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

Sterilization Is Best Cure For Mental Disease — Editorial Note: The following article is based on research done by Miss Evangeline Davis for the North Carolina Mental Hygiene Society.) — (By Evangeline Davis) It is a grim paradox that, while North Carolina has some 300,000 of its finest young men at war, and is losing thousands of them through death or battle wound, it is also making plans to coddle its mental defectives. For our system amounts to just that: we provide–all too inadequately–for custodial care of our mental patients. At the present time we are doing little to try and return them to society and to a normal, useful life. Some of these defectives could be returned. But, more important, they could be prevented, humanely and safely, from procreating their own kind, and thus filling the state with feebleminded tomorrow. The rate of incidence of feeblemindedness grows, and most of that increase can be traced to North Carolina’s willingness to put into operation a broad program of scienticfic [sic] sterilization. For some reason, perhaps through ignorance of the facts, the state has not made full use of sterilization. It has, in fact, seldom talked about it. In 1918 the first statute was written (the word “sterilization” did not appear in the text) but no operations were performed under the act. In 1928 a second law was passed, but it endured only four years, being declared unconstitutional because it made no provision for appeal to the courts or notice of hearing. The present law was passed in 1933, and is a good eugenic sterilization law. Eugenic sterilization, in contrast to the radical operations of castration and ovariectomy, does not unsex the individual, but only makes impossible procreation. It permits normal sexual life, and permits happy marriages–without children. It is advised only in cases in which it is reasonably certain that offspring would inherit the mental diseases or defects of either parent. Under the present law sterilization, in institutions, is recommended by the superintendent, and a petition presented to the State Board of Eugenics. It is accompanied by complete medical and social histories, and if the board orders and operation it must be performed by a registered physician. A relative or guardian is always appointed to protect the interest of the patient, and the Board’s decision is reached in an open meeting, when all interested parties are heard. There is right of appeal within 15 days. Experts are in agreement that sterilization, not segregation, is the answer to the problem of the growing rate of mental disease and deficiency. It is surely less expensive, and offers greater hope to future generations. Every feebleminded person who might become a parent threatens the stock of coming generations of North Carolinians. In every single case, the State should at least consider the wisdom of sterilization.

"Sterilization Is Best Cure For Mental Disease," The News-Journal

In this article from The News-Journal, author Evangeline Davis argues in favor of sterilization procedures for people with mental illnesses. Davis reportedly completed sterilization research for the North Carolina Mental Hygiene Society. She provides an overview of eugenics-related legislation in the state and claims that sterilization is “the answer to the problem of the growing rate of mental disease and deficiency.”

Contributed to DigitalNC by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hoke County Public Library

View Original View Transcript

Raeford, N.C. (Hoke 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