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 of Mental Defectives Advised In Light of Record of Rejections in Draft — In a paper presented to the public health and education of the State Medical Society at the society’s convention last week in Pinehurst, George H. Lawrence, associate professor of social work in the University and field secretary for the State Eugenics Board, told of the large number of men rejected by the Orange county draft board because of some sort of mental defectiveness. He cited the record in support of a program of carefully supervised sterilization in accord with the state law. To August of last year, 6,000 men between the ages of 18 and 38 had registered in Orange county under the draft law. Of these, 2,341 were accepted for military service; 1,460 were rejected; and the remainder, about 2,100 were deferred for various reasons. Of the 1,460 rejected, 622, or 42.3 per cent., were rejected on some sort of mental diagnosis. Of those rejected on mental grounds, 357, or 57 per cent, were classified mentally subnormal. “Since a typical characteristic of the mental defective is inability to meet the demands of everyday living,” said Mr. Lawrence, “it may not be surprising to know that of the 357 classified as mentally subnormal, 167, or almost 47 per cent, were members of families who have clients of the county department of public welfare. And the record shows that the 134 of the mental defectives, or 38 per cent, had court records. “Some general characteristics of the mentally defectives are clearly indicated in the study of the draft records. They are: large families, frequently several members within the family group affected, low economic status, poor physical health, more rural than urban, high rate of court cases, heavy dependence upon public relief, and higher proportion of Negroes than whites. “North Carolina has a good and workable sterilization law; it applies only to the mentally diseased, the feebleminded, and epileptics. The Eugenics Board is conservative in its consideration of the cases officially brought before it, and the required procedures are as careful as can possibly be devised. Almost all cases coming to the attention of the Eugenics Board are by consent of the patient or the next of kin. The county Superintendent of public welfare is the official petitioner for county cases; the initiation of proceedings for the state institutional case is the responsibility of the institutional head.” “It is the experience of several public welfare workers that a considerable number of the mentally defectives and their close kinsmen are favorable to the idea of sterilization but in too many instances they do not understand the medical implications. The medical profession is certainly in a much better position than public welfare to provide an acceptable explanation of the different types of operation and their effects. Would it not be a wise and humane undertaking if more physicians and surgeons undertook to explain and urge sterilization for their mentally defective patients? It is a rather simple matter for the doctor then to refer such patients to the superintendent of public welfare.” The following case of a tenant farmer’s wife in Orange county is reported by a physician: “Mrs. X, who is 24 years old, has given birth to eleven children of whom four are living. The first and last were still births. Live twins and triplets were born in less than one year. The economic status is such that it is difficult to feed and clothe the four living ones. Both mother and father are mentally sub-normal. In my opinion a sterilization operation would accomplish definite good.” Mr. Lawrence said: “There is no intention of advocating a wholesale program of sterilization. But it is believed much good can be accomplished by greater enlightenment and the increased use of the existing channels for sterilization. Surely sterilization is an exceedingly important part of any well rounded program for combatting the problems of mental defect and mental disease.”

"Sterilization of Mental Defectives Advised In Light of Record of Rejections in Draft," The Chapel Hill Weekly

Before and during World War II, hundreds of thousands of North Carolina men were drafted to fight in the conflict. While many men were subject to the draft, some individuals were rejected due to various reasons, including “mental defectiveness.” This 1946 article from The Chapel Hill Weekly provides the statistics of draft rejections in Orange County. It then uses these statistics to argue for sterilizing “the mentally diseased, the feebleminded, and epileptics.”

Contributed to DigitalNC by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View Original View Transcript

Chapel Hill, N.C. (Orange 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