Monthly Archives: October 2015

Home (link to Eugenic Sterilizations in the United States)

Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont and students in HCOL195 Contact: lutz.kaelber@uvm.edu Last updated: 10/30/2014

Eugenics/Sexual Sterilizations in

(eugenics; sexual sterilization)

Number of Victims

Over 8,000 sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. The total number of victims actually sterilized is estimated to have been over 7,600 (Winston-Salem, Lifting the Curtain on a Shameful Era). Of this number, females represented approx. 85% of those sterilized (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). By the late 1960s, the sterilization of men was virtually halted, as women made up 99% of those sterilized (Sinderbrand, p. 1). African Americans represent 39% of those sterilized overall; by the later 1960s, they made up 60% of those sterilized, even though they made up only a quarter of the population (Sinderbrand, p. 1). Of those sterilized up to 1963, 25% were considered mentally ill and 70% were considered mentally deficient. In each of these categories, females account for over 75% of the sterilizations. North Carolina ranked third in the United States for the total number of people sterilized.

Period During Which Sterilization Occurred

Sterilizations started in 1929 with the passage of the sterilization law and continued through 1973, when the last recorded sterilization is known to have been reported.

Temporal Pattern of Sterilization

After the passage of the sterilization law in 1929, sterilization law began at slow rate. It was not until about 1938 that sterilizations began to increase at a steady rate. After WWII, sterilizations accelerated and peaked in the two years between 1950 and 1952, with 704 sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). This makes North Carolina fairly unique, as its peak sterilizations occurred after WWII, at a time when most other states had ceased performing operations (for other exceptions, see also eugenic sterilizations in Iowa and Georgia). After 1960, the rate of sterilization began to slow and continued to decrease from a rate of about 250 a year in 1963 to 6 per year in 1973. From 1950-1963 there were an average of about 300 sterilizations per year.In the peak years (the 1950s) there were about 7 sterilizations for every 100,000 residents of the state per year.

Passage of Laws

The very first sterilization law was passed in 1919 but it was probably never put to use. Many feared that the law was unconstitutional and therefore the state feared putting it into practice (Paul, p. 420). In 1929, The North Carolina General Assembly passed a new sterilization law. It stated that the governing body or responsible head of any penal or charitable institution supported wholly or in part by the State of North Carolina, or any sub-division thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to have the necessary operation for asexualization or sterilization performed upon any mentally defective or feeble-minded inmate of patient thereof (State Library, History, p. 1). After this law was declared unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court in 1933 due to a deficient appeals process, North Carolina in the same year enacted a new sterilization law that provided for notice, hearing, and the right to appeal (Paul, p. 421). The passage of this law also created the North Carolina Eugenics Board (see below). The passage of the 1929 sterilization law made North Carolina the 17th state out of 33 to pass one. North Carolina's 1933 law remained effective until 1973, when the last recorded sterilizations were performed (State Library, History, p. 1). Finally, on April 4, 2003, the North Carolina Senate voted unanimously to overturn it (Bill to Overturn Eugenics Law Passes State Senate, p. 1).

Groups Identified by the Law

As stated in the original sterilization law of 1929, the groups targeted for sterilization were identified as mentally ill, mentally retarded, and epileptic (Paul, p. 421). However, the law also stated that the purpose of sterilization is to protect impaired people from parenthood who would become seriously handicapped if they were to assume parental responsibilities (Paul, p. 421).

With the passage of the 1933 law, the state of North Carolina instituted a Eugenics Board made up of high-ranking public health officials. Their main purpose was to decide whether sterilization petitions should be carried out. These Board members were addresses cases of individuals diagnosed as feeble minded or mentally ill (Gardella, p. 108). Another major goal of sterilization was to keep the handicapped from perpetuating themselves. Sterilization was seen as a way to prevent the spending of tax dollars on the feeble-minded (Gardella, p. 108). It should be noted that the law had an "extramural" component; i.e., it allowed for the sterilization of individuals who were presently not placed in state institutions.

Process of the Law

Under the sterilization law, the North Carolina General Assembly gave the governing body or executive head of any penal or charitable public institution the authority to order the sterilization of any patient or inmate whose operation they considered would be in the best interest of the individual and of the public good. It also gave the county boards of commissioners authority to order sterilization at the publics expense of any mentally defective or feeble-minded resident upon receiving a petition from the individuals next of kin or legal guardian outside state institutions (State Library, History, p. 1) - thus applying potentially to every resident in North Carolina. All orders for sterilization had to be reviewed and approved by the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, and the chief medical officers of any two state institutions for the feeble-minded or insane. In the reviewing process, they looked at a medical and family history of the individual being ordered for sterilizations to help decide whether the operation would be performed or not. They also considered whether it was likely that the individual might produce children with mental or physical problems (State Library, History, p. 1).

In 1933, under the new law, the General Assembly created the Eugenics Board of North Carolina to review all orders for sterilization of mentally diseased, feeble-minded, or epileptic patients, inmates, or non-institutionalized individuals (State Library, History, p. 1). This centralized board included five members: the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the State Hospital at Raleigh, and the attorney general. In the hearings of patients or inmates in a public institution, the head of that institution was the prosecutor in presenting the case to the Eugenics Board. In hearings of individuals who were non-institutionalized, the county superintendent of welfare or another authorized county official acted as the prosecutor. However, in both hearings, the prosecutor provided the board with a medical history signed by a physician familiar with the individuals case. The petition for the hearing was sent to the individual being ordered or to their next of kin or legal guardian. In the situation where this person could not represent or defend themselves at the hearing, the next of kin, guardian, or county solicitor stepped in to represent them. If the board decided to order the sterilization, the order had to be signed by at least 3 members and then returned to the prosecutor. This decision could be appealed by the individual to the county superior court and then further appealed to the state supreme court. If the appeal was successful, any petitions for sterilization were prohibited for one year, unless the individual, or his or her guardian or next of know requested sterilization (State Library, History, p. 1).

Eugenics in the 1950s was to some extent a southern phenomenon, as many states in other regions saw their number of sterilizations drop. Few sterilizations occurred in the 1930s in North Carolina (and in the other southern states) because the Great Depression resulted in funding crises that didnt allow for sterilization to occur in full force in the South. Sterilization picked up pace after WWII, especially during the mid-1950s (Castles, p. 1).

One factor leading to the acceleration after WWII was race. Race has always been a loaded issue in the south, as slavery was prominent there. When slavery was legal, white slave owners encouraged the reproduction of their slaves in order to create bodies to work and sell. The legacy of considering poor Blacks as a source of cheap servant labor continued. By the 1950s, some in the white majority were becoming anxious about supporting blacks through welfare. The heads of the agencies of welfare departments agreed on the value of sterilization for reducing general welfare relief and ADC (Aid for Dependent Children) payments (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Some erroneously believed that blacks accounted for the majority of illegitimate births that were subsidized by ADC. The state threatened to remove welfare benefits if the person did not submit to the operation. The fears about the rising cost of the ADC program was a major factor in leading to the shift in racial composition of those targeted for sterilization. As the attention shifted away from the structural causes of poverty and crime to placing the blame for urban poverty and social unrest on blacks, sterilization of blacks was facilitated (Schoen, Choice and Coercion; see also Schoen, "Reassessing," p. 149). It was believed the control the reproduction of ADC recipients was necessary; as a result, the percentage of Blacks sterilized rose from 23% in the 1930s and 1940s to 59% between 1958-60 and finally to 64% between 1964 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 108; "Reassessing," p. 149).

Sterilization also accelerated because it expanded to include the general population when the state gave social workers the authority to submit petitions for sterilization. Therefore, the amount of eligible people increased drastically. The North Carolina Board-which initially targeted those who were deemed mentally ill, expanded its program to include the general population. In fact, the majority of those sterilized had never been institutionalized, and 2,000 were younger than 19 (Wiggins, p. 1). In addition, the fight against poverty in North Carolina led to sterilizations in the general population. As this fight intensified, a new policy was created that led to an increase in the number of non-institutionalized people who were sterilized. Sterilizations of the non-institutionalized rose from 23% between 1937 and 1951 to 76% between 1952 and 1966 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109, "Reassessing," p. 151).

The Human Betterment League made it their mission to spread information to the public regarding the benefits of eugenic sterilization (Gardella, p. 110). At the University of North Carolina State Public officials from the department of sociology searched for any possible people eligible for eugenic sterilization. Eventually through their efforts and the upholding of the states sterilization law North Carolina eve managed to sterilize the non-institutionalized (Gardella, p. 110)

Other Restrictions Placed on Those Identified in the Law or with Disabilities in General

There are no other known restrictions placed on those identified in the law.

Groups Targeted and Victimized Women, Especially African Americans and Those with Developmental Disabilities 77% of all those sterilized in North Carolina were women. North Carolina carried out 50 percent of these between 1929 and 1947 on females under the age of twenty (Cahn, p.162). There was a strong historical mentality in the South that supported the idea of trying to control the reproduction of women, and African Americans which helped the idea of eugenics to spread from the North to the South with little opposition from the elitist White male population. Because of the strong belief in moral purity of the South, however it was easy to explain why White women were just as endangered as African American women. Physicians in North Carolina didnt leave any margin for error either. Many women were brought in under the pretext that they might have been exhibiting behaviors that were sexual in nature and thus increasing the possibility of sexual promiscuity and warranting eugenic sterilization (Cahn, p. 165). Women that were deemed subnormal intellectually were also likely to be forcibly sterilized. About sixty percent of the inmates at a North Carolina Farm Colony in the 1930s were considered feebleminded and candidates for sterilization (Cahn, p.165). The greatest fear with women was that they are deceiving to others as they are still attractive to men and yet are below the standards for reproduction. North Carolinian journalists reported on these issues stated that these morons would breed rapidly like mink and contaminate the whole healthy human stock, (Cahn, p.166). And most of the women that they felt needed to be sterilized most were those women that exhibited no outward sign of incompetence but simply didnt do well on IQ tests because these womens charm of personality and conversation l abilityposed a greater social threat than more obviously disabled persons since their very attractiveness would lead to more opportunities for illicit sex or marriage and , thus a, the likelihood of starting a family of future liabilities to the State (Cahn, p. 168). Women were not safe even if they somehow managed to flee the State of North Carolina either. Such sexually deviant women could be chased all the way to Florida, as was the case for Emma Suggs. She was a candidate for sterilization because of her mental state due to her past and her out of wedlock pregnancy (Cahn, p. 169). Soon North Carolina set its sights on women of color who were seen as likely to be on welfare and to have illegitimate children. Chapel Hill Weekly stated that there was a higher proportion of Negroes than whites: and noted that the feebleminded Negro woman, often with illegitimate children, is a familiar and recurrent problem to health and welfare agencies (Cahn, p. 177). Women, including wives, daughters, sisters and unwed mothers, were overrepresented. They were labeled as either promiscuous, lazy, or unfit (Wiggins, p. 1), or more commonly as sexually uncontrollable (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 110). Overall, women made up 84.8% of sterilizations (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). However, more interesting is that the sterilization of men virtually halted in the 1960s, with only 2 sterilizations in 1964, and 254 sterilizations of women (State Library, Sterilizations, p. 1). Therefore, after 1960, women accounted for 99% of sterilizations (Sinderbrand, p. 1). While many white women were sterilized, the state began to focus on sterilizing black women as they became the majority of the welfare population. Black women were seen as highly uneducated, poor, and as having higher fertility rates than their white female counterparts. Schoen noted that as the amount of black women on welfare increased the public association between ADC and black female recipients was particularly close (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p.109; see also "Reassessing," p. 153). Black women were presumed to have uncontrollable sexual behavior, and as these racial stereotypes were reinforced, black women became an even larger target for controlled reproduction through sterilization.

Social class also played a role in who was targeted after WWII, as women on welfare, usually living in socially isolated places, were overrepresented. The reason for this was to prevent poor and unfit women from reproducing children with mental or social ills (Wiggins, p. 1). They were generally ordered for sterilization by social workers and lived outside of institutions. The poor were not only targeted for their social ills but also because they were easier to sterilize. They would often not be released until they or a family member agreed to have them sterilized (Wiggins, p. 1).

Women that were social workers were strong supporters for the eugenics movement. Johanna Schoen (2011) has argued that some social workers provided sterilization out of empathy. However, Krome-Lukens maintains that women were often coerced and that many social workers provided sterilizations as an opportunity to save money from future drains on society (Krome-Lukens, p. 49). Interestingly enoughaccording to Krome-Lukenseugenics was a key element of progressive reform and was indicative of the new mentality surrounding sexuality and the standard gender roles of the time (Krome-Lukens, p. 9).

Finally, race also played a role in those targeted for sterilization. During the Civil Rights Movement, petitions were sent to the states eugenics board for black women (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). Overall, by the later 1960s, 60% of those sterilized were young, black women (Wiggins, p. 1). Overall, blacks represent 38.9% of sterilizations. This is because sterilizations of blacks were concentrated in a shorter period of time and because minorities only made up quarter of North Carolinas population (State Library, Statistics, p. 1). From the years 1960 to 1962, of the 467 sterilization ordered by the board, 284 (61%) were black (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence). In addition, blacks were targeted because the amount of welfare recipients who were black grew from 31% in 1950 to 48% in 1961 (Schoen, Choice and Coercion, p. 109; see "Reassessing," p. 151). It was seen as necessary to sterilize those recipients of welfare to decrease the growing financial burden on the state.

There are two stories that were made public by two black women who were sterilized against their will at a young age in North Carolina. The first is Elaine Riddick, who had been sterilized at the age of 14 by a state order in North Carolina in 1968 after giving birth to a baby after being raped. When she was operated on she was not informed that she was being sterilized. She only discovered this years later when she was trying to get pregnant with her husband. She was considered part of a lower class and the consent form had been signed by her illiterate grandmother, who was threatened to lose her public benefits, and her parents, who were both alcohol dependent at the time. She blames the sterilization for ending her marriage and is still affected by the surgery, saying, I felt like I was nothing. Its like, the people that did this; they took my spirit away from me (Sinderbrand, p. 1).

The second story is of Nial Cox Ramirez, who was sterilized at the age of 17 after several instances of pressure from social workers to get sterilized after becoming pregnant. She eventually complied because they threatened to take her family off of welfare, but she was never informed of the consequences of the surgery. She was assured she would be able to become pregnant again, but learned otherwise when she attempted to conceive years later. Like Riddick, her marriage fell apart. When she sued the state of North Carolina in 1967, the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality (Wiggins, p. 1). These women were only two among those who fell under the categories of the groups targeted, and suffered as a result.

Some were quick to believe that Black Americans practiced reckless breeding (Larson, p. 156). However, North Carolina took an ever more grand approach to solving its reproductive woes, instituting a birth control program geared towards giving poor women a more acceptable and less costly way to prevent unwanted pregnancies claiming that it would be taught when the economic status precludes adequate care (Larson, p.157).

Young children were also targeted by these eugenic practices. A teenage girl from North Carolina was the object of her fathers affections. She was given a physical and the doctors realized that shed had sexual intercourse. As a result he parents gave consent to have their daughter sterilized instead of reprimanding the father for sexually assaulting his daughter (Ariyo, p. 59).

Blacks and Mentally and Physically Disabled: The Story of Junius Wilson

(Source: http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/26/when-systems-of-oppression-intersect-mental-health-and-the-immigration-system/)

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 to Sidney and Mary Wilson (Burch, p. 1). He was born deaf in and so his literacy level was extremely low. At the age of eight he was sent away to a residential North Carolina School for the deaf and blind in Raleigh. This was Americas first school created to care for the special needs black children (Burch, p. 20). He was never taught proper sign language and so his family members often would misunderstand him or misinterpret gestures that he made, and he also did not understand the things that his family members were telling him, as his mother could not teach him how to read and write (Burch, p. 18). Because of the confusing communication, some of his family members suspected that he had assaulted one of his own family members sexually. In this community he was somewhat safer from his family however he was sent here not for deafness per se but for his perceived mental deficiencies and sexual deviations. Here in this institution Wilson became a member of a community that was equally misunderstood and equally ostracized by the greater community. They were all people of color and they were all unable to communicate by normal conventions. They were never officially taught ASL (American Sign Language) as they were all people of color and at the time no one saw fit to use their teaching resources on Blacks. They instead developed their own gestures and signs to communicate with one another and to the staff members in the institution. This form of sign language was entirely unique to these people. As a result, the deaf Blacks from Raleigh could not communicate with other signing deaf people, and far less could they be understood by their hearing peers (Burch, p. 22).

Southern states had a strong history of segregation. This mentality of separation and White superiority bled the special education programs of even the most progressive places south of the Mason Dixon, like North Carolina. Gustavus Ernest Lineberry became the superintendent for the North Carolina School for the Colored Blind and Deaf in 1918, after this the quality of education changed dramatically. Lineberry was a firm believer in the teaching of the blind and deaf, even Blacks, but he was not so kind as to consider the needs of his White and Black students to be the same (Burch, p. 22). He completely redistributed the resources of the school so that the best teachers and alumni were teaching at the White schools. He then made sure to provide a far less academic curriculum for the Blacks, as he felt there was a dire need to keep Blacks in their place (Burch, p. 22). The Black students with physical disabilities were given an education that would prepare them for rudimentary, vocational labor so that they could prove their worth to society boys were taught shoe repairing, carpentry and cabinetmaking along with dairy work (Burch, p. 22). It was also clear that this vocational form of training, towards fields that required little interaction, lowered the cost that their programs would incur and made the need for sufficient literacy nearly unimportant.

This, however, created a great deal of socialized problems for the students participating in the programs. Everyone sent to the school for the Colored Deaf and Blind was sent there to become better functioning and well prepared to rejoin society. But the students were not exposed to role models that were not fluent in sign and who did not know how to supply the needs of the deaf and blind. And because of the segregation that was taking place students could not even be taught by their White peers secretly, because they were transferred to Morganton (Burch, p.23).

Goldsboro Asylum during the Great Depression

Junius Wilson was becoming too much of a burden for his family as he became older, and his communication with them had not really improved either which was greatly to his detriment. His family decided that the best thing they could do in their situation was to have Wilson committed to a mental asylum. He was given up to the police by his family under the charge of attempted rape. However, it is clear that not everyone was on board with this idea. Although, his mother allowed them to take him away it was said that she didnt approve of the decision and would not speak with Andr, his father, because he was the one that supported removing his son permanently (Burch, p. 129).

Wilson was moved to Goldsboro Asylum in a farming colony. North Carolina was experiencing the debilitation of the Great Depression just like everyone else at the time and so holding whole mental institutions was more of a juggling act than those that ran the institutions could bear alone. Goldsboro opened up farming colonies in order to defer some of the costs involved in feeding inmates by having the inmates work for the food that they ate. The institution even went so far as to send inmates to other farms so that they could make money for the asylum. One could look at this as a sad combination of economic desperation seasoned with racism in the South and a disregard for the mentally and physically disabled (Burch, p. 76).

Freedom for Wilson

After a great deal of mistreatment however, Junius Wilsons case was taken up by John Wasson, who noted that Wilson was being held in the Asylum for phase of life adjustment disorder something he felt didnt warrant a seventy year stay in a mental institution (Burch, p. 128). In a major State court case Junius Wilson v. the State of North Carolina Wilson was finally granted his freedom and a cottage to call his own on the outskirts of the Hospital property at Goldsboro.

The Years after Junius Wilson

Wilsons story continued to have a significant impact after his death. His case which he brought through the North Carolina judiciary as a result of his poor treatment and wrongful sterilization was a model that others used in order to seek compensation for the trauma caused (Burch, p. 214). The state of North Carolina has made great efforts to own up to its involvement in the eugenics movement. In 2003 North Carolina was one of the first states to repeal the eugenic sterilization laws. Unfortunately it has taken until very recently for any party afflicted by the eugenics laws to be officially recognized and monetarily compensated. Until the 2009-2010 session of the State Legislature of North Carolina, there had been one promise after another with only symbolic acknowledgement being offered (Burch, p. 215). (See also below on compensation for victims.)

Dr. William Allan was North Carolinas initial promoter of negative eugenics. He wrote his first study on eugenics in 1916 and by the end of his life he had written 93 papers. He had his own private practice until 1941, when he started the medical genetics department at Bowman Gray. He thought that hereditary diseases could be halted by prevention and based much of his work on field studies and surveys. He pushed for a statewide bank of genetic information that would catalog peoples genetic backgrounds to see if they were prospective parents. He continued to push for this until his death in 1943 (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).

Dr. C. Nash Herndon followed in the footsteps of Allan when he took over the department at Bowman Gray after his death. He conducted surveys of those with disabilities in an effort to find links of hereditary diseases. He was president of the American Eugenics Society from 1953-1955 and president of the Human Betterment League of North Carolina. He was the greatest contributor in pushing the eugenics movement forward in North Carolina after WWII (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront).

(Source: http://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/Home/DiscoverWinston-Salem/History/Articles/Winston-SalemMayorsBiographies)

Ira M. hardy was the Superintendent at the North Carolina School for the Feeble-Minded. She appealed to the Southern Medical Association that took place in Florida expressing her deep desire to make the mentally ill completely separate from the rest of the population (Larson, p. 46).

Kate Burr Johnson was female social worker during the era of eugenic sterilization. She was a major proponent of the movement of compulsory sterilization. Johnson claimed that she wanted women to be liberated and be provided with reproductive freedom; however, she was actually strongly supporting the eugenic sterilization of people that would become social liabilities and produce unfit or economically unstable offspring (Krome-Lukens, p. 3).

Feeder Institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

The Bowman Gray School of Medicine housed a program for eugenic sterilizations starting in 1948. It was aimed at the eugenic improvement of the population of Forsyth County. It consisted of a systematic approach that would eliminate certain genetically unfit strains from the local population (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). It expanded the program throughout North Carolina. The school received much philanthropic support for research of genetic ideas. Today, school officials condemn eugenic research, as the dean of the school, Dr. William B. Applegate, states I think that the concepts and the practice of eugenics is wrong and unethical and would in no way be approved or condoned in modern medical times (Winston-Salem, Forsyth in the Forefront). The school is now part of the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center-one of the most respected academic medical centers in the country. Although officials of the school condemn eugenics there is no mention of the program for eugenic sterilizations on the medical centers website.

(Photo origin: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, available at http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/mhfacilities/images/Caswell-Center.jpg)

(Source: http://www.ncgenweb.us/cabarrus/Photos/HistMarkers/StonewallJacksonTrainingSchool.jpg)

The Stonewall Jackson Training School was founded in 1907 and was North Carolinas first juvenile detention facility. This was mostly a school for boys, but a few girls were sterilized there over its history, all of whom were labeled as mentally retarded. The boys who were sent there had only minor scrapes with authorities, not for mental illness. In 1948, seven boys out of 300 were targeted for sterilization because they were ready for discharge. These boys were deemed feebleminded as a justification for the operation. These were the only boys sterilized at this school (Winston-Salem,DETOUR: In 48 State Singled out Delinquent Boys). The building still exists but does not remain in operation today. There is no commemoration at the site or mention of the past.

The Goldsboro Training School, now known as the OBerry Center, opened in 1957 as the first institution for black intellectually disabled citizens. It had 150 clients were transferred to it from Cherry Hospital, at which point the treatment of the patients was limited to academics and vocational training. It is still operating today with approximately 430 clients, but it is no longer limited to African Americans (Castles, pp. 12-14). The centers website refers to the institution's history of dealing with Black citizens with intellectual disabilities.

(Source:http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=607397&imageID=1253742&total=17&num=0&word=21273&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=13&k=0&lWord=&lField=&sScope=Name&sLevel=&sLabel=North%20Carolina%20State%20Board%20of%20Charities%20and%20Public%20Welfare&imgs=20&pos=14&e=w)

Opposition Blacks were opposed to sterilizations one two levels: those who knew about its racial bias and those who didnt. The sterilization program was only whispered about in the black communities, and any evidence that race played a part in those who were sterilized wasnt made public or scrutinized. Therefore, the eugenics board was allowed to proceed with few hurdles (Winston-Salem). Those blacks knew about the racial bias involved with sterilization tried to push for their rights. In 1959, State Senator Jolly introduced a bill that would authorize the sterilization of an unmarried woman who gave birth for the third time. This bill was contested bygroup of blacks. However, the senator's response was "Youshould be concerned about this bill. One out of four of your race is illegitimate." Blacks that demanded to be heard were ruledout of order by the white-controlled legislature (Winston-Salem,"Wicked Silence").

Some college students were in opposition to the sterilizations.In 1960, students fromNorth Carolina A&TState Universitybegan sit-in movement against states progressive attitude or race relations. However, this gained little speed or recognition by the state to make any changes. Also, at Shaw University in Raleigh from 1968 to 1972, student activists tried to educate blacks about the issues and threats of sterilization. However, they lacked detailed information, and therefore this gained little momentum as well (Winston-Salem, Wicked Silence).

Today, North Carolina is trying to amend for its past, making it one of the only states to do so thus far. In April 2003, the sterilization law was unanimously voted to be overturned by the North Carolina Senate. A few weeks later, a law was then signed by Governor Easley to officially put an end to forced sterilizations in North Carolina. Soon after, on April 17, 2003, Easley issued a public apology, stating, To the victims and families of this regrettable episode in North Carolina's past, I extend my sincere apologies and want to assure them that we will not forget what they have endured" ("Easley Signs Law Ending States Eugenics Era," p. 1). Then, in December 2005, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators passed resolution calling for federal and state programs to identify victims nationwide and get them health care and counseling (Sinderbrand, p. 1). However, these current efforts to find sterilized victims are difficult due to budget constraints and high costs of a publicity campaign. Therefore, efforts to find victims through "free media" were employed, such as posting info on bulletins, offices, health departments, libraries, schools, billboards, and city buses etc. (Sinderbrand, p. 1).

Source: http://news.ncdcr.gov/2009/06/18/historical-highway-marker-remembers-eugenics/

In 2009, a marker was dedicated in Raleigh, where the state eugenics board had met

A task force created by the governor has considered providing compensation for victims (NC Justice for Victims Foundation). (

Anderson Cooper on CNN ran a story on compensation for victims of sterilizations on 12/27/2011 (see

While a task force recommended to set compensation for surviving and verified victims at the amount of $50,000, the state senate rejected such a proposal in the summer of 2012, and the foundation was faced with the prospect of shutting down due to a lack of money. As of October 2012, only about 170 victims who are still alive have been verified, out of an estimated total of approx. 1,500-2,000. The low number of victims who have revealed themselves in this way reflects the continuing stigma of being sterilized and parallels the situation in Germany, where for many decades victims were reluctant to come forward in part due to the stigma attached to sterilizations and the still-existing belief that a sterilization constitutes a black mark on a family lineage.

The situation might be reflective of the difficulty of citizens in North Carolina to allow for "negative memory," i.e., a willingness to concede that the state representing the will of its citizens was capable of committing atrocious (though legal) deeds. In contrast to sterilization victims in British Columbia and Alberta, not a single victim of a state eugenic sterilization law is known to have been compensated by a state in the United States so far.

After extensive efforts by organizations such as the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, the states NAACP, and legal clinics by the University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights to spread the word about compensation to victims of eugenic sterilization, the number of claimants reached a number close to 800 until the cutoff date of June 30, 2014. In the larger context of compensation for social injustice stemming from illiberal and injurious state programs a firm deadline seems highly problematic, as the date seems arbitrary and informed not by considerations of justice but by political expediency, and it remains unclear why such a deadline would be necessary in the first place.

The number of verified cases remains very low at less than 220 (see here). It appears that a victim is only verified for compensation if a record of an order by the state's Eugenics board exists. If this is the case, it leaves out those whose records might no longer be extant, or whose sterilization was due not to a sterilization order under the state's eugenics law but what is known as "Mississippi appendectomies" (this is noted and explained here). As is the case with the deadline, this very narrow definition of victimhood is not calibrated to the historical record or experience of victimhood.

Bibliography

Ariyo, Oluwunmi. 2006. Making the Unfit Individual: Analysis of the Rhetoric of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina. Masters Thesis, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University.

Schoen, Johanna. 2011. Reassessing Eugenic Sterilization: The Case of North Carolina. Pp. 141-60 in A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era, ed. Paul Lombardo. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ------. 2005. Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Severson, Kim. "Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution." NYTimes.com Dec. 9, 2011. Available at .

Sinderbrand, Rebecca. 2005. "A Shameful Little Secret." Newsweek 33 (March 28). State Library of North Carolina. "Eugenics in North Carolina." Available at Wiggins, Lori. 2005. North Carolina Regrets Sterilization Program. Crisis 112, 3: 10. Winston-Salem Journal. Against Their Will. Available at .

See the rest here:
Eugenics in North Carolina - University of Vermont

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled 'An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective'.[1] This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law,[2] which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Over time, the scope of the Board's work broadened from a focus on pure eugenics to considering sterilization as a tool to combat poverty and welfare costs. Its original purpose was to oversee the practice of sterilization as it pertained to inmates or patients of public-funded institutions that were judged to be 'mentally defective or feeble-minded' by authorities. In contrast to other eugenics programs across the United States, the North Carolina Board enabled county departments of public welfare to petition for the sterilization of their clients.[3] The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence,[4] though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board's operations were repealed.[5]

Today the Board's work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum.[citation needed] In 2013, North Carolina passed legislation to compensate those sterilized under the Board's jurisdiction.[6][7]

The board was made up of five members:[1]

The State of North Carolina first enacted sterilization legislation in 1919.[8] The 1919 law was the first foray for North Carolina into eugenics; this law, entitled "An Act to Benefit the Moral, Mental, or Physical Conditions of Inmates of Penal and Charitable Institutions" was quite brief, encompassing only 4 sections. Provision was made for creation of a Board of Consultation, made up of a member of the medical staff of any of the penal or charitable State institutions, and a representative of the State Board of Health, to oversee sterilization that was to be undertaken when "in the judgement of the board hereby created, said operation would be for the improvement of the mental, moral or physical conditions of any inmate of any of the said institutions". The Board of Consultation would have reported to both the Governor and the Secretary of the State Board of Health. No sterilizations were performed under the provisions of this law, though its structure was to guide following legislation.[8]

In 1929, two years after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Buck v. Bell[9] in which sterilization was ruled permissible under the U.S. Constitution, North Carolina passed an updated law[2] that formally laid down rules for the sterilization of citizens. This law, entitled "An Act to Provide For the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina", was similar to the law which preceded it, although this new Act contained several new provisions.[2]

In contrast to the 1919 law, which had mandated sterilization for the "improvement of the mental, moral or physical condition of any inmate", the new law added a new and far-reaching condition: "Or for the public good." This condition, expanding beyond the individual to greater considerations of society, would be built on in the ensuing years.[2]

The 1929 law also expanded the review process to four reviewers, namely: The Commissioner of Charities and Public Welfare of North Carolina, The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina, and the Chief Medical Officers of any two institutions for the "feeble-minded or insane" for the State of North Carolina.[2]

Lastly, the new law also explicitly stated that sterilization, where performed under the Act's guidelines, would be lawful and that any persons who requested, authorized or directed proceedings would not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken. Under the 1929 law, 49 recorded cases took place in which sterilization was performed.[10]

In 1933, the North Carolina State Supreme Court heard Brewer v. Valk,[11] an appeal from Forsyth County Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the 1929 law violated both the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the 1868 North Carolina State Constitution.[12] The Supreme Court noted that property rights required due process, specifically a mechanism by which notice of action could be given, and hearing rights established so that somebody subject to the sterilization law had the opportunity to appeal their case. Under both the U.S. Constitution and the N.C. State Constitution in place at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1929 law was unconstitutional as no such provisions existed in the law as written.[11]

The North Carolina General Assembly went on in the wake of Brewer v. Valk to enact House Bill 1013,[1] removing the constitutional objections to the law, thereby forming the Eugenics Board and creating the framework which would remain in force for over thirty years. The Board was granted authority over all sterilization proceedings undertaken in the State, which had previously been devolved to various governing bodies or heads of penal and charitable institutions supported in whole or in part by the State.[2]

In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.[13]

Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor, and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general.

In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any proceedings.

1976 brought a new challenge to the law with the case of In re Sterilization of Joseph Lee Moore[14] in which an appeal was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The petitioner's case was that the court had not appointed counsel at State expense to advise him of his rights prior to sterilization being performed. While the court noted that there was discretion within the law to approve a fee for the service of an expert, it was not constitutionally required. The court went on to declare that the involuntary sterilization of citizens for the public good was a legitimate use of the police power of the state, further noting that "The people of North Carolina have a right to prevent the procreation of children who will become a burden on the state." The ruling upholding the constitutionality was notable in both its relatively late date (many other States had ceased performing sterilization operations shortly after WWII) and its language justifying state intervention on the grounds of children being a potential burden to the public.[14]

The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.[4][15]

In 2003, the N.C. General Assembly formally repealed the last involuntary sterilization law, replacing it with one that authorizes sterilization of individuals unable to give informed consent only in the case of medical necessity. The law explicitly ruled out sterilizations "solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience."[5][16]

At the time of the Board's formation there was a body of thought that viewed the practice of eugenics as both necessary for the public good and for the private citizen. Following Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court was often cited both domestically and internationally as a foundation for eugenics policies.

In Buck v. Bell Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in support of eugenics policy, that

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. 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. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.[9]

Despite the Supreme Court rulings in support of eugenics as constitutionally permitted, even as late as 1950 some physicians in North Carolina were still concerned about the legality of sterilization. Efforts were made to reassure the medical community that the laws were both constitutionally sound and specifically exempting physicians from liability.[17]

Framing eugenics as supporting the public good was fundamental to how the law was written. It was argued that both for the benefit of the private citizen, and for the costs to society of future possible childbirths, eugenics were a sound and moral way to proceed. This was stated in the Board's manual of policies and procedures, in which the practice was justified:[18]

No Place For Sentimentality

There can be no place for sentimentality in solving the problems of the mental health of our citizens. We would be less than human were we to feel no compassion for our unfortunates. But it is a peculiar paradox of human nature that while the best stock of our people is being lost on the battle fronts of the world, we make plans for the betterment and the coddling of our defectives.

In the press, opinion articles were published arguing for a greater use of eugenics, in which many of the reasons above were cited as justification. Even the Winston-Salem Journal, which would be a significant force in illuminating North Carolina's past eugenics abuses in the modern era, was not immune. In 1948 the newspaper published an editorial entitled "The Case for Sterilization - Quantity vs. Quality" that went into great detail extolling the virtues of 'breeding' for the general public good.[20]

North Carolina's Selective Sterilization Law

Protects...

It Saves...

Proponents of eugenics did not restrict its use to the 'feeble-minded'. In many cases, more ardent authors included the blind, deaf-mutes, and people suffering from diseases like heart disease or cancer in the general category of those who should be sterilized.[22] The argument was twofold; that parents likely to give birth to 'defective' children should not allow it, and that healthy children borne to 'defective' parents would be doomed to an 'undesirable environment'.[23]

Wallace Kuralt, Mecklenburg County's welfare director from 1945 to 1972, was a leader in transitioning the work of state eugenics from looking only at medical conditions to considering poverty as a justification for state sterilization. Under Kuralt's tenure, Mecklenburg county became far and away the largest source of sterilizations in the state. He supported this throughout his life in his writings and interviews, where he made plain his conviction that sterilization was a force for good in fighting poverty. In a 1964 interview with the Charlotte Observer, Kuralt said:

"When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental and social misfits in our midst, the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?"[19][24]

Among public and private groups that published articles advocating for eugenics, the Human Betterment League was a significant advocate for the procedure within North Carolina. This organization, founded by Procter & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble provided experts, written material and monetary support to the eugenics movement. Many pamphlets and publications were created by the league advocating the groups position which were then distributed throughout the state. One pamphlet entitled 'You Wouldn't Expect...' laid out a series of rhetorical questions to argue the point that those considered 'defective' were unable to be good parents.[21]

While it is not known exactly how many people were sterilized during the lifetime of the law, the Task Force established by Governor Beverly Perdue estimated the total at around 7,500. They provided a summary of the estimated number of operations broken down by time period. This does not include sterilizations that may have occurred at a local level by doctors and hospitals.[10][25]

The report went on to provide a breakdown by county. There were no counties in North Carolina that performed no operations, though the spread was marked, going from as few as 4 in Tyrrell county, to 485 in Mecklenburg county.[10]

Some research into the historical data in North Carolina has drawn links between race and sterilization rates. One study performed in 2010 by Gregory Price and William Darity Jr described the practice as "racially biased and genocidal". In the study, the researchers showed that as the black population of a county increased, the number of sterilizations increased disproportionately; that black citizens were more likely, all things being equal, to being recommended for sterilization than whites.[26]

Poverty and sterilization were also closely bound. Since social workers concerned themselves with those accepting welfare and other public assistance, there was a strong impetus to recommending sterilization to families as a means of controlling their economic situation. This was sometimes done under duress, when benefits were threatened as a condition of undergoing the surgery.[27]

What made the picture more complicated was the fact that in some cases, individuals sought out sterilization. Since those in poverty had fewer choices for birth control, having a state-funded procedure to guarantee no further children was attractive to some mothers. Given the structure of the process however, women found themselves needing to be described as unfit mothers or welfare burdens in order to qualify for the program, rather than simply asserting reproductive control.[3]

Many stories from those directly affected by the Board's work have come to light over the past several years. During the hearings from the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation many family members and individuals personally testified to the impact that the procedures had had on them.

NCEB Case Summary: Elaine Riddick

This thirteen year old girl expects her first child in March 1968....She has never done any work and gets along so poorly with others that her school experience was poor. Because of Elaine's inability to control herself, and her promiscuity - there are community reports of her "running around" and out late at night unchaperoned, the physician has advised sterilization....This will at least prevent additional children from being born to this child who cannot care for herself, and can never function in any way as a parent.

Elaine Riddick is a fifty-one-year-old African American woman who was born in Perquimans County, North Carolina. Born into a poor family, one of seven children, the family was split up by the County Welfare department after her parents were deemed to be unfit. Elaine and one sister were sent to live with her grandmother, while the remaining five were sent to an orphanage. It was shortly after this family upheaval, when Elaine was 13, that she was raped by a 20-year-old man with a history of assault and incarceration. Elaine subsequently became pregnant.

When the social worker, Marion Payne, assigned to the Riddick family found out that Elaine was pregnant,[29] she pressured Elaine's grandmother into signing a consent form for sterilization (Riddick's grandmother, being illiterate, signed the form with a simple 'X' symbol). On March 5, 1968, when Elaine was 14 years old, she was sterilized under the authority of the board. The procedure took place hours after Elaine had given birth to a son.[30] Riddick learned only years later the extent of the procedure, testifying to its effect over her life in a lawsuit brought against the state of North Carolina with the assistance of the ACLU in 1974. She cited failed relationships, physical pain and suffering, and psychological trauma. Unfortunately for Riddick, her lawsuit did not end in success; a jury found against her, and the NC Supreme court refused to hear her case. It would not be until the hearings of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation that her story was to be widely heard once more.[31][32]

Junius Wilson was born in 1908 in North Carolina and grew up near Wilmington. In 1916 he was sent to the North Carolina School for the Colored Deaf and the Blind, a segregated state school in Raleigh that was the first southern school for black deaf children. Since this was a segregated school, students there were not given the resources of other schools. They were not taught American Sign Language and developed their own system of communication. This worked within the institution, but because it was their own, it did not travel, and so students and deaf from other schools were unable to understand them.[33]

Wilson stayed there for six years, learning rudimentary sign language, until a minor infraction lead to his expulsion. While at home in Castle Hayne, Wilson came to the attention of the legal system when he was accused of the attempted rape of a relative. It is unclear whether the charge had merit - biographers speculated that his misunderstood behavior stemming from communication difficulties may have led to the situation - but what is not in doubt is that in 1925 Wilson was declared legally insane by a court and committed to the state Hospital for the Colored Insane in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which became Cherry Hospital in 1959.[34] In 1932 he was surgically castrated under the provisions of the eugenics laws in place.[35]

Wilson would remain committed to the state facility for decades. In 1990, he was given a new social worker, John Wasson. Wasson came to find out that not only was Wilson not mentally disabled, but that the hospital staff had known for years that he was not. To compound the situation, the legal charges against Wilson dating back to 1925 had been dismissed in 1970; put bluntly, for twenty years he had been committed to the hospital without legal justification. In interviews with hospital staff, Wasson found that it had been considered the most 'benevolent' course of action, since Wilson was thoroughly institutionalized at that point, with many of the same difficulties in learning and communication that had been his burden since birth.

Wasson instigated the legal challenge to Wilson's incarceration. In 1992 Wilson was formally declared a free man. Since he had no close relatives or family members able to care for him in his advanced age, a cottage was found for him on the grounds of Cherry Hospital. Wilson would live there until his death in 2001.[36][37]

Not all who testified before the Committee were sterilized by the Eugenics Board directly. In many cases people who were sterilized were operated on by local clinics and doctors. It was argued that in many of these cases patients were not fully educated as to the nature of the procedure and were urged into it by doctors or social workers who were making judgements based upon their patients' economic situation. Young women of limited means who had multiple children were specifically targeted for sterilization by many case workers.[38]

Mary English was one such case. In her personal testimony she explained that in 1972, she had been newly divorced with three children. She went to see a doctor at a Fayetteville OB/GYN clinic for some medical complaints. The doctor offered her entry into a program that would negate any need for future birth control. English signed the required paperwork, and was sterilized after the birth of her third child. It was years later, when she went back to the doctor to have the procedure reversed, that she found out it was permanent.[39]

English went on to detail her struggles with depression and retold experiences of friends and neighbors who had gone through similar situations at the hands of their own doctors. As for the clinic at which English was sterilized, she claimed that it was still operating, though declined to name it, or the doctor responsible for her sterilization.[40]

The Winston-Salem Journal's "Against Their Will" documentary, released in 2002, based in part on Joanna Schoen's research of the North Carolina Eugenics program, is credited with spurring public interest and demands for action to repeal laws and explore the possibility of compensation for affected people. This five part series gave extensive background to the work of the Eugenics Board, with detailed statistics, victim's stories, and historical information on the broader Eugenics movement in the United States in the Post-WWII era.[29]

Then-Governor Mike Easley offered an apology to victims of the policy in 2002. At the time, North Carolina was the third State in the nation to officially apologize for eugenics practices, following behind Virginia and Oregon though North Carolina was the first State to go beyond a formal apology to actively considering compensation in some form.[41] Easley set up a committee to study the history of the Eugenics Board with instructions to provide recommendations on how to handle what it termed 'program survivors'. The committee recommended five specific steps:[42]

The recommendations lay dormant in the North Carolina Legislature until 2008, when a study committee was appointed. The House Committee gave its own recommendations which in large part mirrored Easley's committee's findings though it went further, in establishing a suggested dollar figure of $20,000 compensation per surviving victim. The House committee also recommended training, the creation of memorials, and documenting survivor experiences, and the creation of a database to store sterilization records for future research. While the House committee recommended setting funds aside for these purposes, the Legislature did not grant funding in 2008.[43] The house committee was co-chaired by State Representative Larry Womble, who has been a public advocate in the state house for victim's compensation. Womble announced he would be stepping down and not seek re-election after a horrific car crash in late 2011.[44][45]

In 2008, Beverley Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina. As part of her platform she pledged to take up the sterilization situation.[46] In 2010 Perdue issued an executive order that formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation (NCJSVF).[47]

The Task Force was made up of the following:[6]

The Foundation recommended that compensation be raised to $50,000 per victim, in a 3-2 vote. They also voted for funds for mental health services and historical displays and exhibits documenting the history of sterilization in the state.[10] It is not yet clear how many victims will be satisfied by the amount; many have granted detailed interviews that documented their severe emotional trauma in the wake of the procedures, and have been outspoken in demanding higher sums.[48]

On April 25, 2012, North Carolina's Gov. Perdue announced that she will put $10.3 million in her budget proposal to allocate towards issues surrounding eugenics. The funds are intended to aid with $50,000 payments to verified North Carolina eugenics victims. The remainder of the monies will be used to support the continued efforts of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation as they provide outreach and clearinghouse services to help Eugenics victims. Governor Perdue stated,[49]

We cannot change the terrible things that happened to so many of our most vulnerable citizens, but we can take responsibility for our states mistakes and show that we do not tolerate violations of basic human rights. We must provide meaningful assistance to victims, so I am including this funding in my budget.

Gov. Perdue's budget proposal is in accordance with the recommendations of the January 2012 final report issued from the Eugenics Compensation Task Force. The board suggested that living victims and those who were not deceased when verified by the foundation receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $50,000. The N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation reports that there is still an increase in the number of confirmed/verified eugenics victims. As of April 25, 2012, 132 people in 51 counties had been matched to the North Carolina's Eugenics program records.[49]

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.[7][50]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics Board of North Carolina - Wikipedia, the free ...