A History of Eugenics in the Class Struggle

This essay is reproduced here as it appeared in the print edition of the original Science for the People magazine. These web-formatted archives are preserved complete with typographical errors and available for reference and educational and activist use. Scanned PDFs of the back issues can be browsed by headline at the website for the 2014 SftP conference held at UMass Amherst. For more information or to support the project, email sftp.publishing@gmail.com

A History of Eugenics in the Class Struggle

By G.A.

‘Science for the People’ Vol. 6, No. 2, March 1974, p. 32 — 37 & 39

A raft of reports has appeared claiming a genetic basis for intelligence in human beings. These hereditarian explanations for intelligence have been given considerable publicity—by far more than given to opposing views. As a result, whether consciously or not, the U.S. scientific and general public has begun to absorb the mistaken notion that the biological evidence supports the idea that intelligence is largely inherited. Considering the large number of other scientific developments which could have been given such wide publicity during the same period, the frequency of articles on the heritability of IQ is somewhat surprising. It raises the question of why certain ideas in a field of science are investigated more at some times than others and why they receive so much popular exposure.

Perhaps a good way to answer this question is to examine past cases of a similar nature. This article will compare the present IQ studies with the eugenic arguments of the early part of this century. Not only does that movement provide the scientific foundation for the present controversy, but we shall see that there are many similarities in the two historical periods which may help explain why the current rebirth has occurred.

Eugenics claims to apply genetic principles to the “improvement” of mankind. There are two general subdivisions in its efforts: Positive eugenics—increasing the reproduction of especially ”fit” individuals, and Negative eugenics—reducing the breeding of particularly “unfit” types. At the turn of the century, the eugenics movement proposed both types of programs and had a wide influence. Between 1905 and 1920 eugenics courses were quite fashionable in colleges. A number of institutions devoted largely, or solely, to eugenic research and propaganda were founded in the same period. Two international congresses of eugenics were held, and a number of scholarly and propagandistic journals were published on the subject. The impact of eugenics was not, however, limited to academics. Eugenics and eugenicists exerted a considerable influence on popular opinion and on state and federal legislation. Twenty-four states passed sterilization laws for various social “misfits” (e.g., criminals, mentally retarded, or the insane). Some thirty states passed miscegenation laws restricting or outlawing interracial marriage. Perhaps the key triumph of the eugenics movement was the passage in 1924 of the Johnson Act by the Congress. This immigration law almost totally stopped immigration into the U.S. from Eastern European and Mediterranean countries. This act also brought the eugenic doctrines the most public exposure.

From its beginnings, the eugenics movement was closely associated with a sense of white Anglo-Saxon superiority and racism. Francis Galton, the founder of the movement, was an elitist and racist. He was first drawn to the study of human heredity and eugenics looking for a genetic source of his own family’s “genius.” (His cousin was Charles Darwin and his family tree was decorated with numerous illustrious ancestors).

The American eugenics movement started in 1904, when Charles B. Davenport persuaded the Carnegie Foundation to establish a Laboratory for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor, of which he became the director, and at the same time leader of the American eugenics movement. In 1907 he persuaded Mrs. E.H. Harriman, wife of the head of the Union Pacific Railroad, to financially support a Eugenics Records Office, also at Cold Spring Harbor. Here, Davenport and his colleagues made studies aimed at developing eugenic programs in the U.S.

Davenport shared Galton’s belief in superior and inferior races (with the Anglo-Saxon at the pinnacle). Galton had remarked, “there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race.” Davenport emphasized the possible ill effects of ”race-crossing,” especially between blacks and whites. Racism was a prominent element in Anglo-Saxon middle-class society at the time, and easily became part of hereditarian doctrine.

Before 1915, a number of prominent biologists supported and actively took part in the eugenics movement. Davenport himself was a respected geneticist and one of the early supporters of Mendel’s theories of inheritance in the U.S. Other prominent biologists included E.G. Conklin T.H. Morgan, H.S. Jennings, and W.E. Castle; all professors at elite American universities aRd members of the National Academy of Sciences. Castle wrote a popular textbook, Genetics and Eugenics which became a standard text for eugenics courses. Conklin edited a eugenics text and supported the eugenics movement in public lectures. These and many other less prominent biologists contributed large numbers of articles to the American eugenics movement’s “scientific” publication, the Journal of Heredity which blended research, reporting, and propaganda on eugenics.

It is understandable that immediately after 1900 many geneticists wanted to see the newly discovered theory of Mendelian heredity applied to humans. Indeed a few studies, such as those by Landsteiner on the A-B-O blood groups, and Garrod on metabolic disorders (alkaptoneuria and phenylketoneuria), provided good evidence for the existence of Mendelian. inheritance in humans. However, these studies dealt with easily identified clinical traits whose inheritance could be checked by reference to clearcut family pedigrees. Eugenically oriented geneticists such as Davenport and Castle, on the other hand, tried to show the inheritance of more complex traits in simple Mendelian terms. For example, Davenport tried to show that alcoholism, seafaringness, degeneracy, and feeblemindedness were each due to single Mendelian genes, inherited in a dominant or recessive way. Similarly, Castle tried to argue by analogy that marriage between human races might produce the same type of misfit hybrid as a cross between a thoroughbred and a draft horse. 1 Intelligence was prominent among the traits that eugenecists tried to demonstrate as inherited. With the newly designed Binet test for intelligence as the standard of measurement (see “What is the IQ Test?”, p. 11), studies flowed forth showing connections between low test scores (“feeblemindedness”) and delinquency, criminality, sexual promiscuity, and degeneracy. Needless to say the “evidence” for such claims was meager, based largely on assumptions, biases, analogies, and a variety of non-rigorous methods of “proof.” Yet before 1915 many biologists still hoped that the study of human heredity would allow the elimination of some of the worst human diseases and the improvement of mankind’s genetic potential.

As the popular side of the eugenics movement picked up steam after 1915, biologists began to withdraw their support. There were several reasons, which we can summarize briefly:

  1. increasing evidence that few genetic traits were determined by single genes.
  2. evidence that even genetically identical individuals showed variation, underscoring the importance of gene-environment interactions.
  3. penetration of the idea of genetic equilibrium, which began to convince scientists of the difficulty of removing undesirable genes from a population.
  4. increased scepticism about the methodology used by eugenic researchers.

This last problem was highlighted by the difficulties in measuring human intelligence. The first large scale study of IQ in the American public (done by the U.S. Army) showed that by current standards, half of the U.S. population was “feeble-minded”!! Further, although the tests fulfilled racist expectations in that on the whole blacks did worse than whites, northern blacks did better than southern whites! Biologists began to see the immense difficulties in trying to produce a simple genetic explanation of intelligence or intellectual differences, and indeed of even measuring such an ill-defined trait. Without planned matings, the study of human heredity even for well-defined traits seemed a long-term project. For vague traits such as intelligence it was clearly impossible. In general, biologists shifted their attention to studying laboratory animals. Scientific support for eugenics gradually dwindled away, although die-hards such as Davenport and Castle remained believers.

Despite the withdrawal of professional support, popular exposure to eugenics continued to grow. In 1914, 44 colleges taught eugenics. By 1928, the number had swelled to 376, or roughly 3/4 of all colleges and universities—some 20,000 students! At the same time popular books on the subject began to appear more frequently. Although these books usually claimed to be “scientific”, they often demonstrated a highly biased and racist tone. Perhaps the most popular of these works were Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, and Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy, published in 1920.2 Both lamented the increasing number of foreign immigrants in the United States, and the decline of “Nordic civilization” in the west. Both supported their arguments with references to the works of Davenport, Castle, and other geneticists who had suggested biological ill-effects of race crossing. As Grant wrote:

Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type . . . The cross between a white man and a negro is a negro; . .. and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew. 3

Race feeling might be called prejudice, Grant said, but it was a “natural antipathy” which served to “maintain the purity of type.” Both books drew heavily not only on biological, but also anthropological and historical “evidence” to show that the white race, the Anglo-Saxon and the Nordic, was the superior group on the human evolutionary tree. While not all eugenics books were as overtly racist, the more subtle texts contained most of the same implications. By the end of World War I, the eugenics movement had taken on a distinctly pro-Nordic, anti-everything-else demeanor.

Such eugenics propaganda led to the passage of strongly racist legislation. Perhaps the most important law passed was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 (the Johnson Act). Except for the war years, prior to 1921 the U.S. government had placed virtually no restrictions on immigration to the United States.4 Only after the war did people begin to call for halting or greatly restricting both the numbers and types of immigrants. The major reasons for this were economic; it seemed necessary to stop additions to an already glutted labor market. The immediate response of Congress was the passage of a temporary Emergency Act of 1921, which restricted immigration from any European country to three per-cent of the foreign-born of that nationality listed in the 1910 census. (This act, as well as the permanent Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, applied only to European immigration. Oriental immigration had been restricted by earlier measures in the 1880’s.) Since the Emergency Act was only temporary, proponents of immigration restriction began work immediately for a more permanent law. Between 1921 and 1924 biological (genetic) arguments became important in justifying a campaign against all non-Nordic immigration. Eugenicists. were very active in this campaign.

The eugenicists claimed that the new immigrants were genetically inferior to the Nordic or Anglo-Saxon, and even to the older immigrants who had come to the United States in the 1850’s and 1860’s. Like the Social Darwinists several decades earlier, the eugenicists argued that a person’s economic and social status showed his or her hereditary worth. The high levels of disease, illiteracy, poverty, and crime in immigrant neighborhoods proved to eugenicists that the non-Nordics were inferior and debased. Eugenicists also claimed without proof that heredity was far more important than environment in determining human behavior. They also fastened onto the genetic idea of “disharmonious crossings”—the idea that the children of interracial marriages will always be inferior to both parental races. (By 1920 most geneticists were well aware that mating between different “pure” strains produced more vigorous offspring than the continued mating within the “pure” strain, thus the idea of “disharmonious crossings” was an outmoded concept.) But the conclusion from these two “genetic” beliefs, according to eugenicists, was that the inferior qualities of immigrants could never be improved by the new American environment; and indeed, that dilution of the superior American blood (genes) by intermarrying with inferior immigrants would produce an inferior population. The eugenicists argued not for an end to immigration, but for selective immigration favoring the “better” races of Europe, meaning the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon.4

To make the biological side of the argument most effective, eugenicists tried to summarize and “document” the genetic claims in a “scientific” way. This task was undertaken by Davenport’s Eugenics Records Office. In April, 1920, Harry Laughlin was appointed as “expert eugenic agent” of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. During the next three years he appeared in person several times before the committee, and in one of his testimonies, in 1922, concluded sweepingly:

Making all logical allowances for environmental conditions, which may be unfavorable to the immigrant, the recent immigrants, as a whole, present a higher percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities than do the older stocks. 5

His evidence from the start was questionable, and his conclusions totally unjustified by the facts, yet the “Laughlin Report,” made up of Laughlin’s congressional testimonies, complete with “scientific evidence,” became widely regarded as a scientific and unbiased presentation of fact. Laughlin’s testimony, backed by the authority of the Eugenics Record Office and the Laboratory of Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor carried the weight of scientific authority with many congressional leaders.

The legislative debates over immigration restriction were furious throughout 1923 and early 1924. In the Senate hearings, biological arguments were minimal; but in the House, they became a major factor in getting the bill passed. Almost the only strong opponents in the House were either themselves representatives of minority groups (which at that time meant Jewish), or else came from northeastern states, where immigrant groups were well organized politically. The House Committee hearings were enormously biased, since “experts” called in to testify were hand-picked to present the eugenicists’ Nordic and hereditarian line. At the insistence of Representative Celler of New York, the professional geneticist H.S. Jennings of John Hopkins was grudingly asked to testify. Jennings was by this time entirely out of sympathy with the eugenics movement, but he was given only a few minutes to speak. He was told by the Chairman of the Committee not to present his arguments at that time in any detail, but to submit a written report later. In the end, the Immigration Restriction Act passed by large majorities in both the House and Senate.

After 1924 more scientists began to speak openly against the eugenic and racist propaganda which was being published in the name of “science” and “biology.” Jennings was one of the first to speak out loudly—for he had seen the uses to which garbled biology could be putand the countless ill-effects it could have. Later Raymond Pearl, E.M. East, T.H. Morgan and W.E. Castle all joined in publicly repudiating the racist propaganda of the eugenicists on biological grounds. Unfortunately, the geneticists efforts were too little too late. The major effects of the eugenics movement had already been achieved by the time geneticists began to criticize the movement publicly. The results included the restriction of immigration, especially from eastern and southern European countries—restriction which was not repealed until 1965. But more damaging perhaps than this were the attitudes of racism, superiority, and outright hate which the movement helped to intensify among the American people. Some of this racism might have been counteracted had scientists as a whole spoken up earlier and louder than they did against the eugenicists’ biological arguments.

Why the Eugenics Movement

I do not wish to suggest that scientists should bear all or even a major part of the blame for the success of the eugenicists. Why, after all, did the eugenics movement get going in the first place? Who supported it and for what reasons? Was it simply the work of some crackpots and overly ambitious zealots? The sudden rise in general popularity of hereditarian and racial views was not an accident or the result of good publicity on the part of a few fanatics either within or outside of the scientific community. It was at heart a social, political and economic phenomenon arising from the struggle between classes. What does this mean, and how can it help us understand more recent events such as the IQ and race issue?

First, we can ask: Who were the people in the Eugenics movement between 1900 and 1925? Those nonscientists who founded, financed or in other ways supported the eugenics movement from the early 1900’s onward were, almost to a person, wealthy businessmen, investors, and other representatives of the financial and ruling elite of America at the time.

The ruling elite which in the early decades of this century initiated and provided financial support for the eugenics movement included: David Fairchild, President of the American Genetic Association (AGA—publishers of Journal of Heredity which became for a time the chief outlet for “scientific” studies of eugenics) and wealthy brother-in-law of the founder of National Geographic; Corcoran Tom, Treasurer of the AGA and vice-president of American Security and Trust Co., Washington; Mrs. E.H. Harriman (who personally supported The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor) whose husband, E.M. Harriman was a railroad and telegraph magnate in the late nineteenth century; J .H. Kellogg, founder of Kellog foods, who was the financial and ideological force behind the Race Betterment Foundation established in 1913 at Battle Creek, Michigan; Robert D.C. Ward, who established the Immigration Restriction League in 1894, and who wasa member of the Saltonstall family of Boston, a Harvard Graduate of the class of 1894 (along with his friend Charles B. Davenport), and later a Harvard Professor; and Madison Grant who was a conservative New York lawyer, privately wealthy, and deriving from an old aristocratic family.4

A major portion of the support for many philanthropic or social movements comes from wealthy interests, since the financial elites are usually the only ones having’ enough time and money to support the “humanitarian” causes. This was true to some extent with respect to the eugenic movement of the early 20th century. The question is whether their self-interest prompted them to give extra aid to the eugenics groups. In fact this appears to be the case. For example, Franz Boas, an eminent anthropologist and anti-eugenicist in the early decades of the century, attempted to raise funds for an African Museum in the United States. Boas appealed to the same financial elite, like the Rockefeller or Carnegie Foundations, which supported eugenics, only to be turned away flatly.6 It is apparent that members of the ruling class supported first and foremost those movements which agreed with their ideology and hence served their own ends. They made rational (to them) choices about how to spend their philanthropic dollars.

In what way did the eugenics movement serve the class interests of the ruling elite? One answer can be found in the social history of the United States between 1890 and 1920. At the turn of the century the propertied, politically conservative classes enjoyed considerable position and influence. 4 But the Haymarket Riots, the Homestead Strike, the Pullman Strike, and the Populist Revolt, to mention only a few militant movements between 1880 and 1910, showed a rising unity and power within the working class. The years 1900-1920 saw an increase in the organization of labor and trade unionism, the rise of the International Workers of the World (the IWW or “Wobblies”), the founding of the CIO, and the militant, revolutionary Seattle General Strike of 1919. 4, 7, 8 During the war, hysteria had increased the suspicion with which immigrants and foreigners were regarded. Immigrants were linked with the “Red Scare” of the 1920’s, the increasing radicalization of workers, in general, and the IWW, in particular. Indeed, many of the more radical union leaders were immigrants who had found the land of milk and honey less utopian than they had expected. The American rulers clearly saw the labor movement and other socialist-oriented mass organizations as endangering their (ruling) class interests. They used one of the classic techniques of those in power to maintain their position: ”Divide and Conquer.” The eugenics movement was one way—not the only way but certainly a very effective one—of implementing this strategy. Nothing works more effectively to keep people apart than to convince one group that others are biologically inferior and thus “not as good.” This is what racism does, and the eugenics movement was a form of racism with “scientific” backing. The eugenics movement, in general, and immigration restriction, in particular, were responses of the ruling class to a growing popular demand for more control over society. It was not a conspiracy in the usual sense. There was no one powerful ruling class leader or group who laid out long-range plans. But class interests are such that members of the class generally know what movements serve their vested interests and what movements pose a threat.

The writings of members of the ruling class show they were aware of the threat which continued immigration posed. It was evident in social, political, and economic ways. Lothrop Stoddard’s book The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy (1920) was inspired by the threat which the awakening of the peoples of Asia, Mrica and Latin America would have on U.S. (and particularly Nordic) domination of the world. Madison Grant shows the aristocrat’s reaction to increased immigration. He described New York as becoming a “cloaca gentium which will produce many amazing racial hybrids and some ethnic horrors . . . ” The old stock American, he complained bitterly, “is today being literally driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews.”3 This fear was genuine and not uncalled for. While most immigrants were, in fact, conservative, overall the working class strongly favored a reordering of society. The era of the robber-baron had made it clear to American workers that anything they got they would have to fight for. Immigrants figured prominently among the radical leaders of the labor movement and the IWW. It was this which led the ruling class to aim the argument of biological inferiority at immigrants, for the ruling class found in the eugenics-movement a strategy for disrupting workers’ moves toward collective action.

How did the ruling class influence the spread of eugenic ideas, and the passage of eugenic-inspired legislation? It exerted its considerable effects on public opinion and legislative action through several processes. The news media and publishing houses were by and large controlled by the same wealth which controlled the steel mills and coal companies. Publication became a useful channel for moulding public opinion. Through their control of these channels, the ruling class could introduce and defend ideas which supported their general interests. The ruling class also controlled the universities financially, and these institutions pushed ruling class ideas. This was not done by forcing faculty to teach ideas which. they did not agree with, rather it was done by hiring and giving special support to those whose ideas were agreeable. Anti-eugenic ideas were debated in universities, during the heyday of the hereditarian movement, but Castle’s textbook was the most widely circulated, and influenced thousands of students. There were few publications available to counteract that book’s eugenic assumptions.

How does class analysis account for the line-up of forces during the debate on the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924? In fact, a quick look at the lobbying groups involved seems to contradict what we’d expect from class interests. For instance, in the classical sense it might be expected that industry would favor the bill, since industrial leaders, as members of the ruling class, would fear an increased population of genetically inferior and socially malevolent proletariat. On the other hand, it might be expected that labor leaders would have opposed the bill, since increased immigration meant increased numbers of workers in the unions, and increased strength to fight the bosses. In fact, however, the matter was more complex. Testifying on behalf of the bill were various patriotic groups, fraternal societies, eugenics organizations, and organized labor. Opposing the bill were steamship companies, agriculture, immigrant aid societies and industry.4 The positions of all except labor and industry are easy to understand. If we look closely, the positions of these two latter groups are neither unexpected, nor in contradiction to a class analysis.

Labor supported the bill because the job market in 1920 was rapidly becoming glutted with an oversupply of labor. In the north, particularly, this was due both to immigration and job reduction because of slowdown from wartime expansionism, and the migration of workers (mostly black) from the south. Partly because of the eugenists’ propaganda, and partly because the unemployment problem was a reality, labor tended to focus especially on the immigrant as the immediate threat. Industry was opposed to the bill because unemployment was desirable to drive wages downward; industry was ever on the prowl for ways to reduce labor costs. It is interesting to note that industry was less opposed to the 1924 bill than it had been to the 1921 emergency measure. In the interim, the popular fear of the racial effects of immigration had increased, businesses had continued to prosper even without the previously large supply of cheap labor, and large-scale black migration from the south had kept the labor pool from falling too low.4 Thus, industry and labor both acted within the framework of their perceived class interests.

We must remember in applying a class analysis to historical events, that there are many different class interests, some of which may be predominant at one period, some at another. Many times these interests can be contradictory within each class. For example, the ruling class faced two conflicting self-interests in regard to immigration in the 1920’s. Unrestricted immigration meant a larger labor pool and thus low wages (and high profit). At the same time, too many immigrants, or too great an increase in the size of the proletariat, meant increased danger of labor organizing and eventual social revolution. To the ruling class the advantage of increased cheap labor had to be balanced out against the disadvantage of labor discontent and unionization. A fear of the latter turned many ruling class members to support the eugenics movement.

Labor also had contradictory positions. Increased immigration provided more recruits to the rank of the proletariat: a necessary condition for effectively organizing against the bosses. On the other hand, with a restricted job market, increased immigration heightened competition for available jobs. A dislike of the racial hatred fostered by the eugenists caused some workers (especially immigrants themselves) to oppose immigration restriction. The immediate problems of unemployment, however, caused labor leadership, along with other workers to favor the immigration act of 1924.

The Current Controversy

The hereditarian arguments over race and IQ in the 1970’s have many similarities to the eugenics movement during the period 1900-1925. Both attempt to differentiate between superior and inferior characteristics allegedly associated more with one race or class than another; both have based their arguments on supposed biological traits , (inherited differences); both have found support within the scientific community and have tried to derive prestige from “scientific data”; both have involved large elements of subjectivity and bias in the use of evidence; and both have been picked up by the ruling-class controlled media and have received far more publicity than their questionable conclusions would warrant; both have drawn favorable attention from political and governmental leaders of their day, and have had a variety of influences on public policy; thus, a study of the older eugenics movement can help us understand and respond to some of the deleterious public effects that might arise from a general acceptance of a new brand of hereditarianism.

That the hereditary differences in IQ between races has already, as a policy, begun to enter the public domain, may be demonstrated by several examples. Shortly after Jensen’s original article appeared in February of 1969, a southern congressman had the entire 123-page article read into the Congressional Record. Daniel Patrick Moynihan reviewed Jensen’s studies to the Nixon cabinet, pointing out that Jensen’s scientific credentials were exemplary. A Virginia court introduced Jensen’s work as evidence in a desegregation case . 9 In recent months hereditarian thinking has been overtly reflected in a public statement by Dean Watkins, chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of California: “It is just possible that the reason some people are rich is because they are smarter than other people; and maybe they produce smarter children.”10 What is also significant is the timing, of both the old and the new hereditarian movements. Both emerged in periods following considerable social upheaval: the labor movement and strike agitation in the 1890’s and first decades of the present century; and the strong civil rights and anti-war organization of the period 1963- 1970. Both movements sought to explain social inequalities and injustice by appealing to hereditary differences between the people on top and those on bottom. Both such explanations are merely different brands of racism.

It would be rash to claim that the eugenics movement of the 1920’s, the Nazi racism of the 1930’s, or the hereditarian views of the 1970’s could have been totally defeated had scientists spoken out at the time. Academics do not often have such power. But strong opposition from scientists would have made those earlier movements less easy to build, and would have forced their inherent racism to appear more strikingly. The same can be said for the hereditarian movement of the present. By understanding. that movement we can more easily lay bare the fallacious conclusions which, as a brand of self-serving racism, are masquerading under the mantle of legitimate biology.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Haller, Mark (1963) Eugenics; Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought

Ludmerer, Kenneth (1972) Genetics and American Society

“Eugenics, survival of the bosses; revolution, survival of the workers” PL 9,78-86

Racism, Intelligence, and the Working Class Progressive Labor Party 1973

NOTES

  1. Castle, W .E. 1916 Genetics & Eugenics (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).
  2.  Haller, Mark 1963 Eugenics; Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, N.J.)
  3. Grant, Madison 1916 The Passing of the Great Race (N.Y, Charles Scribner’s Sons).
  4. Ludmerer, Kenneth 1972 Genetics & American Society (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press).
  5. Laughlin, Harry H.1922 “Analysis of America’s modern melting pot.” Hearings before the House Committee on immigration and naturalization. 67th Congress, Third Session (Washington, Government Printing Office) p. 255.
  6.  Beardsley, E.H. 1973 ”The American scientist as social activist; Franz Boas, Burt G. Wilder, and the cause of racial justice,” 1900- 1915. Isis 64: 50-66.
  7. Anon. 1973 “Seattle general strike, 1919: Can we do better next time?” Progressive Labor 9 (July, 1973): 3344.
  8. O’Connor, Harvey 1964 Revolution in Seattle (New York, Monthly Review Press).
  9. Neary, John. 1970, “A Scientist’s Variations on a Disturbing Racial Theme.” Life Magazine, 63 (June 12, 1970) 50B-65.
  10. Daily Californian, April 2, 1973.