The educational impact of the eugenics movement

PII: S0883-0355(98)00003-2

CHAPTER 1

THE EDUCATIONAL IMPACT OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT ROY LOWE Department of Education, University of Wales Swansea, Hendrefoelan, Swansea SA2 7NB, U.K.

Abstract Although there is a growing literature on the Eugenics movement and historians have shown some interest in its impact on educational policy, there has been little attempt by historians to demonstrate its continuity throughout the 20th Century. There also has been little exploration of its linkages with scientific racism as it has developed in several societies (in particular North America) in recent years. This chapter argues that Eugenics never lost its hold on policy, in particular, the treatment of ethnic minorities, and can only be fully understood in the light of the ongoing concern for Eugenic theory. The author also suggests that the widespread influence of the Eugenics movement illustrates the communality of educational policy across the developed world and particularly across modern Europe. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

There has been a great deal of research on the Eugenics movement during the early 20th century, both at national level and internationally. Some of this has focused on the links between Eugenics and educational policy and practice (Lowe, 1979, 1980; Woodhouse, 1982; Brown, 1988; Rodwell, 1997). There has also been some writing on the reformulation of Eugenics after the Second World War (Kevles, 1985; Soloway, 1990) as well as a lively ongoing debate on the racial science movement (Fraser, 1995) which clearly has political as well as educational ramifications. So far, little attempt has been made to bring these issues together and to demonstrate their interrelatedness. This is the purpose of this chapter. The intention is to review the continuity of the Eugenics movement throughout the 20th Century and to demonstrate that this field of enquiry is one which has had a continuing and widespread impact on educational policy to the present time. In particular, it will be argued that contemporary controversies around the theme of scientific racism are historically constructed and may be seen as a direct continuation of the preoccupations which attracted eugenicists to the education question in the early 20th Century. 647

648

R. LOWE

Eugenics Eugenics was largely the brain-child of Francis Galton, working in collaboration with several associates, most notably Karl Pearson. But, long before his association with Pearson, Galton (1869, 1883) had hinted in his book, Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, that racial improvement was a scientific possibility. In 1883 his Inquiries into Human Faculty outlined a program of positive Eugenics, by which the better human stock would be encouraged to breed so as to ensure its continuation. By the early 1890s Galton was conjuring with the possibility of sterilization as a route towards a program of negative or preventive Eugenics. Although Galton had wide-ranging interests, some of which (such as his work on statistical correlations) helped to promote his eugenic theories, the enduring obsession of the final years of his life was with the question of national degeneracy and, in particular, what was to be done about the social group which he and his associates identified as the ‘‘feeble minded.’’ Galton and Pearson founded the journal Biometrika in 1901 to propagandize their views. In 1904 a research fellowship and a research scholarship were established at the University of London, together with a ‘‘Eugenics laboratory’’ which was staffed by Karl Pearson. Galton linked with members of the Moral Education League to found a Eugenics Education Society which, in 1908, established its own journal, ¹he Eugenics Review . So, by the end of his life (Galton died in January, 1911), Galton and those around him had established the framework which made possible the continuing widespread dissemination of Eugenic ideas well into the 20th century. A small group of enthusiasts (Karl Pearson, Montague Crackenthorpe, Dr. A. F. Tredgold and Dr. C. W. Saleeby were the most prominent) ensured that his ideas were kept alive after his death. Further, this very quickly became an international movement. The first International Congress of Eugenicists was held in London in July, 1913. The wide-ranging list of contributors demonstrates the extent to which eugenic thinking was already internationalized, particularly powerfully networked across Europe, but linking with developments in North America and elsewhere. A glance at the names of some of the best known contributors to that conference suggests immediately the nascent power of the Eugenics network to influence policy across the developed world and shows that this network was being established immediately before the outbreak of the First World War (Gerrard, 1912). Some of the contributors, together with their titles and the topics of their presentations, were: Dr Raymond Pearl (Director of the Maine Agricultural Station), ‘‘The Inheritance of Fecundity’’; Dr David F. Weeks (Superintendent of the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics), ‘‘The Inheritance of Epilepsy’’; Professor Giuseppe Sergi (Professor of Anthropology at the University of Rome), ‘‘Heredity and Mutability in Human Races’’; Professor E. Morselli (Professor of Psychiatry at University of Genoa), ‘‘The Persistence and Variation of Racial Characters, particularly with regard to Ethnical Psychology’’; Professor V. Gruffridi-Ruggeri (Professor of Anthropology at University of Naples), ‘‘The so-called Laws of Heredity in man’’; Dr. Corrado Gini (Professor of Statistics at University of Cagliaro), ‘‘The problem of Eugenics from the Democratic Point of View’’; Dr. F. A. Woods (Harvard Medical School), ‘‘Some Interrelations between Eugenics and Historical Research’’; Dr. Ignacio Valenti y Vivo (Professor of Medicine and Toxicology, University of Barcelona), ‘‘A Healthy Sane Family showing Longevity in Catalonia’’; Dr. C. B. Davenport (Superintendent of American Eugenics Record Office), ‘‘Marriage Laws and Customs’’; Professor L. Kellogg (Professor of Entomology, Stanford University), ‘‘Eugenics and Militarism’’;

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

649

Professor D. Starr Jordan (Professor, Leland Stanford University; President American Eugenics Section), ‘‘War and National Welfare’’; Professor Alfredo Niceforo (Professor of Statistics, University of Naples), ‘‘The cause of the Inferiority of Physical and Mental Characters in the Lower Social Classes’’; Professor A. Loria (Professor of Political Economy, University of Turin), ‘‘The Physio-Psychological Aristocracy and the Social Aristocracy’’; Monsieur Lucien March (Superintendent of the Bureau of the Statistique Ge´ne´rale de la France), ‘‘The Fertility of Marriages, According to Profession and Social Class’’; Fraulein Dr Agnes Bluhm (Berlin), ‘‘Race Hygiene and Midwifery’’; Mr. Bleecher van Wagenen (Chairman of the Sterilization Committee of the American Breeders Association), ‘‘Report of Recent investigations as to the Effects and Practicability of Sterilization’’; Dr. H. E. Jordan (Professor of Anatomy, University of Virginia), ‘‘The Place of Eugenics in the Medical Curriculum’’; Dr. A. Ploetz (President of the International Society for Race Hygiene, Germany), ‘‘The Bearing of Neo-Malthusianism on Eugenics’’; Dr. Louis Quinton (Belgium), ‘‘The Practical Organisation of Eugenic Action’’; and Dr. J. Mjo¨rn (Norway), ‘‘Recent Eugenic Legislation in Norway.’’ Some of the key elements in this network are clear from this listing. The founding father of Eugenics in North America was C. B. Davenport whose ‘‘Eugenics laboratory’’ at cold Harbour in New York State, funded by the Harriman family and by Andrew Carnegie, fueled the movement in North America. Davenport became a key advocate of immigration limitation and of sterilization (Kevles, 1985; Soloway, 1990). By 1911, under his influence, six southern states already had sterilization measures in force. As is now well known, these laws were almost always used against ethnic minorities rather than against white members of society. David Starr Jordan was the president of Stanford University, a committee member of the American Immigration Restriction League, and on record as saying that ‘‘at Castle garden, in New York we should turn back 2 those whose descendants are likely through incompetence or vice to be a permanent burden on our social or political order’’ (Lowe, 1996). The participation of Alfred Ploetz and Agnes Bluhm in the Conference also demonstrates the links between Galton’s work and the origins of the racial hygiene movement in Germany. The sterilization measures introduced by the National Socialists during the 1930s and the events of the Holocaust can all be directly linked to the propagandizing of Eugenicists during the early years of the 20th Century. Recent revelations about the widespread use of sterilization in Scandinavia suggest the significance of the participation of Scandinavian delegates in this 1913 London Conference. By 1928, 30 American states had sterilization measures in place. The same year, the Swiss Canton de Vaud passed the first sterilization law in mainland Europe. Denmark followed suit in 1929, Germany in 1933, Sweden and Norway in 1934, Finland and Danzig in 1935 and Estonia in 1936 (Kevles, 1985). In Britain the Eugenics Society Sterilization Bill was presented to the House of Commons in 1931, although it did not proceed beyond a first reading (Lowe, 1979). Beyond this, the influence of the Eugenicists can be observed in other major international developments during the early 20th Century. Arthur Balfour was a member of the Eugenics Society. His government passed the Aliens Act in 1905 and one of the objectives was to limit Jewish entry to the United Kingdom (Soloway, 1990). In 1917 the same Arthur Balfour enunciated his Balfour Declaration. This chimed with work done by Karl Pearson and Margaret Moul comparing the intelligence of Jewish and Gentile children in London. They argued for ‘‘a standard for immigrants, say 25% higher, than the mental and physical averages of the native population2 let us allow none to enter who fail to reach this standard’’ (Soloway, 1990). They also suggested in their research report that

650

R. LOWE

Jewish refugees who failed to reach this standard for immigration might be encouraged to settle instead in what they described as ‘‘a thinly populated part of the globe where the local population was below their intelligence level.’’ They went on to identify Palestine as fitting this bill precisely. Thus, the identification of a Jewish homeland was partly, at least, charged by Eugenic ideals. It is this natural linkage of the Eugenics movement with sterilization policy across the developed world and with the events leading to the Holocaust which have led to the down-playing of the massive impact it had on education systems. As will be argued below, eugenicists from the outset had things to say which were of direct significance for schooling. It can be argued that this aspect of Eugenic thought has proved to be more pervasive and more enduring than the more spectacular arguments surrounding sterilization. Further, the wide-spread horror which resulted from the discovery of the Holocaust at the end of the Second World War generated an intellectual climate in which it was naturally assumed that the Eugenics movement was dead and that policies and attitudes of this sort could not and would not re-emerge. In many countries the War generated a spirit of shared suffering and generated a situation during the late 1940s and into the 1950s in which collectivism was the order of the day and state planning, both of the economy and of the social order, seemed to be the best way forward. In this intellectual climate, Eugenics was mistakenly thought by many to be broken as a creed and historians have tended to downplay its significance after 1945. As will be argued below, the case was quite the opposite. Eugenicists gave evidence to the Royal Commission on Population which was set up in 1943 and reported in 1949. C.P. Blacker told that Commission that ‘‘the different branches of the human race were unequally equipped with the inborn characters that produce and sustain highly organised civilizations’’ (Soloway, 1990). Several of the witnesses to this Royal Commission drew attention to the growing belief that intelligence levels were in decline because of differing fertility rates among different social classes. Although the realization of the horrors of the Holocaust meant that Eugenicists became more circumspect in expressing their ideas, the Eugenics Society continued to function. Its interest came to focus during the period after the Second World War on genetics and in particular the study of defective chromosomes. But some of the public pronouncements of Eugenicists gave a new twist and continuing vitality to the ideas that had been formulated at the start of the 20th Century. Julian Huxley and Frederick Osborne both argued during the early 1950s for the use of contraception to limit the fertility of socially deprived groups, drawing attention to low income ‘‘blacks’’ in the United States. During the 1970s the Repository for Germinal Choice was set up in California and set about the collection and storing of sperm from Noble Prize winners. In England, Francis Quick advocated the adoption of a licensing scheme which might limit the number of children borne by ‘‘genetically unfavourable’’ parents (Lowe, 1997). While many educational psychologists abandoned their belief in fixed intelligence, a number of very vocal commentators continued to press the case for inherent genetic and intellectual differences between differing social and ethnic groups. Cyril Burt (1913) remained throughout his life a believer in fixed intelligence (Hearnshaw, 1979). The figure who emerged during this period in Britain as the main champion of hereditarianism was Hans J. Eysenck. In his book Genius: ¹he natural history of creativity Eysenck (1995) extended this argument by claiming that genius was predominantly a male acquisition and that the differences between the sexes in intellectual ability ‘‘were of course genetic.’’ Eysenck was in

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

651

touch with and in harmony with the work of Arthur Jensen in California. The publication which brought Jensen to notoriety was his 1969 article in the Harvard Educational Review where he argued that ‘‘blacks’’ scored on average 15% lower on IQ tests than ‘‘whites’’. This claim was picked up and publicized in Britain by Eysenck (1971), who only later conceded that even if such differences did exist they might be environmental rather than genetic. Several recent works have identified the key figures in this close-knit transatlantic group of geneticists. William H. Tucker’s ¹he science and politics of racial research (1994) and Marek Kohn’s ¹he race gallery: ¹he return of racial science (1995) identify the ways in which Eugenic ideas have been sustained in the period since the Second World War. One of the key figures has been Roger Pearson who has argued that ‘‘Nordic people are the highest form of life nature has ever produced’’ (Pearson, 1992). In order to promote his vision of a genetically produced ‘‘master race’’, Pearson founded in 1957 the Northern League ‘‘to foster the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations’’. He was also behind a learned journal, ¹he Mankind Quarterly, which has been described by Kohn (1995) as ‘‘a refuge for race scientists who could not accept the UNESCO anti-race order’’. Other leading figures include Richard Lynn, who has described himself as a ‘‘scientific racist’’ and is on record as saying that ‘‘if we are talking about people who believe there are genetic differences between the races, then I am definitely a scientific racist’’ (Lynn, 1991a). The claim that ‘‘half the population of the continent of Africa is mentally retarded’’ has been attributed directly to Lynn (1991b). Similarly, Jean Philippe Rushton, Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario, in his book Altruism, socialisation and society (1980) has argued that black people’s brains are smaller than those of other races, and that they are in consequence less intelligent but more highly sexed and aggressive. Similarly offensive views are contained in a recent book by Christopher Brandt entitled ¹he G Factor (1996). Brandt (1996) has argued that single mothers should be encouraged to mate with males of higher intelligence in an attempt to pre-empt racial deterioration. The publication by Herrnstein and Murray of ¹he Bell Curve (1994) is one of the most recent examples of the survival and indeed popularity of Eugenic ideas. This book sold almost half a million copies and claims that ‘‘while the great majority of blacks might lead socially useful lives, they are biologically inferior in intelligence to whites.’’ The key funding agency for much of this work has been The Pioneer Fund which was set up in 1937 to foster research into hereditary genetics and racial betterment. It was in this vein that William Shockley, the Nobel winning physicist became involved in litigation in the mid-1980s over responses to his claims that ‘‘blacks were genetically inferior to whites’’ (Pearson, 1992). Indeed, occasional comment in British newspapers illustrates the survival and acceptance of Eugenic ideas into the final years of this century. For example, on 2 December 1985 a leader in the Daily ¹elegraph identified inner city problems as stemming from the fact that ‘‘new towns, at great cost, have decanted the younger and more energetic native-born English from their urban communities thereby creating a vacuum filled by the mass import of people from backward countries to meet an alleged labour shortage.’’ In similar vein a letter to ¹he Independent newspaper published on 16 February 1993 attributed what it described as ‘‘the remorseless rise in crime’’ to the simple fact that ‘‘more criminals are being born. Responsible, law-abiding citizens, well fulfilled in their careers are tending to have fewer children, sometimes none at all. Conversely, the less intelligent and responsible are less able to exercise these constraints. Much that was previously assumed to be environmentally determined is now known to have a genetic component; this certainly applies to intelligence and possibly also to the capacity for personal responsibility.’’ In brief, there is

652

R. LOWE

considerable evidence of the survival and even popularity of Eugenic ideas into the closing years of the 20th Century. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that as we turn to look at the development of educational policy, we find that the influence of Eugenicists has persisted even in a historical period which might have been thought to be quite inimical to their ideas. It is possible to identify four, conjucturally five, specific areas of educational policy and practice which were deeply influenced by Eugenic ideas for much of the 20th century. First, the concern of Eugenicists with the problem of, as they put it, ‘‘national degeneration,’’ led directly to the search for the means to test the population so as to ascertain its ability levels. From its very inception the intelligence testing movement developed in the shadow of Eugenicists and was directly influenced by them. Some of the leading early protagonists of intelligence testing were Eugenicists. The continuing popularity of intelligence testing throughout the 20th century is but one confirmation of the enduring power of the Eugenicists. Secondly, Eugenics, with its suggestions both implicit and explicit that a grasp of the differences and contrasts between races was at the heart of any understanding of the nature of mankind and womankind, led naturally to the belief that individuals from differing ethnic backgrounds had differing educational potential and should be treated differently within school systems. During the period before the Second World War, when most population movement was intra-European, this view was pervasive but seemed to have only marginal applicability to educational policy. With the upturn in the immigration of visible ethnic minorities during the years following the Second World War (a phenomenon which was common across the developed world) these ideas took on a new significance. Attempts to identify appropriate separate programs for white and black pupils within long-established education systems derived, in part at least, from the lobbying of Eugenicists. Thirdly, the Eugenic concern with national deterioration extended beyond the question of the best genetic stock to the issue of the quality of home life and of mothering. It is worth reminding ourselves that Eugenics was not simply herediteranian but that there was a strong environmentalist element in Eugenic thinking (evidenced, for example, in Thomas Gerrard’s powerful booklet, ¹he Church and Eugenics in 1912). This environmentalist element had the quality of home life at the heart of its agenda. Part of the program which followed naturally from this set of concerns was the establishment of separate schooling tracks for girls which would result in their becoming more efficient mothers to the next generation. There is, therefore, a direct link between the Eugenics movement and the preservation of differentiated routes for boys and girls through schools for much of the 20th Century. A fourth educational outcome of the Eugenics movement has to do with the transmission of opinions through children’s books and school texts. To the extent that school texts were and have remainded racialized or have carried important social class messages during the 20th Century, they have reflected, in part at least, the agenda of the Eugenics movement. Finally, although more oblique, there is clear evidence that the planning of educational buildings was influenced in part by the thinking of Eugenicists. The view that those chosen for positions of leadership in society should receive their education both at school and university in institutions whose architecture was a constant reminder of a racial and intellectual heritage was one which was articulated by Eugenicists, picked up by architects, and embodied in brick and stone. In each of these ways, the Eugenics movement, it is argued, has had an enduring impact upon the educational provision, both in terms of the form it took and of the nature of the transactions which took place within the classroom.

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

653

The Testing Movement Turning first to the testing movement which has had such a significant influence on education during the 20th century and has retained its vitality to the present time, there can be no doubt that it was in very large part the brain-child of the early Eugenicists, most notably Francis Galton himself. In his book Hereditary Genius (1869) Galton had dismissed out of hand the argument that ‘‘babies are born pretty much alike’’ adding that ‘‘the experiences of the nursery, the school, the University, and of professional careers are a chain of proofs to the contrary.’’ Galton’s interest in what he calls ‘‘natural ability’’ persisted to the end of his life, and his work on the correlation of human characteristics was intended in part at least to contribute to this study. The final years of Galton’s life coincided with the rise of what many thought to be the science of education which was to put understanding of children and of the processes of schooling on a new footing. The new discipline was educational psychology. One of its leaders was Cyril Burt who devoted himself throughout his life to systematizing and refining the ideas Galton had floated. Burt was a Eugenicist, being one of the founding members of the Liverpool branch. One agency used by Eugenicists to disseminate their ideas was the British Association. Galton was President of its Anthropometric Section and William McDougall was Secretary of its Psychological Committee during the Edwardian period. Together, these two encouraged Burt ‘‘to develop and standardize tests of general intelligence’’ for use by educationalists (Lowe, 1980). Burt’s intellectual ally in this work was to be Charles Spearman who had also been deeply influenced by Galton’s Inquiries into human faculty and its development (Forrest, 1974). As early as 1904 Spearman placed an article in the American Journal of Psychology arguing that there was such a thing as general intelligence and it might be objectively determined and measured. What is interesting about the development of Burt’s work during the following few years was its motive. It is clear from some of the evidence available that what was driving him was his perceived need to develop mechanisms which would enable the identification of the mentally unfit. As this search developed it grew, almost imperceptibly, into the development of techniques to study the intelligence of the whole population. In other words, the invention of intelligence testing originated in the concerns of Eugenicists with racial deterioration. In 1913 the British Association held its annual meeting in Birmingham. It was at this Conference that the pioneer educational psychologists met and debated the construction and use of intelligence tests. Participants included F.C. Shrubsall, Stanley Wyatt, C.W. Valentine, R.C. Moore, W.H. Winch, J.L. McIntyre, Godfrey Thomson, E.O. Lewis, C.S. Myers, J.J. Findlay, J.A. Green and, not least, Cyril Burt himself. The presidential address at the beginning of the conference was given by Oliver Lodge, Vice Chancellor of the new University of Birmingham. He spelled out that, in his view, the ‘‘dispute on the laws of inheritance’’ was one of the major areas which should be debated at the conference (Lowe, 1980). In the same year Burt placed an article in the Eugenics Review on ‘‘The Inheritance of mental characters’’ and made clear that his own growing interest in intelligence testing derived very largely from the problem of mental deficiency. Four years later Burt produced a Report on the distribution and relation of mental abilities for the London County Council in which he said ‘‘to complete any study of educational deficiency in special schools, it becomes essential, as we have seen, to make a comparative survey of children presumably normal. Only by comparison with normals can we state what characteristics differentiate

654

R. LOWE

the backward or deficient’’ (Burt, 1920). He went on to spell out that in order to identify the threshold of what he called ‘‘educational deficiency’’ he had taken a London Borough and had tried to survey the educational abilities of the whole school population. Intelligence testing had been born and now was being trialed in the United Kingdom, probably for the first time. The drive for the more widespread adoption of intelligence tests during the next few years also came from Eugenicists. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Liverpool, George Adami, was himself a leading Eugenicist and author of Medical contributions to the study of evolution (Lowe, 1980). Adami was invited to chair the Board of Education’s sub-committee advising on the use of intelligence tests between 1920 and 1924. This came out with a strong advocacy of intelligence tests. Significantly, Adami engineered the co-option of P. Ballard, C.S. Myers and C. Spearman (all sympathetic to Eugenic ideas) to assist his work on this sub-committee. So, when during the early 1920s Burt was inviting local authorities to adopt a ‘‘treble track’’ system of secondary education, he did so in the knowledge that tests existed and were being refined which would make it possible to cheaply identify which pupils should be sent to which schools. Thus the educational settlement which resulted in Britain from the passing of the 1944 Education Act involved almost all local education authorities in setting up ‘‘treble track’’ secondary schemes of this type by identifying grammar, technical, and secondary modern schools for pupils who were selected by the use of intelligence tests (Lowe, 1988). During the 1940s and 1950s there was a widespread acceptance of the hereditarian philosophy that was implicit in this settlement and in particular a faith in theories of fixed intelligence. This intellectual underpinning for a selected system was largely undermined as the educational psychologists, one by one, turned away from these theories of fixed intelligence. The turn of the tide was marked by the publication of Alice Heim’s (1954) book, ¹he appraisal of intelligence. Within a decade very few educational psychologists were still holding to the hereditarian line. However, the Eugenicists were far from done. The ‘‘Black Paper’’ movement begun by Cox and Dyson (1969) provided the platform for a relaunch of their ideas. Black Paper ¹wo published in 1969 contained an introductory section on ‘‘The Basic Realities.’’ The three contributors to this section were Cyril Burt, Richard Lynn, and H.J. Eysenck. This was the platform from which the Eugenicists continued to influence the educational provision into the 1970s and 1980s. Burt, referring his readers to Galton’s work, emphasised the need for the use of intelligence tests, the potential danger of comprehensive reorganisation, and the need for efficient streaming systems. He added pointedly that ‘‘one type of segregation invokes hardly any criticism, namely, the provision of separate schools or classes for the physically handicapped and the mentally or educationally subnormal.’’ By analogy he argued that it was appropriate for ‘‘potential geniuses’’ to be selected out in the same way through the use of intelligence tests. Richard Lynn’s contribution was similarly critical of the comprehensive schools. Examining the reasons why children from differing social class backgrounds performed differently in school, Lynn argued ‘‘there are two principal reasons why working class children, on average, do worse than middle class children. One is that they are innately less intelligent (on average) and the other that their families provide a less suitable milieu for striving to success. Neither of these will be changed to any appreciable degree by abolishing Independent and Grammar Schools.’’ He emphasised that innate differences in average levels of intelligence did exist between different social classes and argued too that schools should be so organised as to take account of this fact.

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

655

In much the same vein, Eysenck’s polemic on ‘‘The Rise of the mediocracy’’ was another robust defense of selective systems. He drew attention to Arthur Jensen’s work and underlined Jensen’s attack on compensatory education, which Eysenck regarded as being a waste of public money. In light of the educational policies introduced during the following 20 years by successive governments and of the continuing reliance on intelligence testing to identify a significant number of pupils for allocation to grammar and private schools, it is clear that the Eugenicists have continued to influence educational policy in a very direct way to the present time.

Ethnic Differences in Education Moving on to consider the ways in which education systems have sought to cater for students from differing ethnic groups, it is easy to see that eugenic theory has played a huge part in influencing policy (Lowe, 1997). The Pioneer Fund supported the research of several leading Eugenicists into the question of the comparative intelligence levels of different ethnic groups. Arthur Jensen’s work during the 1960s was funded by the Pioneer Fund as was that of Phillipe Rushton at the University of Ontario. The University of London received more than £90,000 from the Pioneer Fund in support of the work of Hans Eysenck; William B. Shockley was another recipient. Each of these authors generated publications arguing that there were genetic differences in intelligence and achievement between whites and blacks. Shockley went so far as to advocate his ‘‘voluntary sterilization bonus plan.’’ Eysenck’s (1971) book Race, intelligence and education, looked at the contribution which might be made to educational policy by psychologists. He argued let us look at the present situation. There are roughly speaking two main positions which people adopt when faced with the problem of colour. On the one hand there is the reactionary, racist position which relies on the suppression of all Negro aspirations, exemplified best in the South African policy of apartheid. On the other hand, there is the policy of egalitarian enlightenment which believes in the ‘‘innate’’ equality of all human beings and pursues a policy of compensatory education and of equal opportunities for ‘‘blacks.’’ It is not necessary to discuss the repressive policy; it stands condemned 2. But the policy of enlightenment also might be faulted; not for its aims, but for its underlying beliefs which run counter to present day knowledge. It raises hopes which may be impossible to fulfil, and disappointment may produce (and has already produced) a feeling among negroes that all whites are the enemy, and that liberals are but false friends (Eysenck, 1971).

It was through the deployment of arguments such as this that Eugenicists successfully opposed the establishment of school systems which led to the greater integration of white and black pupils. Thus, it was hardly surprising that organizations such as the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council set up in the United Kingdom by the Home Office to monitor the treatment of ethnic minority groups argued against too great a mixing of white and black pupils in the same school. Its second report, published in February, 1964, argued that where too many ethnic minority pupils were present in any one school the whole character and ethos of the school is altered 2. The presence of a high proportion of immigrant children in one class slows down the general routine 2 and hampers the progress of the whole class, especially where the immigrants do not write or speak English fluently. This is clearly in itself undesirable, and unfair to all the children in the class (Lowe, 1997).

656

R. LOWE

A recently published book by Grosvenor (1997), Assimilating identities: Racism and educational policy in post-1945 Britain, demonstrates lucidly how ethnic minority pupils have repeatedly been construed as problematic by policy makers and have been largely excluded from the mainstream of English scholastic and academic life. The evidence from North America and elsewhere on this issue is equally telling. In brief, there can be little doubt that Eugenicists have exercised a powerful influence on the way in which, across the developed world, the visible ethnic minorities have been treated within educational systems.

The Quality of Parenting Eugenics led also to a natural concern with the quality of parenting and this is a third area in which eugenicists have had a powerful influence on educational policy. Although, at first glance, the whole direction of Eugenics may seem to be towards hereditarianism, there were from the start strong environmentalist elements. The individual who did most to promote environmentalist Eugenics during the early years was Caleb Williams Saleeby. Recent research by Rodwell (1997) has clarified the importance of his contribution to the Eugenic debate. Two of Saleeby’s books in particular promoted ‘‘positive Eugenics’’ and placed motherhood at the heart of the Eugenic program. He wrote Parenthood and race culture: An outline of Eugenics in 1909 and his ¼oman and womanhood: A search for Principles was published in 1911. As we read his account of the importance of women to the realization of Eugenic ideals we see one of the starting points of the 20th Century ‘‘pro-natalist’’ movement, which saw thousands of women return to the home after employment during both of the world wars. Saleeby (1909) wrote: Woman is nature’s supreme instrument of the future. The eugenicist is therefore deeply concerned with her education2and the compatibility between the discharge of her incomparable function of motherhood and the lesser functions which some women now assume.

Although a supporter of the women’s emancipation movement, Saleeby (1909) warned that ‘‘it cannot safely be taken to the point at which motherhood is compromised’’. In his view: Without love no baby could exist for twenty-four hours. Every human being that ever will exist is a product of mother-love2 The woman who does not think the possession of a baby a sufficient prize is no fit object2for any other kind of bribe or lure.

As part of this program, the encouragement of domestic subjects in schools which would have the effect of generating more effective mothers was a natural outcome. This reinforced the tendency for separate tracks to be established for boys and girls in schools. Feminist historians have shown in recent years that pro-natalism was as strong after the Second World War as it was after the First. Certainly during the 1950s Bowlby’s Childcare and the growth of love placed mothers who went out to work under a burden of guilt that they may be neglecting their children (Simon, 1953). The World Health Organisation’s (1952) publication, ¹he deprivation of maternal care, made an interesting comparison of patterns of motherhood in what were described as ‘‘primitive’’ and ‘‘modern’’ societies. One characteristic of the ‘‘primitive’’ societies was a heavy reliance on breast feeding; the essay went on to question the extent to which similar arguments were applicable in a ‘‘modern’’ society. It seems at least likely that the wide-ranging arguments which have persisted until recently on

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

657

patterns of motherhood and on the ways in which separate tracks and syllabuses should be established in schools for girls with a view to their future role as mothers are all in part charged by the arguments which had been developed by Eugenicists. Eugenic interest in ‘‘the woman question’’ did not stop with Marie Stopes’ arguments for more effective contraception. This whole question of the impact of Eugenic thinking on the education of girls is worthy of much further research.

Textbooks The determination of Eugenicists to propagandize their views widely had a major impact on children’s literature and on the content of children’s textbooks. In the early years the most important of these propagandists was Saleeby. He was one of the major contributors to the Children’s Encyclopaedia produced by Arthur Mee in 1908 and almost certainly wrote the Eugenics section (Rodwell, 1997). It was in the Children’s Encyclopaedia that Saleeby told children of the contrasts between the highly developed skulls of ‘‘European man’’ which contrasted with the small brain of the Australian native 2 Some parts of the earth are inhabited by a humble kind of men and women 2 These unfortunate people do not have high, broad and straight foreheads as we do. Their foreheads are long and narrow, and slope very sharply backwards. Their lot is inescapable 2 these people do not merely know less than we do but are never able to learn as much as we do, even when they get an equal chance.

This view coincided with and confirmed much of the discussion concerning social class and race which was to be found in children’s history textbooks during the Edwardian period. One popular reader commented that the working class ‘‘has yet to learn how to use its power; to educate itself in political problems, and to acquire discipline, restraint and large views.’’ Not only was a perjorative view of social class contained in many school history readers, but also some powerful statements on race and the British Empire. The Cassell’s Class history which was in use in many schools until the First World War wrote of ‘‘barbarian peoples whom it is profitless to conquer, yet amongst whom it is difficult otherwise to enforce peace and order’’ (Chancellor, 1970). Beyond these school texts, there was a whole genre of children’s literature which chimed with Eugenic thinking. Rider Haggard’s depiction of European and African racial stereotypes in King Solomon’s mines and Kipling’s tales of Empire are but the most obvious examples of a whole genre. Thus, it appears that Eugenicists were able to popularize their views to the point at which whole generations of children were fed a diet of opinion both in textbooks and popular novels which reinforced the popular acceptability of the Eugenics movement as a whole. Again, further work is needed on the extent to which this strain of children’s writing persisted through the 20th Century.

The Planning of Educational Buildings The final area in which Eugenics can be shown to have impacted on educational policy is in respect of the design of school, college, and university buildings. Rodwell (1997) has shown very clearly that one result Eugenic propagandizing during the Edwardian period

658

R. LOWE

was the emergence of the view that, while children in many parts of the globe may be genetically ill-suited to educational advance, those living in Britain and North West Europe needed to be housed and educated in conditions that were well-ventilated and healthy. The movement to establish Open Air schools on the perimeter of the large cities, which was a phenomenon of the whole English-speaking world during the first twenty years of this century, clearly owed a great deal to Eugenic thinking (Lowe, 1977). More particularly, recent work has identified a network of North American architects at the turn of the 20th Century who were deeply influenced by the ideals of race, and were commissioned by college presidents, some of whom were leading members of the Immigration Restriction League. Leon C. Marshall, the economist; Francis A. Walker, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard; David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford, were all committee members of the Immigration Restriction League. Lowell was a close personal friend of the architect, C.A. Coolidge, who was responsible for the design of over a dozen American colleges. David Starr Jordan was on record as saying that ‘‘only the Saxon and the Goth know the meaning of freedom 2. It is well for us to remember that we came of hardy stock. The Anglo Saxon race, with its strengths and virtues, was born of hard times’’ (Lowe, 1986). It was under the influence of this group of college presidents that American universities were designed using European Gothic styles of architecture (Lowe, 1996). The architect who most clearly articulated the implications of this thinking was Ralph Adams Cram, among whose designs the Rice Institute at Houston, Texas is perhaps the most memorable. Cram said: and so we return step by step to the old ideals and sound methods of English colleges, return to the mother that bore us 2 return to those eternally battered but eternally enduring principles in life and thought and aspiration which make up the great Anglo Saxon heritage of which we proudly claim to be joint heirs 2 Deep in our racial consciousness, as in that of all other Anglo Saxon peoples, is the solid conviction that after all there are but three real things in the world — the home, the school and the church — and that when we are dealing with eternal verities, honest and enduring construction is alone admissible (Lowe, 1986).

What this meant in reality was that those young people who were identified as the future leaders of American society were to pass through and to spend their student years among buildings which reminded them forcibly of the intellectual and racial heritage which was theirs. Gothic architecture as applied to universities and colleges across North America, was yet another spin-off from the thinking of Eugenicists.

Conclusion If there could be any doubts about the ability of intellectual movements to modify and influence educational policy, the example of the Eugenics movement demonstrates that the opposite is the case. In each of the five areas of policy touched on above, Eugenicists have had a considerable influence. In many respects that influence has persisted to the present time. This is particularly true with respect of the defense of ‘‘tracking systems’’ by which children are directed through separate school routes towards differing career outcomes and contrasting adult life styles. It is clear too that the disadvantages which ethnic minorities have suffered in respect of educational policy in many countries owes something to the influence of Eugenicists.

Educational Impact of the Eugenics Movement

659

This problem, too, persists at the end of the 20th Century. The extent to which Eugenicists influenced educational policy and practice, and the precise ways in which this occurred are of interest to us as historians of education, but deserve far greater detailed research than heretofore. If we are to develop a rounded picture of the history of education and educational systems during the 20th Century and are to approach a full understanding of the processes of educational change, we will need a more detailed account and deeper understandings of the linkages between Eugenics and education.

References Ainsworth M. D. et al. (1962). Deprivation of maternal care: a reassessment of its effects. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Block, N., & Dworkin, G. (1977). ¹he IQ controversy. London: Quartet Books. Blum, J. M. (1978). Pseudoscience and mental ability. New York: Monthly Review Press. Brandt, C. (1996). ¹he G factor: General intelligence and its implications. Chichester, Wiley. Brown, I. (1988). Who were the eugenicists? History of Education, 17, 295—308. Burt, C. L. (1913). The inheritance of mental characters. Eugenics Review, 4, 27—41. Burt, C. L. (1917). ¹he distribution and relations of educational abilities. London: P. S. King. Burt, C. L. (1920). Report of an investigation upon backward children in Birmingham. Birmingham: Birmingham Education Committee. Chancellor, V. E. (1970). History for their masters. Bath: Adams and Dart. Cox, C. B., & Dyson, A. E. (1969). Black Paper ¹wo: ¹he crisis in education. London: The Critical Quarterly Society. Dwork, D. (1987). ¼ar is good for babies and other young children: A history of the infant and child welfare movement in England, 1898—1918. London: Tavistock Publications. Eckberg, D. L. (1979). Intelligence and race: the origins and dimensions of the IQ controversy. New York: Praeger Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1971). Race, intelligence and education. London: Temple Smith. Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: the natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrall, L. A. (1985). ¹he origins and growth of the English eugenics movement, 1865—1925. New York: Prentice-Hall. Flynn, J. R. (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Forrest, D. W. (1974). Francis Galton: the life and work of a »ictorian genius. New York: Harper. Fraser, S. (Ed.) (1995). ¹he bell curve wars: race, intelligence and the future of America. New York: Harper Collins. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty. London: Macmillan. Gerrard, T. J. (1912). ¹he church and eugenics. London: P. S. King. Grosvenor, I. (1997). Assimilating identities: Racism and educational policy in Post-1945 Britain. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hearnshaw, L. S. (1979). Cyril Burt: Psychologist. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Hendrick, H. (1994). Child welfare in England, 1872—1989. London: Routledge. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). ¹he bell curve. New York: Free Press. Kevles, D. (1985). In the name of eugenics. New York: Alfred Knopf. Kohn, M. (1995). ¹he race gallery: ¹he return of racial science. London: Jonathon Cape. Loehlin, J. C. et al. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco: Freeman. Lowe, R. A. (With Seaborne, M.) (1977). ¹he English school. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lowe, R. A. (1979). Eugenicists, doctors and the quest for national efficiency. History of Education, 8, 293—306. Lowe, R. A. (1980). Eugenics and education: a note on the origins of the intelligence testing movement in England. Educational Studies, 6, 1—8. Lowe, R. A. (1986). Anglo-Americanism and the planning of universities in the United States. History of Education, 15, 247—260. Lowe, R. A. (1988). Education in the post-¼ar years. London: Routledge. Lowe, R. A. (1996). A western acropolis of learning: the ºniversity of California in 1897. Berkeley: University of California. Lowe, R. A. (1997). Schooling and social change, 1964—1990. London: Routledge. Mass Observations (1945). Britain and her birth rate. London: John Murray. Lynn, R. (1991a). The evolution of racial differences in intelligence. Mankind quarterly, 32, 99—173. Lynn, R. (1991b). Race differences in intelligence: a global perspective. Mankind quarterly, 31, 255—296.

660

R. LOWE

Mazumdar, P. M. H. (1992). Eugenics, human genetics and human failing. London: Routledge. Pearson, R. (Ed.) (1992). Shockley on eugenics and race: the application of science to the solution of human problems. Washington, DC: Scott Townsend. Rodwell, G. (1997). Dr. Caleb Williams Saleeby: the complete eugenicist. History of Education, 26, 23—40. Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialisation and society. New York: Prentice-Hall. Rushton, J. P. (1990). Race, brain size and intelligence. personality and individual differences, 11, 785—794. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behaviour, a life history perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Searle, G. R. (1976). Eugenics and politics in Britain, 1900—1914. The Netherlands: Leyden Press. Simon, B. (1953). Intelligence testing and the comprehensive school. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Simon, B. (1971). Intelligence, psychology and education: A Marxist critique. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Soloway, R. A. (1982). Birth control and the population question in England, 1877—1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Soloway, R. A. (1990). Demograpy and degeneration: eugenics and the declining birth rate in ¹wentieth century Britain. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Tucker, W. H. (1994). ¹he science and politics of racial research. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Woodhouse, J. (1982). Eugenics and the feebleminded. History of Education, 11, 127—138. Wooldridge, A. (1994). Measuring the mind: Education and psychology in England, 1860—1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woyke, J. (1988). Birth control in Germany, 1871—1933. London: Routledge.

Biography Roy Lowe is Professor of Education at the University of Wales, Swansea. He has published widely on the history of education in the United Kingdom. His most recent book is ‘Schooling and social change’ (Routledge, 1997). He was until recently editor of History of Education and has served on the Executive Committee of the International Standing Conference for the History of Education (ISCHE). He is currently a committee member of the History of Education Society of Great Britain.