Eugenics, Sterilization, and the Fernald School

Alyssa Block

In the United States in the early 20th century, sterilization became a common procedure practiced on feebleminded women. In 1927 the Supreme Court ruled that compulsory sterilization of the “defectives” of the society was allowed. This means that if someone were decided as “retarded,” a doctor would be allowed to sterilize that person. The reason sterilization of feebleminded people came into practice was because feeblemindedness was seen has a hereditary gene. Feeblemindedness was frowned upon and seen as something that needed to be corrected. So in thinking along these lines, sterilizing women who were feebleminded would stop the creation of more feebleminded kids. The Fernald School was an institution that participated in the involuntary sterilization of women. A belief that developed there was that they needed to prevent the births of more feebleminded kids. The example of sterilization at the Fernald School demonstrates how problematic this practice was.

The first instance that sterilization of the feebleminded played out was on a woman named Carrie Buck. Not only was it proven that Carrie was probably not feebleminded, but they involuntarily sterilized her, in the state of Virginia.2 Carrie’s mother was thought to be feebleminded and was institutionalized. Feeblemindedness was seen as hereditary and something that needed to be stopped, Carrie was also believed to have the “feebleminded gene.” Carrie probably was not feebleminded because later records show that she made honor role as a student. A family member had sexually abused her, which is probably why she was institutionalized. This incident would put shame on her family if people found out, and an easy way to “get rid of her” would be to put her in an institution. Because her mother was diagnosed as feebleminded did not make it an unreasonable assumption that she too was feebleminded. After Carrie had been sterilized she was released from the institution. Since she was no longer a threat for making more unwanted feebleminded children she could be released. Carrie’s sister (who had also made honor role) also was involuntarily sterilized. She was told she was going in for an appendectomy but instead she was sterilized. She found out years after this incident. Carrie was just the beginning of the sterilization trend. After 1927, when Carrie was sterilized, over sixty five thousand Americans with claimed feeblemindedness were involuntarily sterilized, until the 1970’s.

Sterilization was also carried out at the Fernald School. Walter Fernald, the longtime superintendent of the school, believed that “feeble-mindedness was highly hereditary. In about 80 percent of our institution cases that the mental defect has been preceded by other cases of defect in the immediate family line.”3 Fernald, along with most of the country, believed that feeblemindedness was something that a child got from a parent and would in turn give to their future children. They believed that even if only one parent had the “gene” the gene would carry to the potential child no matter what. And because having this gene was believed to be so awful for society the Fernald School practiced involuntary sterilization. After the Fernald School thought they discovered the secret to feeblemindedness their next step was to act on their new knowledge: “In light of our present knowledge, the only way to reduce the number of feeble-minded is to prevent their birth.”4 They believed in the practice of sterilization, because they felt it their duty to not have feebleminded people in the world. The Fernald School was a school originally meant to help people with disabilities and teach them to function in the world, but as the school and the country’s views on disabled people shifted, the practices at the school changed. Disabilities were seen as something that needed to be changed or at the very least prevented. So if the Fernald School could help in limiting the amount of feebleminded people they would.

Sterilization of feebleminded people was a big issue of the early 1900’s. A man named Harry Laughlin published Model Eugenical Sterilization Law in 19141. This law was proposed for anyone who was “socially inadequate.” This law included anyone who was feebleminded, inadequate, blind, deaf, homeless, orphans, and so many other people who did not fall under society’s “normal” status. Virginia passed their sterilization law based on Laughlin’s law. Life at the Fernald School also mirrored this belief, since the school did not just house people who were feebleminded. In fact, a lot of kids there were very bright and high functioning kids. Most came from unstable homes or foster homes. This law proposed by Harry Laughlin counted people who were not just mentally disabled. This included orphans and homeless people—people with unstable living situations. If people could be sterilized for their lack of living conditions then most people at Fernald would fall under these circumstances. Most children at Fernald were not just institutionalized for mental disabilities but instead because they did not have a solid place in this world, and then some would be sterilized because they fall under Laughlin’s law of “socially inadequate.”

Not only was sterilization done on socially inadequate and feebleminded people but the practice of sterilization of the feebleminded was a based on a faulty science. The belief that feeblemindedness was hereditary was proven to not be true, and it was proven that children’s IQ’s are raised when they are nurtured properly. Most children at Fernald had not been in nurturing environments but when they had interaction with people who cared about them they became happier and their IQ’s got stronger. In the superintendents report from 1966 it states that, “no longer are many of our children forgotten on visiting days… now all the children have a visitor… it is not surprising that the doctor in charge of the Boys Dormitory’s reports an astonishing improvement in behavior of the children and also in the morale of the whole building.”5 This means that at Fernald they noticed a difference when people showed care in the boys living there, and that they actually acted better as well as the whole school having a better energy. This is proof that feeblemindedness is not hereditary because the behavioral issue that went with feeblemindedness went away when they were cared for. This is just one reason why the practice of sterilization on the feebleminded was based on a faulty science.

Another reason the practice of sterilization is a problematic process is because most people who were sterilized came from unorganized institutions like Fernald. The Fernald School did not have an organized system of who they institutionalized, people could be sterilized without actually being feebleminded. There were people at Fernald who were not feebleminded but just came from unstable backgrounds, so they could be potentially sterilized. Even though they were not necessarily feebleminded because they were at Fernald (and institutions like them) they were labeled as feebleminded. And the law passed by the Supreme Court in 1927 states that people who were considered feebleminded could be sterilized. So because Fernald housed people who were not actually feebleminded, this law was very problematic. Although Carrie Buck was not institutionalized and sterilized at Fernald, she is good example of why this practice was problematic. First she is just one example of the fact that the sterilization of people who were believed to be feebleminded were sterilized without their consent, and without real evidence proving that in fact they are feebleminded. She is someone who came from an unstable background and then was institutionalized even though she was not actually feebleminded. She was in an institution and these places had people who were socially inadequate, and came from unstable living situations. She is proof that this system of involuntarily sterilizing women who they thought were feebleminded was problematic.

Sterilization was used as a form of eugenics to limit the amount of feebleminded people. People believed that the feebleminded were not people who were socially acceptable. This “condition” was seen as something that was hereditary and so that means it would run in families. In order to control the amount of feebleminded people in the country, they were institutionalized, and sterilized. Some thought that people who were not necessarily feebleminded but maybe came from an unsteady background were also those who needed to be sterilized. Carrie Buck was an example of both of these cases. Because her mother was deemed “feebleminded” Carrie was thought to have the same gene. Although there is evidence that proved this wrong they also had other reasons to institutionalize, and then sterilize her. She came from a foster family background and someone in the foster family had sexually abused her. Going from Harry Laughlin’s perspective, she would need to be sterilized because she was an orphan and therefore was not socially acceptable. And at Fernald they had some of the same ideas Laughlin had. Some kids were institutionalized because they did not have a stable living situation and then were deemed feebleminded. Some of these people who were girls were the sterilized because there could not be more “social inadequate” children. But overall it is agreed that this practice of sterilizing women had a lot of faults. They really did not have a good system of deciding who was feebleminded and who was not and then some people decided it was ok to sterilize people who were not even thought of as feebleminded. Even though most people do not believe in the practice of sterilizing those thought of as feebleminded, shockingly this practice is not yet obsolete. But hopefully in the future this procedure will no longer continue.

Bibliography:

"Social Origins of Eugenics." Social Origins of Eugenics. Accessed November 18, 2016.
"Eugenics & The Story of Carrie Buck | World of Psychology." World of Psychology. 2011. Accessed November 18, 2016.
Page 18 of superintendents report 1912
Page 19 of superintendents report 1912
Page 15 of superintendents report 1966