Historical Context
To understand the influence of eugenics in Latin America, we must dive into its history. Racial differences and cultural identity struggles in Latin America can be traced to the Spanish conquest of the “New World.” Art and literature showed how some conquistadores of New Spain were concerned with the “purity of blood” and racial mixing. The Casta Paintings by Spaniards Miguel Cabrera, c 1763, and Francisco Clapera, c. 1775, are examples.4 The artwork documents the process of racial mixing in the Spanish colonies. Racial mixes became known as Castas, and they included Amerindians, Creoles, Spaniards, and Africans. Casta painting's purpose was to point out the dangers of a mixed society. Curator Ilona Katzew of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where Miguel Cabrera’s art is exhibited, shows that classification of the castes was necessary because "there existed in Europe the widespread idea that all the inhabitants of the Americas (regardless of race) were degraded hybrids, which cast into doubt the purity of Spaniards’ blood, and their ability to rule the colony’s subjects”.5
So, the idea of maintaining the purity of the race preceded the Galton concept of eugenics. The word eugenics is derived from the Greek “eugenes,” which means “well born.” Concerned that a mixed-race society would produce a weak one, nobles and philosophers in Europe began calling for a thoughtful selection of human breeding to prevent biological corruption. 6
Controlling human breeding for the betterment of society was not Galton’s idea. Nevertheless, getting the field of biology, medicine, sociology, and the laws of human heredity to promote the survival of the fittest through selective breeding was his biggest contribution. Galton believed that humans were born with some inherent abilities, fit or unfit for society. The fit will include a healthy, robust, smart, charismatic individual. Selective breeding will promote the fit, discouraging breeding of the unfit or the sickly, weak, mentally impaired, lazy, alcoholics, epileptics, “idiots,” among others. These degenerates or feebleminded individuals were usually considered to be poor, disabled, or racial minorities.
In the late 19th century and early 1900s, scholars, physicians, psychologists, and public health officials both in Europe and the United States then elevated eugenics through a biological discourse of heredity that justified the achievements of the white elite and explained why the “undesirables” were unable to escape their destiny.7
In America, fear grew that these undesirables- defined by the elite as the racial minority, the immigrants, the poor, and the mentally deficient- would reproduce and deplete resources. The solution to control and manage these groups was to prevent having more of them through sterilization or selective breeding.
With the backing of science, major groups in the United States popularized eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century. The Eugenic Records Office (ERO) in New York, the American Eugenics Society (AES), headquartered in New Haven and later New York, the Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) in California, and the Race Betterment Society (RBS) in Michigan, were groups well-funded by powerful men and included in its membership scientists, physicians, educators and politicians.
Among the prominent figures of the ERO were Charles Davenport, a biologist and leader of the ERO, a firm believer that genes determine human traits, including intelligence, and Harry H. Laughlin, an educator and one of the co-founders of the American Eugenics Society. Under Davenport and Laughlin, the ERO traced and validated the genetics of the “undesirables” and promoted the use of standardized testing for intelligence, including IQ testing. The ERO also organized the first of several international eugenic congresses, integrating eugenicists from across the World. Laughlin was instrumental in pursuing and expanding sterilization laws across the nation.
The RBS counted on the support of brothers Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and Will Keith Kellogg, who invested their cereal fortune to promote eugenics. More than sterilization, the RBS sponsored the selected breeding of humans through contests aimed at discovering fitter families and better babies. The contests collected data that the RBS used to form a heredity registry of people.
At the AES, Yale economics professor Irving Fisher, Henry Laughlin, Charles Davenport, Madison Grant, and other respected professors pulled together prominent researchers of the time to provide scientific data that supported involuntary sterilization laws, hosted “fitter family” contests, and advocated for eugenics policies, including immigration restriction and racial segregation.
Dr. Paul B. Popenoe, a biologist, and Ezra S. Gosney, a citrus magnate, were the leaders behind the HBF. In 1929, the HBF published a major study of sterilization surgeries in California affirming that sterilization of men and women was a safe and effective way to improve the elite race and stop the spread the of ill social problems- the defectives, hereditary criminals, the unfit, and the undeserving poor. Popenoe and Gosney attracted important figures in academia to their organization, including physicist Robert Millikan, a Nobel Prize winner and leader of the California Institute of Technology. After leading the HBF Popenoe transition to be a nationally respected marriage counselor, using science and biology to legitimize traditional sex and gender roles in the family.8
The laws and practices influenced by these groups face criticism and legal battles. But the case that was most influential for eugenics is the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell. This case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where it was decided that involuntary sterilization of the “inherited feebleminded” by a state or public institution was better than procreating more of its kind. The Supreme Court validated the ideas of eugenic sterilization, making it legally ok for states to adopt the procedures.
To summarize, forced involuntary sterilizations, intelligence testing, immigrant restrictions, better babies and fitter family contests, euthanasia, segregation, and social exclusion were among the popular practices and policies promoted by the science and medicine of eugenics.
These practices experienced a popular growth up to the end of World War II, when Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed against Jews in the name of a better Aryan race were linked to eugenics.
Nevertheless, the work continued under other names. At Yale University, eugenics-based scientific research transitioned to the Institute of Human Relations (IHR) for the study of human behavior. This institution was founded in 1929 under the presidency of James Rowland Angell. Angell was a proponent of eugenics and believed in the idea of "building a better race" through selective breeding. Angell welcomed the AES headquarters at Yale, and when the society lost its ranking in the late 1930s, the IHR became a scientific hub of eugenics ideas.9
It was the objective of President Angell to turn Yale University into the most prestigious research institution, gathering the most respected scientists in the fields of psychology, child development, economics, sociology, law, medicine, and psychiatry. Among them, famed psychobiologist Robert Yerkes, who developed the intelligence testing used on immigrants entering the United States. The research subjects for human behavior studies became the children and residents of New Haven. Once again, scientific research at the IHR validated eugenics ideas that resulted in the development of more policies against and the exclusion of the poor, the sick, the immigrant, and any group of people perceived to be different and inferior. The work of the IHR continued well into the late part of the 20th century.
Other ways in which eugenics ideas transitioned in the United States during this period and into the present era are through policies on population control and poverty control. These policies target minorities, immigrants, and the poor and encourage them to use birth control methods, among others, to limit their population.
Internationally, the effects of these eugenics policies are concentrated in Third World countries, including Latin America, where eugenics is often entwined with the construction of national identities and ideas of racial purity and social progress.10 Zero population growth ideas have been linked with the eugenics ideology, and its proponents advocate for family planning, birth control, and international aid to address population growth concerns in developing countries.
While the eugenicists of Latin America were somewhat at odds with their counterparts in the United States for their bigotry, they supported the preservation of the family unit with traditional gender roles that stigmatized any perceived sexual deviance, sometimes as controlled through sterilization. They also supported the view on immigration, population control, and science.
In Latin American literature, eugenics is frequently explored with themes of race, social class, and national identity. Authors and the elite engaged with eugenic ideas to explain or justify the perceived "backwardness" of indigenous populations, Afro-descendant communities, and mixed-race individuals, often linked to notions of "civilization" versus "barbarism."
In her study of the international spread of eugenics in the early 1900s, Nancy Leys Stepan (1996) highlights that Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil established different policies that treated indigenous people, people of African descent, and people perceived to be a threat to the “elite” race differently. Governments turned to science to establish political and social policies affecting citizenship, immigration, criminology, public hygiene, and racial identity.11
The eugenic movement's roots and its effects on politics and culture are still lingering today. Nevertheless, the movement has its detractors, and people in cities resisted the practices, ideas, and scientific claims that fanned its fire.
Today, there is an emerging project of the “anti-eugenics” movement that aims to engage students in understanding the profound grip of eugenics in society to influence a future that is divested of the racism and politics of exclusion that eugenics promoted.
Psychological Consequences of Eugenics
Newcomer and immigrant students arriving from Latin America in my 5th and 6th grade classroom often struggle with a sense of belonging and being accepted in a new country. Their voices are quiet, and they are very cautious in what they express, so as not to bother their mainstream classmates. Some of these students describe their feelings as “being less than” or “feeling inferior.” An awareness that comes from being placed at a lower grade and in classrooms with instruction policies different from what they are accustomed to.
Under the present political climate in the country, some argue that educating these immigrant students takes away from other students' education and poses safety concerns. These arguments are rooted in eugenics ideas and intelligence testing.
In 1904, French psychologists Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon were commissioned to decide whether school children with learning difficulties should be sent to a special school. They developed what is believed to be the first metric scale of intelligence. Since its development, Binet and Simon were clear about the limitations of their method; for them, intelligence was not based entirely on genetics but could also be influenced by environmental factors. But this did not deter American psychologists such as Lewis Terman of Stanford, Robert Yerkes of Harvard (later recruited by Yale), and Henry Goddard, who pursued intelligence testing based on the notion that intelligence is an inherited trait that could be assessed. Using the Binet-Simon scale they standardized these tests to categorize groups of people into idiots (one testing below age of 3 in the scale), imbeciles (having mental age 3-7 in the scale) and morons (having mental age 8-12 in the scale). Furthermore, Yerkes' intelligence test results justified that Americans of white descent had a superior “native” intelligence than Black Americans and non-white immigrants.12
The psychological tests were developed as a criterion of human worth, to give some scientific value to the claim that unfit individuals were less intelligent than fit individuals. The tests expanded on Galton’s idea of heredity and set the notion that those of lower intelligence were inferior. A sentiment that still lingers in the minds of some Americans when they interact with immigrant students.
Educational Effects of Eugenics:
The legacy of eugenics is evident in the continued use of standardized testing and tracking systems that categorize students based on their academic performance. Nowadays, teachers' practices still deal with issues of equity, inclusion, and the stigmatization of students based on perceived intellectual abilities.
The academic performance of newcomer immigrant students in grades K-12 is measured in the English language. This practice, as stated before, ignores their background knowledge, linguistic skills, and academic achievements since the student cannot fully comprehend what the test is asking. IQ testing and similar scales are still in use to assess the special needs of students with perceived learning and physical disabilities. Aptitude tests such as the SAT are part of the metrics used to determine entrance to institutions of higher learning.
Critics argue that standardized tests often fail to account for cultural and environmental factors that influence student performance, leading to biased outcomes. Decisions about school funding and allocation of resources are often based on the results of the state's mandatory standardized assessments.
A look into the legacy of eugenics in education draws attention to the importance of monitoring the evidence being used to shape today's educational policies. It is a call to ensure that all students, regardless of their perceived genetic or intellectual qualities, are given equal opportunities to succeed and thrive in a just and inclusive society.
