EUGENIC LEGISLATION 



Much of it Worse than Useless Because Based on Lamarckian Theories — Other 



Statutes Sound Biologically but Wrong Sociologically Need for 



Caution but Possibility of Positive Achievements. 



A Review. 



STUDENTS of human heredity 

 will \'ie\v with satisfaction the 

 aiJi)earancc of bulletin No. 82 of 

 the University of Washin^on,' 

 which j^ives in 87 paj^cs a summary of 

 the laws of the several United States 

 governinj^: I. — Marriaj^e and divorce 

 of the feeVjlemindcd, the epileptic and 

 the insane; IL — Asexualization; IIL 

 — Institutional commitment and dis- 

 charge of the feebleminded and the 

 epileptic. After giving summaries of all 

 the laws in question, in a clear and 

 concise form, the authors terminate 

 their work with four ])ages of temperate 

 discussion of the entire subject of legis- 

 lation intended to prevent the breeding 

 of a degenerate race in the United 

 States, pointing out that some of this 

 legislation is so out of date, from a 

 biological jjoint of view, that it is worse 

 than useless. 



"A half century ago," they remark 

 (p. 82), "educators still hoped by in- 

 tensive education so to improve the 

 mental condition of the feebleminded as 

 to make advisable their leaving the 

 institution and assiuning some, at least, 

 of the duties of normal ijcojjle. If this 

 policy of the educators were to benefit 

 society, it must have ])resui)]:)osed that 

 acquired trails are, in the full meaning of 

 the term, inherited. And this no one 

 at that time doubted. 



" Today we know that nearl\- all fc^rms 

 of mental deficiency are incurable, and 

 most biologists believe that, in the full 

 meaning of the term, acquired char- 

 acters arc not inherited. Legislatures, 

 however, have other tasks than the 

 study of modern biological theory, so 

 that we see the oi^inifjns of Lamarck and 



of Seguin almost unchanged in many of 

 the state laws. 



"For instance, a niunber of insti- 

 tutions for the feebleminded are in- 

 tended only for those who 'may be 

 benefited by the instruction.' The Illi- 

 nois api^lication blank indicates this. 

 The governor of New Jersey is em- 

 powered to remove any child who is not 

 benefiting by the instruction given. 

 Delaware, which sends its feebleminded 

 to the institutions of other states, orders 

 its patients discharged when they may 

 no longer receive benefit from training. 

 In Kentucky the superintendent of the 

 institution is supposed to return to the 

 counties all patients, further attempts 

 to educate whom will not prove bene- 

 ficial to the state. Also, no child may 

 be kept in the institution after arriving 

 at such age and mental condition that he 

 will be able to provide for himself. 



EDUCATION NOT .\ RKMKOV. 



"Regulations such as these are not 

 often put to any greater use than neces- 

 sary, but they still reflect the opinion of 

 a few decades ago, that the superficially 

 educated defective makes better material 

 for parenthood than the uneducated 

 defective. To discharge, unsterilized, 

 the defective child, after having taught 

 him habits of neatness and a few tricks 

 that make his mental deficiency less 

 noticeable, is worse than never to have 

 put him in an institution. The same 

 criticism ajiplies, of course, to the special 

 classes in the public schools. 



"Among the marriage and divorce 

 laws there is more Lamarckian biology. 

 Kansas forbids the marriage (unless the 

 wife is over 45 years of age) of children 



'The Bulletin of the Univ. of Washington no. 82 (Seattle, Wash., May, 1914), "A Summary of 

 the Laws of the Several States, etc.," by Stevenson Smith, Madge W. Wilkinsdn and Lovisa C. 

 Wagoner of the Bailey and Bal)ette Gatzcrt Foundation for Child Welfare. 



142 



