Sir Francis Galton—half-cousin to Charles Darwin—founded the field in 1883, drawing upon pre-existing beliefs about human worth as well as his findings in fields such as statistics. Proponents presented it as a humane answer to social ills: That new advancements in science could promise the human race a better future.

Eugenics methodology

From the beginning, there were major errors in eugenicists’ research. Chief among the weaknesses was an erroneous belief that Mendelian inheritance—a type of genetic inheritance where traits followed a simplistic dominant/recessive inheritance pattern—governed human genetics. Eugenicists likewise vastly oversimplified human behavior and conditions into traits such as “feeble-mindedness,” which could range from poor performance in school and jobs in manual labor to perceived immoral behavior and mental disability.

Eugenics is recognized as taking two forms: positive and negative. Positive eugenics refers to programs to encourage “desirable” people to procreate, while negative eugenics refers to policies intended to get rid of “undesirable” people and restrict their ability to procreate.

Negative eugenics

Positive eugenics

In the United States, negative eugenics took the form of marriage restrictions, family separation, sterilization, racial segregation, and institutional segregation. Negative eugenics largely relied on dehumanization, leading to many cases of severe abuse in America as well as murder programs around the world.

This area is much harder to trace as it centered around encouraging people to practice eugenics—both by improving their health and excluding “undesirables” from their bloodline and society—often as common sense rather than by the term eugenics. Eugenicists taught eugenics in courses and visiting lectures as well as by recruiting teachers and educational systems to spread their ideas. At county fairs, families participated in “fitter families” and “better baby” contests. 

Many of these policies did not need to be codified into law. Positive eugenic programs were often led by private citizens and organizations or taken up in academic systems. In the United States, there were already legal and cultural traditions of banning interracial marriages or allowing divorce in the case of mental ability. While these policies often pre-dated eugenics, eugenicists found the intent of the laws sufficient for their purposes. Institutional segregation could be implemented at the discretion of institutional leaders, as courts typically only determined the commitment and not its length.

Eugenics and shame

Eugenics is fundamentally centered around shame—encouraging supporters and silencing detractors. People who spoke up about family members subjected to eugenics risked being seen as having bad blood—which would threaten not just them but also their entire family. This public shaming helped to stigmatize a number of health and behavioral issues, the impact of which can still be seen today.

Supporters, meanwhile, could win praise and glory for having a “good” family, encouraging widespread embracement of a field that was based on pre-existing prejudices. However, it is important to recognize that there were limited communication methods at the beginning of eugenics and that the general public likely wasn’t aware of the full impact of policies such as institutionalization. Following increasing investigations and public reporting of life at the institutions, many Vermonters advocated for reform.

 Eugenics in action

  • Laws and policies used to prevent “undesirable” unions. Eugenicists could often use existing code such as anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriages) and divorce laws that allowed for the measure due to loss of mental capabilities. In other cases, eugenicists used institutional segregation to prevent marriages. They further convinced a number of religious leaders to demand eugenic certificates of “good health” as a prerequisite for marriage.

  • A surgical procedure to permanently prevent reproduction. Sterilization was among the most controversial eugenical measures in the United States. Early laws were typically blocked or quickly overturned given widespread concerns over constitutionality.

  • Under the eugenics period, methods of restricting “undesirable” people from society and procreation. These practices could include racial segregation in society and institutionalization. Institutional segregation was practiced more widely by Vermont eugenicists, though it could sometimes be used to prevent interracial marriage. Institutional officials had discretion in determining releases, negating the need for new laws; they also often shuffled subjects between the institutions to prevent reproduction for longer periods.

  • National eugenicists supported local contests of “better babies” and “fitter families” to encourage select families to breed—glorifying certain races, mental and physical abilities, and physical characteristics while inherently denigrating others.

  • Eugenicists spread eugenical ideals through collaborations with local schools and distance courses, college lectures, and lecturing organizations such as Women’s Clubs. In Vermont, the Eugenics Survey of Vermont used the Vermont Commission on Country Life’s Rural Vermont: A Program for the Future as a eugenical tract.

  • Eugenicists advocated for abortion and birth control to limit reproduction in “undesirable” groups, such as on the basis of mental and physical ability, race, and socioeconomic status. However, there was a notable split as to allowing access for desirable groups, with some considering it “race suicide” while others saw potential for strengthening and growing families.

Note: While eugenicists and pro-choice advocates both supported legalizing abortion and birth control, there was an indisputable difference in their reasoning for legalization and who they intended to be able to access such services. While some pro-choice advocates were also eugenicists, all pro-choice advocates should not be blindly labeled as eugenicists.