Blab Politics
Justice Thomas Links Progressive Era to Nazi Eugenics, Prompting Scholarly Pushback
In a recent op‑ed, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the progressive reforms of the early twentieth century created the conditions that enabled Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong to rise to power. He claimed that progressivism’s focus on “science” and “eugenics” laid a foundation that extremist regimes could later adopt. Thomas cited the 1924 Immigration Act, the work of eugenicists such as Harry H. Laughlin, and the influence of philanthropic foundations like the Rockefeller and Carnegie institutions.
Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California‑Berkeley School of Law, responded in a separate piece. Chemerinsky denied that Hitler, Stalin, or Mao were “progressives” and pointed out that the three leaders were not part of the American progressive movement. He also noted that while some progressives supported eugenics, the movement was not monolithic.
The historical record shows that eugenics was a significant component of progressive thought. In the early 1900s, American scientists and policymakers promoted the idea that society could be improved by controlling reproduction. This belief influenced the 1924 Immigration Act, which limited entry from Asia and from Eastern and Southern Europe. The act was supported by eugenicists who argued that immigrants from certain regions were “biologically inferior.”
Key figures in the movement included Charles B. Davenport, a biologist who advocated for the removal of “unfit” individuals from the population, and Harry H. Laughlin, an assistant to Davenport who served on the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization and helped draft the 1924 law. Laughlin’s reports emphasized the need to restrict immigration from southern European countries.
The movement also intersected with labor policy. Progressive economists argued that minimum wage laws could serve a eugenic purpose by removing “unemployable” workers from the labor market. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, British social reformers, described unemployment of certain groups as a “social health” benefit.
Philanthropic foundations played a financial role. The Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune funded eugenic research and supported organizations such as the American Eugenics Society. These foundations also extended influence abroad. The Rockefeller Foundation helped establish a German eugenics program that later supported Nazi sterilization efforts.
Historians note that Hitler studied American eugenic laws and incorporated them into Nazi ideology. In Mein Kampf, Hitler referenced American eugenics and praised Madison Grant’s book, The Passing of the Great Race, as a “bible.” He claimed to have followed American examples in drafting German policies aimed at preventing reproduction by those deemed “unfit.”
The legacy of eugenics remains in contemporary debates. Critics point to the continued use of assisted suicide programs in Canada and the Netherlands, arguing that they echo eugenic principles. They also highlight the historical roots of modern reproductive rights movements, noting that organizations such as Planned Parenthood were founded by Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics.
The debate over Thomas’s claims underscores the complexity of linking early twentieth‑century American reform movements to later totalitarian regimes. While the progressive era did promote eugenic ideas that influenced immigration and labor laws, scholars caution against oversimplifying the causal chain to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
The discussion continues in academic circles and public forums. Legal scholars emphasize the need for precise historical analysis, while political commentators examine how the legacy of eugenics informs current policy debates on immigration, reproductive rights, and social welfare.
Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California‑Berkeley School of Law, responded in a separate piece. Chemerinsky denied that Hitler, Stalin, or Mao were “progressives” and pointed out that the three leaders were not part of the American progressive movement. He also noted that while some progressives supported eugenics, the movement was not monolithic.
The historical record shows that eugenics was a significant component of progressive thought. In the early 1900s, American scientists and policymakers promoted the idea that society could be improved by controlling reproduction. This belief influenced the 1924 Immigration Act, which limited entry from Asia and from Eastern and Southern Europe. The act was supported by eugenicists who argued that immigrants from certain regions were “biologically inferior.”
Key figures in the movement included Charles B. Davenport, a biologist who advocated for the removal of “unfit” individuals from the population, and Harry H. Laughlin, an assistant to Davenport who served on the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization and helped draft the 1924 law. Laughlin’s reports emphasized the need to restrict immigration from southern European countries.
The movement also intersected with labor policy. Progressive economists argued that minimum wage laws could serve a eugenic purpose by removing “unemployable” workers from the labor market. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, British social reformers, described unemployment of certain groups as a “social health” benefit.
Philanthropic foundations played a financial role. The Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune funded eugenic research and supported organizations such as the American Eugenics Society. These foundations also extended influence abroad. The Rockefeller Foundation helped establish a German eugenics program that later supported Nazi sterilization efforts.
Historians note that Hitler studied American eugenic laws and incorporated them into Nazi ideology. In Mein Kampf, Hitler referenced American eugenics and praised Madison Grant’s book, The Passing of the Great Race, as a “bible.” He claimed to have followed American examples in drafting German policies aimed at preventing reproduction by those deemed “unfit.”
The legacy of eugenics remains in contemporary debates. Critics point to the continued use of assisted suicide programs in Canada and the Netherlands, arguing that they echo eugenic principles. They also highlight the historical roots of modern reproductive rights movements, noting that organizations such as Planned Parenthood were founded by Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics.
The debate over Thomas’s claims underscores the complexity of linking early twentieth‑century American reform movements to later totalitarian regimes. While the progressive era did promote eugenic ideas that influenced immigration and labor laws, scholars caution against oversimplifying the causal chain to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
The discussion continues in academic circles and public forums. Legal scholars emphasize the need for precise historical analysis, while political commentators examine how the legacy of eugenics informs current policy debates on immigration, reproductive rights, and social welfare.
