98. William H. Sheldon, “The Intelligence of Mexican School Children,” School and Society 19, no. 475 (1924): 139–42.
99. Thomas R. Garth, “The Intelligence of Mexican School Children,” School and Society 27, no. 705 (1928): 791–94, quotation on 794.
100. Franklin C. Paschal and Louis R. Sullivan, Racial Influences in the Mental and Physical Development of Mexican Children, Comparative Psychology Monographs 3, no. 14 (1925): 54.
101. Not surprisingly, 5,756 of these geniuses were from “Nordic areas,” whereas Spain could claim only two. See Goethe, What Will Your Greatgrandchildren Face? (Sacramento: n.p., n.d.), 1.
102. See U.S. House of Representatives, Immigration from the Countries of the Western Hemisphere, Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 71st Congress, Mar. 14, 1930 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1930); and Reisler, By the Sweat of Their Brow.
103. Thomas R. Garth, “The Industrial Psychology of the Immigrant Mexican,” Industrial Psychology 1 (1926): 183–87.
104. Don T. Delmet, “A Study of the Mental and Scholastic Abilities of Mexican Children in the Elementary School,” Journal of Juvenile Research 14, no. 4 (1930): 279.
105. See Los Angeles Police Department, Law Enforcement in Los Angeles (1924; reprinted, New York: Arno Press, 1975).
106. Ibid., 134.
107. On the emergence of the critique of IQ testing as culturally biased and attention to the “language handicap” in the 1930s, see Carlos Kevin Blanton, “From Intellectual Deficiency to Cultural Deficiency: Mexican Americans, Testing, and Public School Policy in the American Southwest, 1920–1940,” Pacific Historical Review 72, no. 1 (2003): 39–62.
108. See Gonzalez, Chicano Education, 139–40; Wollenberg, All Deliberate Speed.
109. See Harry H. Laughlin, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (Chicago: Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, 1922), chap. 3.
110. Cited in ibid., 17. On Hatch, see Braslow, Mental Ills and Bodily Cures, 56.
111. The 1917 sterilization law provided for the sterilization, with or without consent, of any person lawfully committed to a state hospital for the insane or feebleminded, and of recidivists imprisoned at least twice for rape or other sexual crimes, or at least three times for other crimes. Consultation with state agencies and directors was always required for the latter but not necessarily for the former. The sterilization of minors, with the consent of a parent or guardian, was also included in this revision. The 1917 revision contained more administrative and legal qualifications and eugenic language than the original 1909 law. See “Sterilization in California Institutions,” in Sixth Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions, 146–47.
112. Laughlin, Eugenical Sterilization, 18–19.
113. Ibid., 19; also see F. O. Butler, “Sterilization Procedure and Its Success in California Institutions,” in Third Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, Two Years Ending June 30, 1926 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1926), 92–97. The “sexual perversion” aspect of the law was amended and clarified with a 1923 statute that applied to those “convicted of carnal abuse of a female under the age of ten years.”
114. Braslow, Mental Ills, Bodily Cures, 56.
115. Reilly, Surgical Solution, chap. 4.
116. On Buck v. Bell, see Paul A. Lombardo, “Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v. Bell,” New York University Law Review 60 (1985): 30–62.
117. Reilly, Surgical Solution, 97–101.
118. See John Sitton, John Randolph Haynes; Sitton, “John Randolph Haynes and the Left Wing of California Progressivism,” in California Progressivism Revisited, ed. Deverell and Sitton, 15–33; and Edward E. Harnagel, “Physician Entrepreneurs and Philanthropists in Early Los Angeles,” Southern California Quarterly 71, nos. 2–3 (1989): 195–209.
119. Haynes, “Human Society Deals with both Eugenics and Euthenics,” Box 193, Sterilization, Papers of John R. Haynes (JRH), Collection no. 1241, SC, UCLA.
120. Ibid.
121. Sitton, John Randolph Haynes, 191.
122. On the Friday Morning Club, see Thelma Lee Hubbell and Gloria R. Lothrop, “The Friday Morning Club: A Los Angeles Legacy,” Southern California Quarterly 50, no. 1 (1968): 59–90; and Mary Odem, “City Mothers and Delinquent Daughters: Female Juvenile Justice Reform in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles,” in California Progressivism Revisited, ed. Deverell and Sitton, 175–99.
123. J. Percy Wade to JRH, Feb. 26, 1916, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA.
124. G. A. Smith to JRH, Feb. 21, 1916, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. Other examples include Anna M. Petersen to JRH, Mar. 20, 1916, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA, in which Petersen commented on her hope that Virginia would soon be able to successfully move a sterilization law through the legislature and applauded the operations being quietly performed at the feebleminded and epileptic colony; and Charles W. Allen to JRH, Feb. 18, 1918, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA, in which Allen remarked that Pennsylvania had not yet authorized sterilization, although it should be a precondition for release: “All insane should be sterilized before discharge by dislocation of tubes or vasectomy, and imbeciles and degenerates by oophorectomy or castration.”
125. John A. Reily to JRH, Feb. 19, 1916, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. Reily was echoed by the medical superintendents at Mendocino and Sonoma, and by their counterparts at Whittier and Preston, who related their disappointment that the state’s sterilization law did not apply to juvenile facilities. Stockton’s female medical superintendent strongly endorsed sterilization in a related piece of correspondence. Margaret L. Smyth to JRH, June 3, 1916, Box 17, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. One exception was Dr. Leonard Stocking, the medical superintendent at the Agnews State Hospital. Stocking was much more cautious, explaining to Haynes that he had “done very little of this work. . . . I do not think direct benefit to the patient is to be expected unless it may be in cases where the mental trouble follows and recurs with pregnancy or childbirth.” Leonard Stocking to JRH, Mar. 11 1916, Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. On Agnews, see Braslow, Mental Ills, Bodily Cures.
126. Haynes, “Care of the Insane,” in Eighth Biennial Report of the State Board of Charities and Corrections of the State of California from July 1, 1916 to June 30, 1918 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1918), 62.
127. See Haynes, “The Sterilization of the Unfit,” n.d., Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. In the 1920s, Haynes wrote different versions of this article, which appears to have been published first in the Pacific Coast Journal of Nursing in 1922.
128. Ibid.
129. Haynes, “A Moron Colony for California,” n.d., Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA. On the “threat” of moron girls, see Kline, Building a Better Race.
130. First Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California for the Two Years Ending June 30, 1922 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1923), 68; Fourth Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions, 51; Fifth Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions, 80–90.
131. Twelfth Biennial Report of the State Commission in Lunacy for the Two Years Ending June 30, 1920 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1921), 59 (the figure offered here is 220, which appears low given the increase in sterilization at Sonoma once Fred Butler became superintendent in 1918; thus I have provided the more malleable figure of fewer than 1,000); Sterilization for Human Betterment: Some Outstanding Results of 6,000 Operations in California (Pasadena, Calif.: Human Betterment Foundation), pamphlet in Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA.
132. See Sitton, John Randolph Haynes, 191. A loose document in Box 193, JRH, 1241, SC, UCLA, suggests that Haynes managed to get five individuals—two rabbis, another doctor, and a female reformer associated with the Friday Morning Club—to pledge contributions to this fund.
133. See “E. S. Gosney, Lawyer, Banker, Stock Raiser established the Human Betterment Foundation,” and associated documents, Fol
der 8, Box 3, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
134. See Sierra Madre–Lamanda Citrus Association to the Human Betterment Foundation, June 14, 1939, Folder 9, Box 3, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
135. Based on calculations in Ronald Tobey and Charles Wetherell, “The Citrus Industry and the Revolution of Corporate Capitalism in Southern California, 1887–1944,” California History 74, no. 2 (1995): 6–19.
136. HHL to E S. Gosney (ESG), Dec. 5, 1924, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
137. ESG to HHL, Oct. 30, 1925, D-2–3, HHL, SC, TSU.
138. Gosney sought out the advice of William F. Snow, director of the American Social Hygiene Association, and Robert L. Dickinson, a prominent gynecologist who supported sterilization and birth control. See Robert L. Dickinson (RLD) to ESG, Feb. 5, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7; William F. Snow (WFS) to ESG, Feb. 1, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. On Dickinson and sterilization, see Kline, Building a Better Race, 66–79.
139. See Paul Popenoe, “Origin of the Date Palm,” Journal of Heredity 5, no. 11 (1914): 498–508.
140. “Suggestions Concerning a Tentative Program of Work for a Race-Hygiene Foundation,” enclosed with letter, Paul Popenoe (PP) to ESG, Jan. 10, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
141. Ibid.
142. Laughlin congratulated Gosney on the choice of sterilization as the HBF’s initial focus: “I am glad to learn that you are just now especially interested in the physiological and mental effects of sexual sterilization.” HHL to ESG, Feb. 13, 1926, D-2–3, HHL, SC, TSU.
143. W.D. Wagner, Director of Institutions, to Medical Superintendents, Feb. 26, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
144. PP, “Memorandum for Mr. Gosney,” Oct. 12, 1927, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. For example, in 1926 Popenoe shared his views on eugenics and sterilization with the Napa Rotary Club, telling Gosney that the information he presented was “all new to them.” PP to ESG, July 28, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
145. PP, “Memorandum for Mr. Gosney,” Oct. 12, 1927; PP to ESG, Aug. 31, 1926; Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
146. PP to ESG, Mar. 25, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
147. Fred O. Butler, “Report of Medical Superintendent of the Sonoma State Home,” in First Biennial Report of the Department of Institutions, 80. After retirement, Butler continued to defend his views on eugenic sterilization. See interview of Fred O. Butler by Margot W. Smith, Oct. 30, 1970, Regional Oral History Project (ROHO), BL, UCB. I thank Alex Wellerstein for bringing this interview to my attention.
148. PP to ESG, Mar. 25, 1926, Folder 2, Box 7, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
149. See interview of Fred O. Butler; and Butler, “A Quarter of a Century’s Experience in Sterilization of Mental Defectives in California,” reprint from American Journal of Mental Deficiency (1945), included in Matocq, ed., California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies.
150. Ezra S. Gosney and Paul Popenoe, Sterilization for Human Betterment: A Summary of Results of 6,000 Operations in California, 1909–1929 (New York: Macmillan, 1929).
151. Ibid., ix.
152. Popenoe, “Trends in Human Sterilization,” Eugenical News 22, no. 3 (1937): 42–43.
153. Popenoe and Fenton, “Sterilization as a Social Measure,” n.d., Folder 6, Box 1, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. See Fenton and Popenoe, “Twenty-Five Years of Eugenic Sterilization,” for an abstract of this study. As with Popenoe’s first study, the Department of Institutions offered “hearty cooperation.” See “Annual Report of the Secretary of the Human Betterment Foundation for the Year Ending February 13th, 1934,” Folder 13, Box 2, LMT, SC38, SC, SU. A pamphlet version of this was also published, without Fenton listed as author: Paul Popenoe and E. S. Gosney, Twenty-Eight Years of Sterilization in California (Pasadena, Calif.: Human Betterment Foundation, 1938).
154. Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 42–48; Platt, “What’s in a Name?” 12–20.
155. “Progress Report for 1930,” Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California 7, no. 14 (1931): 574.
156. “Minutes of August 26, 1930,” Notes and Minutes, ES, CCC (Butler); “Minutes of May 27, 1930,” ES, CCC (Smyth).
157. Statistical Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, Year Ending June 30, 1942 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1943), 98; Matocq, ed., California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies; Statistical Report of the Department of Institutions of the State of California, Year Ending June 30, 1935 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1936).
158. Figures derived from “U.S. Maps Showing the States Having Sterilization Laws in 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940,” in Publication No. 5 (Princeton, N.J.: Birthright, Inc., n.d.), reprinted in Matocq, ed., California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies; Clarence J. Gamble, “Preventive Sterilization in 1948,” Journal of the American Medical Association 141, no. 11 (1949): 773; Gamble, “Sterilization of the Mentally Deficient under State Laws,” American Journal of Mental Deficiency 51, no. 2 (1946): 164–69. Delaware was the only state that outpaced California in per capita terms in the 1930s, with a rate ranging between about 80 and 100 sterilizations per 100,000 individuals.
159. “Background Paper,” and “Sterilization Operations in California State Hospitals, April 26, 1909 through June 30, 1960,” in Matocq, ed., California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies.
160. See Legislative History, Senate Bill 750, Microfilm 3:2(4); “Legislative Memorandum,” Apr. 4, 1953, Legislative History, Assembly Bill 2683, Microfilm Reel 3:2(10); Frank F. Tallman to Honorable Earl Warren, Mar. 31, 1953, Legislative History, Assembly Bill 2683, Microfilm Reel 3:2(10), California State Archives (CSA).
161. “Legislative Memorandum,” May 18, 1951, Legislative History, Senate Bill 750, Microfilm 3:2(4), CSA.
162. See “Background Paper,” in Matocq, ed., California’s Compulsory Sterilization Policies.
163. Statistical Report of the Department of Mental Hygiene, State of California, Year Ending June 30, 1947 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1947), 107. Butler and Clarence J. Gamble reiterated the same conflation of the reasons for sterilization in “Sterilization in a California School for the Mentally Deficient,” American Journal of Mental Deficiency 51, no. 4 (1947): 745–47. For a discussion of the complex relationship between eugenics and psychiatry, see Ian Robert Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880–1940 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997).
164. “Minutes of October 14, 1930,” Notes and Minutes, ES, CCC.
165. In a personal letter, Gosney, obviously concerned about potential legal ramifications, stated that he thought Stanley was too zealous about sterilization. In 1941, he replied to an HBF correspondent asking for information about the sterilization of criminals, “You might write to Dr. L. L. Stanley, Prison Surgeon, San Quentin, who had performed some 600 or more sterilizations in that prison, by request of the patients. Dr. Stanley is our good friend and we do not wish to be quoted, but our opinion is that he is a little over-enthusiastic about the use of sterilization for prisoners. That is, we do not feel there is any ground for holding that ‘criminality’ is inherited.” See ESG to Mr. Elmo R. Smith, Oct. 9, 1941, Folder 9, Box 6, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
166. See “Eugenic Sterilization in California, X. Patients Sent to State Institutions for Sterilization Only,” Folder 1, Box 28, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. This is also substantiated in an interview with Mary Conway Kohler, who was an officer with San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department in the 1930s and was dismayed by the use of Terman’s IQ scales to determine whether girls would be shipped out for sterilization. See interview with Mary Conway Kohler by Gail Hornstein, Nov. 2, 1983. Cited with the permission of the interviewer. Since acquired by ROHO, BL, UCB.
167. “Patients Coming to California State Institutions for Sterilization Only,” Folder 1, Box 28, ESGHBF, IA, CIT.
168. See Folder 5, Box 41; Fol
der 1, Box 42, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. These folders also include a substantial number of sterilization records from the Chicago Lying-In Hospital. There are a small number of voluntary vasectomy cases in Folder 1, Box 44, ESGHBF, IA, CIT, from Los Angeles and other American cities.
169. See Schoen, Choice and Coercion; Laura Briggs, Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002); Molly Ladd-Taylor, “The ‘Sociological Advantages’ of Sterilization: Fiscal Policies and Feeble-Minded Women in Interwar Minnesota,” in Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Reader, ed. Steven Noll and James W. Trent Jr. (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 281–99; and Leslie J. Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867–1973 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997).
170. See Popenoe and Gosney, Twenty-Eight Years of Sterilization.
171. “Nationality,” Folder 8, Box 28, ESGHBF, CIT, IA.
172. Ibid. Percentages based on 1920 census figures. See “Table E-7. White Population of Mexican Origin, for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States: 1910 to 1930,” available at http://www.census.gov/documents/population. California’s total population was 3,264,711, of which Mexicans constituted 121,176. It is exceedingly difficult to corroborate these percentages based on Popenoe’s worksheets, which grouped four institutions (Mendocino, Agnes, Norwalk, Stockton) as Series A and two institutions (Sonoma and Patton) as Series B. He reported that Mexican men were 10 percent and Mexican women 3.6 percent of those sterilized at Series A and Mexican men 5 percent and Mexican women 4 percent at Series B. However, the total numbers of all sterilized given in these charts is less than the aggregate numbers provided by the Department of Institutions for the years between 1927 and 1930, and these worksheets do not include the Pacific Colony. See worksheets in Folders 6–9, Box 29, ESGHBF, IA, CIT. Thus, I have relied on the one sterilization study synthesis in which Popenoe directly addressed the issue of nationality (although, again, it is unclear how Mexicans born in the United States were counted). The bottom line is that, until patient records are opened, at least for surname analysis, we have little verifiable concrete data on racial and ethnic breakdown.
Eugenic Nation Page 35
