What Do Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Herbert Spencer, and Teddy Roosevelt Have in Common?

At some level, they all appear to be eugenicists. Eugenics is the belief in the improvement of the qualities of the human species by preventing reproduction by persons having genetic traits presumed undesirable. The philosophy behind eugenics has produced countless human rights violations through the ages, not the least of which is the Jewish Holocaust. 

If it is hard to believe that a sitting Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court could tacitly, or otherwise, embrace such an opinion, one need look no further than last Sunday's New York Times magazine. A good friend forwarded me today this informative link that reveals the frightening connection alluded to above.

Justice Ginsburg's brazen statement, in addition to disclosing a startling lack of self-awareness, underscores the fact that it is not a jurist's treatment of the text of a statute or constitution that makes them dangerous or benign; it is their worldview.   

Comments

[Sylvia]

She was speculating about some of the social or political forces around the issue rather than her own personal beliefs. A link to the interview should have been provided. Just another lesson in not taking things out of context...

[BWG]

It would be such a lesson if it were clear that Justice Ginsburg's statement was not her own personal belief. Her statement: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of", on its face, appears (which is why I used the word "apparent" in my post) to include her in the pronoun "we". The further context of the article doesn't seem to make clear that she is not among those about whom she referred. Supreme Court Justices, who deal is precision of thought and word, may reasonably be presumed to be including themselves when using the pronoun "we", absent clear proof otherwise. But, readers may judge for themselves whether Justice Ginsburg excludes herself from the opinion expressed. The link to the article is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=1&sq=Ginsburg&st=cse&scp=3.

[Sylvia]

Grammatically, a clause that starts with "there was" is clearly not about the speaker's own opinion. The "we" that follows refers to society, or the mainstream, and her use of it indicates that we are all responsible for it. I do it myself when speaking of things which society as a whole, of which I am a member, is responsible for, whether or not I agree with it or participate in it. It's a common thing. Also we (ahem) should keep in mind that it was a verbal interview, and so we are missing the vocal cues that would confirm the sarcasm in her statement. And it's just common sense—a Supreme Court justice in this day and age would never say and surely never even think such a thing.

I think we are just way too quick to judge these days, and seem to enjoy jumping on any word or phrase that can conceivably be twisted into a scandalous form. We could learn from real judges about taking the time to carefully consider all the available evidence before we jump to conclusions. Personally I find that the feeling of being scandalized is a helpful sign that I need to take a second look and make sure I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing.

[Sylvia]

I should have added that it is pretty ludicrous, not to mention insulting and insensitive, to suggest that a Jew would be in favour of eugenics. God gave us wonderful brains; if only we would use them...

[BWG]

You are correct that a speaker, whether wisely or not, sometimes uses the pronoun "we" as a broad reference to society. And, perhaps that is how Justice Ginsburg used it. In many contexts such a use would not be significant nor controversial. In any event, as I said, readers of the interview will have to judge for themselves.

At best, however, Justice Ginsburg's statement is ambiguous (i.e., capable of more than one interpretation). And, when public figures of such position and stature speak ambiguously, it is to be expected that people will have to interpret the meaning of their statements. And, given the text of the interview, it seems to me a fair reading that she includes herself among those who held the viewpoint she mentions. You see it differently and that is to be expected, given the ambiguity of Justice Ginsburg's comment.

As for your statement that not having heard the verbal interview, "we are missing the verbal cues that would confirm the sarcasm in her statement", you are correct, but that fact is not relevant to our discussion. All either of us have to go on is the text, unless, of course, you were present and can confirm that Justice Ginsburg was indeed expressing sarcasm. In that case, I will gladly take your word for it and correct my interpretation of her statement.

[BWG]

As for your follow-up comment chastising my “ludicrous”, “insulting”, and “insensitive” suggestion “that a Jew would be in favour of eugenics”, you strike me as a bright and thoughtful person, but emotion and not reason is displayed in this comment.

I didn’t even think of the fact that Justice Ginsburg is Jewish when I posted on this matter. And, I can’t say with certainty what her views are on the whole subject. I have only interpreted what appears to me to be her viewpoint on one matter about which she spoke.

Unfortunately, however, I have spoken with Jews and Gentiles alike who do support eugenics in one form or another. I have deposed several under oath. And, again, unfortunately, history is replete with the record of Jews who have supported eugenics to a degree and extent I must believe Justice Ginsburg does not.

Obviously, in your experience you have not come across such examples (and that is a good thing), and you are repulsed by the idea, as am I. But, beware of assuming that your own experiences and views are those of the Jewish world.

Lest you be unpersuaded of the wisdom of this, take a look at the background of the New York University educated John Glad, who has written about Nazi Germany, World War II, and the Holocaust—as well as about the eugenics movement and its practice in Israel. Consider Alan Guttmacher, who served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society. Another unfortunate Jewish example is Seymour Itzkoff, who is an advocate of eugenics, and wrote the preface to John Glad’s 2008 book, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century, in which he states, “The real history of eugenics, as Dr. Glad points out, is rich in a truly liberal vision for the improvement in the state of all of humankind.” Also, there was Harry L. Shapiro, a man who came from a practicing Jewish family and was educated at Harvard and Yale (I believe), who became president of the American Eugenics Society in the 50s and 60s.

As you say, too bad they did not use the wonderful brains God gave them.

[Sylvia]

My apologies, you're quite right, it is possible to be Jewish and a eugenicist, though at this point one has to distinguish between racial and other kinds of eugenics, and forced versus voluntary eugenics. However I still think the odds of a current Supreme Court Justice favouring reduction in the population of racial minorities is extremely slim, and the odds of them telling the New York Times that are even slimmer, especially considering who the President is. This is a woman who is smarter than almost everyone and whose life's work involves the meticulous use of judgement and language. Not a likely candidate for making slips while on the record.

I really don't think her statement is ambiguous according to the laws of grammar and usage. She used a very common construction, and a laudable one at that (because it avoids "us and them" thinking, which is always dangerous). Some obviously feel it betrays some secret belief, but that is grasping at shadows. I think taking people's comments at face value still gives us plenty to talk about.