Norwich — It is well known that the Norwich State Hospital, when in operation from 1903 to 1996, participated in some medical practices that would be considered immoral or questionable today.

What’s perhaps less known is the hospital’s widespread participation in the practice of eugenics, or controlled human procreation, throughout the early 20th century.

It was precisely the story of how this came to be in Norwich, and the political and cultural climate that led to the legal acceptance of these practices, that was thoroughly and methodically presented by Otis Library Director Bob Farwell on Saturday afternoon to a room of over 30 attendees at the library.

Eugenics, Farwell explained, was popularized at the end of the 19th century and throughout the early 20th century as a progressive and legitimate means to “prevent those deemed psychologically, mentally, or morally, unfit to procreate.” Sterilization procedures, which included vasectomies and ovariectomies, were the primary practices used to control such populations and were often performed on patients against their will.

In particular, Farwell emphasized the dubious nature of how candidates for these procedures were decided on — typically by subjective and anecdotal opinions, often fueled by rumors from the surrounding town. Impoverishment, for example, was considered a disability condition, and one that could warrant sterilization in an individual.

The presentation, which was hosted and organized by the New London County Historical Society, drew a contemplative and intrigued crowd and highlighted that Norwich State Hospital was the premier institution in Connecticut to practice such procedures — sterilizing a total of 559 people from 1909 to 1963. Connecticut was also the second state in the country, after Indiana, to legalize practices pertaining to eugenics, preceding another 28 states.

“What was happening here in society that was causing people here in Connecticut and elsewhere to embrace eugenics?” Farwell posed, turning his presentation into one that could relate to today’s political climate.

“One of the manifestations was from a clear shift in the sources of immigration, especially after 1900. To many white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans in this time, what you saw happening would have caused heart failure ... they believed immigrants were coming in numbers that could overwhelm the native-born population. That was a frightening prospect. And eugenicists were instrumental in (dealing with these) immigration concerns.”

The world of the early 20th century, Farwell said, was in a tumultuous state, propelling eugenics into widespread acceptance. Kings, empresses, czars, etc., were being assassinated by radicals and anarchists. Labor unrest was dictating the news. The Wall Street bombing of 1920 killed 38 people. Democracy, it seemed, was being threatened, Farwell said, and people were afraid.

“We always look at these periods in history through sepia tones and we think, ‘My goodness, life was so much better then. Everything was better, and everything was great and everyone loved each other and everyone got along.’ Well, not really ... we were definitely afraid,” he said. “And it did have an effect on promoting the idea that we had to keep people out, and if they did get in, they were inferior.”

To further emphasize these views and how political sentiments could propel such practices, Farwell highlighted the Buck v. Bell Supreme Court case of 1927. The case is infamously remembered for upholding a Virginia State statute that enabled the sterilization of “mental defectives.” Specifically in this case, the sterilization of Carrie Buck, a young woman who was simply uneducated, who had a baby at age 17, and who had come from an “unfavorable” family. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. infamously concluded in this case that “three generations of imbeciles” were enough to warrant sterilization.

And though eugenics swiftly fell out of favor after German Nazis started implementing their own interpretations of these practices — through extermination of Jews and other groups they deemed undesirable throughout WWII — the Buck v. Bell case has never been overturned.

“It is, in fact, still legally applicable,” Farwell said, ending the presentation on a haunting note.

 m.biekert@theday.com