In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 8 By 1920, Harry Laughlin had established an international reputation as an expert on eugenic sterilization. Governments as far away as Germany consulted him for information on U.S. sterilization practices.¹ He had even testified before Congress about the importance of eugenics to immigration policy.² In that testimony, Laughlin described the process of family history collection by trained field workers from the ERO who could determine whether a family was “industrious or shiftless.” He invoked the names of the Jukes, the Kallikaks, and the Ishmaels. He described a study of the “socially inadequate ” he had done for the Bureau of the Census and the publication it yielded: The Statistical Directory of State Institutions for the Defective, Dependent , and Delinquent Classes.³ While that survey was in progress, Laughlin lobbied to change the terms describing the institutional population in the 1920 census.⁴ Laughlin wished to rechristen the demographic categories formerly described as the “defective, dependent, and delinquent classes.” This “scrap-basket” phrase should be discarded, he said, in favor of the “socially inadequate,” a term that would conform to the language crafted by the Van Wagenen sterilization committee. The newer phrase was “shorter and more business-like,” according to Laughlin, and properly described the portion of the population who weigh down the productive members of the community. People shouldn’t be called “socially inadequate” just because age, youth, or illness might render them temporarily dependent—so long as their families took care of them. Those without family resources who had to rely upon government programs or charity were, of course, exactly the people the term was meant to describe.⁵ And many of them were potential candidates for sterilization. From the time of his arrival at the ERO in 1910, Laughlin had collected every available detail on sterilization law in America. His report for the Van Wagenen committee formed the basis of a state-of-the-art survey of the Laughlin’s Book 6 Laughlin’s Book | 7 9 field, and his Model Law had been distributed to interested legislators and eugenics advocates around the country. By 1920, further research yielded a mound of facts that, from Laughlin’s perspective, certainly demanded publication. Along with the history of state sterilization laws, case reports, and judicial opinions, Laughlin had almost a thousand manuscript pages of text. He eventually surveyed more than 160 institutions in the United States seeking exhaustive data on the number and kinds of operations they had performed. Before leaving New York for a summer of research in California , he dedicated his efforts to getting a book into print. But the likely size of the volume and the controversy the subject drew scared potential publishers away. In the spring of 1920, Laughlin approached the National Committee on Mental Hygiene, asking Thomas Salmon to review his manuscript. Salmon, a former Public Health Service doctor and the medical director of the National Committee, had by then been associated with the eugenics movement for more than a decade, and he praised Laughlin’s qualifications to produce the book, saying that the Laughlin material would make an “invaluable source” and reference text for people in social work. But he took pointed exception to including the Model Sterilization Act and the related commentary. As the emphasis on coercive sterilization represented the view of a small minority, he said he would “dissent from nearly every word in it.” Salmon rejected the book unless the Act and the “rather strong bias” in favor of sterilization in earlier chapters were removed.⁶ Laughlin also contacted the Rockfeller-funded Bureau of Social Hygiene , prompting the Bureau’s executive secretary, Katherine Bement Davis , to write the Macmillan Company on Laughlin’s behalf. Macmillan agreed to publish the book with strict conditions. Fifteen pages and two fold-out pedigree charts would have to be cut, and the Bureau was asked to guarantee purchase of the first five hundred copies of the book. After a more thorough review of Laughlin’s manuscript, Macmillan demanded a guarantee for a full thousand copies. The cost of subsidizing that printing was estimated at nearly seven thousand dollars, apparently too much for the Bureau of Social Hygiene to bear. As an alternative, Davis suggested that Laughlin shorten his manuscript to one hundred pages and publish it as a pamphlet. But Laughlin was unwilling to shrink his magnum opus so drastically, proposing instead to bring the material completely up to date and seek another publisher.⁷ [18.219.22.169] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 00:05...

Share