The Public History of Eugenics
in Washington
Joanne Woiak, Ph.D.
Disability Studies Program
University of Washington
University of Washington Disability Studies Program presents
Eugenics and Disability:
History and Legacy in Washington
Friday, October 9, 2009
One-day public symposium
and poster exhibit
Eugenics and Disability website:
http://eugenics.washington.edu
Questions about eugenics and
disability in Washington
What was eugenics and who studies its history?
Where does “disability” appear in these histories
and why is it important?
What sources do we have and what can we learn
about eugenics in Washington state?
Why tell a public history of local eugenics and how
can public history be done in meaningful ways?
Eugenics: human selective breeding

Francis Galton,1883

eu “well” + genes “born”

“science of improving stock”

“I object to pretensions of natural
equality.”
The burden of the “feebleminded” and
other “defective” classes
“It is a reproach to our intelligence that we as a people should have to
support about half a million insane, feebleminded, epileptic, blind and
deaf; 80,000 prisoners and 100,000 paupers at a cost of over 100
million dollars per year.”
-Charles Davenport, founder of the Eugenics Record Office, 1910
Negative eugenics: compulsory
segregation and sterilization
Eugenics Record Office pedigree showing transmission
of feeblemindedness over several generations. Such
evidence supported state-mandated, coerced
sterilization of at least 62,000 Americans in over 30
states, beginning in 1907.
1924 Immigration Restriction Act,
led by WA Congressman Albert Johnson,
with expert testimony by eugenicist Harry Laughlin
Albert Johnson:
“The US is undertaking to
regulate and control the
great problem of the
commingling of races. Our
hope is in a homogeneous
nation. At one time we
welcomed all and all helped
to build the nation. But now
asylum ends. This nation
must be as completely
unified as any nation in
Europe or Asia. Selfpreservation demands it.”
Carl Brigham, A Study of
American Intelligence (1923)
Oliver Wendell Holmes’s 1927 Buck v. Bell decision:
compulsory sterilization is comparable to vaccination.
“There can be no doubt that so far as procedure is
concerned the rights of the patient are most carefully
considered. We have seen more than once that the
public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their
lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those
who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser
sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned,
in order to prevent our being swamped with
incompetence. It is better if instead of waiting to execute
degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for
their imbecility, society can prevent those who are
manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
Better Babies at the Puyallup Fair, 1910s
Positive eugenics: Fitter Families contests
and educational exhibits
Eugenics and Disability:
History and Legacy in Washington
Washington enacted sterilization laws in
1909 and 1921
1909 WA criminal statute: the second
forced sterilization law in the nation

Whenever any person shall be adjudged guilty of carnal
abuse of a female person under the age of ten years, or
of rape, or shall be adjudged to be an habitual criminal,
the court may, in addition to such other punishment or
confinement as may be imposed, direct an operation to
be performed upon such person, for the prevention of
procreation. [1909 c 249 § 35; RRS § 2287.]

Still on the books: RCW 9.92.100
1921 WA statute: targeted a broader
range of “hereditary defectives”

“Superintendents of all state mental hospitals and
custodial schools must report all feebleminded, insane,
epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates and
sexual perverts, who are persons potential to producing
offspring, who because of inheritance of inferior or antisocial traits, would probably become a social menace or
wards of the state.”

Eugenic and therapeutic rationales: ”The purpose of said
orders of the Institutional Board of Health shall be for the
betterment of the physical, mental, neural, or psychic
condition of the inmate, or to protect society from the
menace of procreation by said inmate, and not in any
manner as a punitive measure.”
Lobbyists: progressive women’s groups
and physicians
Dr. Bethenia
Owens-Adair
Superintendents:
“We are obliged to turn them
[the disabled] out at the most
dangerous period of their
existence when many of
them marry and reproduce in
kind” (State Institution for the
Feeble Minded, 1908).
Involuntary sterilization in Washington:
685 reported victims, 1921-1942
Total number of sterilizations by state, from Mark Largent, Breeding
Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the US.
CA
VA
NC
MI
GA
IN
MN
OR
WI
ND
20,108
7,325
5,993
3,786
3,284
2,424
2,350
2,269
1,796
1,029
DE
NB
SD
UT
WA
MI
NH
OK
DE
945
902
789
764
685
683
679
626
557
Surgeries were legally performed at 2 kinds
of state institutions, by order of the
Institutional Board of Health
 Psychiatric (“insane asylum”)
 Western State Hospital:
in 1930, had 1,900 patients
(Fort Steilacoom)
 Northern State Hospital
(Sedro-Woolley, now closed)
 Eastern State Hospital
(Medical Lake)
 Developmentally disabled (“School for the Feeble Minded”)
 Eastern State Custodial School: in 1915, had 1,500 inmates
(Medical Lake, now called Lakeland Village)
 Western State Custodial School
(Buckley, now called Rainier School)
Sterilization victims

Total 685: based on data gathered from superintendents
by the CA-based Human Betterment Foundation, 1942
 184 Males
 501 Females

403 “Insane” (M 147, F 256)

276 “Feebleminded” (M 33, F 243)

6 “Others” (M 4, F 2)
Have found minutes of 13 IBH meetings, 1936-1941.
Names and/or files of 294 people:
approved, disapproved, deferred, rescinded.
Female inmate examined at the Western State Custodial
School by IBH, Aug. 30, 1940. All identifying information
omitted. From the Washington State Archives.












Born in Illinois, age is 25+.
One marriage, 3 children, eldest is 5 and also at Custodial School.
5th grade education, no occupation given, economic status marginal.
Medical history: no information given.
Venereal: active gonorrhea.
Heredity and family traits: no information given.
Admitted in 1940, no paroles or previous admissions.
Feebleminded without psychosis. History of sexual promiscuity. Physical
condition good.
Mental diagnosis: Feebleminded of moron classification. I.Q. 62.
Special trends sexual/criminal: Heterosexual as stated above.
Recommendation: personal benefit or eugenic sterilization—bilateral
salpingectomy.
Special remarks: Husband is asking for her release to him.
Male inmate examined at the Western State Custodial
School by IBH, Aug. 30, 1940











Born in Lake Samish, age is 21+.
Single, attended 8 years of school, progress fair.
Short jobs around the neighborhood only, economic status marginal.
Medical history: no information given.
Heredity and family traits: Father emotionally unstable; shiftless and had a
violent temper. Sister at Eastern State Custodial School.
Admitted in 1934 to Eastern State Custodial School for supervision and
education. Transferred in 1939 to Western.
Feebleminded without psychosis. Works well when under constant
supervision. Physical condition good, overweight.
Mental diagnosis: Feebleminded of moron classification. I.Q. 60.
Special trends sexual/criminal: Some homosexual tendencies.
Recommendation: Eugenic sterilization—bilateral vasectomy.
Special remarks: Mother anxious to have operation performed. Goes home
frequently for visits and is desirous of going out at present to accept a
woodcutting job offered by a neighbor.
Why me? “For the benefit of society
or for the benefit of the patient”

Regulating behaviors, esp. “deviant” sexuality.

Sterilization as a condition for parole.

Institutional Board of Health minutes:
“transcripts” of patient interviews
 Asked about traits/habits of their relatives.
 Asked about the cause of breakdown.
 “What is your attitude toward sterilization?”
 Some
women consented to the operation as form of birth
control.
Sept. 29, 1941, minutes of the Institutional Board of
Health meeting at Northern State Hospital
Sept. 19, 1940, file of a female patient sterilized at
Northern State Hospital



Age 21+, single—one child born July, 1940.
Protestant, born in Washington, high school education, domestic work.


Chronic diseases in family: Tuberculosis, Bright’s disease, and apoplexy.
Insanity trends: Maternal aunt and uncle and paternal aunt insane. One brother a
patient in this hospital.

Clinical record: According to the mother patient became mentally ill three years ago.
She became stubborn, contrary and irritable, irresponsible and showed poor
judgment. She would absent herself from home for long periods, was careless in her
appearance and laughed in a silly manner. Had auditory hallucinations. Became
fatigued. Gave birth to an illegitimate child in July. Here she is negativistic, somewhat
antagonistic, hears voices and smells odors. Judgment impaired and insight lacking.


Diagnosis: Dementia Praecox, hebephrenic type.
Character traits: Average student in school. Interested in sports but had very limited
opportunities for enjoying them. Parents permitted practically no social contacts. She
was a fair mixer but did not hold friends very long. Parents felt she was easily led in
the wrong direction.
[unanimously approved for sterilization.]
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber’s
eugenics apology, Dec. 2, 2002
To those who suffered, I say, The people of Oregon are
sorry. Our hearts are heavy for the pain you endured.
And, it is in honor of you that I declare December 10
hereafter to be Human Rights Day in Oregon—a day on
which we will affirm our commitment to the value of
every human being. On this day, we will renew our
determination to protect the rights of all people,
regardless of their color, their religious or philosophical
beliefs, their sexual preference, their economic status,
their illnesses or disabilities. We value them all, for they
are our brothers and sisters.
But…how far have we come? What’s the purpose of
the apologies and this public history?

Today, I am here to acknowledge a great wrong done to more than 2,600
Oregonians over a period of about 60 years—forced sterilization in
accordance with a doctrine called eugenics. Most of these Oregonians were
patients in state-run institutions. The majority of them suffered from mental
disorders and disabilities. Others were criminal offenders, sufferers of
epilepsy or other conditions that required institutional care. Many were
children. Virtually all of them were vulnerable, helpless citizens entrusted to
the care of the State of Oregon by their families or by courts.

Conclusion. Oregon has made remarkable progress in treating citizens who
suffer mental illness or disabilities. But even as we celebrate the progress
we’ve made, we must also acknowledge the realities that darken the history
of our state institutions. The time has come to apologize for misdeeds that
resulted from widespread misconceptions, ignorance and bigotry. It’s the
right thing to do, the just thing to do. The time has come to apologize for
public policies that labeled people as “defective” simply because they were
ill, and declared them unworthy to have children of their own.
2007 Indiana legislature: resolution expressed “regret”
on the centennial of the first sterilization law
 More nuanced interpretation of what eugenics was, why
it was so popular, and why we should continue talking
about it today. Composed in collaboration with
historians.

Hints at continuities with the past; does not demonize its
supporters, or dismiss it as “pseudoscience.”
 “Wrongly dehumanizing [vulnerable victims] for the
claimed purpose of public health and the good of the
people.”
Government apologies for
sterilizations






Virginia 2001
Oregon 2002
North Carolina 2002
 Reparations proposed
California 2003
Indiana 2007
Washington 2009?
 Criticism: What lessons
are we teaching and
learning? Avoid close
examination of who
sanctioned eugenics
and why. Does the
public still believe
disabled people
“deserve” sterilization?
Where are the voices of
PWD in the apology
movement?