Primary Source Set

The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina

Between 1929 and 1974, over 7,600 people were sterilized, or made unable to have children, in North Carolina. Sterilization was a key part of eugenics, a theory and movement that claimed it could improve humankind through selective breeding. Through sterilization, North Carolina restricted the fertility of individuals that were considered “undesirable.” Many were forced or coerced into sterilization. This primary source set uses newspaper articles, newspaper advertisements, and a bulletin to illustrate the effects of sterilization, eugenic ideas, and eugenic legislation in North Carolina.

Proceed with caution and care through these materials as the content may be disturbing or difficult to review. Many primary sources in this set use eugenicist ideas to support the discrimination of non-white people and people with mental illness or mental disability. Please read DigitalNC’s Harmful Content statement for further guidance.

Time Period

1912-2014

Grade Level

Undergraduate

Transcript

Abuse of Sterilization Authority A flagrant abuse of sterilization authority seems to be cropping up in sections of the nation and it does not appear to have ensured that the rights of the individual were paramount, always observed and always secure. The real issues involved in the sterilization cases in Alabama and North Carolina appears to be the flagrant abuse and unconcern for those who do not and, because of their minor age, cannot make decisions in planning the sterilization operations. Further these decisions, it seems, depends upon the securing of needed welfare aid and help for their families and the use of moral judgments by those in power to render such necessary help. When divisiveness and racist policies in top echelons permeate to the detriment of blacks and the illiterate poor, you will find many such actions taking place. Recent reports in the press state that there have been thousands of cases of so-called involuntary sterilizations of women and men in North Carolina. It is possible in other sections as well. We wonder how many of these cases involved those largely illiterate families, who in many cases, it appears, that for the sake of some type of welfare aid, surrendered their God-given rights, the right to reproduction, to the “do good advise of welfare officials who sought only to cut down such aid or help by any means possible. Coming on the heels of the infamous Tuskegee experiment on blacks, one wonders if this is not just the example held by some federal officials that the poor and of course, this includes blacks, are just a distinct class which cannot be helped by an political or economic means and the social programs must be cut down by any means possible. It may be recalled only too well that during the years of the planned extermination of Jewish persons by the Nazi regime, under Hitler such programs took on similar beginnings. Such callous officilness [sic] by local, state or federal authorities should not be allowed to continue in the name of the poor who may need help and services. Many groups have raised the outcry against such unconcern, but the damage has already been done and every precaution must be taken to prevent such callousness from happening again. Again, one sees the limitation of education on such subjects in our schools and it is increasingly difficult to place any curricula dealing with the pros and cons of planned mthods [sic] of birth control in some of the low educational level states in the nation. It would seem to suggest that the if the same eagerness used in planning such sterilizations by some social workers were used in truly educationing [sic] the millions of illiterate families on what is really happening when one has such operations, we are certain there would be fewer instances of such illegal behavior. The HEW guidelines, found stored away in a storage room, should be dispatched post-haste to all social services agencies and their medical boards. It is an easy matter to do this since HEW had already prepared guidelines for sterilization operations on planned parenthood and mental defectives. From these guidelines-coupled with better educational knowledge, every individual, parent, social worker and clinical personnel would know clearly what is going to happen before they suggest that a particular individual undergo sterilization operation. In any case, the sterilization operation should not ever become a condition precedent to welfare aid or help for any low-income family as has been reportedly done.

"Abuse of Sterilization Authority," The Carolina Times

During the 1970s, criticism directed toward sterilization increased. This article from The Carolina Times discusses an abuse of sterilization authority. It also states that poor minority communities may be unfairly affected by forced sterilizations. The article suggests that, to combat this issue, education on what sterilization entails must be increased and improved.

Contributed to DigitalNC by Durham County Library, State Archives of North Carolina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View Original View Transcript

Durham, N.C. (Durham County)

The Eugenics Movement in North Carolina

Print/Download

Background

First proposed by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, eugenics claims humankind can improve through selectively breeding for traits that are considered desirable or superior. Although eugenics is scientifically incorrect and unethical, the early to mid-twentieth century saw the eugenics movement gain widespread popularity across the United States, including North Carolina. From 1929 to the late 1970s, North Carolina upheld and validated the eugenics movement through legislation and public promotion of sterilization.

Sterilization procedures allowed North Carolina to restrict or eliminate the fertility of people who were considered “undesirable.” Some examples of “undesirable” people included individuals with mental disabilities. In the articles and advertisements in this set, these individuals are often referred to as “feebleminded” and “mentally defective.” Eugenics supporters believed that the children of such people could inherit their “inferior” traits, causing a “burden” on the parents, the public, and the state. By sterilizing people, they thought the burden could be alleviated. While sterilization was aimed at people with disabilities, the procedure was also used extensively on non-white people or people whose sexual or social behavior was considered “defective.” Selective sterilization groups like the Human Betterment League claimed that the procedure was done with the consent of the patient or their family. However, many individuals were forced or coerced into sterilization.

In 1929, the General Assembly passed a law that permitted the sterilization of individuals held in any charitable or penal institutions in North Carolina when the sterilization was determined to be the best course of action for the individual or for the public good. In 1933, the General Assembly established the North Carolina Eugenics Board. Made up of five state government members, the Eugenics Board was responsible for reviewing and approving all sterilization procedures in North Carolina. In 1937, Assembly members passed another act that permitted state hospitals to temporarily admit and sterilize people who had been approved for the procedure by the Eugenics Board. While sterilization and eugenics were normalized and embraced in North Carolina during the early to mid-20th century, the 1970s saw public criticism rise. After a name change from the Eugenics Board to the Eugenics Commission in 1973, the group was abolished by the General Assembly in 1977.

In 2002, Governor Michael Easley made an official declaration to victims of forced or coerced sterilization. He apologized for the role that the North Carolina government had played in supporting and promoting selective sterilization. Easley also established a Eugenics Study Committee. In 2003, he repealed legislation that still made sterilization legal in the state. In a report made by the Eugenics Study Committee, members stated their belief that North Carolina should provide financial compensation to victims. Representative Larry Womble, who was part of the committee, later introduced a bill to give a sum of money to those affected by forced sterilization. However, it was not until 2010, when the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims was created, that a compensation plan was put in place. By 2014, eligible individuals who made a claim to the Office received $20,000 or more as payment. Some have called the program flawed, as many victims were thought to have died by the time it was created. Moreover, only individuals whose sterilizations were approved by the Eugenics Board could file a claim; others who were sterilized under a different authority’s mandate were not able to receive compensation from the Office.

Discussion Questions

  1. Consider the first and second newspaper advertisement from the Human Betterment League. How do they describe the consequences of not sterilizing “feebleminded” and “mentally deficient” individuals? What tactics do they use to defend and justify sterilization procedures?

  2. Many of the primary sources in this set are newspaper articles or advertisements that promote selective sterilization to the public. How did mass media–like newspapers–influence the North Carolina public’s perspective on eugenics and sterilization?

  3. From the early to mid-twentieth century, selective sterilization was normalized and even encouraged in North Carolina. What factors contributed to the normalization and general support of sterilization?

  4. While the North Carolina government eventually established a compensation initiative for forced sterilization victims in 2010 and began payments in 2014, many have pointed out the flaws in the initiative. What are some of the issues in the compensation program, and what could the North Carolina government have done to better support victims of forced sterilization? Is there anything North Carolina can do today?

  5. Consider the viewpoints in The Carolina Times article, The North Carolina Catholic article, and The News-Journal article. What different perspectives do you notice in each piece? How does criticism of sterilization in The Carolina Times article differ from that in The North Carolina Catholic piece?

  6. Take a look at the article from The Smithfield Herald, making sure to notice the ways in which “better babies” are described. How does the “Better Babies Health Contest” connect to other eugenicist concepts, like selective sterilization?

This primary source set was compiled by Isabella Walker.

Updated January 2025