It has long been thought that the practices of eugenics because of its racist tenor would have come to an end with the end of World War II in 1945. That is unfortunately a misconception. There are numerous examples at home and abroad that prove the opposite. The strict sterilization laws were enforced in the United States until 1965, in Sweden even until 1976.
Since 1989, a law in China has mandated sterilization of the mentally handicapped. In China and India, the sex of the child is determined prenatally and then aborted female fruits, the so-called femicide. In the Netherlands, when selecting the future inhabitants of the Noordoostpolder in 1947, eugenically colored selection methods were still used. Some doctors continued to warn of the danger of large families among the 'lower classes', compared to the small number of children among the 'well-to-do'. They even came up with proposals for compulsory castration and sterilization of the mentally ill, homosexuals, pedophiles and exhibitionists.
Eventually, the notion that procreation, like all private matters, is not a state business, took over. Despite this definitive 'liberalization of reproduction', a Rotterdam alderman launched a plan in 2016 for compulsory contraception for women who are not capable of responsible parenting, such as women who are addicted, have psychological problems or are homeless. Not from a eugenic point of view, but still.
According to some, the activities of the clinical genetic centers are also eugenic in a sense. Yet there is a crucial difference. The achievements of modern genetics are not necessarily imposed from above. If they want to, they can choose from a number of options for reproduction, such as genetic counseling and genetic testing. They can ask their doctor to refer them to one of these centers because one or more hereditary abnormalities are present in the family.
The purpose of genetics education is, among other things, to provide information about possible health risks for the offspring and about the options for eliminating or reducing these risks. Genetic education is not aimed at eradicating all hereditary diseases. The normal risk of a hereditary or congenital defect therefore remains. There is no question of selection on ethnicity.
Derailments due to race and intelligence
Until well into the second half of the twentieth century, especially in North America, there were heated discussions about the possible relationship between race and intelligence. The undertone of those discussions was clearly racist. An alleged link between race and IQ was defended by psychologist Arthur Jensen, among others, in his controversial book How much can we boost IQ and Achievement?, from 1969. Renowned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould publicly criticized this.
Jensen also collaborated with American political scientist Charles Murray and others on The Bell Curve, from 1994, which also stated that Africans are less intelligent than Westerners. This position was strongly encouraged by Canadian psychologist John Rushton, who grew up in South Africa during Apartheid and later worked at the University of Western Ontario.
Like Jensen, Rushton explained differences between blacks, whites and Asians from their evolutionary background. He invented relationships between climate and number of children and coolly stated that brain size would be inversely proportional to the size of the genitals. Blacks, with more children and less stable marriages, should be sterilized, according to Rushton.
Like Jensen, Rushton further argued that blacks had lower mental faculties than whites, surpassed in this by Asians. The stated average IQs of 70, 100 and 106 respectively would imply that no less than half of blacks are mildly to severely retarded; after all, the normal range of IQ is between 85 and 115. Rushton's use of the IQ test, however, was incompetent.
Yet his extremely racist work was called 'impressive' by, among others - the equally controversial - Arthur Jensen and Hans Eyseneck. But they turned out to be funded by the neo-Nazi Pioneer Fund, a club founded in 1937 to support the racial politics of Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement in America.
Other favorable reviews came from the Charles Darwin Research Institute. Despite the confidence-inspiring name, this institution turned out to be founded by Rushton himself. Rushton also spoke several times for many admirers at meetings organized by the controversial racist monthly American Renaissance. 'A brilliant scientist' they called him there.
Eugenics after ’45
Despite the many riots at Rushton's performances and fierce international protests, he continued unperturbed. He summarized his objectionable ideologies in the booklet Race, Evolution and Behavior (2000). This was distributed for free to scientists on a large scale in several countries with financial support from racist and neo-Nazi organizations.
Even more commotion arose in October 2007, when Nobel laureate James Watson – lauded for his part in unraveling DNA – spoke out about "the high libido of black people and their lower intellectual capacity". He had previously caused uproar by defending abortion for fear of fetal homosexuality.
On Rushton's death in 2012, his major opponent, Canadian geneticist David Suzuki, wrote:“There will always be 'Ruhstons' in science. And we must always be ready to eradicate it.” His compatriot Douglas Wahsten said:“Ruhston was above all a provocateur. He has left no lasting impression on science.” Most likely, the scientific community hoped that his death would mark the end of academic racism. But the Ruhston case also illustrates how vicious racism can proliferate, and how even scientists are guilty of it. It turns out to be extremely risky when someone without complete knowledge, driven by racist ideology, tries to influence public opinion.