In 1990, the American with Disabilities Act, or ADA, passed with the ultimate goal to ensure the equal opportunity and federal civil rights of those with disabilities. Anyone with a disability, under the ADA, would have equal opportunity to employment, state and local government activities, public transportation and accommodations, and lastly, telecommunication relay services, which include telephone and television access to those with speech and hearing related disabilities. However, while the ADA has opened many doors and improved the lives of all people with disabilities- in some capacities- the passage of the act has not completely dismantled discrimination towards people with disabilities all together. While discrimination may not be overtly acted out a person’s face all day, everyday it’s there; systematically. Cloaked by the walls and levels of America’s notorious systemic infrastructure lies ableism, racism and many other ‘isms’. Often regarded as a “thing of the past”, the covert influence of eugenics is a key weapon in the destruction of “unfit” and “undesirable” communities, such as communities of color and disabled communities. The idea of eugenics movement may have died off by the 10th century, but its influence in today’s policies is evident and presents an immense danger to the specific populations mentioned previously.
According to the “Introduction to Eugenics”, the term “eugenics” was introduced in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, an acclaimed British scholar and family member of Charles Darwin (“Introduction to Eugenics”, History of Eugenics). Eugenics means “well-born” and its theory is based on the belief that the human race could better propel its future through selective breeding. Selective breeding ultimately entails deciphering and hand picking populations or communities with “desired” traits or a good genetic make up to create the future generations of citizens. Most notably, these “desirable” individuals come from the elite class, and to be clear, poor, disabled, or “colored” people were not included in Galton’s vision of the future. However, the article noted that “while Galton’s plans to improve the human race through selective breeding never came to fruition in Britain, they eventually took sinister turns in other countries. [For example, in the United States,] the eugenics movement began in the late 19th century...in efforts to stop the transmission of negative or “undesirable” traits from generation to generation...some US leaders, private citizens, and corporations started funding eugenical studies [and began] tracking family histories and concluded that people deemed to be unfit more often came from families that were poor, low in social standing, immigrant, and/or minority. Further, ERO researchers “demonstrated” that the undesirable traits in these families, such as pauperism, were due to genetics, and not lack of resources” (“Introduction to Eugenics”, History of Eugenics). As eugenics became a social movement, U.S committees became more adamant about discouraging the influx of “undesirables” within the United States. As a result, the United States, alongside many other countries, established stricter, more exclusive eugenics policies, including birth control, marriage restrictions, racial and disabled segregation, and forced sterilization. With so many policies based in eugenics beliefs, it is clear that the overlooking of and discrimination against people with disabilities and people of color is no mistake, nor is it a component of America’s legal system that can be easily dismantled. In the journal, “Eugenics and Disability Discrimination”, David Pfeiffer highlights the ways in which eugenics policies continue to discriminate against people with disabilities today. He states “The right to have children, to marry, and to raise one's children are taken for granted by most U.S. citizens. These rights are not automatic for disabled persons” (Domestic Relations, Pfeiffer). Pfeiffer highlights specific court cases in which the rights of disabled people are mistreated due to the premise of eugenics theory within U.S. policy.
The right to have children
“During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century sterilization was a common remedy for "feeblemindedness," as most disabilities were called. In Indiana in 1907 the first involuntary sterilization law in the country was enacted. By 1930 a total of thirty three states had enacted such laws although in three states - New Jersey in 1913, New York in 1918, and Indiana in 1921 - the laws were struck down as unconstitutional. In Michigan a law was enacted, but struck down in 1918. Seven years later a version of the Michigan statute was accepted by the courts as constitutionally valid. The U.S. Supreme Court then upheld involuntary sterilization laws in 1927 in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200” (Domestic Relations, Pfeiffer).
As a result of the Buck v. Bell case, the only documentation the superintendent of an institution or county director of social services must obtain to involuntarily sterilize a person with a disability is a court order from a judge. Given their leadership position, they are able to determine what is best for the disabled individual and argue the “benefits” of sterilization (Domestic Relations, Pfeiffer).
Marriage
“In the Meyer case the Court declared the right to marry to be a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. However, the Court never struck down a state statute which limited marriage by or to a disabled person even when equal protection was clearly violated. For example, Connecticut had a statute which prohibited any man who was "...epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded" from marrying a woman under forty five years of age, the presumed limit of child-bearing. A woman under forty five years of age who was "...epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded" could not marry regardless of the man's age. In Gould v. Gould, 61 A. 604 (1905), this statute was upheld by the Connecticut courts. The court wrote: That epilepsy is a disease of a peculiarly serious and revolting character, tending to weaken mental force, and often descending from parent to child. . . . One mode of guarding against the perpetuation of epilepsy obviously is to forbid sexual intercourse with those afflicted by it, and to preclude such opportunities for sexual intercourse as marriage furnishes. To impose such a restriction...is no invasion...if it applies equally to all...who belong to a certain class of persons....” (Domestic Relations, Pfeiffer).
It is clear that people with disabilities do not share the same rights as those who are able-bodied. Unable to marry out of fear from their peers that they’ll procreate and birth more disabled bodies, people with disabilities are not even afforded the pleasure of connecting with their partners on a physical nor matrimonial level.
Parenting/ Raising a child
“The right to parent, to raise your biological children, is also recognized as a fundamental right by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, it can be overridden on the grounds of the health or safety of the child (Sackett, 1991; Bernstein, 1991). A California trial court judge had removed two children from a father's custody because he was a quadriplegic. The trial court judge had concluded that the father could never be a "good" parent because he could not, for example, play catch with his son. [Furthermore, from]the viewpoint of the child, California (Civil Code 227b) is the only state in the union which allows a parent to petition to have an adoption decree annulled on the basis of a disability in the child...That occurred in Christopher C. v. Kay C., 278 Cal. Rptr. 907, when the California Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision to grant a petition to set aside an adoption because the child had an undisclosed mental illness. [Lastly, a] couple in California who were hearing and speech impaired, but quite capable of parenting, were prevented from adopting a child in Adoption of Richardson, 59 Cal. Rptr. 323 (1967)” (Domestic Relations, Pfeiffer).
To be a disabled parent is to prove oneself and their right to parenthood every step of the way. People with disabilities who are parents or hope to foster a child have to jump through numerous hurdles in order to gain the court’s approval and establish the basic parental rights that any able-bodied parent would automatically be granted. As a result of their disability, these parents are viewed as incapable and “unfit” to raise their children or adopt, and as a disabled child seeking a home, the odds are, unfortunately, not in their favor.
Lastly, an important feature of eugenics, which includes people with disabilities, is racial capitalism. Overall, eugenics is rooted in the establishment of a hierarchy- who is deserving or worthy of procreation and longevity and who isn’t? “The haves” or propellers of the future are the white, able-bodied elite, while the “The have-nots” are those who are disabled, people of color and poor. Although eugenics is very exclusive in its agenda, its premise is capitalist and to prioritize capitalism, it is to prioritize race. Similar to eugenics, capitalism also requires a systemic ladder of people at the top and people at the bottom. However, in order to keep specific populations of people at the bottom and ensure they do not climb further up the ladder towards positive generational progression, they must be monitored and controlled. For example, in the article “Flint, Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism” Laura Pulido showcases the effects of eugenics and how certain communities are often left to fend for themselves and in the most horrifying, yet strategically structured conditions. She uses Flint Michigan as an to explain “both environmental racism and the everyday functioning of racial capitalism”. She goes on to note that “The people of Flint are so devalued that...This constitutes racial capitalism because this devaluation is based on both their blackness and their surplus status, with the two being mutually constituted. It is no accident that US surplus populations are disproportionately nonwhite. Flint was abandoned by capital [and local state] decades ago, and as it became an increasingly poor and Black place...This abandonment can be seen in shrinking services, infrastructure investment, and democratic practices” (“Introduction”, Pulido). Racial capitalism is different from normal capitalism because it confronts the capitalist practices used to prey and exploit those with social and cultural differences, such as race, disability, sex etc. And, although Flint Michigan isn’t a new case, it shows how communities that are considered less “desirable” receive little to no federal or local state help regarding fair advocacy of their civil rights.
Whenever there is a community in danger or at risk of survival, it is either a community of people of color, disabled community, or both and the ways in which resources are allocated reflects the detrimental influence of eugenics and racial capitalism and the ultimate display of power and profit through distribution.