Today, Carolina Journal Radio’s Donna Martinez discusses the era of eugenics, a sad chapter in North Carolina History, with Dr. Troy Kickler, Director of the North Carolina History Project. It is highlighted in an exhibit currently under way at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh. (Go to to http://www.carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: Troy, tell us about the eugenics program in North Carolina. Why did the state engage in this? What was the goal?
Kickler: Well, the eugenics program began in North Carolina in 1929. North Carolina was not the first state in the Union to enact such laws. Other states had proceeded as early as 1910. We do have the distinction of having used forced sterilization laws before Germany did. Their laws were passed in 1933. And to get to your question of why these laws were enacted, well, they were enacted for several reasons. It’s mixed in with a lot of other things. People were worried about an increase in immigration during the time, but if you look at North Carolina, that really doesn’t seem to be the case here. It’s more about keeping up with people who were deemed feeble-minded, people who would be on the dole, so to speak. And the state would be hurting for funds if these promiscuous women, as they were labeled, continued to have children, and the children would be feeble-minded. There would be five or six children who, when they grew into adults, could not take care of themselves, and they would be on welfare.
Martinez: Curious, too, Troy, that as you mentioned, first of all, North Carolina was not alone in this. There were many states that did this, but as I understand the history of it, a lot of those states ended their programs in the ‘40s and the ‘50s. North Carolina went on for a couple more decades. Why would that be?
Kickler: Right. That’s a question that I wonder [about] myself. I really don’t have an answer for that because the numbers seem to actually increase around 1950, 1952. If you look at the charts, the numbers are really high for North Carolina at that time, and I don’t know. I don’t have an answer other than the fact that certain people started to disassociate themselves with eugenics because it started to be associated with Nazi Germany. But there was still this idea of eugenics that goes back and means “good birth,” and there’s still this idea of trying to have the best birth possible for children — a good life.
Martinez: Interesting also that evidently this was not extremist thought at the time. Around the country it was really the intellectual elite who endorsed this type of program; the same here in North Carolina. By today’s standards, when we talk about this program, it seems obviously extreme. But it wasn’t at the time it was taking place.
Kickler: No, no it wasn’t. As you said, some of the leading scientists, leading thinkers were behind the eugenics movement. It was being funded from all kinds of sources — trusts, foundations, respected individuals. But it — the eugenics movement — it takes on a different form. Some of the same wording is still used today. People are concerned about undesirables — however that is defined — undesirables being born and putting a strain on the welfare system. And so some of that argument is used for such things as, well, as a defense for abortion nowadays, for some. And for others, there is this continual search for the perfect human being — like everyone is supposed to have an IQ of 140 or something — and science will help make humans better. Like science defines humanity. Some people think that, and if you can figure out the science, then you will be able to figure out the perfect human.
Martinez: You mentioned, Troy, that there was a [eugenics program] category called feeble-minded. And to me it seems like it was almost a catch-all category — that social workers would be able to fill out the petitions and take these petitions to the North Carolina Eugenics Board and say, “Here is a candidate for sterilization and I deem that they are feeble-minded.” I notice, too, that evidently there were some categories of physical ailments that were deemed unworthy — if people were deaf or blind. Your research on this — what did you make of these different [program] factors and categories?
Kickler: Well, as you said, true. I had the same impressions you did. Most of the people who were sterilized, they fell under the category of feeble-minded. I was looking for a definition for feeble-minded — what that is — and couldn’t find one. And these other diseases — I think it goes back to putting a strain on the welfare system. A lot of people didn’t want that. But of course these were children of many people in rural areas of the state. And to go back to that point, I was looking at the exhibit and I was thinking, “I wonder if this was considered feeble-minded?” Sometimes it seems like there was a cultural divide — not between black and white, or anything of a racial nature or ethnicity — unless ethnicity being the rural-urban type, like rural backwardness. Does that make one feeble-minded?
Martinez: In fact in the early years of the program, it looks as if a lot of white, young women were sterilized. In the later years, it appeared to pick up and more African-Americans were sterilized, but at least by my read it doesn’t appear to really be a racially motivated program.
Kickler: No. I thought about that also. And if you look at the numbers, as you said, more white women were sterilized than black women, more white men than African-American men. One could take the population of African-Americans during 1950 or 1920 and divide it by the number of sterilizations and see that the ratio is higher — it affected African-Americans more than the white population.
Martinez: Even just talking about it, Troy, it kind of defies one’s imagination to think about how this actually went on in this country in more than 30 states, including North Carolina. There is an effort underway in the North Carolina General Assembly to provide some sort of compensation, reparations, to the victims of this. About 7,000 people were sterilized by the state during this program. Do you think that is going to have any legs in the General Assembly, considering just how egregious this is in terms of government power over individuals?
Kickler: You know, that’s a question that I really don’t have the answer for, but unlike some other issues, such as slave reparations for one, the [eugenics program] victims can be identified. About half of them are still alive. But what happened to them is, in my opinion, barbaric, and from my view, I think compensation is in order. But what is ironic is that you are going to have a government institution regulating itself, and the very agency that did these operations on people will be the ones — I think one of the bills allowed for free health care from the same bureau that did this to them in the first place. So, there is a high level of distrust on their part.