eugenics

Eugenics – “the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding” – has a bad name. Perverted, first and last by “do-gooders” and racists in the United States, including, especially, in North Carolina, and, most atrociously, by the Nazi thugs of the 1930’s and 40’s, eugenics need not be the evil that it has been made to be. Geneticists speak of eugenics as being both “positive” and “negative.” Positive eugenics refers to the attempt to enhance desirable characteristics in offspring by judicious mate selection. We all do this to some degree in choosing those with whom we breed. Attributes like physical characteristics, intelligence, or others all influence our choice. There is nothing wrong in this so as it is voluntary. Negative eugenics refers to the attempt to eliminate undesirable characteristics through judicious mate selection or refraining from mating altogether. Negative eugenics has resulted in the near total elimination of Tay Sachs disease. Carriers of the Tay Sachs gene voluntarily refrained from breeding with other carriers. Thus, eugenics, like all science, is neither good nor bad. But, it was used sinfully, either by bad people who knew exactly what they were doing, or good people whose moral and ethical compass got lost. Today we are faced with the challenge of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the work of the Governor's Eugenics Compensation Task Force was to "recommend possible methods or forms of compensation" to those forcibly sterilized. Its result, therefore, was preordained. While justice, compassion, and a plain sense of wanting to do what's right would seem to demand compensation, it is not clear that taxes and fees paid today by the populous, most of whom neither were responsible for nor beneficiaries of the Eugenics Program, ought to be used for this purpose, especially if such monies might be redirected from more broadly targeted social welfare initiatives. The Force concludes that compensation serves two purposes: (i) providing meaning assistance to survivors; and, (ii) sending a clear message that "we..pay for our mistakes and...do not tolerate bureaucracies that trample on basic human rights." It is not clear how the $50000 lump sum payment does either. A lump sum used to buy non-essentials in no way compensates. It is a windfall. This should be contrasted with the Force's additional recommendations of medical care and mental health services. More can and should be debated of providing a cash lump sum. Not much consideration has been given to the obligations of those who directly benefited both financially and in other ways from this horrific program. For example, doctors and medical institutions undoubtedly received money and other compensation. Locally, procedures were performed by the County Health Department; but, one private institution acknowledges that its participation constituted a "breach of ethics and moral principle." Available evidence indicates that, in 1943, as "few" as 30 sterilizations were performed locally with genetic work-ups and medical affidavits supplied by the institution and all expense borne by the County. A doctor claimed that he had performed as many as six sterilizations in one week. And, the County supplied funds for an institution to hire a Department head. In return, the doctor performed sterilizations. What is the responsibility of this and other like-situated institutions to cleanse themselves of the stench of what they did? This question challenges members of the legislature, academics and all members of the public. Most of all, it should challenge the Management of those institutions (and the individuals) who participated in ruining the lives. These institutions could, with very little incremental cost,unlimited medical and mental health services to victims. Limited numbers still are alive; other social welfare programs already pay. The incremental financial exposure would represent only a "rounding error." In North Carolina, there is no statute of limitations barring the prosecution of felonies, like the eugenic assaults and batteries. Why has some ambitious prosecutor not considered charges,with the resulting restitution going to victims.

The Dream

The Dream Act. Right now, caught in what Americans love better than almost anything – a fight – it is still a dream. But, if we ever could stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good enough, maybe this dream could become a reality.

Recently, the Philosophical Society at Forsyth Tech sponsored a well-attended debate on the Act. I was honored to be asked to moderate.

In broad strokes, the Act provides for a three step process for certain aliens, brought here as youths, to achieve citizenship. First, an undocumented youth, continuously present since before a specified date, under age 35 when the Act is passed, and who was less than 15 when he came, can apply for “conditional” permanent resident status if, among other things, he has been admitted to an institution of higher education or has earned a high school diploma.

Thereafter, the “conditional “status can removed if the alien has acquired a college degree or completed at least 2 years toward one, or has served in the military for 2 years. Once the “conditional” status has been removed, the alien may proceed to citizenship in the way presently provided by law.

What’s wrong with this scheme? Plenty say the opponents. But, each objection poses a drafting challenge easily met by those willing to compromise. Unfortunately, it seems as if we do not elect our representatives to compromise. We elect them to fight and that seems to be all they do. Or, even worse, as one question submitted from the audience at Forsyth Tech stated: “No one wants the Dream Act to pass in any form. It’s too good an issue for both political parties.”

First, let’s deal with the notion that these aliens somehow are criminals. Nonsense! They may be here without status, but most were too young when they crossed the border to have formed what lawyers refer to as mens rea – a criminal intent. We don’t generally punish those too young to form such intent. And, we don’t generally penalize for life those who commit crimes when they are minors. So, if 15 is too old an arrival age, adjust the age down to whatever is generally consistent with federal precedent on this issue. Also, let’s recognize that we never are going to throw those who might be eligible out of the country. They know no other home; they know no other life. The history of U.S. immigration policy already is ugly enough.

If the conditions for the removal of “conditional” from an alien’s permanent status are too easily achieved, make them tougher. Simply require a college degree or a certificate necessary for admission to some profession or trade. Require more years of military service.

If there is concern about a flood of aliens coming into the country to take advantage of the Act, make the date by which an alien youth had to have arrived 2005 or some other earlier date and provide that enactment of similar schemes in the future is not to be anticipated.

If there is concern that citizenship will prove a boon to one political party or will result in a horde of family members obtaining legal status, specifically provide that those who take advantage of the act not be eligible for citizenship. This possibility was raised at the Forsyth Tech debate without objection.

The present draft provides for waivers of some requirements if “hardship” can be established. To some, this provides the possibility of a wide open back door by which the college and military service requirements may be avoided. Eliminate the hardship waiver possibility.

Some have expressed concern that the Act will result in an overburdening of our social welfare mechanisms. Shame on us if we anticipate that an alien who meets stringent educational or military service requirements is likely to spend a significant portion of his life on welfare assistance.

Thoreau told us that “Dreams are the touchstones of our character” and advised us to not “be pushed by [our] problems. Be led by your dreams.” Good advice which we should take to heart. The Cable Guy told us that “the future is now.” It should be for the Dream Act.