Race, Intelligence Testing, and Eugenics in U.S. Military History

Introduction: Race, Intelligence, and the Eugenics Framework

For hundreds of years, there has been a common assumption that race and intelligence are statistically correlated. Even contemporary debate on this topic focuses on differences in test scores when tabulated using different ethnic data. Central to this question remains the nature vs. nurture problem: is it a flaw in the test itself that skews results; a flaw in the balanced education, experiences, and opportunities available in some neighborhoods but not others; or is there another socioeconomic or cultural factor contributing to these perceived differences? (Rushton and Jensen, 2005).

Central to this argument is the nature of eugenics — a practice or belief in the improvement of the human species by discouraging reproduction among those with genetic defects or undesirable traits, by encouraging reproduction among those with desirable traits, or, more contemporaneously with the advent of genetic engineering, by artificially creating those traits within the laboratory (Black, 2006).

The Origins of Eugenics and Social Darwinism

The eugenics movement first became prominent in the late nineteenth century. Francis Galton, a distant relative of Charles Darwin, was the first man to define eugenics as a means of improving the human species. For Galton, people possessing the desired traits were wealthy whites with no trace of mental illness in past generations. Minority groups were considered inferior and were said to carry undesirable traits — including a family history of mental illness, poverty, and a condition he termed "feeblemindedness" (Carlson, n.d., p. 1).

Prior to eugenics, most scientists believed that a person's intelligence — or even their capacity for intelligence — was dependent on brain size: the larger the brain, the greater the advantage to the individual, and thus the more likely their survival. Darwin's theory of natural selection then became the basis for the eugenics movement. The development of this new science helped explain perceived differences among races and species coexisting with one another. Why do some organisms of the same species survive longer than others? Why are some more "fit" for a certain environment? Why are human skulls shaped differently, and how does that contribute to their ability to survive and evolve? (Gould, 1980). The purpose of the new "science" of eugenics, therefore, was to ensure that only the most fit would pass on their genetic blueprint to future generations, eventually eliminating undesirable traits.

Historically, radical societal and cultural changes occurred in the late nineteenth century. Urban populations were rapidly increasing, the Industrial Revolution was at full force and producing an economic hierarchy unlike any seen before, and with that economic wealth came an exploited workforce living in densely populated areas of poverty where disease was rampant. Using Darwin as a model for society — so-called Social Darwinism — scientists postulated that immigrants, minorities, and criminals belonged to a genetic base that should be eliminated, since their condition was caused not by economic or cultural disadvantage but by poor genetics (Samuda, 1998).

The idea of separating individuals into categories according to the perceived purity of their genetic makeup gave rise to two branches of eugenics: positive and negative. Positive eugenics, supported by Galton, promoted reproduction among the "fit." Negative eugenics focused on preventing reproduction among the "unfit," including those of low social status, those with mental or physical disabilities, and those considered to fall on the left side of the academic bell curve (Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement). Drawing on Darwin's theory, the underlying idea was that humanity could only survive if certain traits were bred out — much like the improvement of a breeding mare or farm animal, in which positive traits are accentuated and negative traits discouraged (Mendelsohn, 2000).

Nowhere has this idea of racial profiling, eugenics, and false scientific methodology been more apparent than in the way psychological testing was used after 1870 to determine the intelligence and suitability of African-Americans for specific roles within the Armed Forces of the United States.

Intelligence Testing Comes to America

Intelligence testing came to the United States through H.H. Goddard, who adapted the French "Binet" scale for American culture. Goddard wanted a way to distinguish persons of good mental health from those he believed would bring down society, holding that the American population was at risk from the rapid immigration of the late nineteenth century. He brought Binet's scale to America from France but manipulated it to measure what he termed innate intelligence. Goddard believed the American population was threatened by the swift reproduction of the feebleminded and by immigration. His scale held that anyone with an IQ below 70 was moronic and anyone above 130 was at genius level. Goddard's belief was that intelligence was determined by a single gene and therefore inherited; he conducted some research at Ellis Island in an attempt to prove his theory (Benjamin, 2009).