Reading Response + Paper statement

Paper Statement

Between 1909 and 1979, California forcibly sterilized more than 20,000 people it deemed racially inferior. It was the most effective program in the country, accounting for nearly a third of all the forced sterilization conducted in the United States. The California laws targeted persons who are “legally committed as insane or feebleminded to state institutions.” Insane people, who accounted for roughly 2/3rds of those forcibly sterilized, could be committed for symptoms that seem to describe anywhere from the physxiophrenic to the bipolar to “women who have had mental breakdowns”. The remaining third of those forcibly sterilized were those deemed “feebleminded”—which meant anyone with an IQ of less than 70. 

Not all insane or feebleminded persons sent to state institutions were forcibly sterilized. Rather, each was “each case is judged on its own merits”. The medical superintendent would recommend a patient be sterilized and “if the Director of the State Department of Institutions approves the recommendation, the operation is legally compulsory.” It appears that those who would qualify for forced sterilization were those who were likely to be released “on parole” and who were likely to then reproduce “defective children”. It was better, the report states, that “these children never be born”. 

Again and again in this research, Stanford appears at the center of the drama. David Starr Jordan, the University’s first president, was a member of the Human Betterment Foundation—a society dedicated to promoting and conducting research on forced sterilization. Paul Popoenoe, who did extensive research on forced sterilization for the HBF, attended Stanford where he worked closely with David Starr Jordan. Lewis Terman, a professor psychology at Stanford, created the IQ test—upon which the foundation of the forced sterilization program rested because it allowed a scientific way to determine who was “feebleminded”. I want to make a claim about Stanford’s involvement, particularly David Starr Jordan’s, in the forced sterilization program.

There are many things about the forced sterilization program, including the heavy involvement of Stanford University, that makes it disturbing. What is perhaps most disturbing, however, is how compelling these arguments are and how many of the beliefs that led these Stanford men to advocate for forced sterilization still exist in modern rhetoric. Jordan and his gang believed that they were protecting the inferior social classes and society at large by ensuring that some people could not reproduce. In fact, they often said it was for their own protection as these men and women could not handle having a baby. (In fact, at one point Popenoe goes into an extended argument about why sterilization would ensure that men would not cheat on or abandon their wives but would result in very happy marriages.) The HBF reports are written in the same tone as many scientific papers and government reports today. And many of the arguments about “drug addicts and lazy people” sucking from welfare benefits of “working citizens” are also reflected in these arguments. The disturbing length to which these people took those beliefs makes us critically examine our own perceptions about our relationship with people of “inferior intelligence”—who were often the poorer classes and racial minorities.

There are several books I have currently looked at which were published by the HBF, including “Sterilization for human betterment; a summary of results of 6,000 operations in California”, “Twenty-eight years of sterilization in California”, and “Collected papers on eugenic sterilization in California; a critical study of results in 6000 cases”. There are two main sources at Hoover Archives from which I will draw my research. The first is “David Starr Jordan Papers, 1794-1950”. From my preliminary research, I have found that the collection contains a folders relating to eugenics, the Eugenics Education Society, the American Social Hygiene Association, the Universal Society of Social Improvement, articles written by Jordan on eugenics, and correspondence with Lewis Terman. I also suspect eugenics and forced sterilization was discussed in much of his correspondence with other colleagues. Secondly, I will look through the Lewis Madison Terman Papers, particularly his correspondence with colleagues. Additionally, although it is not located at Stanford University, I want to look at the Records of the Human Betterment Foundation, which are located at the California Institute of Technology. I suspect they also contain evidence how how Jordan and Terman were involved in the organization and the forced sterilization program at large.

Reading Response

            Both of the articles re-evaluate the traditional interpretation of identity constructs in certain time period.

            In the first article, Waldstreicher examines the lives of runaway slaves and what newspaper ads revealed about the identity of slaves and servants. Waldstreicher brilliantly takes a deeper look at what masters were advertising in newspapers about their runaway slaves or servants. He points out that masters usually provided information on what traits these runaways would use to pass as free people, which provides us with insight about what characteristics formed identity in this period. He focuses on several characteristics, including clothes, language, other material possessions, literacy and skills. He points out that while race was a factor (blacks were most likely slaves; whites were most likely free; and Irish and Scots were most likely servants), the reality was that these definitions were fluid. Runways could exploit this fluidity to pass themselves off as someone else—Waldstreicher provides us with fantastic analysis of how the existence of the capitalistic market mean that runaways could “market” their own identities to gain freedom.

            Examining the runaway slave advertisements was a brilliant choice in terms of sources. Waldstreicher has picked a medium of information that most historians I think often dismiss as a repugnant garnish to the history of slavery—but his in-depth analysis provides new meaning to the forgotten advertisements. The advertisements themselves make for good quotes, illustrating and describing the time period. Waldstreicher does a good job embedding the quotes into the narrative along with analysis and finally concluding with a longer story to get his point across.

            The second article also decides to examine a somewhat neglected topic, the history of gay culture. Chauncey begins in her introduction saying that although most people conceptualize the beginning of “gay culture” post-Stonewall, in reality there was a thriving gay culture in many urban settings even before WWI. She illustrates different subtle signs and ways that gay men communicated with each other during this time period, for example the hosting of “fairy balls”. Interestingly, Chauncey points out that it was not necessarily gay men who were discriminated against, but rather effeminate men. “Queer” men – men who preferred men but otherwise conformed to traditional male gender roles – were not generally targeted and could usually lead pretty normal lives. It was men who acted like women who were often targeted.

            This leads Chauncey into an interesting discussion about different terms and perceptions of gay, queer, fairy (etc etc) identity. The one source I found particularly interesting were the police descriptions. These are either words of an undercover cop, police reports, or even court transcripts. Although this is definitely an interesting source, and convenient in terms of the fact that police reports often have explicated stated the definition of street terms, I don’t think she addresses the point of view or potential biases of these officers. She also, like Waldstreicher, does a good job weaving analyses and stories into her chapter, although it can get a bit dry at times.

            Both of these articles do a great job of integrating the voices of primary sources with analysis. It’s often really difficult to find the right balance or format between the two. One thing I will look out for in my paper is to always qualify the voice of the narrator – Waldstreicher does a particularly good job of that by pointing of the point of view of the masters who are advertising for their runaways. I will also keep in mind not to let the reader get bogged down in too many quotes.