This will be my fourth year teaching an AP level course, and third consecutive year teaching AP African American Studies, in addition to teaching U.S. History and Black and Latino studies elective. History courses within and beyond the AP realm often center on a Western canon and reinforce dominant narratives about history, literature, and science. This marginalizes the intellectual traditions of non-Western and non-white communities and upholds a narrow definition of what is as rigorous and valuable knowledge, often left to the mercy and decision-making power of the curriculum writers. Although I could see how the development of the content for the AP African American studies course was both a response to and rejection of this eurocentrism, there was turmoil within myself that I could not name nor explain. While I felt excited and grateful for having the opportunity to be the first teacher in New Haven Public Schools to pilot this course, there was an incongruous feeling I couldn’t shake: Why did my teaching in this course feel so wildly different and disconnected from the more grounded, student-centered approach I typically used in my other courses? After all, this course was designed to acknowledge and center the rich and complex histories of the African diaspora.
Coincidently, it was only this Spring when I joined Daniel HoSang's seminar on Eugenics and Its Afterlives that I finally had the understanding and language to explain the “what” and “why” of my experiences. I identified the following sources of my frustration and discontent:
- The rigid structure and unrealistic pacing of AP courses
- The emphasis and over reliance on memorizing the content of each lesson topic considered “essential knowledge” by College Board
- In trying to ensure I covered as much of the course content as I could, I perpetuated and reinforced a “teach for the test” mindset with my students even though it contradicted my entire teaching philosophy.
Teaching AP African American Studies involves navigating an inherited framework in which success is measured by a high-stakes multiple-choice exam - a system with direct historical ties to eugenics. The term “eugenics,” meaning “good birth,” has its roots in 19th century Europe coined by Englishman and eugenicist Francis Galton. Galton, cousin of renowned naturalist Charles Darwin, misapplied Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendelian genetics to human reproduction and hereditary. During the early part of the century many other European “social scientists,” physicians, and law enforcement officials were observing rising social issues such as poverty, criminality, and what they called “feeblemindedness.” They labelled and associated these trends to “social degeneracy” - the belief that society and human advancement itself was rapidly regressing with potentially existential consequences. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the professionalization of gynecology and obstetrics created fertile ground for the emergence of the American eugenics’ movement. This movement, which reached its peak in the early 20th century, was founded on the set of beliefs and practices which aimed to create the “perfect” human race through selective breeding. Eugenics would soon be inextricably linked in nearly every aspect of American society. Like their European counterparts, American eugenicists viewed social issues not as products of systemic inequality, but as biological flaws that could be resolved by regulating the reproductive capacities of those deemed “unfit” as the cure for ridding society of its ills. The “success” and pervasiveness of American eugenics movement was largely due to a vast, and well-connected network of individuals with the socio-economic power to transform ideology into policy. These individuals leveraged their influence to institutionalize eugenics and galvanize public support for its widespread implementation. Although eugenics was and has been discredited, the effects linger today and are evident in the AP classroom – so long as we know how to spot them.
The following examples illuminate the subtle yet pervasive legacies of eugenic logic and behaviors:
Meritocracy Myth & Fixed Intelligence: The ideological foundation of eugenics is rooted in the belief that intelligence is innate and biologically determined. In his article, “The Racism of Intelligence: How Mental Testing Practices Have Constituted an Institutionalized Form of Group Domination” Jean-Claude Croizet says “Education serves as the screening institution aimed at identifying and selecting the brightest students to provide them with training commensurate to their individual merit. Then, educational credentials impact to a larger extent occupational opportunities and, as a result, the individuals' position in the social hierarchy.”1 This flawed belief that intelligence is fixed, and some students are just “smarter” by nature is often reinforced in AP classes by failing to acknowledge that one’s success can be significantly impacted – positively or negatively - by existing social inequities within and beyond the education system.
Tracking and Gatekeeping: In connection with the above eugenic idea is the belief that society should be sorted based on perceived cognitive ability. As applied students are often “tracked” into AP/honors vs the “regular” or standard classes. These tracks often correlate with race, school funding, and socioeconomic status reinforcing social hierarchies under the guise of “academic ability”; When, disparate access and structural racism contribute to gatekeeping who has access to this level of a course. When it comes to planning AP course enrollments for the following school year, teachers (within the context of my school) are often asked to recommend students who they feel are a “good fit” or academically able. This decision is often based on the student’s academic track record and academic performance in the previous school year. Considering a student’s academic performance or skillset to ensure they are not being set up for failure by recommending them for a course they might not be quite ready for – yet – is important, however, is ultimately up to the discretion of the recommender which can be rather subjective.
Overemphasis on Testing and Quantification: The eugenic logic operating here is again this belief that intelligence can be objectively measured, categorized and ranked. The College Board AP system is based on standardized testing. These high-stakes assessments privilege certain types of knowledge and ways of thinking – typically Eurocentric, text-heavy, and analytical – while greatly undervaluing other forms of intelligence and/or ways of engaging in the course (i.e creativity, emotional, or communally).
These are classic tenets of eugenics that persist within education. These deeply flawed beliefs inform behavior that shapes policy, which works to reinforce systemic inequities. However, the same way we have all learned and been affected by eugenic thinking, we can collectively and consciously choose to unlearn it.
The purpose of this unit is to explore the history of reproductive regulation of Black women’s bodies, the role of eugenics, and contemporary developments within the reproductive justice movement. I will do this within the context of how I currently cover these topics, and approach teaching both the content and skills through a more critical lens. After studying and researching current scholarship on both eugenics and reproductive regulation, I have identified the three major patterns of eugenic behaviors that follows:
- Rooted in the belief of biological determinism. The false notion that traits like intelligence, morality, or worth are inherited and fixed. This ideology laid the foundation for policies and political systems that systematically produce and sustain social inequities. It legitimized harmful hierarchies by presenting pseudoscientific “facts” as objective truth, enabling entire fields of study to be professionalized around deeply flawed, and often dangerous, premises.
- Working in tandem with scarcity mindset that is shaped by white supremacy. In the context of the United States but not limited, dominant social groups (i.e. white upper-middle class/men) have been and are at the helm, exerting their control over marginalized groups to maintain their access to resources, power, and privilege. Perpetuating and reinforcing a socially inequitable hierarchy.
- Paternalism. Rather than seeing the value in collective agency – other than when the benefits or privileges will be reaped for their own communities – elites have this deeply held and perverse belief that they know what is best for others, silencing or outright denying democratic attempts of self–determination in typically marginalized communities.
While these conclusions were drawn largely from my reading of Erik L. Peterson’s The Shortest History of Eugenics, I gained a nuanced and intersectional understanding of reproductive regulation from Dorothy Robert’s book Killing the Black Body. Roberts argues that the regulation and control of Black women’s reproductive rights has historically been — and continues to be — a cornerstone of racial oppression in the United States. Roberts demonstrates how reproductive regulation is not simply a matter of individual choice or medical policy but must be situated within broader social justice issues such as racism, sexism, and social control2.
Initially, I began my research delving into the works of Deirdre Cooper Medical Bondage, and Harriet Washington’s Medical Apartheid which helped me to understand the historical development and professionalization of the field of gynecology, both of which exploited the labor and bodies of Black women. It was only when I transitioned to Robert’s book that it became clear how reproductive regulation is linked to many more social issues.
