Lane explores the 1863 Shelton Laurel Massacre, a Confederate execution of 13 Madison County men accused of being Union sympathizers, from the perspective of 5 witnesses.

Murder at Ashevilles Battery Park Hotel: The Search for Helen Clevengers Killer by Anne Chesky Smith I Release date: July 26, 2021 I The result of nearly a decades worth of research, this work from local author Smith examines the shockingl 1936 shooting of an Asheville teen that made national headlines.

My Mistress Eyes are Black by Terry Roberts I Release date: July 27, 2021 I The 4th work from the award-winning, Weaverville-based author is a quintessential murder mystery that includes significant historic themes, like white supremacy + the eugenics movement.

Follow this link:

New books from WNC writers to read for National Read a Book Day | AVLtoday - AVLtoday

Op-Ed: Eugenics is making a comeback. Resist, before …

Provided by The LA Times President Trump speaks at a campaign rally Sept. 18 in Bemidji, Minn., where he made remarks espousing eugenics. (Associated Press)

Politicians often flatter their audiences, but at a rally in Bemidji, Minn., last month, President Trump found an unusual thing to praise about the nearly all-white crowd: its genetics. You have good genes, he insisted. A lot of it is about the genes, isnt it, dont you believe? The racehorse theory. You have good genes in Minnesota.

In case it was not clear from the sea of white faces that he was making a point about race, Trump later said the quiet part out loud. Every family in Minnesota needs to know about Sleepy Joe Bidens extreme plan to flood your state with an influx of refugees from Somalia, from other places all over the planet, he declared.

Trumps ugly endorsement of race-based eugenics got national attention, but in a presidency filled with outrages, our focus quickly moved to the next. Besides, this wasnt the first time wed heard about these views. A "Frontline" documentary reported in 2016 that Trump believed the racehorse theory of human development that he referred to in Minnesota that superior men and women will have superior children. That same year, the Huffington Post released a video collecting Trumps statements on human genetics, including his declarations that Im a gene believer and Im proud to have that German blood.

On eugenics, as in so many areas, the scariest thing about Trumps views is not the fact that he holds them, but that there is no shortage of Americans who share them. The United States has a long, dark history with eugenics. Starting in 1907, a majority of states passed laws authorizing the sterilization of people deemed to have undesirable genes, for reasons as varied as feeblemindedness and alcoholism. The Supreme Court upheld these laws by an 8-1 vote, in the infamous 1927 case Buck vs. Bell, and as many as 70,000 Americans were sterilized for eugenic reasons in the 20th century.

Americas passion for eugenics waned after World War II, when Nazism discredited the idea of dividing people based on the quality of their genes. But in recent years, public support for eugenics has made a comeback. Steve King, a Republican congressman from Iowa, tweeted in 2017, We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies. The comment struck many as a claim that American children were genetically superior, though King later insisted he was concerned with the culture, not the blood of foreign babies.

Eugenics has also had a resurgence in England, where the movement was first launched in the 1880s by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In February, Andrew Sabisky, an advisor to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, resigned after it was revealed that he had reportedly written blog posts suggesting that there are genetic differences in intelligence among races, and that compulsory contraception could be used to prevent the rise of a permanent underclass. Richard Dawkins, one of Britains most prominent scientists, added fuel to the fire by tweeting that although eugenics could be criticized on moral or ideological grounds, of course it would work in practice. Eugenics works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses, he said. Why on earth wouldnt it work for humans?

There is reason to believe the eugenics movement will continue to grow. Americas first embrace of it came at a time when immigration levels were high, and it was closely tied to fears that genetically inferior foreigners were hurting the nations gene pool. Eugenicists persuaded Congress to pass the Immigration Act of 1924, which sharply reduced the number of Italian, Jewish and Asian people allowed in.

Today, the percentage of Americans who were born outside the United States is the highest it has been since 1910, and fear of immigrants is again an animating force in politics. As our nation continues to become more diverse, the sort of xenophobia that fueled Trump's and Kings comments is likely to produce more talk of better genes and babies.

It is critically important to push back against these toxic ideas. One way to do this is by ensuring that people who promote eugenics are denounced and kept out of positions of power. It is encouraging that Sabisky was forced out and that King was defeated for reelection in his Republican primary in June. Hopefully, Trump will be the next to go.

Education, including an honest reckoning with our own tragic eugenics history, is another form of resistance. It is starting to happen: Stanford University just announced that it is removing the name of its first president, David Starr Jordan, a leading eugenicist, from campus buildings, and that it will actively work to better explain his legacy. We need more of this kind of self-scrutiny from universities like Harvard, Yale and many others that promoted eugenics and pseudo race science, as well as institutions like the American Museum of Natural History, which in 1921 hosted the Second International Eugenics Congress, at which eugenicists advocated for eliminating the unfit.

Trumps appalling remarks in Minnesota show how serious the situation is now. Seventy-five years after the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, a United States president not only spoke about good genes in racialized terms he believed that his observations would help him to win in the relatively liberal state of Minnesota. It is crucial that everyone who understands the horrors of eugenics works to defeat these views before they become any more popular.

Adam Cohen, a former member of the New York Times editorial board, is the author of "Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck" and, this year, "Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Courts Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America."

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

See the rest here:

Op-Ed: Eugenics is making a comeback. Resist, before ...

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics | History …

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminatedmillions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior--the so-called "unfit." The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "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 of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

Hitler's struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term "Nordic" was freely exchanged with "Germanic" or "Aryan." Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler's Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler's war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rdin. Rdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, "While we were pussy-footing aroundthe Germans were calling a spade a spade."

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmfhrer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsfhrer [Himmler]."

Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science it helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Verschuer wrote back, "Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation."

Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950, the University of Mnster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics' genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. Now governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On October 14, America's first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation's law can stop the threats.

This article was first published in the San Francisco Chronicle and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Read the original here:

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics | History ...

What the Public Gets Wrong About "Reason-Based" Abortion Bans – Ms. Magazine

In a post-Dobbs world, previability abortion might be even more restrictedor not exist at all. So-called eugenic prohibitions will be the first past the constitutional post.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, a case that will decide whether restrictions that states place on previability abortions are constitutional. Much commentary has focused on the real possibility the court will overturn Roe v. Wade. Less attention has been paid to another, potentially more likely outcome: The court could uphold Roeand preserve constitutional protection for abortionbut create exceptions for previability bans. Indeed, thats similar to what happened in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a decision in which the court preserved constitutional abortion rights, yet rejected Roes trimester framework and weakened protections for those rights.

Over the last year, states have enacted numerous previability restrictions: Texas just passed a law banning abortions at six weeks, to take one example. A different law that applies before viability has received less press, but is increasingly popular with anti-abortion legislators. Twenty states have adopted laws that prohibit abortions performed because of the fetuss sex, race or disability. In a post-Dobbs world, where some previability abortion bans are permissible, these so-called eugenic prohibitions will be the first past the constitutional post.

Federal appellate courts are split on the constitutionality of reason-based bans after the Sixth Circuit upheld Ohios law prohibition on abortion because of a Down syndrome diagnosis. Reason-based bans apply throughout pregnancy, but Ohios law responds specifically to innovations in early prenatal genetic testing. With a non-invasive prenatal test, patients can detect a limited number of conditions, including Down syndrome, with a blood test administered during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The new conservative majority Supreme Court is poised to decide the question of whether a state can vet someones reason to end a pregnancy.In a 2019 concurring opinion, Justice Thomas, writing about a race-based ban, opined that to uphold such a law would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. Essentially, Justice Thomas argued that anti-abortion laws are on the side of equality and justice. And an increasing segment of the public appears to agree. Reason-based bans like Ohios make sense to people as the most recent Gallup poll reports. Almost 50 percent of people responded that abortions because of a Down syndrome diagnosis should be illegal.

That the Supreme Court might allow states to make criminals out of health professionals and possibly patients who choose to end a previability pregnancy is startling. But what is also troubling is how popular opinion favors substituting the states judgment for that of the pregnant person, at least in certain circumstances.Moreover, the polls question, as well as public discourse, doesnt capture the complexity of the issues individuals face when their fetus is diagnosed with a genetic anomaly or another condition. Just asking whether abortion should be legal or illegal ignores how contextwhat support or needs does a pregnant person have or the stage of pregnancyshapes abortion decisions.

Whether or not people feel equipped to raise and the meet the needs of children is something only they can discern. But in the case of prenatal diagnosis and abortion, new technology and states abortion animus are on a collision course. On the one hand, pregnant people are encouraged to learn as much about their pregnancies as early as possible. On the other, states are legislating to bar what people do with that information.

Perhaps more saliently, criminalizing choice does not create the conditions for racial, gender and disability equality. And policing pregnant peoples decisions does not result in deeper inclusivity or greater acceptance of and support for people with Down syndrome, for instance. To the contrary, reason-based bans do nothing to assist potential parents and ignore the many considerations that drive peoples decisions to raise a child.

Instead, these laws incrementally advance an agenda of ending legal abortion for all reasons. Equating decisions to terminate a pregnancy with the state-sponsored eugenics gives cold comfort to anyone who receives a diagnosis of fetal impairment and further stigmatizes their choices. And make no mistake, there will be more reason-based bans: not being able to afford another child or the interruption of other life plans will be next on the chopping block, denounced as frivolous in comparison to an alleged state interest in protecting potential life or the health of the pregnant person.

Drawing the line for abortion restrictions at viability always has been a constitutional compromise; one that protected early abortion in exchange for recognizing that states could limit patients decision-making at some point in a pregnancy. Post-Dobbs, previability abortion might be even more restrictedor not exist at all. In either scenario, nationwide rights to abortion could be established by federal law.

One such proposal is the Womens Health Protection Act, which soon will be introduced in Congress. The legislation would preempt state laws that ban abortion before viability and prohibit reason-based bans specifically. We may not be able to count on the Supreme Court to protect abortion rights. But we should demand laws more in step with peoples lived realities from our legislators.

Up next:

If you found this articlehelpful,please consider supporting our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

Read this article:

What the Public Gets Wrong About "Reason-Based" Abortion Bans - Ms. Magazine

EDITORIAL: NFL, at last, comes to realization that ‘race-norming’ should be discontinued – York Dispatch

YORK DISPATCH EDITORIAL BOARD Published 1:00 a.m. ET June 9, 2021

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell(Photo: Luis M. Alvarez, AP)

The National Football League has finally seen the light.

Its just too bad that it took an avalanche of bad publicity for Commissioner Roger Goodell and the league to finally reverse course on race-norming.

For those who missed it, the NFL has promised to end the controversial practice, which assumed Black players started out with a lower level of cognitive function. That assumption made it harder for Black NFL retirees to prove that they qualified for payouts in the 2017 $1 billion-plus concussion settlement.

The NFL only made the decision after a pair of Black players filed a civil rights lawsuit over the practice, medical experts raised concerns and a group of NFL families last month dropped 50,000 petitions at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia where the lawsuit had been thrown out by the judge overseeing the settlement.

Race-norming sounds like something from the long-disgraced eugenics movement that aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior, while promoting those judged to be superior.

The NFL said in a statement that no actual discrimination took place in the administration of the settlement and that the race-norming practice was never mandatory, but left to the discretion of doctors taking part in the settlement program.

That sounds very much like double talk.

How the NFL couldve considered the use of race-norming under any circumstances in a league that is 74% Black is almost mind boggling.

Harry Edwards(Photo: Josie Lepe, AP)

Edwards weighs in: Harry Edwards, a noted sociologist and a longtime staff consultant for the San Francisco 49ers, has spent 50 years studying the intersection of sports and society.

He rightly called the race-norming practice by the NFL ridiculous, asinine and almost comedic. He added that its morally unconscionable, politically unsustainable and legally indefensible.

Thats quite a condemnation from a man who has long ties to the NFL.

Checkered history: Of course, the NFLs history with race relations is checkered at best.

Heres just a recent example.

Quarterback Colin Kaepernick led the San Francisco 49ers to a Super Bowl, but still cant even get a tryout for an NFL job. Tim Tebow, meanwhile, was a first-round bust, but is still getting an NFL opportunity with the Jacksonville Jaguars at age 33 despite not playing in the league for more than six years.

Like what you're reading?: Not a subscriber? Click here for full access to The York Dispatch.

Kaepernick is Black and well known for social activism, especially his decision to kneel for the national anthem. Tebow is white and a beloved figure in Florida, where he starred for the Florida Gators.

History of foot-dragging: Then theres the NFLs foot-dragging when it came to the concussion issue in the first place.

The NFL spent years denying any link between head injuries suffered while playing football with long-term brain disorders.

Finally, in the 2017 concussion settlement, the league caved in to the obvious football is a violent, collision sport that will lead to concussions, which can leave permanent brain damage.

The NFL likes to bill itself as an organization that is ahead of the curve on the issue of social justice. But when given the opportunity to act on those supposed beliefs, the league has repeatedly failed to act in an appropriate and timely manner.

At least the NFL has finally come to the realization that race-norming has no place in the concussion settlement.

Its just unfortunate that it took the league so long to see the light.

Read or Share this story: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2021/06/09/editorial-nfl-finally-reverses-course-race-norming/7602003002/

Read more:

EDITORIAL: NFL, at last, comes to realization that 'race-norming' should be discontinued - York Dispatch

NFL agrees to end ‘race-norming’ – MSR News Online

Facebook Twitter LinkedInReddit EmailPrint

The practice disadvantaged Black players seeking injury settlements

Last week the NFL called for an end to what has been referred to as race-norming in determining settlement payments for players who suffered debilitating brain injuries as a result of their time in the league. The decision came after a mainstream news special, a lawsuit by two Black players, and more than a dozen wives of Black retired players organizing and sending the judge presiding over the settlement a petition with nearly 50,000 signatures calling for an end to race-norming.

Doctors had denied Black players compensation because they assumed that Black players started with less cognitive brain function than their White teammates. In other words, the Black players were considered less intelligent. For Black players to qualify for settlement relief they must have had an even greater reduction in cognitive brain function than their fellow White players.

Race-norming is the practice of adjusting test scores to account for the race or ethnicity of the test-taker. Its morally unconscionable, most certainly politically unsustainable, and legally indefensible, said sports sociologist Harry Edwards in an LA Times interview upon hearing the news that the NFL is eliminating race-based norms in their evaluation of players seeking compensation for their injuries sustained while in the league.

You cant have 74% of the players in the league Black, but when it comes to actually being able to claim access to funds resulting from brain damage, dementia, CTE, other kind of cognitive-deficit-inducing conditions that are directly related to football, all of a sudden theres a different standard for them. Theres a presumption that they [Blacks] come in at a cognitively lower ranking.

The NFL in its defense said there was no discrimination and that if there was it had been based on individual doctors evaluations of testing scores. We are committed to eliminating race-based norms in the program and more broadly in the neuropsychological community, wrote the NFL in a statement, while maintaining that no such discrimination took place in the administration of the settlement.

However, the civil rights suit brought by Najeh Davenport and Kevin Henry alleged that they had been denied compensation for their brain injuries because of their race. When they use a different scale for African Americans versus any other race, thats literally the definition of systematic racism, said Davenport.

Cyril Smith, a lawyer for Henry and Davenport, asserted that White players dementia claims were being approved at two to three times the rate of those of Black players. But Smith was unable to substantiate his claim because, he said, Seeger and the NFL had not shared any data on the approval rates for dementia claims by White and Black players.

The presumed effort to defraud Black players of their share of money promised to all players who suffered brain injury harkens back to pseudoscience and old fashioned eugenics of the late 19th century that attempted to use science to defend White Supremacy.

The tests assume that Black players have lower cognitive function at baseline. The NFL has defended the practice in the past saying this was based on long-established tests and widely accepted scoring methodologies, but theres no scientific evidence to show that Black patients have lower cognitive function, of course, said Massachusetts General Hospital resident physician Dr. Darshali Vyas. And its at odds with all of our genetic understanding of race to begin with.

More than 7,000 former NFLers took the free neuropsychological and neurological exams offered in the settlement. There are no clear numbers on how many Black players were denied settlement compensation because of the bias in the testing. Evaluations were given, but many of the players apparently do not know how they actually scored on their exams.

More here:

NFL agrees to end 'race-norming' - MSR News Online

Erika DeBenedictis and the Cost of Playing God – Discovery Institute

Photo: Erika DeBenedictis, via YouTube (screenshot).

Erika DeBenedictis is not a mad scientist. Shes the class nerd who made good photogenic, articulate, driven, and full of ambition to leave the world a better place than she found it. When it comes to her specialty of bio-engineering, she means that quite literally: She can make the world a better place, right down to the design of our own genes.In her TEDx talk, Its Time for Intelligent Design, which biochemist andEvolution NewswriterEmily Reevesbroke down recently in a carefully detailed series, DeBenedictis encourages people to not be as timid as all that as they approach the world as-is. It is beautiful, yes, but its not perfect. Far from it.

This is where DeBenedictis comes in, or hopes to anyway. But she knows what youre thinking. She knows the free-association that goes on in peoples heads when they hear a phrase like gene editing. Probably your mind is already getting carried away with icky things like eugenics, designer babies, creating kids who are tall and blond and good at basketball, etc., etc. But she wants to assure you thatthisis not atalllikethat. What she has in mind would only ever be used ethically and would only ever be used in carefully controlled ways to effect carefully controlled solutions to human suffering. Because thats what everyone would want to use it for, right?

What could possibly go wrong?

I wont recap the splendid work Emily Reeves has already done here dissecting the TEDx talk from a scientific angle. Read her entire series under the Erika DeBenedictis tag here. Its highly instructive. Reeves, like DeBenedictis herself, is a recently minted science PhD. She politely but perceptively lays out weakness after weakness in Erikas thesis. Underlying it all is the fact that DeBenedictis has simply begged the question on the nature of biological design, or lack thereof. Her thesis is that Since all this [gestures] came about over 4 billion years of random chance, we should expect to find bugs in the system. So lets get debugging.

There are a lot of angles from which to attack this, and Reeves covers many of them. Theres the very fact that in talking about bugs in the system, were acknowledging a system to begin with. Theres the fact that since natural selection is supposed to select things for a reason, from the mainstream scientists own perspective theres a reason to have a care before assuming something thats survived this long must be a glitch. Reeves even finds papers in the literature that discuss the very example DeBenedictis raises in her video, the puzzle of the INK4a/ARF overlap, speculating openly about alternative explanations.

In listening to rhetoric like Erikas, Im always put in mind of someone opening up the tower-case of a computer, disassembling it, and nonchalantly planning which bits hes going to leave out when he reassembles it, since he can clearly perceive theyre not needed. We would fire any such technician on the spot, because it is obvious that the tower-case has been designed the way it is, with the parts it has, for a purpose. The analogy makes itself. DeBenedictis wants to fix broken stuff. But how does the saying go? If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Dr. He Jiankui didnt think he was a mad scientist either. He just wanted to help HIV+ couples have babies without fear of passing on the curse of their infection. Do you see your friends or relatives who may have a disease? They need help, Jiankui said at a summit in Hong Kong, rising nervously to present his research. For millions of families with inherited disease or infectious disease, if we have this technology we can help them. Thats all he wants to help. Who could blame him for that?

Almost everyone, in fact. The Center for Genetics and Societytraces the whole saga, quoting peer after peer who came forward to condemn Jiankui for his reckless malpractice after it was discovered he had attempted to edit the genomes of twin baby girls. Well intentioned or not, it was rogue work, with all manner of potential complications (because, as you may have noticed, our genomes are slightly complicated). Thats the thing about roads paved with good intentions: They can still lead somewhere you very much dont want to go.

But as we all know, or at least all of us except Erika DeBenedictis, not everyones intentions are good. There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that powerful bio-tech will never be turned to purposes with far more deliberate bad consequences than the purposes of a reckless young rogue scientist. Just have a look at some of the people watching him from the sidelines as quoted in the CGS report, saying at worst he had a too-fast trigger finger. As Jordan Peterson loves to point out, plenty of Marxists were well intentioned, too. They were usually the first ones to be shot and replaced.

Dr. Jiankuis experiment didnt even succeed on its own terms. One of the twins was still vulnerable to HIV+ even after his attempt to edit her genome. This led some to question his choice to implant both embryos at all. Why choose this [failed] embryo? asked Seoul National University geneticist Jin-Soo Kim at the Hong Kong summit. It just doesnt make sense scientifically.

Translation: The scientific thing to do was to scrap the embryo, like all failed experiments. To quote Audrey Hepburns French cooking school instructor in the classic Hollywood movieSabrina, New egg! The irony is rich: Here he was in fact cooperating with the parents in the one ethical element of this whole affair, taking responsibility for both the lives created in the process, and yet this in itself drew criticism.

But this shouldnt surprise. After all, creating and disposing of failed embryonic experiments is already routine practice in our nations labs, at least up to 14 days when the neural system begins to grow, at which point scientistsare nowallowed to keep experimenting, actually, as of last month. So there went that particular arbitrary barrier. One down, who knows how many more to go? (Of course,Natureassures us that new ISSCR guidelines will allow more extended experimentation on a case-by-case basis, subject to several phases of review. As Wesley Smithputs it atNational Review, Ri-i-i-i-ight.)

Meanwhile,Forbesreportsthat the U.S. Senate has just killed legislation that would have banned taxpayer-funded human-chimera experiments. Whether true chimeras are an actual physical/metaphysical possibility is a fascinating question, deserving its own discussion, but whats not in question is the fact that any such experiment beginning with a human embryo is unethical out of the gate. Yet its clear that enough scientists are eager to get experimenting that the pressure was enough to kill the bill. But remember, Erika DeBenedictis assures us we can trust scientists. Theyre only trying to help.

I am sure Dr. DeBenedictis is trying to help. I am far less confident that her conception of helping wont lead to hurting, even on its own terms. And when it comes to the cost of playing with life in the lab, that tally counter isnt stopping. It never has stopped. It never will.

Read the original:

Erika DeBenedictis and the Cost of Playing God - Discovery Institute

Defective History | Arts and Culture – Style Weekly

Between 1927 and 1979, more than 8,000 people were involuntarily sterilized in five hospitals across Virginia. They were a result of the 1924 Sterilization Act, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court three years later. Rather than the misguided initiative of well-meaning men of the day, the states eugenics program was many things: a manifestation of white supremacy, a form of employment insurance, a means of controlling troublesome women, and a philosophy that helped remove poor people from valuable land.

When author and historian Elizabeth Catte researched her new book Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia, she realized just how much eugenic sterilization in Virginia had been used as a method of control. Despite its purported reason, which used language about what it termed hereditary defectives, the law arrived at a moment when powerful people were attempting to steer the state toward a more modern version of itself.

The problem is that these powerful people didnt want a complete break from the past, she explains, citing how those in power wanted to preserve a society that condemned Black people as biologically inferior where power followed bloodlines and women were relegated to subordinates. Eugenics allowed these older beliefs to feel modern and scientifically validated. Cattes book is the subject of her upcoming online talk at the Library of Virginia.

Under Virginias Sterilization Act, the state ordered the sterilization of anyone committed to a state institution who was deemed a mental defective, as well as people afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy. This criteria cast an intentionally large net over the states residents, while the umbrella of feeble-mindedness was often applied to unwed mothers, teenage runaways and the poor.

What surprised Catte most, after extensive research at the Library of Virginia and the University of Virginia Special Collections, was that sterilization in Virginia wasnt just a method employed to prevent future births. It also functioned like a kind of employment insurance, particularly when it came to young women. If unable to become pregnant, the thinking went, these young women would be better suited to serve as menial workers. Families in Virginia could apply to state hospitals to receive sterilized young women as domestic workers and be assured that pregnancy wouldnt interrupt their employment or create a potential scandal.

Eugenic sterilization was practiced at all five of Virginias state psychiatric facilities: Eastern State, Western State, Southwestern State, the former Lynchburg State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded and Central State, the only facility for Black patients at the time. In the early 20th century, the patient populations began to grow exponentially because the countrys population was also growing, lifespans were getting longer and local communities had begun to chafe at the expenses they incurred helping the elderly, poor or disabled survive.

Growth of patients meant growth of the hospitals physical environments as well, including large agricultural operations needed to supply food and other commodities for the hospitals. Although eugenic sterilization was seen as a means to decrease patient populations, the reality was that didnt happen.

The book makes a case for the states eugenics program having contributed to the inequalities of today. One example among many is the fact that its legal today for employers to pay disabled workers less than minimum wage and to base their compensation on perceived productivity, Catte explains. Its still perfectly legal for an employer to compare a disabled workers productivity to their nondisabled coworker and adjust the disabled workers wage down accordingly.

In Virginias eugenics era, state leaders used mathematical formulas to determine how much labor could be extracted from its unfit residents as a public good.

Its hard not to see the shadow of those ideas today in debates about work requirements, public assistance and how unproductive people must earn back their right to survive.

The legacy of eugenic sterilization programs can also be felt today in the reluctance on the part of some people of color to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

What I can say in the context of my work is that eugenic beliefs did sometimes translate into unethical medical experiments, perhaps most notoriously in the Tuskegee syphilis study, which was masterminded by eugenicists trained at the University of Virginia, Catte says. But those connections are only a small facet of the larger story of medical racism in the United States.

Author Elizabeth Catte presents a virtual talk Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia, at the Library of Virginia on Thursday, Feb. 25, at 6 p.m. Register at lva.virginia.gov.

Visit link:

Defective History | Arts and Culture - Style Weekly

Yes, eliminating people with Down syndrome really is a kind of eugenics MercatorNet – MercatorNet

A recently released study finds that Europe has reduced the number of babies born with Down syndrome by 54 percent. In 2016, the same researchers found that the US rate of Down syndrome births had declined by 33 percent. Some friends and colleagues have asked me whether such reductions, which entail prenatal diagnosis and electivepregnancytermination, mean that we are still practicing some form of eugenics.

Down syndrome is a genetic disorder usually associated with an extra copy of chromosome 21 hence its other name, trisomy-21. Children with Down syndrome generally exhibit growth delays, reducedintelligence, and a shortened life span of around 60 years. The risk of having a baby with Down syndrome increases with parental age. When prenatal testing reveals the diagnosis, some parents, including apparently many in Europe and the US, elect to terminate the pregnancy.

The widely-shared belief that people with Down syndrome cannot have children is mistaken. Fertility rates across the board for individuals with Down syndrome are lower and much lower in men than in women but babies have been born to both fathers and mothers with the condition. Unless efforts are made to reduce the risk, such as prenatal testing and selective pregnancy termination, about 50 percent of babies born to a Down syndrome parent will have it.

Having the disorder carries many health consequences. On average, adults with Down syndrome have the mental ability of an 8-year-old, and later in life the risk ofdementiais greatly increased. The condition also increases the risk of conditions such assleep apnea, spinal cord injury, thyroid problems, heart disease, leukemia, and even diseases of the teeth and gums.

Yet some people with Down syndrome have earned university degrees, performed on multiple instruments at Carnegie Hall, designed successful fashion collections, served in public office, won awards for playwriting and acting, and, as recently as November of last year, completed the Ironman triathlon.

In 2017, a Special Olympian testified before Congress,

I am not a research scientist. However, no one knows more about life with Down syndrome than I do. I am a man with Down syndrome and my life is worth living. I completely understand that people pushing this particular final solution are saying that people like me should not exist. But seriously, I have a great life!

Eugenics

The Greek roots of eugenics simply mean well born, and adherents believe that humanity can be biologically enhanced by controlling reproduction. Francis Galton, who coined the term, intended it to refer to all agencies under human control which can impair or improve the racial quality of future generations. The use of the termracialshould not be ignored, as many eugenicists have also held racist views. A century ago, eugenics programs focused onmarriageprohibitions and forced sterilisation.

The first sterilisation law was passed in the state of Indiana in 1907. Along with confirmed criminals and rapists, it targeted idiots and imbeciles. As amended in 1927, it eliminated criminals, focusing instead on the insane, feeble minded, and epileptic. The law specified that two surgeons should examine each case, and if they determined that sterilisation would benefit society, they were authorised to proceed.

Between the Indiana laws enactment and its 1974 repeal, about 2,500 people were sterilised, including roughly equal numbers of women and men. People who supported the law at the time saw it as another means to reduce disease and poverty, helping to ensure that high birth rates among the unfit did not impose an undue burden on society.

Such policies took an even more sinister turn in Nazi Germany. Initially, programs focused on segregating, institutionalizing, and sterilizing the mentally ill and physically and mentally disabled, but the program progressed to systematic killing with poison gas, paving the way for extermination programs targeting homosexuals and racial groups such as Jews and Roma.

No one should underestimate the complexity and difficulty of deciding whether to test for Down syndrome or terminate a pregnancy. A host of considerations are often involved, such as family circumstances, socioeconomic status, and religious affiliation. Some people are relatively well-equipped to welcome a Down syndrome child into their family, while others are not. Those grappling with such choices often suffer mightily.

Yet those who opt to test and decide to terminate should be clear on one thing: They are tinkering with who is born and who isnt, and they are doing so based ongenes. My wife and I faced a similar choice when we had a child in our 40s, electing not to test. In some cases of Down syndrome, such a life would have been marked by severe disability and early death, but in other cases, the outcome might have been quite different.

The point is not that parents facing perhaps the most difficult decision of their lives should be branded eugenicists, but simply to indicate that despite protests to the contrary, eugenics has not been fully consigned to historys dustbin. As a society, we are still deciding who is and is not born based on genes, and the decisions we make shape humanity not just into the next generation, but generations to come.

This article has been republished, with the authors permission, from Psychology Today.

Read this article:

Yes, eliminating people with Down syndrome really is a kind of eugenics MercatorNet - MercatorNet

‘Belly of the Beast’ Film Highlights Ongoing Issue of Illegal Sterilization in CA State Prisons – The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

By Sally Kim, Lisbeth Martine, Alex Morgan, Esha Kher

CALIFORNIA Belly of the Beast, a groundbreaking film by Ericka Cohn, was virtually screened by If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice this past week, exposing patterns of illegal sterilizations, modern-day eugenics and reproductive injustice in California prisons.

This was filmed over the course of 10 years and put together within seven. The film covers the story of a woman who was involuntarily sterilized at a facility, who then teamed up with a lawyer to stop the reproductive and human rights violations occurring in California.

A statewide investigation to uncover the crimes targeted against women of color and the inadequate healthcare provided to sexual assault and illegal sterilization causes was conducted. The film includes intimate accounts from formerly incarcerated women in one of the largest womens prisons in the world.

In speaking to the difficulties of gaining access to prison staff and people in the prison system who were able to come forward to expose sterilizations, Cohn recounts an instance where a nurse at an immigration detention center trying to expose illegal mass hysterectomies faced retaliation every step of the way and had a fear of losing pensions or facing retaliation for coming forward.

Cohn was overwhelmed by the reach and impact the film had among prisons. She knew that it had to reach people in California womens prisons across the country, but we had no idea that it would be reaching people in mens prisons, in federal prisons.

She said it took a lot of people to shine a light on this issue and coalition building was of the utmost importanceyou have the journalism reporting aspect, the legal advocates, the survivors who are doing the peer to peer human rights documentation work inside prison.

(C)ross collaboration pushes this momentum forward so that there is accountability so that these human rights abuses dont continue to happen, added Cohn. We have the CA Latinos for reproductive justice collaborating with the CA coalition for women prisons collaborating with the disability rights and education defense fund collaborating with our filmmaking team.

Cohn touches on the relationship between lack of educational resources and informed consent among prisoners, explaining when someone is in prison, they dont have access to Google like we do, and their only sources of information are doctors.

And since in prison, the doctors are employed by the prison theres no separation, you dont get access to someone who is unaffiliated with the prison. Its near impossible to obtain informed consent, she said.

The doctors do not ethically or morally question all of this, and allow the procedure to take place. Although these procedures did not take place at the prison, sterilization procedures need a lot of approval to have women go to an outside contracted facility, Cohn noted, and these hospitals and medical care are complicit in it.

Kate Panze, hosting the virtual screening, noted that this film depicts how illegal it is, as well as an ongoing issue. After the screening, the films director joined to answer a Q&A regarding the content of the documentary.

This film will be both difficult to watch and inspiring, Panze stressed.

Kelli Dillon, a main protagonist in the documentary, was given 15 years in prison at the age of 19 for shooting and killing her husband. Dillon shares that the hardest part when taken into custody was being separated from her children, even though she was acting out of protection as a victim of domestic violence.

The worst was yet to come when she was imprisoned at the worlds largest womens prison located in Central California.

A few years after being imprisoned, Dillon began to experience symptoms like abdominal pain. Dillon asserts that she was told she had an abnormal pap smear, resulting in her needing a cone biopsy in order to see if there are signs of cancer.

Do you want any more children? doctors asked her. Dillon responded yes because she was looking forward to forming part of a healthy relationship and raising more children, because she felt that her sentence had robbed her from having that chance.

Doctors proceeded to get Dillons consent to have a hysterectomy only if cancer was found.

When I came out I felt like something was wrong, she said, and added she asked her doctor if she could still have children and he responded, Yeah, I dont see why not.

Cynthia Chandler, justice attorney and founder of Justice Now, says that she was receiving letters from an overwhelming number of prisoners every month about the horrible medical abuses taking place with prison. At Justice Now, they had received a letter from Kelli Dillon that they deemed very troubling.

Nine months after surgery, Dillon had begun to feel surgical menopause symptoms, such as late periods, heart palpitations, and severe weight loss.

After being advised to ask for her medical records, Chandler and Dillon found out that she was lied to and intentionally sterilized after agreeing to have a hysterectomy only if she had cancer. And Dillon did not have cancer.

According to Chandler, women prisons in California have had a horrific track record of medical care. For instance, Dillon began noticing while she was imprisoned that other women were having the same symptoms as herself after having the same surgery she was told to have. Many women were given different diagnoses, and all of them were sterilized without their consent.

Dillon became the first sterilization victim to sue for damages, holding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) accountable. The trial hearing was in front of a predominantly white jury, and they believed the doctors versions of events.

I was looking at these documents that were confirming that as a black woman, my lifedidnt mean anything, it had no purpose, Kelli exclaimed.

According to Chandler, federal and state laws prohibit sterilizing people in prison for the purpose of birth control. However, the prison system was still doing it anyway, especially after women inmates go into labor and delivery during their imprisonment.

In California, the state was in a league of its own when it comes to eugenics during modern-day. A report documents that 20,000 people were sterilized in the state, more than any other state in the country.

It became evident that sterilization was used as a form of birth control on women of color in order to drop the number of minority populations.

Women inmates share that doctors were very unprofessional and unsanitary when it came to treating pregnant patients. In addition, there were doctors that would become insistent on women using sterilization as a form of birth control if they had returned to prison pregnant for a second time.

Between 2006 and 2010, about 150 women were illegally sterilized by being pressured by doctors into tubal ligations while being heavily sedated on the operating table.

The fact that we are in the 21st century and we have to ask our state auditor to see if women in California are being coercively sterilized is revolting, exclaimed Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson.

The Department of Corrections and the Receivers (appointed and responsible for managing all medical programs and their related costs) claimed that usually there was very little personal knowledge on the part of prison administrators of what was going on.

Its my understanding that many of these did have some kind of consent at the outside doctor because these procedures are performed in a community facility just so that its clear. They are not performed at the institution, said Kathleen Allison of CDCR.

Joyce Hayhoe of the California Prison Health Care Services explained how doctors statewide felt for whatever reason that it was being sanctioned by the department.

Clark Kelso, a federal Receiver, said there may be doctors who arent aware of the policy or the federal law issue, noting, I can well imagine an outside physician in good faith thinking that this is a matter of reproductive autonomy, not knowing about the conversation that has been going on about the inability to give valid consent in prison.

For inmates to sign consent is a really big deal because they are seen as a ward of the court and not really being allowed to enter into contracts.

There shouldve been a red flag when the billing department received those bills but, Kelso continued, explaining that when he entered the Receivership in 2008 they did not use standard medical billing codes so there was no easy way for them to know they were paying for these surgeries.

This explanation was not believable, because all the documents and paperwork that go into medical procedures are expansive, as a former OB nurse attested to the fact that everything went through a committee and was documented as to why it was necessary.

By the time Dr. Heinrich was hired, sterilization practices had been going on for years at multiple prisons. He strongly believed that there were women who were gaming the system and needed to be stopped.

This attitude tracked precisely to the historical attitude of the California leaders of the eugenics movementthey had always used cost benefit as justification for why they were doing what they were doing.

Senator Jackson attended Dillons hearing even though she wasnt even on the committee.

She explained how sterilization has been illegal since 1979 and many assumed it had ended at that time. Her new bill, SB 1135, was to make it very clear that doctors cannot perform these procedures in prison because even nurses were not aware they were illegal.

At the time Dillon was imprisoned, she had less than a year left to obtain her Associates Degree for Social Studies. She wanted to work with battered women and troubled young teen girls.

Dillon appeared on a radio show called The Dialogue, where it was revealed that 92 percent of women are in prison for domestic violence.

Kelli explained on the show that she had already been sexually assaulted and held hostage at home for three days and beaten. Yet, when she called the police, their response was, You dont look like a victim.

The American College Of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposed the bill because they believed by completely taking away sterilization, they are taking away womens right to consent to a procedure.

This was a surprise because very few of their members, let alone their leadership, work in prisons. Their opposition created a tremendous obstacle for this bill.

Prisoners have said that asking people in prison to make a decision like Dillons is not the best idea because people have total control over them and if they dont follow the rule or anybody simply says they didnt, they can have time added to their sentence.

Dillon testified in front of the Assembly Health Committee after the bill had stalled. If it passed the committee, it would go to the Assembly floor and, if it passed that, to the governors desk.

Dillon delivered an emotional and deeply touching testimony, pleading, I trusted the surgeons to respect and to acknowledge that I still had a future and that I wanted one.

She further asked, Did this happen to me because I was African American? Because I was a woman? Because I was an inmate? Or did it happen to me because I was all three?

She said that this bill will help to protect other women who have the opportunity to be rehabilitated and to actually restore the quality of their lives and to enjoy the gift that life has to offer, which includes motherhood and having children.

The film ends as every committee member said aye in support of the bill. Governor Jerry Brown signed and passed SB 1135 with bipartisan support, bringing an end to forced prison sterilization.

Sally Kim is a senior at UCLA, majoring in Sociology. She is from the East Bay Area.

Lisbeth Martinez is a third year at UC Davis, double majoring in Communication and Political Science. She currently lives in Shafter, California.

Alex Morgan is a 3rd year Political Science Major at Westmont College. She is originally from Santa Barbara, California

Esha Kher is an undergraduate student at UC Davis studying Political Science and Computer Science, hoping to pursue a career in corporate law. She is passionate about legal journalism and political advocacy that provokes new perspectives and sparks conversation among the public. When she is not reporting for The Davis Vanguard, Esha is either trying out a new YouTube workout or reading a book on late modern philosophy.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Continued here:

'Belly of the Beast' Film Highlights Ongoing Issue of Illegal Sterilization in CA State Prisons - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Detrimental detentions: "Belly of the Beast" | Movies | santafenewmexican.com – Santa Fe New Mexican

Filmed over a seven-year period, filmmaker Erika Cohns harrowing documentary Belly of the Beast (2020) is an eye-opening story of injustice at the Central California Womens Facility in Chowchilla, California. Its the largest female correctional facility in the United States and the only such facility in California with a death row for women. Its also a place where inmate Kelli Dillon, serving a 15-year prison sentence, fell victim to a forced (and unnecessary) hysterectomy, a case that led to a fierce legal battle by activist lawyer Cynthia Chandler and her organization, Justice Now. In recounting the story, the documentary reveals the insidious practice of a modern-day eugenics program that primarily targets women of color.

Cohns film delves into the sordid history through archival interviews with female prisoners, newscasts, and more to expose the history and practice of forced sterilization in womens prisons and other crimes, including sexual assaults, and human rights violations. Cohn discusses Belly of the Beast as part of the Center for Contemporary Arts (1050 Old Pecos Trail, 505-982-1338, ccasantafe.org) virtual Living Room Series at 7 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 19, via Zoom.

Joining Cohn is human rights activist Selinda Guerrero of the advocacy group Millions for Prisoners New Mexico

(facebook.com/MillionsforPrisonersNM), a chapter of Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee, whose goal is to unionize prison workers and abolish the exploitation of prisoners. Also participating is Isabella Baker of Forward Together Action (forwardtogetheraction.org), which advocates for the rights of women of color, nonbinary people, and Indigenous communities.

The event is presented by Santa Fe NOW (nowsantafe.org), the local chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The link to register is on CCAs website (ccasantafe.org). The cost is $10 and registrants will receive links via email to join the Zoom meeting and view the documentary.

Continue reading here:

Detrimental detentions: "Belly of the Beast" | Movies | santafenewmexican.com - Santa Fe New Mexican

Nexstar Media cited a group founded by a white nationalist and eugenicist to discuss immigration policy, airing it on at least 24 local news stations…

Nexstar Media Group, the largest local television news company in the United States, recently released a piece on immigration that included an interview with Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) senior fellow Todd Bensman, who fearmongered that an open border policy would allow migrants to get into the United States and stay forever. The Nexstar segment cited Bensman as an expert on immigration with no reference to his history of spreading misinformation or the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies CIS as a hate group.

As of July 2020, Nexstar Media Group owned 196 stations. Like its slightly smaller rival, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar produces content that can be played on multiple stations across the country. Unlike Sinclair, however, Nexstar's syndicated content is usually less openly conservative. Yet on February 16, one syndicated Nexstar piece aired an interview with a representative of CIS with no reference to the organizations extremist views.

CIS was established by white nationalist and eugenicist John Tanton, who also founded multiple other extremist anti-immigrant organizations including the Federation for American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA. CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian has spent years attacking immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Notably, he was a proponent of the family separation policy under the Trump administration.

Tanton-founded groups have been frequently cited by mainstream and local media alike throughout the end of the Trump administration and first days of the Biden administration. Nexstar is the latest in a long list of news outlets, including The Associated Press, that have used CIS as a source without acknowledging the groups white nationalist ties or its years of extremism.

The recent segment by Nexstar Washington correspondent Anna Wiernicki is largely about how the implementation of President Joe Bidens new immigration policy will work and specifically how the Department of Homeland Security is going to begin to let asylum-seekers into the United States, officially ending the Trump administrations policy that forced people to stay in Mexico. Butthe piece also included this soundbite from Bensman:

Visit link:

Nexstar Media cited a group founded by a white nationalist and eugenicist to discuss immigration policy, airing it on at least 24 local news stations...

ONLINE: Land Ethics, Social Justice and Aldo Leopold – Isthmus

media release: The Aldo Leopold Foundation is pleased to present a series of free, virtual events for Leopold Week 2021: Building an Ethic of Care! The events in this series are free, but spots are limited. Dont miss your chance to join the celebrationsand register to secure your spot today.

March 10:

An ongoing reckoning with race in American history has drawn attention to racism in the environmental movement. Critiques have focused on themes such as forced removal of Indigenous peoples from ancestral lands, early conservationists support for eugenics, and the chronic lack of diversity in environmental organizations. Today, as people around the world struggle to address complex and interconnected social and environmental crises, our shared future depends on forging an ethic that integrates diverse voices, belief systems, and ways of knowing.

Dr. Curt Meine joins a panel of guests (to be announced soon) to examine the broad arc of Western conservation history, the evolution of a shared land ethic, and the progress and work ahead of us in realizing an ethic of responsibility and reciprocity among people, and between people and land.

Land Ethics, Social Justice, and Aldo Leopold is part of the Building an Ethic of Care speaker series hosted by the Aldo Leopold Foundation in celebration of Leopold Week 2021 (March 5-14). Discover more ways to participate in the celebrations and view the full line up of events in the Building an Ethic of Care speaker series by visiting our website: http://www.aldoleopold.org/leopoldweek

Dr. Curt Meine

Senior Fellow, Aldo Leopold Foundation and Center for Humans and Nature

curtmeine.com/

Curt Meine is a conservation biologist, environmental historian, and writer based in Sauk County, Wisconsin. He serves as Senior Fellow with the Aldo Leopold Foundation and Center for Humans and Nature; as Research Associate with the International Crane Foundation; and as Adjunct Associate Professor at the UW-Madison. Meine has authored and edited several books, and served as on-screen guide in the Emmy Award-winning documentary film Green Fire.

Dr. Eduardo Santana Castelln

Coordinator, Environmental Sciences Museum, University of Guadalajara, Mexico

Presenter information coming soon

Visit link:

ONLINE: Land Ethics, Social Justice and Aldo Leopold - Isthmus

A view from the future: Questioning conventional wisdom in criminal justice | TheHill – The Hill

The public conversation about criminal justice has changed dramatically over the past generation. When I got my start in the early 1990s, the debate was dominated by the need to get tough on crime on behalf of innocent victims. Swift and certain sanctions had to be administered to offending populations. And the government was exhorted not to make decisions based on anecdotes, but instead to invest in evidence-based programs that had proven their effectiveness in changing offenders behavior.

All of these buzzwords and ideas have been interrogated in recent years, and many have been found wanting. In their wake, a new orthodoxy has emerged with its own unique vocabulary.

If history is any guide, todays innovation will become tomorrows conventional wisdom that needs to be overturned. So, which of the truisms that are ascendant in criminal justice at the moment might need to be rethought by reformers of the future? Here are five candidates:

Bold change: We need bold change in our criminal justice system, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Five things to know about Texas's strained electric grid | Biden honeymoon with green groups faces tests | Electric vehicles are poised to aid Biden in climate fight Major union that backed Biden in 2020 endorses Foy in Virginia governors race Ex-Sanders aide: Biden trying to find 'most unsympathetic character' to avoid cancelling student loan debt MORE (I-Vt.) said during his presidential run. He is far from alone calls for boldness are everywhere these days. The problem with this language is that it implicitly frames policy disputes as contests between bravery and cowardice. It suggests that we know what to do but simply lack the moral fortitude to do it. Twenty years from now, critics might ask why we were not more honest and more humble the hard truth is that no one knows with certainty how to improve our criminal justice system in a way that improves fairness, reduces disparities and maintains public safety at the same time.

Now is the time to listen to communities: It is difficult to argue with the idea that decision-makers should solicit input from people in crime-plagued neighborhoods. However, future observers might point out that communities rarely speak in a unitary voice. Indeed, anyone who has spent time at neighborhood meetings knows there are a multiplicity of voices within any given community. Some are wise, some are ill-informed, and many are somewhere in between. The current debate over police defunding or abolition offers an example of the challenges of simply listening to a community both those who wish to defund the police and those who oppose this idea can reasonably claim they are representing the views of the people.

Things are getting worse: Concern about racism in the American criminal justice system is rampant and many critics despair that the system is beyond repair. Indeed, some argue that the system is doing what it was designed to do to keep Black people down. Despite this despair, the evidence suggests that, by many measures, things actually have gotten better in recent years. For example, the U.S. incarceration rate has been declining for a decade. And the Council on Criminal Justice reports that racial disparities in jail, prison, probation and parole populations have declined since 2000. According to Adam Gelb, who heads the council, Most people think this is a bad problem thats getting worse. It turns out its a bad problem thats getting a little better. Future observers might wonder why we didnt celebrate the incremental improvements that we have made and look to build upon them.

Incarceration doesnt work: As a policy question, it is clear that we have overused incarceration, leading to a host of unnecessary harms for the individuals involved, their families, and their communities. But that doesnt mean that incarceration is always the incorrect outcome in every individual case. Conversations with those who have been incarcerated often highlight this inconvenient truth. Not long ago, I asked a colleague who had spent significant time behind bars whether he could imagine a better response to his youthful criminal behavior than prison. He shook his head. I needed to be locked up, he admitted. Indeed, his time away was crucial to helping him get his life back on track. Future historians might ask why, even as we looked to reduce the use of incarceration, we didnt spend more energy on improving conditions of confinement, ensuring that our correctional facilities are more than inhumane warehouses.

Wrong side of history: A 2019 New York Times opinion piece decried Vice President Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisElla Emhoff makes her Fashion Week debut CNN's John Berman chides White House aide on reopening schools: 'Not a trick question' Democratic Senate campaign arm taps new staff leaders MOREs record as a prosecutor, declaring that she was on the wrong side of history. This is not an unusual rhetorical move, particularly among progressives. But those who speak with confidence about the arc of history do so at their own peril. History tells us that the moral clarity of progressive reformers often has been justified, but not always. Reformers who advanced child labor laws or the abolition of slavery did indeed see through the cant of the day. But not all reforms turn out the way that advocates hope after all, slum clearance, eugenics and Prohibition were once embraced by cadres of progressive reformers. Tomorrows critics may well ask why we did not proceed with more humility today.

In many respects, the field of criminal justice is a better, more vibrant place today than it was a generation ago. The Overton Window has shifted considerably. Ideas that once would have been considered beyond the pale such as closing the jail complex on Rikers Island or investing in community-based crime prevention efforts are now very much in play.

There are many reasons why the playing field has changed. Certainly, Black Lives Matter deserves an enormous share of the credit for helping to shine a spotlight on police brutality and changing public sentiment about race in America. But another important factor has been the commitment of many academics, government officials and nonprofit agencies to asking hard questions looking at what works and what doesnt and trying to figure out why rather than simply repeating orthodoxies of the moment.

In short, the health of the field of criminal justice depends upon both activism and analysis, protest and inquiry. Long may both continue.

Greg Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, and the former executive director of the Center for Court Innovation (2002-2020). He is the co-author of Start Here: A Road Map to Reducing Mass Incarceration. The views expressed here are his alone. Follow him on Twitter @GregBerman50.

Go here to see the original:

A view from the future: Questioning conventional wisdom in criminal justice | TheHill - The Hill

Opinion | On human rights, Amazon is at a crossroads – Crosscut

A year later, the Jewish peace group Never Again Action highlighted a difficult history not taught in most schools, while linking Amazons practices directly to the tech industrys record of supporting human rights abuses. In a 2019 protest of the companys actions, the group organized a march from a Holocaust memorial in Boston to the Amazon offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[W]eve seen this before, said protester Ben Lorber, I had ancestors killed in the Holocaust.

As a relatively new tech company, Amazon is at a crossroads. Will the company travel down a familiar road taken by other tech behemoths who turned a blind eye to human rights and workers rights? Or will it opt for the unfamiliar path, refusing to sell its technology and services in support of human rights abuses while also taking a strong, affirmative stance for better workplace conditions and greater diversity within its ranks? In large measure, this decision will fall to the incoming Amazon CEO Andy Jassy. Lorber and many others are pleading and protesting for the road less travelled.

In the spring of 2020, bowing to pressure from its rivals IBM and Microsoft, Amazon announced it would cease selling Rekognition to law enforcement agencies, but only for one year. The end of that year is coming up. In December, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, a large institutional shareholder, along with the Vermont State Treasurers Office, jointly filed a proposal calling on the worlds largest online retailer to curtail surveillance technologies like Rekognition.

But that investor proposal went further, asking Amazon to curb hate speech, increase diversity and improve workplace conditions. It was eerily prescient. Only several weeks later, the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol showed Amazon had provided a safe haven for white nationalists to spew hate, organize and even plan their attack. By the time the social media platform Parler, used by many white nationalist groups, was taken down from the Amazon Web Services cloud, the damage had already been done.

Meanwhile, workers at the company's warehouses continue to endure unjust labor practices. During a pandemic, when so many have turned to Amazon, these workers bear the brunt of increased demand without adequate protective equipment and working conditions to shield them from the virus. Many Amazon factory workers come from communities of color already ravaged by COVID-19.

Amazon has said it stands with the nationwide movement to identify and bring an end to systemic racism, yet it continues to face claims of racial discrimination, said a disappointed Thomas P. DiNapoli, New York state comptroller and trustee of the New York retirement fund.

Instead of welcoming this opportunity, Amazon appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission to block these proposals from being voted on at its upcoming shareholder meeting. Its a strategic blunder and a tone-deaf response to attempts aimed at preventing the company from tragically following in the footsteps of another high-tech giant.

In the late 1920s, IBM, a newly minted company, and its audacious president, Thomas J. Watson Sr., threw its technological prowess behind the eugenics movement. Eugenics sought to further reproduction of blond, blue-eyed, fair-skinned individuals the so-called Nordic stock while eliminating the bloodlines of undesirables such as Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Hispanics, the Irish, Italians, mixed-race individuals, LGBTQ+ people and the mentally and physically ill.

A major 1926 study by the Eugenics Record Organization on the island of Jamaica was at risk because eugenicists had no way of tabulating and reporting on so-called pure blood Europeans and their mixed-race offspring, whom together numbered in the millions.

But IBM did.

IBM engineers worked with the Eugenics Record Organization, headquartered in Cold Springs Harbor, New York, to design punch card formats for collecting, sorting, tabulating, printing and storing information on racial characteristics, allowing the organization to declare the Jamaica study a success in 1929 and announce plans for another, similar global project.

Four years later, Watson and IBM brought automated racial classification to Hitler and the Third Reich. Nearly every aspect of the Holocaust and the Nazi war machine was supported by punch card technology, courtesy of IBM. Each concentration camp had an IBM room, where punch cards held prisoners fates, down to the means of their extermination firing squad, gas chamber, oven or being worked to death.

With Germanys defeat, IBM turned next to South Africa, automating most aspects of apartheid. The company even designed specialized equipment to print the Book of Life passbook,carried by white and Colored South Africans,and the dreaded national identification card, which Black South Africans were forced to show on penalty of arrest. Then, after apartheid, IBMs use of technology to circumvent human rights returned to American soil. In 2005, the company used secret CCTV footage of unwitting New Yorkers collected by the New York City Police Department to improve facial recognition technology in order to discriminate based on skin color.

So when protesters in Boston said they had seen this before, they were deliberately connecting Amazons present to IBMs past, pleading that Amazon not repeat the mistakes of a previous generation. Some shareholders understood this and took up that call as well.

Workers rights within high-tech firms bear a similar dark history. In 1970, Black employees organized the National Black Workers Alliance of IBM (BWA) to demand the company hire more Black people, promote Blacks workers more equitably, provide Black employees equal pay and withdraw from apartheid issues similar to those being demanded by Amazon shareholders today.

BWA leaders were targeted with poor performance evaluations, denial of pay raises, accusations of violating company policy by disclosing pay and promotion data and, in one case, false allegations of sexual abuse. Many were fired, demoted or forced to resign.

BWA was fighting systemic racism that still exists at Amazon and other high-tech firms, where a majority of board and senior decision-making positions are held by white men. Less than 3% of high-level positions at high-tech firms are held by people of color. And this is not a pipeline problem. Qualified candidates can be found, if high-tech firms can find the will.

On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board ruled against Amazon, allowing workers at a Bessemer, Alabama warehouse to vote on unionizing. The SEC should follow suit and insist that shareholder proposals are also brought to a vote.

Jeff Bezos may be stepping down as Amazons CEO, but the problems identified by workers, protesters and shareholders remain. Martin Luther King Jr. said, the time is always right to do right. Yet companies like Amazon seem to operate as though that time never arrives; that profits are always more important than people, even in the wake of George Floyds death and calls for racial equity, synagogue attacks, four years of official lies supporting racial hatred and division and an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. King said it best. Now is the right time for Amazon to do right.

Read more here:

Opinion | On human rights, Amazon is at a crossroads - Crosscut

Open Our Schools and other commentary – New York Post

From the right: Open Our Schools

Many liberals continually ignore the science that shows students can safely return to school, notes Wisconsin ex-Gov. Scott Walker at The Washington Times. The CDC confirmed that vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools, and plenty of teachers . . . are eager to be in the classroom, yet their union is blocking the way. Soaring enrollment at Catholic and private schools proves that parents understand that their children perform better with in-person instruction. Instead of letting the big government union bosses or liberal school administrators decide whats best for individual families, we should put the power in the hands of parents to make the right choice for their daughters and sons. It is time to open our schools.

At his Weekly Dish blog, Andrew Sullivan takes on the rising claims that the classics are inherently racist. He points to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.s syllabus for a 1962 Morehouse College seminar, with Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine all the way up to John Stuart Mill. King grasped . . . the core meaning of a liberal education, the faith that ideas can transcend space and time and culture and race. But now comes a broadening movement in the academy to abolish or dismantle the classics because of their iniquitous whiteness. The main claim: Since racist and imperialist societies drew on these ideas, the classics are therefore fatally tainted. But: Thats like saying that science should no longer exist because some scientists once practiced eugenics.

With the impeachment of ex-President Donald Trump and a focus on Republican infighting, the propaganda media and the Democrats . . . want to keep the GOP crouched in a circular firing squad shooting at itself, warns former Speaker Newt Gingrich at Newsweek. Yet Republicans have every reason to be optimistic, with a much stronger position in state governments and excellent opportunities in 2022. And the party will remain largely unified and focused on creating more jobs, lowering taxes, increasing take-home pay, defending Americas interests around the world and developing solutions in health, learning, space and other areas that matter to our future. In the end, the Republican Party of entrepreneurship and hard work will defeat the Democratic Party of unemployment and redistribution.

As Jane Austen wryly wrote, a good memory is unpardonable and a bad memory is going to be absolutely crucial in the new administration, snarks Roger Kimball at Spectator USA. Perhaps the Big Tech wardens in charge of what we can see and hear and think will start censoring items such as the clip from a Democratic debate where Kamala Harris lit into her now-boss on the issue of busing. As California attorney general, she was not above concealing exculpatory evidence that might exonerate people on death row, but you wont see that in the Vogue cover stories of the new VP or in rapturous interviews with her on CNN. But the biggest challenge will be keeping which acts of violence are OK, indeed commendable, separate from those which are not OK and must be regarded as totally reprehensible.

At the Minneapolis Star Tribune, retired cop Kim Voss recalls the firebombing of her Third Precinct office during the George Floyd riots: While our leadership held us back and we remained unsupported by our state, our city and our police administration, our neighborhoods burned. We felt helpless. The department has now seen almost one-third of its sworn personnel leave due to PTSD both diagnosed and undiagnosed. This is what happens when those in leadership disregard warning flags and stick their heads in the sand, leaving cops on the front lines to pay the price. Its tragic: If someone, anyone, in leadership from the city or the Police Department had reached out to us and talked to us as if they really cared about us, you would not be seeing one-third of our department leaving. That is a lot of experience walking away.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

See more here:

Open Our Schools and other commentary - New York Post

Opinion: Vaccine priority arguments have tinge of eugenics – easternnewmexiconews.com

I have always thought that Planned Parenthood got a pass on its origins. While most people know that Margaret Sanger was an avid eugenicist, defenders of the organization she founded have tried to downplay her philosophy for decades.

Fast forward to the pandemic. Today, we are in the midst of a crisis that sees widespread fatalities and limited resources to address them. Now that at least two vaccines have been approved for widespread distribution, it is only natural that our attention turns toward whom will get it first, given the fact that not everyone who needs treatment can access it.

Here is where the principle that undergirds eugenics comes into play.

It has always been common to hear medical professionals say we need to make difficult ethical choices when seeking to do triage in emergencies. Doctors are often forced to decide which of two equally deserving patients will get life-saving attention, and which will be sacrificed for the greater good. This is nothing new. There is also nothing new in the suggestion that the younger you are, the more worthy you are of treatment. The thought is that the elderly have lived their lives, and it is only fair to provide those on the lower end of the chronological scale opportunities that their elders have already been given.

There is also the idea that those who are disabled should be sacrificed in the interest of the able-bodied, because quality of life is more important than life itself. Of course, just who should determine what that quality looks like is up for debate, as is the definition of quality.

As someone who has opposed abortion ever since she could understand what that was, and what it meant, I am no stranger to the arguments about quality of life. Many of those who believe that pregnant mothers who receive a diagnosis of Downs, or encephalitis, or spina bifida, or Tay Sachs, or any other debilitating condition for their unborn children should have the right to terminate their pregnancies as an anticipatory form of euthanasia. Others believe that euthanasia on the sick, and the elderly, is compassionate. They have either convinced themselves of their sincerity, or they are blinded by a desire to reject the core principle of eugenics. And that is what Planned Parenthood does, on a regular basis.

But as horrific as eugenics truly is, it can get even worse. We saw what that looks like this month, when a professor at the University of Pennsylvania opined that since most front line caregivers are people of color, and most elderly people in nursing homes and elsewhere are white, the caregivers should be given preference when distributing the vaccines.

Racism, meet Miss Sanger.

This layering of a race narrative over an already dangerous supposition that some lives are more important than others (youth greater than age, ability better than disability) has brought us to a place where those death panels envisioned by Sarah Palin dont seem so silly anymore. But now we do it with an anti-racism twist.

In an interview with the New York Times, ethics and health policy expert Harold Schmidt stated that, Older populations are whiter. Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.

There are so many things that are wrong with this comment, its hard to know where to start, but Ill try. First, the idea that front line workers are predominantly people of color has a tinge of racism to it. Next, the idea that the elderly are overwhelmingly white is misguided. Even if the statistics do bear out the fact that there are more white people over a certain age than people of other races, this does not factor in economics, health and other metrics that would have some bearing on the statistic. Finally, the idea that the race and age of a sick person should be used to either favor, or harm them, is repellent. I wonder if the good ethicist would have said the same thing if the races and ages were reversed.

Eugenics is a Pandoras Box that was opened by Sanger and her crew, and fully exploited by a gentleman in Germany a few decades later. Harold Schmidt and those who agree with him are in that same class. We need to nail that box shut, once and for all.

Christine Flowers is a columnist for the Delaware County Daily Times. Contact her at:

[emailprotected]

Originally posted here:

Opinion: Vaccine priority arguments have tinge of eugenics - easternnewmexiconews.com